bims-skolko Biomed News
on Scholarly communication
Issue of 2025–12–21
35 papers selected by
Thomas Krichel, Open Library Society
  1. "I'm thrilled to share": ego, social media, and the quiet distortion of scientific communication.
  2. A new preprint server welcomes papers written and reviewed by AI.
  3. NIH's proposed caps on open-access publishing fees roil community.
  4. Does solo publication still make sense? : Single-authored publications have been essential to scientific progress but are now facing extinction.
  5. Retractions of publications in radiomics: An underestimated problem?
  6. Trust in science amid a replication crisis.
  7. Preserving Scientific Integrity in Academic Publishing: Navigating Artificial Intelligence, Journal Policies, and the Impact Factor as a Quality Indicator.
  8. Research Integrity in Clinical Epidemiology: Core Concepts and Contemporary Challenges.
  9. Most researchers would receive more recognition if assessed by article-level metrics than by journal-level metrics.
  10. Linguistic bias and the hidden costs of science lost in translation.
  11. 'A serious problem': peer reviews created using AI can avoid detection.
  12. Integrity meets innovation: A first principles approach to the ethics of AI utilization in medical research writing.
  13. Exploring the use of AI authors and reviewers at Agents4Science.
  14. More than half of researchers now use AI for peer review - often against guidance.
  15. ERJ Podcast November 2025: Artificial intelligence in publishing.
  16. AI-Generated Text in Orthopaedic Articles: A Cross-Sectional Analysis.
  17. Multi-institutional virtual peer review for reirradiation: dedicated workflow and one-year results.
  18. Motivating peer review: Why the peer review process is an essential part of our professional development.
  19. [How to detect scientific texts generated with artificial intelligence?]
  20. Opening the black box: Understanding the editorial and peer review journey of a manuscript.
  21. Do we value the safety of our treatments? An empirical assessment of reporting of Harms in Randomized Controlled Trials in Orthodontics.
  22. Balancing protection of participants and other stakeholders with openness: African lessons from the MADIVA data sharing and access policy.
  23. Data Deidentification for Data Sharing in Educational and Psychological Research: Importance, Barriers, and Techniques.
  24. Longitudinal dataset of journal data sharing policies across 22 disciplines for 2014 2019 and 2023.
  25. Writing for a Doctor of Philosophy (PhD): A guide to developing a strong and coherent thesis.
  26. Tips and tricks for writing constructive peer reviews.
  27. The rise of promotional rhetoric in the Discussion Sections of an interdisciplinary field: a diachronic perspective.
  28. The Art of Research and Scientific Writing in the Clinical Sciences: A Practical Guide.
  29. Preserving scientific discovery for future generations: a commentary.
  30. Why Diamond Open Access Matters: A Call to ENT Researchers.
  31. Publishing in Photochemistry and Photobiology: A suitable platform for photoscience dissemination.
  32. The Journal of Biomechanical Engineering Remains Committed to Supporting Scholarship through the Promotion of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion.
  33. Multiple authorship of scientific reports-two different evaluations are better than one.
  34. Evolving beyond TB: launch of a new journal for chronic respiratory disease.
  35. Research highlights: Hidden gems.
  1. Recenti Prog Med. 2025 Dec;116(12): 705-706
    "I'm thrilled to share": ego, social media, and the quiet distortion of scientific communication.
    Raffaele Giusti.
      On professional social media, "I'm thrilled to share that our paper has just been published…" has become a ritualized form of self-promotion. This manuscript examines how such practices intersect with narcissism, algorithms, altmetrics and inequalities (notably gender), shifting attention from methodological quality to the researcher's visibility. It argues for a more reflexive use of social media in science, focusing on questions, methods, limits and implications for patients and policy, rather than on academic ego and visibility metrics.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1701/4619.46277
  2. Science. 2025 Dec 18. 390(6779): 1202-1203
    A new preprint server welcomes papers written and reviewed by AI.
    Celina Zhao.
      With human peer review struggling to keep pace with machine-generated science, aiXiv enlists bots to help.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aee8377
  3. Science. 2025 Dec 18. 390(6779): 1200-1201
    NIH's proposed caps on open-access publishing fees roil community.
    Phie Jacobs.
      Change to be implemented next year drew more than 900 comments, most of them critical.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aee8376
  4. EMBO Rep. 2025 Dec 16.
    Does solo publication still make sense? : Single-authored publications have been essential to scientific progress but are now facing extinction.
    Valentí Rull.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/s44319-025-00677-1
  5. Eur Radiol. 2025 Dec 20.
    Retractions of publications in radiomics: An underestimated problem?
    Aydin Demircioğlu.
      Radiomics is increasingly explored as a tool for improving diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment planning. However, concerns exist about the reproducibility and methodological rigor of its studies. The integration of high-dimensional radiomic features and machine learning makes the field prone to unintentional errors that may warrant retraction. Despite a rising number of retractions in science overall, no dedicated study has examined retractions specifically within radiomics. Therefore, this study aimed to review retracted radiomics publications and identify the characteristics and reasons for their retraction. We systematically searched six databases (Crossref, Retraction Watch Database, OpenAlex, PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science) and identified 93 retracted radiomics publications, of which 20 were included. These articles were analyzed with respect to publisher, country of origin, dates, citation counts, and reasons for retraction. Retraction rates were then estimated and compared with those in general radiology. Our findings indicate that a disproportionate number of retractions are linked to specific publishers and countries (particularly China and India), with overall low citation counts (median 4.0 citations). Retractions peaked sharply in 2023, followed by a strong decline. Many retraction notes lack a clear explanation for the retraction. Estimated retraction rates in radiomics were lower than in general radiology (6.7 vs 7.4 per 10,000 publications). Notably, no major radiological or oncological journal appears to have retracted a radiomics publication. Given that radiomics demands higher, interdisciplinary expertise, this suggests a gap, implying that flawed research may yet have to be retracted. KEY POINTS: Question Considering the technical complexity of radiomics studies and their susceptibility to unintentional errors, how do their retraction rates compare to those in general radiology? Findings Retractions in radiomics were disproportionately linked to specific publishers and countries; however, no retractions appeared in major journals. Estimated retraction rates were lower than those for general radiology publications. Clinical relevance A potential gap in the number of retracted radiomics studies was identified, implying that flawed research in the field may not yet have been addressed.
    Keywords:  Machine Learning; Methodology; Radiology; Radiomics; Research Integrity
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-025-12231-7
  6. Curr Opin Psychol. 2025 Dec 10. pii: S2352-250X(25)00263-5. [Epub ahead of print]68 102250
    Trust in science amid a replication crisis.
    Friederike Hendriks.
      The replication crisis in Psychology has undermined both intra-scientific and public trust. This review shows-using Wilholt's notion of epistemic trust-that replicability is fundamental for epistemic reliability. It reports empirical evidence indicating that replication failures may negatively affect public trust, yet transparent communication of Open Science initiatives and proactive self-correction can mitigate these effects. It concludes that robust solutions must not only reinforce epistemic reliability but also ensure researcher's dedication to core values such as transparency and self-correction. Therefore, while Open Science reforms are crucial, they must be accompanied by systemic changes that nurture a scientific culture in which rigorous practices are genuinely incentivized and valued.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2025.102250
  7. J Arthroplasty. 2025 Aug 26. pii: S0883-5403(25)00954-4. [Epub ahead of print]
    Preserving Scientific Integrity in Academic Publishing: Navigating Artificial Intelligence, Journal Policies, and the Impact Factor as a Quality Indicator.
    Mahmut Enes Kayaalp, Stefano Zaffagnini, Michael A Mont, Jon Karlsson, Bruce Reider, Olufemi Ayeni, Thomas Heyse, Henning Madry, Elmar Herbst, Giuseppe Milano, Volker Musahl, Roland Becker, Michael T Hirschmann.
      The integration of artificial intelligence (AI), the rise of mega-journals, and the manipulation of impact factors present challenges to scientific integrity. These trends threaten the core principles of objectivity, reproducibility, and transparency. This paper highlights two categories of threats: (1) external pressures, such as AI misuse and metric-driven publishing models, and (2) internal systemic flaws, including the 'publish or perish' culture and methodological fragility. Mega-journals, characterized by high-volume publishing and broad interdisciplinary scopes, improve accessibility and accelerate dissemination. However, the emphasis on publication volume might weaken the rigor of peer review. To navigate these challenges, the authors propose a balanced approach that harnesses innovation without compromising scientific integrity. Proposed solutions include mandating AI transparency through frameworks like Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials-AI, and redefining impact metrics to emphasize reproducibility, mentorship, and societal impact alongside citations. Scientific journals should promote career opportunities less on publication quantity and more on quality. Global cooperation, via initiatives like the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment and the Committee on Publication Ethics, is essential to standardize ethics and address resource disparities. This paper proposes solutions for researchers, journals, and policymakers to realign academic incentives and uphold the ethical foundation of the science. By fostering transparency, accountability, and equity, the scientific community can preserve its ethical foundations while embracing transformative tools-ultimately advancing knowledge and serving society. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: V.
    Keywords:  artificial; bibliometrics; ethics in publishing; intelligence; peer reviews; periodicals as topic
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2025.07.052
  8. J Clin Epidemiol. 2025 Dec 11. pii: S0895-4356(25)00437-8. [Epub ahead of print] 112104
    Research Integrity in Clinical Epidemiology: Core Concepts and Contemporary Challenges.
    G Gopalakrishna.
      Research integrity is foundational to clinical epidemiology, particularly in an increasingly transparent scientific landscape. As the field of research integrity navigates the evolving demands of open science, data transparency, and collaborative research, it must also grapple with the influence systemic challenges, such as research fairness, diversity, equity, and inclusion, have on research quality. This Key Concepts article provides a concise overview of research integrity for clinical epidemiologists. It summarizes key principles in research integrity and the emerging overlap with open science, research fairness, diversity, equity, and inclusion in upholding the integrity of epidemiological research. Practical guidance is provided at every stage of the research lifecycle-from preparing a research proposal to study protocol development and data collection to publication and dissemination of research findings. It addresses how these overlapping concepts demonstrate that research integrity is not merely about methodological rigor, but is a scientific imperative that requires a broader definition of research integrity to produce high-quality research that is responsible and inclusive.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2025.112104
  9. PLoS Biol. 2025 Dec;23(12): e3003532
    Most researchers would receive more recognition if assessed by article-level metrics than by journal-level metrics.
    Salsabil Arabi, Chaoqun Ni, B Ian Hutchins.
      During career advancement and funding allocation decisions in biomedicine, reviewers have traditionally depended on journal-level measures of scientific influence like the impact factor. Prestigious journals reject large quantities of papers, many of which may be meritorious. It is possible that this process could create a system whereby some influential articles are prospectively identified and recognized by journal brands, but most influential articles are overlooked. Here, we measure the degree to which journal prestige hierarchies capture or overlook influential science. We quantify the fraction of scientists' articles that would receive recognition because (a) they are published in journals above a chosen impact factor threshold, or (b) they are at least as well-cited as articles appearing in such journals. We find that the number of papers cited at least as well as those appearing in high-impact factor journals vastly exceeds the number of papers published in such venues. At the investigator level, this phenomenon extends across gender, racial, and career stage groupings of scientists. We also find that approximately half of researchers never publish in a venue with an impact factor above 15, which, under journal-level evaluation regimes, may exclude them from consideration for opportunities. Many of these researchers publish equally influential work; however, raising the possibility that the traditionally chosen journal-level measures that are routinely considered under decision-making norms, policy, or law, may recognize as little as 10%-20% of this influential work.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3003532
  10. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2025 Dec 18. e0222925
    Linguistic bias and the hidden costs of science lost in translation.
    Gemma Reguera.
      English has become the global language of science, but this dominance has a cost. Researchers who are not native English speakers face invisible hurdles: efforts to learn and use a second language, obstacles to research dissemination, and diminished professional visibility. These barriers do more than prevent access to opportunities. They cement unfair assumptions about scientific competence and preferentially amplify voices that are proficient, or perceived to be proficient, in the dominant language, shaping scientific discourse in narrow and exclusive ways. This editorial explores how linguistic bias sustains professional hierarchies and restricts scientific progress. It also highlights our journal's initiatives to overcome language-based barriers in publishing and foster equitable participation in scientific exchange.
    Keywords:  academic publishing; equity; implicit bias; linguistic bias; unconscious bias
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1128/aem.02229-25
  11. Nature. 2025 Dec 19.
    'A serious problem': peer reviews created using AI can avoid detection.
    Dalmeet Singh Chawla.
      
    Keywords:  Peer review; Publishing; Technology
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-025-04032-1
  12. Hell J Nucl Med. 2025 Dec 15. pii: s002449912908. [Epub ahead of print]
    Integrity meets innovation: A first principles approach to the ethics of AI utilization in medical research writing.
    Joseph Zwillenberg, Eric M Teichner, Shiv Patil, Cameron Haghshenas, Cyrus Ayubcha, Mona E Revheim, Thomas Werne, Abass Alavi.
      The integration of artificial intelligence (AI), particularly large language models (LLM), into medical research writing is reshaping the landscape of academic authorship, productivity, and scholarly merit. It has been demonstrated that LLM are capable of greatly expediting the process of researching, drafting, and publishing manuscripts, despite current limitations currently necessitating intensive human oversight to ensure veracity and mitigate the phenomenon of "hallucination". With these limitations being addressed by AI developers and perhaps on their way to irrelevance, a different question emerges as the most, and perhaps only, important one. This paper adopts a first-principles ethical approach to examine the core moral question: independent of technological feasibility, to what extent is it ethically permissible to use AI in the drafting of medical research? We argue that the ethical imperative to accelerate scientific discovery, especially in Medicine, outweighs traditional concerns about the mechanics of authorship and merit attribution. Drawing on Aristotelian teleological reasoning, we contend that the primary value of research lies not in the process of its composition but in its capacity to alleviate suffering and advance human knowledge. Further, we understand authorship as inherently human, as only humans possess the moral agency required to accept responsibility for their work, which is something AI, by its nature, lacks. The paper concludes with a set of normative recommendations to guide the responsible and transparent integration of LLM in research.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1967/s002449912908
  13. Nat Biotechnol. 2025 Dec 17.
    Exploring the use of AI authors and reviewers at Agents4Science.
    Federico Bianchi, Owen Queen, Nitya Thakkar, Eric Sun, James Zou.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41587-025-02963-8
  14. Nature. 2025 Dec 15.
    More than half of researchers now use AI for peer review - often against guidance.
    Miryam Naddaf.
      
    Keywords:  Machine learning; Peer review; Publishing; Scientific community
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-025-04066-5
  15. Eur Respir J. 2025 Nov;pii: 25E6605. [Epub ahead of print]66(5):
    ERJ Podcast November 2025: Artificial intelligence in publishing.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1183/13993003.E6605-2025
  16. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2025 Dec 19.
    AI-Generated Text in Orthopaedic Articles: A Cross-Sectional Analysis.
    Paxton Sweeney, Matthew R Yuro, Wayne S Berberian.
       BACKGROUND: Large language models are increasingly being used in scientific writing, but their use in orthopaedic literature remains unclear.
    METHODS: We analyzed 196 articles published in March 2025 in 10 leading orthopaedic journals. GPTZero quantified artificial intelligence (AI)-generated text by article section. Composite AI scores were calculated and tested for associations with the h5-index, study design, level of evidence, authorship characteristics, and geographic region with use of nonparametric and both Pearson and Spearman correlation analyses.
    RESULTS: AI-generated content was detected in 89.8% of articles. The mean AI score was 18.1% (median, 14.9%). Scores differed by section (p < 0.001) and were the highest in the Results. AI use correlated with the proportion of non-MD authors (ρ = 0.22) and with the total author count (ρ = 0.19), but not with the h5-index. No association with study design or level of evidence was found. Differences by geographic region were modest and not significant after correction.
    CONCLUSIONS: AI-generated content appears to be widespread, particularly in Results sections. Its use varies by authorship characteristics and geography but not by study design or journal prestige. Clear disclosure standards are essential to guide responsible AI use in scientific writing.
    CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This study is clinically relevant because transparency in scientific writing supports accurate interpretation of the evidence used in patient care. Identifying the prevalence of AI-generated text helps to protect the integrity of the orthopaedic literature.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.25.00971
  17. Tech Innov Patient Support Radiat Oncol. 2025 Dec;36 100357
    Multi-institutional virtual peer review for reirradiation: dedicated workflow and one-year results.
    M Ayadi, P Dupuis, M Sandt, G Beldjoudi, A Serre, I Martel-Lafay, L Claude, V Guimas, S Chiavassa, A Moignier, A Alexis, L Ollivier, L Vaugier, M Lange, C Moncharmont, M P Sunyach.
      This study reports one-year results from multidisciplinary and multi-institutional virtual peer review meetings for reirradiation cases. A dedicated workflow supported collaborative decision-making, especially for complex treatments, and guided dose prescriptions and cumulative dose evaluations. The indication of reRT was disapproved for 19% of the cases, while the reRT dose prescription was suggested or modified for 45% of the validated indications. Results confirm feasibility and clinical value, fostering safer and more standardized reirradiation practices across institutions.
    Keywords:  Clinical decision-making; Peer review meeting; Reirradiation
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tipsro.2025.100357
  18. J Pediatr Urol. 2025 Nov 24. pii: S1477-5131(25)00663-1. [Epub ahead of print]
    Motivating peer review: Why the peer review process is an essential part of our professional development.
    Christina B Ching, Luke Harper, Magdalena Fossum, Luis H Braga, Salvatore Cascio, M Irfan Dönmez, Massimo Garriboli, Bernhard Haid, Caleb Nelson, Anka Nieuwhof-Leppink, Ilina Rosoklija, C D Anthony Herndon.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpurol.2025.11.014
  19. Rev Med Inst Mex Seguro Soc. 2026 01 01. 64(1): e6952
    [How to detect scientific texts generated with artificial intelligence?]
    Omar Chávez-Martínez.
      Large language models have transformed scientific writing, which facilitates text drafting and revision, but at the same time introduces ethical and epistemological risks. Even though their use promotes linguistic equity, the lack of transparency and the manipulation of information threaten academic integrity. AI detectors -such as Originality.ai, ZeroGPT, or Turnitin- show variable effectiveness and do not provide conclusive results, especially against "text humanizers." AI-generated texts are characterized by formal coherence, but also by predictability and stylistic uniformity. Therefore, detection must be combined with ethical and critical evaluation made by humans, and it must be understood that true scientific integrity depends on intellectual judgment rather than technological automation.
    Keywords:  Escritura Médica; Ethics, Research; Generative Artificial Intelligence; Inteligencia Artificial Generativa; Medical Writing; Ética en Investigación
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17477984
  20. Palliat Med. 2025 Dec 20. 2692163251406788
    Opening the black box: Understanding the editorial and peer review journey of a manuscript.
    Catherine Walshe, Debbie Ashby.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1177/02692163251406788
  21. Eur J Orthod. 2025 Dec 16. pii: cjaf105. [Epub ahead of print]48(1):
    Do we value the safety of our treatments? An empirical assessment of reporting of Harms in Randomized Controlled Trials in Orthodontics.
    Ioanna Georganakis, Vasiliki Koretsi, Theodore Eliades, Despina Koletsi.
       AIM: To record reporting of harms by authors of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in indexed orthodontic journals of the Q1 ranking, and explore associations between published reports and several publication characteristics.
    MATERIALS AND METHODS: RCTs from six (6) Q1 indexed orthodontic journals, namely the American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics (AJODO), the European Journal of Orthodontics (EJO), the Angle Orthodontist (ANGLE), Progress in Orthodontics (PIOR), the Korean Journal of Orthodontics (KJO), and the Journal of the World Federation of Orthodontists (JWFO) from January 2020 to December 2024 were included. Data extraction was conducted for outcome and predictor variables such as reporting of harms or otherwise, and other publication characteristics including year of publication, journal, origin of authorship, number of authors, design of the RCT, registration, funding, reporting of patient reported outcome measures (PROMs). Statistical analyses included descriptive statistics, cross-tabulations, and univariable and multivariable logistic regression.
    RESULTS: A total of 183 RCTs were included. Twenty four percent of RCTs (44/183) did not report on harms in their publications. A significant association was detected between reporting of harms and journal of publication, with EJO published studies acknowledging pertinent harms almost in their entirety (49/51; 96.1% reported harms; P = .008). RCTs of American affiliated authors were the least likely to report harms (P = .02). Studies reporting on PROMs showed 2.73 higher odds for reporting harms compared with those that did not include PROMs (adjusted odds ratio, OR: 2.73; 95% CI: 1.04, 7.15; P = .04). There was strong evidence that RCTs with registered protocols presented higher odds for reporting harms than nonregistered trials (adjusted OR: 3.68; 95% CI: 1.62, 8.36; P = .002).
    CONCLUSIONS: Albeit progress has been made, a quarter of orthodontic RCTs still do not include harms in their assessment. Registration, inclusion of PROMs, origin of authorship and journal of publication were significant predictors of harms reporting.
    Keywords:  adverse events; harms; orthodontic rCTs; pROMs; registration; safety outcomes; transparency
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjaf105
  22. Glob Health Action. 2025 Dec;18(1): 2590307
    Balancing protection of participants and other stakeholders with openness: African lessons from the MADIVA data sharing and access policy.
    as members of the MADIVA Research Hub and the DS- I Africa Consortium
      National and international data sharing in health research is critical for advancing scientific discovery and fostering collaborative partnerships. With growing technological advances and an increasing desire for open science, data sharing enables researchers to access diverse datasets to generate novel insights. Adopting robust policies is key to responsible data sharing, which fosters interdisciplinary collaboration, ensures ethical and legal compliance, implements transparency, and strengthens stakeholder trust. Collaboration is increasingly important for health research, and therefore, effective data sharing policies are indispensable in balancing competing interests that arise in the complex research environment. This paper shares insights from Multimorbidity in Africa: Digital Innovation, Visualisation, and Application (MADIVA), a project that explores multimorbidity in African populations. In addition to facing typical data sharing challenges, the hub confronts specific challenges prevalent in low- and middle-income settings. MADIVA's data access and sharing policy balances the competing demands of open science while safeguarding the interests of researchers and participants. This case study offers a framework for data sharing in collaborative health research across resource-constrained settings that can be adapted for use by others.
    Keywords:  LMICs; data sharing; data sharing policies; multimorbidity; stakeholders
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1080/16549716.2025.2590307
  23. AERA Open. 2025 Jan-Dec;11:11
    Data Deidentification for Data Sharing in Educational and Psychological Research: Importance, Barriers, and Techniques.
    Jeffrey A Shero, Alexis E Swanz, Allyson L Hanson, Sara A Hart, Jessica A R Logan.
      In this manuscript, we discuss the importance of data sharing in educational and psychological research, emphasizing the historical context of data sharing, the current open science movement, and the so-called replication crisis. We additionally explore the barriers to data sharing, particularly the fear of incorrectly deidentifying data or accidentally including private information. We then highlight the importance of deidentifying data for data sharing. Finally, we present specific techniques for data deidentification, namely non-perturbative and perturbative methods, and make recommendations for which techniques are relevant for specific types of variables. To assist readers in implementing the material from this study, we have additionally created an interactive tutorial as a Shiny web application, which is publicly available and free to use.
    Keywords:  data anonymity; data deidentification; data privacy; data sharing; open science
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1177/23328584251352814
  24. Sci Data. 2025 Dec 13.
    Longitudinal dataset of journal data sharing policies across 22 disciplines for 2014 2019 and 2023.
    Ui Ikeuchi.
      This dataset documents journal data sharing policies across 22 disciplines for 2014 2019 and 2023. A total of 220 high-impact journals were surveyed, representing the top ten journals (by Impact Factor) from each discipline listed in the Essential Science Indicators. For each journal, policies concerning two types of data sharing were reviewed: repository-based data sharing and supplementary materials. Policy requirements were classified into four categories based on their strength: require, recommend, accept, or no policy. Data were collected at three time points through systematic reviews of journal websites and submission guidelines. The dataset includes journal metadata-such as publishers, ISSN, and Impact Factor-along with detailed policy descriptions and classifications. This longitudinal dataset provides evidence of changes in data sharing requirements over time and enables comparative studies of journal policies. These data may be useful for research on open science practices, the development of science policy, and the evolution of scholarly publishing standards.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-025-06434-2
  25. Afr J Prim Health Care Fam Med. 2025 Nov 29. 17(2): e1-e9
    Writing for a Doctor of Philosophy (PhD): A guide to developing a strong and coherent thesis.
    Mergan Naidoo, Kimera T Suthiram, Luckson Dullie.
      Academic writing is a central yet often under-estimated component of doctoral education. More than a mechanism for transcribing research findings, writing is a generative and iterative process through which doctoral candidates cultivate a scholarly voice, construct persuasive arguments and make an original contribution to knowledge. This article provides a comprehensive guide to writing a coherent and compelling Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) thesis, offering both conceptual clarity and practical strategies. The article begins by exploring how doctoral candidates can develop authoritative academic writing, with emphasis on writing style; consistency, coherence and cohesion; the iterative writing process; and how to develop argumentation. The article outlines the typical structural formats of the PhD thesis, with a focus on both the traditional monograph and the increasingly common thesis by publication. Particular attention is given to the integration of conceptual or theoretical frameworks, research paradigms and study design, and analytical frameworks - ensuring that research design is underpinned by methodological rigour and philosophical consistency. A dedicated section offers guidance on writing the final synthesis chapter, detailing approaches for critically engaging with findings, connecting them to theoretical perspectives and articulating their contribution to the field. By demystifying the thesis writing process and offering actionable insights, this article aims to empower doctoral candidates to write with clarity, confidence and scholarly rigour - ultimately producing a thesis that reflects academic maturity and meaningfully advances their discipline.
    Keywords:  PhD thesis writing; academic argument; conceptual framework; doctoral education; higher education; scholarly identity; synthesis chapter; theoretical framework; thesis structure
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.4102/phcfm.v17i2.5164
  26. Conserv Physiol. 2025 ;13(1): coaf085
    Tips and tricks for writing constructive peer reviews.
    Jeff C Clements, Steven J Cooke, Sean Tomlinson, Bridget O'Boyle, Andrea Fuller.
      Graphical Abstract.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1093/conphys/coaf085
  27. Front Psychol. 2025 ;16 1685487
    The rise of promotional rhetoric in the Discussion Sections of an interdisciplinary field: a diachronic perspective.
    Yumei Zhu, Xuemei Li.
      In recent decades, the growing competition to publish internationally has made the Discussion section increasingly promotional, as authors interpret and evaluate their findings to highlight research significance. However, this section also risks exaggerating a study's contribution with promotional discourse. The current study examines the diachronic changes of promotional strategies in Communication research articles (RAs) Discussion sections by analyzing two corpora from 1980 to 1981 and 2020-2021. Drawing on analytical frameworks for analyzing promotional steps and stance features, findings revealed a marked increase in the frequency of promotional steps and stance markers. The observed changes indicated a shift toward more implicit, subtle and strategical forms of persuasion. This study contributes to the study of promotional discourse in academic writing and calls for greater recognition of rhetorically modest and transparent writing practices as markers of scholarly credibility, encouraging editorial and review policies that reward integrity alongside visibility.
    Keywords:  diachronic change; hyping stance marker; interdisciplinary field; promotional step; research evaluation
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1685487
  28. P R Health Sci J. 2025 Dec;44(4): 226-232
    The Art of Research and Scientific Writing in the Clinical Sciences: A Practical Guide.
    Orlando De Jesus.
      Clinicians have a greater impact in academia when they demonstrate mastery in both clinical and research domains. However, planning a research project and writing a manuscript are among the most intimidating and difficult activities for the clinical faculty. This manuscript aimed to provide a thoughtful and informative description of the fundamental elements of research and essential writing guidelines of a scientific paper. This document was created using personal experiences and literature guides related to research and scientific writing. The article provided stepwise guidelines and pearls to help the clinical faculty, residents, and medical students improve their research and writing skills. This manuscript outlines the essential steps of research and scientific writing. It provides an informative introduction to the fundamental elements of scientific writing guidelines. This initiative is expected to enhance the faculty's research and writing abilities. At the same time, the information should benefit the residents and medical students with their research projects.
    Keywords:  Journal publication; Manuscript; Paper structure; Scholarly article; Scientific writing
  29. Psychiatry Res. 2025 Dec 12. pii: S0165-1781(25)00549-9. [Epub ahead of print]356 116904
    Preserving scientific discovery for future generations: a commentary.
    Lynn E DeLisi.
      The publishing of science, and particularly research in psychiatry, has changed substantially in the last half-century, partially due to the transition from print on paper to the World-Wide Web and now the rise in the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI). How science is preserved for future generations is likely to change over the next century in ways that currently are not imaginable. Regardless of the method, the knowledge and truths gained from scientific discovery must always be preserved, but erroneous pseudoscience must not.
    Keywords:  Editor; Journals; Peer review; Psychiatry; Publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2025.116904
  30. Turk Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2025 Dec 19.
    Why Diamond Open Access Matters: A Call to ENT Researchers.
    Taner Kemal Erdağ.
      
    Keywords:  Open access; academic publishing; article processing charges; indexing; otorhinolaryngology; research funding
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.4274/tao.2025.2025-10-12
  31. Photochem Photobiol. 2025 Dec 19.
    Publishing in Photochemistry and Photobiology: A suitable platform for photoscience dissemination.
    Jean Cadet.
      "Photochemistry and Photobiology," currently part of Wiley-Blackwell edition group is the official Journal of the American Society for Photobiology. The Journal is a suitable platform for the publication of scientific information on a wide range of domains of Photosciences spanning from photophysical and photochemical events to biological consequences. In addition to regular contributions, essentially original research and review articles, special issues are published on invitation. This covers various subjects including survey of timely topics, outstanding scientist recognition and celebration of scientific events. The Editorial Board composed of 32 internationally recognized experts plays a major role in handling fairly and rigorously the peer-review of the manuscripts with the efficient support of the Managing Editor. Importantly Wiley has recently implemented an improved manuscript submission system together with a more attractive format for the published articles. These suitable conditions should favor the submission of manuscripts and help to consolidate/improve the attractiveness of the Journal.
    Keywords:  DNA phodamage repair; biomolecule photochemistry; photosensitization; redox biology; singlet oxygen
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1111/php.70063
  32. J Biomech Eng. 2025 Dec 20. 1-5
    The Journal of Biomechanical Engineering Remains Committed to Supporting Scholarship through the Promotion of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion.
    Darryl Dickerson, Spencer Szczesny.
      In light of the recent reprioritization of federal funding, the Journal of Biomechanical Engineering reaffirms its commitment to reporting scientific excellence, advancements in knowledge, and technical innovations that benefit healthcare for everyone. Furthermore, we recognize that this commitment to excellent and rigorous science and engineering is supported by promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion, which ensures that advances in biomedical engineering address the distinct health needs of the broadest possible population. In this editorial, we highlight the recent actions that the journal has taken to support diversity and inclusion, including the appointment of Diversity Advocate positions, implementation of a double-blind review process, and publication of special issues on inclusive science and engineering. Finally, we present research and publication recommendations to the broader biomechanical engineering community that collectively embody the core principles of our field and that will lead to more equity and impact in biomechanical engineering.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4070720
  33. Porto Biomed J. 2025 Nov-Dec;10(6):10(6): e310
    Multiple authorship of scientific reports-two different evaluations are better than one.
    José Pedro L Nunes, Pedro D de Faria Nunes.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1097/j.pbj.0000000000000310
  34. IJTLD Open. 2025 Dec;2(12): 699-700
    Evolving beyond TB: launch of a new journal for chronic respiratory disease.
    H D Blackbourn, G B Migliori.
      After the positive experience of launching IJTLD Open, we are now embarking on the launch of a new journal to focus on chronic respiratory diseases, IJTLD CRD. Chronic conditions have been relatively negelected and the journal will be a home for all open access articles on topics to include post-TB lung disease, COPD, asthma, impact of air pollution, lung damage in smokers, bronchiectasis, and occupational lung disease. By highlighting research on these different conditions, we hope to identify commonalities and speed up the development and adoption of suitable treatments. This will also allow the International Journal of Tuberculosis and Lung Disease (IJTLD) and IJTLD Open to focus on infectious disease, with expanded coverage of bacterial, viral and fungal respiratory diseases.
    Keywords:  COPD; IJTLD CRD; LMICs; air quality; asthma; bronchiectasis; open access; smoking; tuberculosis
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.5588/ijtldopen.25.0779
  35. FEBS J. 2025 Dec 15.
    Research highlights: Hidden gems.
    Julija Hmeljak.
      We highlight original articles published in The FEBS Journal in 2023 and 2024 that members of our Editorial Board deemed particularly notable. The papers discussed here received nominations based on their scientific excellence, timeliness and broad appeal. These outstanding original articles span a broad range of topics related to the molecular life sciences. We invite you to revisit these gems and let us know your favourites.
    Keywords:  biochemistry; cell biology; research highlights; structural biology
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1111/febs.70355
This page is being maintained by Thomas Krichel. It was last updated on 2025‒12‒21 at 12:55.