bims-skolko Biomed News
on Scholarly communication
Issue of 2025–07–06
29 papers selected by
Thomas Krichel, Open Library Society
  1. Analysis of the relationship between the inclusion of industry authors and the impact and perception of peer-reviewed scientific publications.
  2. Redefining 'open': revealing a retired researcher's purse.
  3. Comment on: Predatory journals: What can we do to protect their prey?
  4. Generative AI in peer review process for occupational health.
  5. AI in Scientific Writing and Publishing: A Call for Critical Engagement.
  6. Artificial intelligence policies in bioethics and health humanities: a comparative analysis of publishers and journals.
  7. A scientific future shared with AI.
  8. Delving into LLM-assisted writing in biomedical publications through excess vocabulary.
  9. Silence is not an acceptable response to accusations of corruption: Expertise, integrity, and robust peer review processes safeguard ethical and data driven medical publications.
  10. Peer review for medical journals: why and how?
  11. The Privilege and Power of Peer Review: Advancing Science With Integrity, Vigilance and Fairness.
  12. Peer review reports of randomized controlled trials in oncology can be short and superficial.
  13. The future of reviews writing in the AI era.
  14. How to speed up peer review: make applicants mark one another.
  15. Seven Actions Towards Advancing Patient Authorship and Collaboration in Peer-Reviewed Publications.
  16. Open science policy guidelines promoting open data sharing in low and middle-income countries for respiratory health research under NIHR Global RESPIRE project.
  17. Journal of Global Health's Guidelines for Reporting Analyses of Big Data Repositories Open to the Public (GRABDROP): preventing 'paper mills', duplicate publications, misuse of statistical inference, and inappropriate use of artificial intelligence.
  18. Evolving Access and Future Enhancements: A Shift to Continuous Publication.
  19. Addressing gaps in author and reviewer gender diversity.
  20. Two years of publishing: onward and upward.
  21. A Practical Guide to Translating Scientific Publications Into Aphasia-Friendly Summaries.
  22. Leadership change at African journal sparks calls for bold reform.
  23. Methodological requirements to publish results obtained using high-risk forensic methods in FSI.
  24. Cracking the Code: A Practical Guide to Publishing in the ACG Case Reports Journal.
  25. From BJBMS to Biomolecules and Biomedicine: A new chapter.
  26. The Origins and Evolution of the Maternal and Child Health Journal, 1991-2025.
  27. mSphere's journey and future: a message from the new editor in chief.
  28. A guide to publishing in Biofilm: how to avoid a desk rejection.
  29. Trump team says it's axing some contracts with publishing giant Springer Nature.
  1. Curr Med Res Opin. 2025 Jul 04. 1-11
    Analysis of the relationship between the inclusion of industry authors and the impact and perception of peer-reviewed scientific publications.
    Sanchaita Sriwal Sonar, Emma Raderschadt, Shivangi Gupta, Stefan Courtney, Rachana Patel.
       OBJECTIVE: To assess whether pharmaceutical industry authorship affects the impact and perceived credibility of clinical publications.
    METHODS: A PubMed search for clinical trials in four therapy areas (oncology, cardiometabolism, central nervous system and inflammation), published in peer-reviewed journals between 2018 and 2023, was performed. Industry authors were identified. Publication impact (total citations and X interactions) was analyzed for each paper. A multinational survey of 180 healthcare professionals assessed whether industry authorship affects perception of publications.
    RESULTS: A weak but significant negative correlation was demonstrated between the percentage of industry authors and academic citations and X interactions (r = -0.10 and r = -0.13 respectively; both p < 0.0001), regardless of journal impact factor or total author number. Papers with ≥50% or lead/last authors from industry had significantly lower citations and X interactions. In the survey, 57% of respondents thought author affiliation and 24% thought industry affiliation were important factors affecting publication credibility. Over half of respondents thought publication credibility decreased due to high numbers (56%) or a majority (61%) of industry authors and an industry author as lead/last author (57%). 68% associated high numbers of industry authors with a potential for bias.
    CONCLUSION: These analyses show industry authorship influences the credibility and impact of scientific publications. It is essential to raise awareness of the pharmaceutical industry's commitment to good publication practices, which ensures authorship is based on merit and genuine contributions. Future research should focus on understanding and addressing how authorship dynamics shape the perception and trustworthiness of scientific work, ensuring a balance that fosters both innovation and public confidence.
    Keywords:  Industry authorship; academic impact; clinical publications; good publication practice; perceived credibility
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1080/03007995.2025.2527673
  2. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2025 Jul 01. pii: ezaf148. [Epub ahead of print]67(7):
    Redefining 'open': revealing a retired researcher's purse.
    Shigeki Matsubara.
      
    Keywords:  Article publishing charge; Journal; Open access
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1093/ejcts/ezaf148
  3. Natl Med J India. 2025 Mar-Apr;38(2):pii: 10.25259/NMJI_250_2025. [Epub ahead of print]38(2): 126
    Comment on: Predatory journals: What can we do to protect their prey?
    Himel Mondal, Shaikat Mondal.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.25259/NMJI_250_2025
  4. Occup Med (Lond). 2025 Jul 02. pii: kqaf051. [Epub ahead of print]
    Generative AI in peer review process for occupational health.
    G H Lim, M L Tan, V C W Hoe, D Koh.
       BACKGROUND: Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools in academic writing can augment and speed up the proofing process by improving sections of the manuscript. This was the first known instance where the effectiveness and efficiency of Generative AI were quantified.
    AIMS: To determine the effectiveness and efficiency of these tools in providing feedback and recommendations to the first drafts of eight published occupational health papers.
    METHODS: To assess effectiveness, manuscripts were reviewed by Microsoft Copilot, ChatGPT (GPT-3.5), Google Gemini 1.0 and five human reviewers in February 2024. Anonymized reviews were scored by two expert panel members using a self-developed structured scoring system. The quality of feedback was rated on its relevance, completeness, accuracy and ability to identify errors and provide constructive feedback. The quality of recommendations was rated on relevance, completeness and accuracy. Efficiency was assessed via the time taken to complete each review. The mean, standard deviation (SD) and level of significance of any differences among the parameters were obtained.
    RESULTS: Generative AI tools were significantly more effective (3.44, SD 0.77, P < 0.001) than human reviewers in providing feedback, while human reviewers performed significantly better (3.36, SD 0.71, P < 0.01) in providing recommendations. Generative AI tools were significantly more time-efficient and had the advantage of being always available. However, time/effort was required to verify the output for fictitious content.
    CONCLUSIONS: The utilization of Generative AI would improve the speed and accuracy of improving the manuscript prior to publication, leading to greater efficiencies in the dissemination of knowledge to the occupational health community.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1093/occmed/kqaf051
  5. Eur Psychiatry. 2025 Jul 04. 1-9
    AI in Scientific Writing and Publishing: A Call for Critical Engagement.
    Sophia Frangou, Umberto Volpe, Andrea Fiorillo.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1192/j.eurpsy.2025.10061
  6. BMC Med Ethics. 2025 Jul 03. 26(1): 79
    Artificial intelligence policies in bioethics and health humanities: a comparative analysis of publishers and journals.
    Christopher Bobier, Daniel Rodger, Daniel Hurst.
       INTRODUCTION: Rapid advancements in artificial intelligence (AI) pose novel ethical and practical challenges for scholarly publishing. Although AI-related policies are emerging in many disciplines, little is known about the extent and clarity of AI guidance in bioethics and health humanities journals.
    METHODS: A search of publicly available journal lists from the American Society for Bioethics and Humanities, Health Humanities Consortium, and Association for Medical Humanities was supplemented with Google Scholar's top 20 bioethics journals ranked by h5-index. This yielded 54 unique journals, of which 50 remained after excluding those without a functional website or recent publications. AI policies were reviewed at the journal and publisher levels were assessed via website review, and editors were contacted for clarification when required. Data extraction was conducted by one author and independently verified by two additional researchers to ensure accuracy.
    RESULTS: Of the 50 journals analyzed, only 8 (16%) had a clear AI policy, while 27 (54%) were published by a publisher with an identifiable AI policy. Publisher AI policy statements were favorable to considering AI-assisted manuscripts. Five (10%) of the 8 journals with a clear AI policy explicitly prohibited AI-generated text in submissions. The remaining 15 (30%) journals did not have a publicly available AI policy. Ten of these 15 journals confirmed an absence of any formal AI policy, and seven indicated that discussion to develop guidelines was ongoing.
    CONCLUSION: The adoption of AI policies in bioethics and health humanities journals is currently inconsistent. Some journals explicitly ban AI-generated text, whereas others permit AI-assisted writing, with publisher policies being favorable to considering AI-assisted manuscripts. The lack of standardized AI guidelines underscores the need for further discussion to ensure the ethical and responsible integration of AI in academic publishing.
    Keywords:  Academic publishers; Artificial intelligence; Bioethics scholarship; Research ethics
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-025-01239-9
  7. PLoS Biol. 2025 Jun;23(6): e3003274
    A scientific future shared with AI.
    Renee Hoch, Joanna Clarke.
      Artificial intelligence (AI) tools now exist to aid almost every aspect of the research process, from hypothesis generation and data analysis to manuscript drafting and publication. What does the future hold for researchers and publishers as AI use continues to increase?
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3003274
  8. Sci Adv. 2025 Jul 04. 11(27): eadt3813
    Delving into LLM-assisted writing in biomedical publications through excess vocabulary.
    Dmitry Kobak, Rita González-Márquez, Emőke-Ágnes Horvát, Jan Lause.
      Large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT can generate and revise text with human-level performance. These models come with clear limitations, can produce inaccurate information, and reinforce existing biases. Yet, many scientists use them for their scholarly writing. But how widespread is such LLM usage in the academic literature? To answer this question for the field of biomedical research, we present an unbiased, large-scale approach: We study vocabulary changes in more than 15 million biomedical abstracts from 2010 to 2024 indexed by PubMed and show how the appearance of LLMs led to an abrupt increase in the frequency of certain style words. This excess word analysis suggests that at least 13.5% of 2024 abstracts were processed with LLMs. This lower bound differed across disciplines, countries, and journals, reaching 40% for some subcorpora. We show that LLMs have had an unprecedented impact on scientific writing in biomedical research, surpassing the effect of major world events such as the COVID pandemic.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.adt3813
  9. Gynecol Oncol Rep. 2025 Jun;59 101777
    Silence is not an acceptable response to accusations of corruption: Expertise, integrity, and robust peer review processes safeguard ethical and data driven medical publications.
    Susan C Modesitt.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gore.2025.101777
  10. Crit Care Sci. 2025 ;pii: S2965-27742025000100912. [Epub ahead of print]37 e20250098
    Peer review for medical journals: why and how?
    Wagner Luis Nedel, David Garcia Nora, Roberta Muriel Longo Roepke, Lívia Maria Garcia Melro, Márcio Manozzo Boniatti.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.62675/2965-2774.20250098
  11. J Adv Nurs. 2025 Jul 01.
    The Privilege and Power of Peer Review: Advancing Science With Integrity, Vigilance and Fairness.
    Debra Jackson, Graeme D Smith, Michelle Cleary.
      
    Keywords:  integrity; nursing; peer review
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.70060
  12. J Clin Epidemiol. 2025 Jun 30. pii: S0895-4356(25)00226-4. [Epub ahead of print] 111893
    Peer review reports of randomized controlled trials in oncology can be short and superficial.
    Patricia Logullo, Angela MacCarthy, Shona Kirtley, Garrett S Bullock, Paula Dhiman, Jie Ma, Gary S Collins.
       OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the quality of open peer review reports published alongside articles of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in oncology.
    METHODS: We searched and sampled from completed parallel RCT articles published in 2021 in 62 BioMed Central journals operating open peer review and evaluated their first-round peer review report. We assessed and described the peer review report content, clarity, and completeness and explored whether reviewers commented on the manuscript's importance, robustness, interpretation, discussion of results, and RCT reporting. Two investigators evaluated the review reports independently, with conflict resolution involving a third author.
    RESULTS: We sampled 26 RCTs and evaluated their 59 first peer review reports. Median word count was 276 (range=0-1047). Only 11 reports were constructive (19%), suggesting solutions for the problems noted. Of reviewers commenting on the manuscript's methods section (n=46/59,78%), 74% (n=34/46) addressed the suitability of the methodology. Fewer commented on the adequacy of conclusions (n=15/59; 25%) or the applicability of results (n=5/59; 9%), or whether study limitations had been acknowledged by authors (n=11/59; 18%). Only four (7%) commented on open research practices, including deviations from protocols, completeness of reporting, and sharing of data and materials.
    CONCLUSIONS: Peer review reports of published RCTs in oncology were short, superficial, and rarely constructive. Although there is indication that reviewers commented on study methodology, little attention was paid to study conclusions, deviation from study protocols, completeness of reporting or data availability. Such review reports would be of limited value to authors for improving their trial study manuscripts, or to editors in deciding on manuscript publication.
    Keywords:  cancer; manuscript submission; peer review; publishing; trial methodology; trial papers
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2025.111893
  13. Nat Rev Chem. 2025 Jul 01.
    The future of reviews writing in the AI era.
    Zhiling Zheng.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41570-025-00738-y
  14. Nature. 2025 Jul 01.
    How to speed up peer review: make applicants mark one another.
    Helen Pearson.
      
    Keywords:  Funding; Peer review; Publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-025-02090-z
  15. Patient. 2025 Jul 02.
    Seven Actions Towards Advancing Patient Authorship and Collaboration in Peer-Reviewed Publications.
    Trishna Bharadia, Jan Geissler, Rosie Robson, Lucie Laštíková, Laura D Porter, Grace Richmond, Ben Johnson, Louise Roch, Dikran Toroser.
      Partnerships between patients and the medical research community are strengthening. Patient involvement in research processes through collaborative workstreams provides authentic insights and perspectives, enhances trust between stakeholders and the patient community, brings balance to authorship groups and adds value and contextualisation to publications. Here, patient advocates, representatives from patient and caregiver communities and pharmaceutical and medical communications professionals propose seven actions to advance patient authorship and collaboration in peer-reviewed publications. Drawing on research, personal experience and professional insight, they call for a shift in conventional publication development practices-from seeking reasons to include patient authors to requiring justification for their exclusion-thereby facilitating greater inclusion and representation of the patient voice. The authors advocate moving beyond the concept of 'patient-centricity' towards 'patient partnership' to reflect a collaborative approach and more equitable balance of power and benefits among stakeholders. They also emphasise the importance of involving patients holistically in publication steering committees to ensure that the publication landscape includes patient perspectives and represents lived experiences. Continued facilitation and strengthening of partnerships between patient and non-patient authors is noted as essential for improving communication, understanding and equity within authorship groups. To support the visibility and recognition of patient authors, they recommend the use of the 'patient author' affiliation metatag to better identify, search, filter and standardise publications with patient involvement, identify patient authors and help build an evidence base from which best practice and guidance can be developed. Additionally, the authors highlight the need to consider and develop guidance around compensation of patient authors to acknowledge the contribution and time commitments across the research process and enable greater diversity, equity and inclusion. Finally, they stress the importance of extending the reach of publications to wider audiences through enhanced accessibility formats and open access.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-025-00750-w
  16. J Glob Health. 2025 Jul 01. 15 03021
    Open science policy guidelines promoting open data sharing in low and middle-income countries for respiratory health research under NIHR Global RESPIRE project.
    RESPIRE Collaboration
      Open science drives progress, especially in the low-and-middle-income countries (LMICs), where data security and confidentiality are at risk due to lack of resources and non-compliance with diverse privacy laws. The National Institutes of Health and Care Research (NIHR) Global Health Research Unit on Respiratory Health (RESPIRE 2) project, funded by the UK NIHR, is a global collaboration led by the University of Edinburgh and Universiti Malaya, in partnership with seven LMICs and the UK. The collaboration developed open science policy guidelines to streamline data sharing, while ensuring compliance with privacy laws. They thus enable open data sharing in RESPIRE, furthering knowledge and scientific progress and providing greater research opportunities. This is in alignment with UNESCO, which promotes the open science movement to make scientific research and data more accessible, transparent, and collaborative. Some of the key components of this policy guideline are: Here we outline some of the key components of this policy guideline and provide recommendations. By following ethical data-sharing practices and fostering international collaboration, researchers, research assistants, technicians, and research support services can improve the impact of their research and contribute significantly to resolving global health challenges. Policymakers, research institutions, and funding agencies must support the adoption of open science practices in local contexts for long-term sustainability.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.7189/jogh.15.03021
  17. J Glob Health. 2025 Jul 01. 15 01004
    Journal of Global Health's Guidelines for Reporting Analyses of Big Data Repositories Open to the Public (GRABDROP): preventing 'paper mills', duplicate publications, misuse of statistical inference, and inappropriate use of artificial intelligence.
    Igor Rudan, Peige Song, Davies Adeloye, Harry Campbell.
      In recent years, global accessibility to large 'big data' repositories that enable 'open research' - such as the UK Biobank, National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), and Global Burden of Disease (GBD) datasets - has created unprecedented opportunities for researchers worldwide to conduct secondary data analyses. This development is particularly beneficial for early-career researchers in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), as it lets them access large and otherwise costly datasets without the need for local infrastructure, potentially curbing brain drain. However, through our work at the Journal of Global Health (JoGH), we have identified emerging concerns that must be addressed to help preserve the integrity and scientific value of this otherwise positive trend. These include: the risk of 'paper mills' mass-producing superficial papers with questionable authorship practices; duplicate publications produced through republishing already available results or by multiple groups testing the same hypothesis using identical datasets and methods without awareness of each other's work; proliferation of false-positive findings due to inadequate adjustment for multiple testing in large datasets; and the inappropriate or undisclosed use of artificial intelligence (AI) tools in generating manuscripts. To counter these issues while continuing to support legitimate and innovative secondary data analyses, JoGH is introducing guidelines for authors submitting such work for consideration and peer review. These guidelines require authors to declare transparently: their previous published work based on similar datasets or hypotheses; the originality of their research question and design in the context of other similar research; their awareness of related published studies using the same dataset; how they addressed multiple testing statistically; and the role of AI, if any, in manuscript preparation or data analysis. A new, mandatory section in such submitted manuscripts - 'Adherence to JoGH's Guidelines for Reporting Analyses of Big Data Repositories Open to the Public (GRABDROP)' - will summarise these declarations, with full details provided in a supplemental file. This proactive editorial policy aims to safeguard scientific quality while empowering global researchers. By improving transparency and accountability, JoGH seeks to ensure that the benefits of open big data are not undermined by unethical or careless practices. We suggest that other publishers engage in an open discussion on how to address these challenges and consider adopting JoGH's GRABDROP guidelines or similar measures to maintain trust in scientific outputs derived from secondary analyses. Through these steps, JoGH remains committed to fostering reproducible and equitable global health research.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.7189/jogh.15.01004
  18. J Music Ther. 2025 Jan 10. pii: thaf009. [Epub ahead of print]62(1):
    Evolving Access and Future Enhancements: A Shift to Continuous Publication.
    A Blythe LaGasse, Kimberly Sena Moore.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1093/jmt/thaf009
  19. Nat Microbiol. 2025 Jul;10(7): 1553-1554
    Addressing gaps in author and reviewer gender diversity.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41564-025-02066-9
  20. Health Aff Sch. 2025 Jun;3(6): qxaf113
    Two years of publishing: onward and upward.
    Kathryn A Phillips.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1093/haschl/qxaf113
  21. Perspect ASHA Spec Interest Groups. 2025 Jun;10(3): 719-727
    A Practical Guide to Translating Scientific Publications Into Aphasia-Friendly Summaries.
    Anna V Kasdan, Deborah F Levy, Isaac Pedisich, Stephen M Wilson, Dominique Herrington.
       Purpose: Research in aphasiology is largely not accessible. Almost none of the articles published in the field's rich, over 150-year history are communicated in a way that is understandable to those who could benefit from them the most-individuals with aphasia and their loved ones. In this tutorial, we detail how researchers in any field of aphasiology can create aphasia-friendly research summaries of their scientific publications. This step-by-step guide in eight simple parts covers principles of aphasia-friendly written communication (e.g., use of plain language and supportive icons and images) and makes use of freely available resources. We also introduce a prototype tool-Article Friend-that automatically generates aphasia-friendly abstracts to jump-start this process for researchers; this preliminary tool serves as a proof of concept that creating accessible research can be an efficient, sustainable practice in the scientific publishing landscape.
    Conclusions: The tutorial provides researchers with specific tools and examples to effectively and easily create aphasia-friendly summaries of their publications. Principles from our tutorial extend beyond aphasia and can apply to consumers affected by other communication and cognitive disorders, such as developmental language disorder, dementia, and traumatic brain injury. Making research available to patient stakeholders and their loved ones can empower them to access and understand the research they have contributed to, ultimately furthering increased community engagement and interchange between researchers, clinicians, consumers with aphasia, and policymakers.
    Supplemental Material: https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.28590227.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1044/2025_persp-24-00141
  22. Nature. 2025 Jul 02.
    Leadership change at African journal sparks calls for bold reform.
    Abdullahi Tsanni.
      
    Keywords:  Developing world; Public health; Publishing; Scientific community
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-025-01940-0
  23. Forensic Sci Int. 2025 Jul 01. pii: S0379-0738(25)00195-1. [Epub ahead of print] 112557
    Methodological requirements to publish results obtained using high-risk forensic methods in FSI.
    Didier Meuwly.
      This editorial provides guidance on what is required for publication in Forensic Science International, particularly regarding methods for detecting deception. The European Union's Artificial Intelligence Act (EU-AI act) labels these methods as high-risk. The editorial discusses the importance of addressing ethical concerns and ensuring that the outcomes of such research do not compromise fundamental rights or the integrity of science. The editorial highlights that submissions analyzing biometric features using machine learning algorithms have been rejected, but there is no fundamental reason for this to always be the case. To assist authors in successfully developing and publishing their work on high-risk methods, the editorial provides guidance on what is required for publication in Forensic Science International, including experimental setup, scientific methodology and ethical aspects. The EU-AI Act emphasizes the need to consider both benefits and potential risks associated with using high-risk methods in research. By addressing these ethical concerns, we can ensure that the outcomes are beneficial and do not compromise human rights or science integrity. The editorial encourages authors to address these issues and provides references for further information on related topics. In summary, this editorial serves as a guide for researchers aiming to publish their work on high-risk methods in Forensic Science International, highlighting the importance of addressing ethical concerns and ensuring that research outcomes are beneficial and do not compromise fundamental rights or the integrity of science.
    Keywords:  Deception detection; Ethics in forensic science; Forensic methodology; High-risk methods; Integrity of science
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2025.112557
  24. ACG Case Rep J. 2025 Jul;12(7): e01747
    Cracking the Code: A Practical Guide to Publishing in the ACG Case Reports Journal.
    Himesh B Zaver, Daniyal Abbas, Prateek S Harne.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.14309/crj.0000000000001747
  25. Biomol Biomed. 2025 Jun 27.
    From BJBMS to Biomolecules and Biomedicine: A new chapter.
    Faruk Skenderi, Lamija Mlaco, Muzafer Mujic, Semir Vranic.
      The scientific community is continually evolving, driven by advancements, shifting priorities, and growing demands for global dissemination of knowledge. A clear example of successfully adapting to these demands is the transition from the Bosnian Journal of Basic Medical Sciences (BJBMS) to Biomolecules and Biomedicine (BB) in 2023. This strategic move symbolizes a significant step forward, expanding the journal's global reach and scientific scope.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.17305/bb.2025.12867
  26. Matern Child Health J. 2025 Jul 01.
    The Origins and Evolution of the Maternal and Child Health Journal, 1991-2025.
    Milton Kotelchuck, Donna J Petersen, Timothy De Ver Dye.
      The Maternal and Child Health Journal, a preeminent peer-reviewed scientific and practice journal of the MCH field, was established 25 years ago to showcase research and practice in MCH and to provide a forum that enhances and reflects our ever-expanding field. The three surviving editors reflect on the history, evolution, and future of the MCH Journal-with special emphasis on the MCH Journal's origins, and on the lived experience of the editors. APHA's MCH section formed a committee in Nov 1991 to explore creation of a journal. This effort culminated in March 1997 with the publication of the first issue of the MCH Journal, which has since published over 240 subsequent issues. The MCH Journal evolved from a small quarterly print journal to a large monthly, abstracted, print and digital Journal that publishes over 200 + articles and receives almost 1,000,000 downloads annually. Milt Kotelchuck (1997-2003) helped create and sustain the culture of the Journal in its earliest most precarious stage of development, secured Medline abstraction and digital publication, and fostered MCH Epidemiology and Social Determinants of Health (SDOH) initiatives. Greg Alexander and Donna Petersen (2004-2012) expanded the frequency and size of the Journal, implemented its Editorial Manager System, expanded author and reviewer writing capacity and quality, strengthened ties with MCH practitioners, and increased the MCH Journal's use as a pedagogic tool. Tim Dye (2013-present) continued expanding and globalizing the Journal introducing a monthly format; broadened the scope of disciplines and types of articles published; and-through aligning publication policies-uplifted voices of communities traditionally marginalized by academic presses. The MCH Journal continues to provide a critical platform for the publication of MCH research, practice, policy, and professional development, helping to define, strengthen, and forcefully advocate for our MCH field and advance MCH population health, social justice, and equity.
    Keywords:  Academic publishing; Child health; Children with special needs; Community; Disability; History; MCH; MCH Journal; Policy; Population health; Practice; Pregnancy; Public health; Science; Scientific writing; Systems; Women’s health
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10995-025-04124-4
  27. mSphere. 2025 Jul 01. e0033725
    mSphere's journey and future: a message from the new editor in chief.
    Ira J Blader.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1128/msphere.00337-25
  28. Biofilm. 2025 Jun;9 100282
    A guide to publishing in Biofilm: how to avoid a desk rejection.
    Tom Coenye, Darla M Goeres, Birthe Veno Kjellerup, Ákos T Kovács.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bioflm.2025.100282
  29. Nature. 2025 Jun 30.
    Trump team says it's axing some contracts with publishing giant Springer Nature.
    Max Kozlov.
      
    Keywords:  Government; Politics; Publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-025-02080-1
This page is being maintained by Thomas Krichel. It was last updated on 2025‒07‒14 at 17:29.