bims-skolko Biomed News
on Scholarly communication
Issue of 2025–06–29
35 papers selected by
Thomas Krichel, Open Library Society
  1. Staying ahead of the curve: a decade of preprints in biology.
  2. What incentives do companies need to publish research?
  3. Scholarly publishing's hidden diversity: How exclusive databases sustain the oligopoly of academic publishers.
  4. Scientist trust in medical research: a survey of authors from 28 countries.
  5. Academic Institutions Must Play a Greater Role in Combating the Predatory Publishing and Conference Industry.
  6. Corrigendum to "An Analysis of Solicitations From Predatory Journals in Ophthalmology," Am J Ophthalmol 2024; 264:216-223.
  7. Erratum to "An Analysis of Solicitations From Predatory Journals in Ophthalmology," Am J Ophthalmol 2024; 264:216-223.
  8. Analyzing retraction trends in urology: a comprehensive study over the last decade.
  9. Ethics in Research and Publications.
  10. Will AI Kill the Review Article?
  11. AI, peer review and the human activity of science.
  12. Editorial policies for use and acknowledgment of artificial intelligence in dental journals.
  13. Artificial intelligence in medical writing: clarifying perspectives and journal policies.
  14. Artificial intelligence in medical writing: clarifying perspectives and journal policies. Authors' reply.
  15. Dual-Use Research and Publication Policies: A Comparison of Journals in Life Sciences and Artificial Intelligence.
  16. AI-mediated translation presents two possible futures for academic publishing in a multilingual world.
  17. Evolution of artificial intelligence writing tools in domain of scientific writing: A threat to human writing and its ethical considerations.
  18. Authorship Issues Further Plagued by Traded and Commercialized Authorship Slots, and Faux Authorship Resulting from the Use of Generative AI.
  19. Author academic influence and manuscript acceptance: Evidence from peer review in cell press journals.
  20. ChatGPT in Academic Writing: A Scientometric Analysis of Literature Published Between 2022 and 2023.
  21. Invisible Hands: Ethical Considerations of Artificial Intelligence Use by Medical Students Working with Dermatologists.
  22. No peer reviewers means no journal.
  23. Effective communication with JCR editors in the peer review process.
  24. Evaluating Authorship Guidelines of Top Medical Schools and Plastic Surgery Journals: A Comparative Analysis.
  25. Stories of data sharing.
  26. NIH-funded science must now be free to read instantly: what you should know.
  27. Adherence to RECORD reporting guidelines among observational studies using routinely collected health data published in general medical journals: a meta-epidemiologic study.
  28. CARE extension guideline for acupuncture case reports.
  29. Visualizing medicine: The case for implementing graphical abstracts in clinical reporting.
  30. Reporting Guidelines for Music-based Interventions checklist: explanation and elaboration guide.
  31. A Cross-Sectional Study on the Endorsement of Reporting Guidelines by Journals in Geriatrics and Gerontology.
  32. Bridging the Gap: Improving Data Sharing Practices in Surgical Research.
  33. Fully Automated De-Identification of Medical Imaging Data.
  34. A guide to the Nature Index.
  35. Cell line authentication and validation is a key requirement for Journal of Cell Communication and Signaling publications.
  1. Biol Open. 2025 Jun 15. pii: bio062111. [Epub ahead of print]14(6):
    Staying ahead of the curve: a decade of preprints in biology.
    Reinier Prosée, Katherine Brown.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1242/bio.062111
  2. Nature. 2025 Jun;642(8069): S2-S5
    What incentives do companies need to publish research?
    Brian Owens.
      
    Keywords:  Industry; Intellectual-property rights; Publishing; Technology
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-025-01926-y
  3. PLoS One. 2025 ;20(6): e0327015
    Scholarly publishing's hidden diversity: How exclusive databases sustain the oligopoly of academic publishers.
    Simon van Bellen, Juan Pablo Alperin, Vincent Larivière.
      Global scholarly publishing has been dominated by a small number of publishers for several decades. This paper revisits the data on corporate control of scholarly publishing by analyzing the relative shares of scholarly journals and articles published by the major publishers and the "long tail" of smaller, independent publishers, using Dimensions and Web of Science (WoS). The reduction of expenses for printing and distribution and the availability of open-source journal management tools may have contributed to the emergence of small publishers, while recently developed inclusive databases may allow for the study of these. Dimensions' inclusive indexing revealed the number of scholarly journals and articles published by smaller publishers has been growing rapidly, especially since the onset of large-scale online publishing around 2000, resulting in a higher share of articles from smaller publishers. In parallel, WoS shows increasing concentration within a few corporate publishers. For the 1980-2021 period, we retrieved 32% more articles from Dimensions compared to the more selective WoS. Dimensions' data showed the expansion of small publishers was most pronounced in the Social Sciences and the Arts and Humanities, but a similar trend is observed in the Natural Sciences and Engineering, and the Health Sciences. A major geographical divergence is also revealed, with English-speaking countries and/or those located in northwestern Europe relying heavily on major publishers for the dissemination of their research, while the rest of the world being relatively independent of the oligopoly. Finally, independent journals publish more often in open access in general, and in Diamond open access in particular. We conclude that enhanced indexing and visibility of recently created, independent journals may favour their growth and stimulate global scholarly bibliodiversity.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0327015
  4. Front Med (Lausanne). 2025 ;12 1586885
    Scientist trust in medical research: a survey of authors from 28 countries.
    Arch G Mainous Iii, J A Kellie, Rachel E Liu-Galvin, Barbara Durden, Valery M Beau de Rochars.
       Importance: Peer-review is the lynchpin to research integrity, quality and trust in published health research findings.
    Objective: To evaluate the level of trust in peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed medical research among scientists who publish medical research.
    Methods: A survey was conducted of corresponding authors of papers accepted for publication in a peer-reviewed medical journal between September and December 2024 (n = 285). Survey questions focused on trust in the results in peer-review and non-peer-reviewed results. Deidentified data was provided to the current investigators for a secondary analysis. The level of press freedom in the country and whether the investigators in the country were oriented toward scientific papermills for publishing research was also evaluated.
    Results: Although 94% of the respondents have high trust in peer-reviewed research, a significant proportion (32.4%) have trust in non-peer-reviewed research. A majority (54.7%) believe that public trust in medical research findings is influenced by the reader's political beliefs. The current peer review system is too slow (79%). Respondents from countries with a high prevalence of use of scientific papermills and low press freedom had more agreement that non-peer-reviewed research should be indexed than those from other countries (both p < 0.01). Authors who have published few papers are more trusting of non-peer-reviewed research (p.006) and more in agreement that non-peer-reviewed research should be indexed (p.015).
    Conclusion: Rebuilding the guardrails and trust in peer-review is necessary. A more streamlined peer-review system may be necessary to rebuild trust.
    Keywords:  international; peer review; research integrity; survey; trust
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2025.1586885
  5. ANZ J Surg. 2025 Jun 25.
    Academic Institutions Must Play a Greater Role in Combating the Predatory Publishing and Conference Industry.
    Henry H Woo, Marnique Basto.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1111/ans.70237
  6. Am J Ophthalmol. 2025 Jun 24. pii: S0002-9394(25)00292-2. [Epub ahead of print]
    Corrigendum to "An Analysis of Solicitations From Predatory Journals in Ophthalmology," Am J Ophthalmol 2024; 264:216-223.
    Grant A Justin, Charles Huang, Michael K Nguyen, Jessica Lee, Ian Seddon, Treven A Wesley, Sophie J Bakri, J Peter Campbell, Kara Cavuoto, Megan Collins, Steven J Gedde, Andrea L Kossler, Tatyana Milman, Aakriti Shukla, Jayanth Sridhar, Zeba A Syed, Basil K Williams, Fasika A Woreta, Samir N Patel, Yoshihiro Yonekawa.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajo.2025.06.004
  7. Am J Ophthalmol. 2025 Jun 24. pii: S0002-9394(25)00293-4. [Epub ahead of print]
    Erratum to "An Analysis of Solicitations From Predatory Journals in Ophthalmology," Am J Ophthalmol 2024; 264:216-223.
    Grant A Justin, Charles Huang, Michael K Nguyen, Jessica Lee, Ian Seddon, Treven A Wesley, Sophie J Bakri, J Peter Campbell, Kara Cavuoto, Megan Collins, Steven J Gedde, Andrea L Kossler, Tatyana Milman, Aakriti Shukla, Jayanth Sridhar, Zeba A Syed, Basil K Williams, Fasika A Woreta, Samir N Patel, Yoshihiro Yonekawa.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajo.2025.06.005
  8. World J Urol. 2025 Jun 25. 43(1): 392
    Analyzing retraction trends in urology: a comprehensive study over the last decade.
    Julio Yanes, Daniel Ajabshir, Aravindh Rathinam, Archan Khandekar, Jonathan Katz, Robert Marcovich, Hemendra N Shah.
       OBJECTIVE: To investigate why retractions in academic literature have risen substantially, leading to rising concerns about research reliability and integrity. While retraction trends have been explored across disciplines, urology-specific factors remain underexamined. This study investigates 292 retracted urological publications from 2014 to 2024, focusing on open-access journals to analyze how publishing models influence retraction trends.
    METHODS: A retrospective analysis of retracted urological publications was conducted using the PubMed database. The study employed 84 MeSH search terms to identify articles and categorize them by research type, journal impact factor, citation count, geographical distribution, and retraction reasons. Statistical analyses were performed to assess associations between retraction characteristics.
    RESULTS: The most common reason for retraction (90.4%) was discrepancies in data availability or research description, with systematic publication manipulation accounting for 5.1%. The majority of retractions (84.5%) originated from China. Journals with higher impact factors exhibited longer recall times for retractions but no significant difference in citation count at recall.
    CONCLUSION: This study highlights the increasing frequency of retractions in urology and identifies key factors influencing these trends. Geographic disparities, open-access models, and journal impact factors play significant roles. Addressing research integrity requires improved editorial oversight, standardized reporting guidelines, and enhanced detection of publication misconduct.
    Keywords:  Open-access publishing; Research integrity; Retraction trends; Scientific misconduct; Urological literature; Urology
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-025-05764-5
  9. J Conserv Dent Endod. 2025 Jun;28(6): 497
    Ethics in Research and Publications.
    Shishir Singh, Satish Abraham.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.4103/JCDE.JCDE_233_25
  10. Precis Chem. 2025 Jun 23. 3(6): 295-296
    Will AI Kill the Review Article?
    Juanjuan Jia, Jinlong Yang.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1021/prechem.5c00051
  11. Nature. 2025 Jun 25.
    AI, peer review and the human activity of science.
    Carl T Bergstrom, Joe Bak-Coleman.
      
    Keywords:  Authorship; Careers; Machine learning; Publishing; Scientific community
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-025-01839-w
  12. J Dent. 2025 Jun 20. pii: S0300-5712(25)00367-7. [Epub ahead of print] 105923
    Editorial policies for use and acknowledgment of artificial intelligence in dental journals.
    Ana Beatriz L Queiroz, Letícia Regina Morello Sartori, Giana da Silveira Lima, Rafael R Moraes.
       OBJECTIVES: This study mapped the editorial policies regarding the use and acknowledgment of artificial intelligence (AI) in dental journals.
    METHODS: Dental journals indexed in Web of Science were analyzed. Editorial guidelines and instructions for authors and reviewers were assessed. The outcome of interest was whether a journal reported an AI policy. Exposures of interest were Journal Impact Factor (JIF), Journal Citation Indicator (JCI), total number of citations, and percentage of open access content. Associations between journal metrics and the presence of AI policies were assessed using Poisson regression models with robust standard errors. Adjusted models were developed separately for JIF and JCI, including variables with p ≤ 0.2. Significance was set at p ≤ 0.05.
    RESULTS: Among the 158 journals analyzed, 70.9% reported AI policies. Policies targeted authors (100%), reviewers (88.4%), and editors (46.4%). The most common areas addressed were authorship, language review, and writing assistance. Journals in the upper quartiles of JIF and JCI were about twice as likely to report an AI policy compared to those in the lowest quartile. In the adjusted models, no association was found between total citations and AI policy presence, whereas open access percentage showed a negative association. While AI tools are permitted to aid in language refinement, critical tasks were consistently required to remain human-led, with rare exceptions.
    CONCLUSION: AI-related editorial policies were frequent in dental journals, and higher-impact journals were statistically more likely to report such policies.
    CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Clearer and more standardized AI policies may promote transparency and ethical AI use.
    Keywords:  Artificial intelligence; dental research; editorial policies; ethics
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2025.105923
  13. Pol Arch Intern Med. 2025 Jun 24. pii: 17043. [Epub ahead of print]135(6):
    Artificial intelligence in medical writing: clarifying perspectives and journal policies.
    Shigeki Matsubara.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.20452/pamw.17043
  14. Pol Arch Intern Med. 2025 Jun 24. pii: 17044. [Epub ahead of print]135(6):
    Artificial intelligence in medical writing: clarifying perspectives and journal policies. Authors' reply.
    Anastasios Koulaouzidis, George Koulaouzidis, Maria Marlicz, Dafni Charisopoulou, Wojciech Marlicz.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.20452/pamw.17044
  15. Appl Biosaf. 2025 Jun;30(2): 97-106
    Dual-Use Research and Publication Policies: A Comparison of Journals in Life Sciences and Artificial Intelligence.
    Daniel J Hurst, Christopher A Bobier.
       Introduction: Dual-use research (DUR) describes research with potential benefits that could be misapplied for harm. Policy on DUR is often limited to life sciences research. However, recently, there have been demonstrations of how research with dual-use concerns may extend beyond the life sciences to artificial intelligence (AI). One method of ensuring that research with dual-use concerns is not misapplied for harm is by censoring scientific journal articles. Journals may have policy on managing article submissions with potential DUR concerns. This study compared the policies of life science and AI journals toward DUR.
    Methods: Google Scholar Metrics and Scimago Journal and Country Rank were utilized to identify and select the top 20 publications in fields of life sciences and AI by specific metrics. The publicly accessible websites of each journal were searched to ascertain their publication policies regarding DUR. Journals and/or publishers were contacted if no policy was located.
    Results: From Google Scholar, 12/20 journals within the "Life Sciences & Earth Sciences" category had policies on DUR; from Scimago, 9/16 of the "Biochemistry, Genetics, and Molecular Biology" category had policies; and 8/19 of the "Immunology and Microbiology" category had policies. For AI journals, 2/13 journals from Google Scholar had policies; 4/15 journals from Scimago had policies.
    Conclusion: More journals in the life sciences have extant policies on how to handle article submissions with DUR concerns. Very few AI journals have policies.
    Keywords:  biosafety; biosecurity; dual-use research; ethics; publication ethics
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1089/apb.2024.0034
  16. PLoS Biol. 2025 Jun;23(6): e3003215
    AI-mediated translation presents two possible futures for academic publishing in a multilingual world.
    Tatsuya Amano, Lynne Bowker, Andrew Burton-Jones.
      As the availability and performance of artificial intelligence for language editing and translation continues to improve, we can imagine a future in which everyone can use their own language to write, assess, and read science. The question is, how can we achieve it?
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3003215
  17. J Family Med Prim Care. 2025 May;14(5): 1580-1583
    Evolution of artificial intelligence writing tools in domain of scientific writing: A threat to human writing and its ethical considerations.
    Noureen Durrani, Muhammad Imran, Rabeeya Saeed.
      The convergence of artificial intelligence (AI) and scientific writing represents a transformative intersection in research and education, with each field reciprocally reforming and refining the other. AI, with its adaptable learning strategies and innovative technologies, enhances the area of scientific writing. However, transparency and recognition of AI's role in text generation are crucial to upholding accountability among human authors for the final outcome. As AI technologies rapidly advance, especially in the realm of scientific writing, it becomes increasingly important to openly acknowledge the contribution of AI systems. It is highly recommended that human language generating AI-powered tools should necessarily implement licensing and strict regulations. In this way, its access would be limited to those who use these tools as aids in research, rather than exploiting and misusing it to generate whole manuscripts, hindering the effective learning of students and academic researchers.
    Keywords:  Artificial intelligence; chatbot; deep learning; language learning modules; scientific writing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.4103/jfmpc.jfmpc_1615_24
  18. Int J Low Extrem Wounds. 2025 Jun 26. 15347346251352725
    Authorship Issues Further Plagued by Traded and Commercialized Authorship Slots, and Faux Authorship Resulting from the Use of Generative AI.
    Jaime A Teixeira da Silva.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1177/15347346251352725
  19. Account Res. 2025 Jun 23. 1-23
    Author academic influence and manuscript acceptance: Evidence from peer review in cell press journals.
    Guangyao Zhang, Lili Wang, Yixian Yin, Xianwen Wang.
       BACKGROUND: Prior studies on peer review have largely focused on manuscript characteristics as the primary determinants of acceptance decisions. Although author academic influence is widely recognized in practice as a contributing factor, it has received limited attention in the academic literature, mainly due to data constraints.
    METHODS: Using a unique dataset of manuscript submissions to Cell Press journals, we examine how author academic influence relates to peer review outcomes.
    RESULTS: We find that author academic influence is positively associated with manuscript acceptance, with this effect particularly pronounced for junior researchers.
    CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis indicates that author academic influence functions as a signal of a manuscript's impact, thereby enhancing its likelihood of acceptance.
    Keywords:  Peer review; academic influence; cell press journals; signaling effect
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2025.2521083
  20. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2025 Jun 22. 15562646251350203
    ChatGPT in Academic Writing: A Scientometric Analysis of Literature Published Between 2022 and 2023.
    Gergely Ferenc Lendvai.
      This paper reviews the disruptive role of ChatGPT in academic writing, focusing on its implications for scholarly practices and emerging ethical challenges. Using document co-citation analysis (DCA), it maps the thematic and intellectual structure of the discourse on ChatGPT in academic knowledge production. Drawing on a dataset of 171 peer-reviewed articles from Scopus, the analysis, conducted using CiteSpace, identified 10 major thematic clusters, including ethical risks, practical applications, and pedagogical innovations. The resulting high-modularity network (Q = 0.8989, S = 0.9466), comprising 866 nodes and 2,274 edges, ensured methodological rigor and thematic clarity. The findings reveal widespread recognition of ChatGPT's value in enhancing writing and supporting innovative educational frameworks, especially for non-native speakers. Concerns persist regarding hallucinated references, plagiarism, authorship ethics, and the reliability of AI-detection tools. Our paper accentuates the need for proactive oversight and policy development to ensure responsible integration of generative AI in research and education.
    Keywords:  AI and research; ChatGPT; academic writing; ethical challenges; scholarly innovation
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1177/15562646251350203
  21. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2025 Jun 21. pii: S0190-9622(25)02383-7. [Epub ahead of print]
    Invisible Hands: Ethical Considerations of Artificial Intelligence Use by Medical Students Working with Dermatologists.
    Aarushi K Parikh, Shari R Lipner.
      
    Keywords:  ChatGPT; artificial intelligence; equity; ethics; liability; medical education; publishing; research ethics; training
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaad.2025.06.053
  22. Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen. 2025 Jun 24. 145(8):
    No peer reviewers means no journal.
    Ragnhild Ørstavik.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.4045/tidsskr.25.0371
  23. J Control Release. 2025 Jun 26. pii: S0168-3659(25)00594-2. [Epub ahead of print]385 113973
    Effective communication with JCR editors in the peer review process.
    Honggang Cui, Ana Beloqui, Davide Brambilla, Paolo Caliceti, Yunching Becky Chen, Laura M Ensign, Jong Oh Kim, Twan Lammers, Kanjiro Miyata, Yu-Kyoung Oh, Dan Peer, Amirali Popat, Raymond Schiffelers, Yang Shi, Xun Sun, Pieter Vader, Yoon Yeo, Lichen Yin, Yu Seok Youn, Zhiyuan Zhong, Stefaan C De Smedt.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jconrel.2025.113973
  24. Ann Plast Surg. 2025 Jun 23.
    Evaluating Authorship Guidelines of Top Medical Schools and Plastic Surgery Journals: A Comparative Analysis.
    Nicholas A Mirsky, Sara E Munkwitz, Wrood M Kassira, Pawan Pathagamage, Paulo G Coelho, Seth R Thaller.
       BACKGROUND: Authorship in research is crucial for academic recognition and accountability; however, there remain discrepancies throughout institutions regarding authorship inclusion. This review aimed to evaluate the similarities, variations and distinct approaches to authorship criteria. We intend to focus on how guidelines address issues like honorary authorship, authorship order, and the resolution of disagreements.
    METHODS: Authorship criteria from the top 10 NIH-funded medical schools and the top 10 plastic surgery journals as defined by their Journal Citation Reports (JCR) quartiles were collected from August 30, 2024, to September 5, 2024.
    RESULTS: Our findings revealed significant differences in authorship policies, with medical schools generally providing more comprehensive and educational approaches compared to journals. While most organizations referenced International Committee of Medical Journal Editors criteria, there was variability in addressing key issues such as ghost and honorary authorship, authorship order determination, and the use of AI in research. Medical schools more frequently defined and prohibited ghost and honorary authorships, offered guidance on authorship order, and provided mechanisms for dispute resolution. Notably, guidelines regarding AI usage in research were largely absent or ambiguous across all organizations.
    CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights the need for greater standardization and clarity in authorship guidelines, particularly in light of emerging challenges posed by AI and increasingly collaborative research environments. Implementing standardized contribution declaration systems, such as CRediT, could enhance transparency and fairness in authorship attribution. As research practices continue to evolve, regular reassessment and updating of authorship guidelines will be crucial to maintain the integrity of scientific publication in academic medicine.
    Keywords:  artificial intelligence; authorship; biomedical research; medical journals; publishing ethics
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1097/SAP.0000000000004435
  25. Nat Water. 2025 Jan 01. 3(1): 7-10
    Stories of data sharing.
    Ryan A Hill.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/s44221-024-00375-7
  26. Nature. 2025 Jun 26.
    NIH-funded science must now be free to read instantly: what you should know.
    Mariana Lenharo.
      
    Keywords:  Policy; Publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-025-01938-8
  27. J Clin Epidemiol. 2025 Jun 23. pii: S0895-4356(25)00209-4. [Epub ahead of print] 111876
    Adherence to RECORD reporting guidelines among observational studies using routinely collected health data published in general medical journals: a meta-epidemiologic study.
    Heather J Zhao, Inna Ushcatz, Chantel Walwyn, Megan S Lowe, Kevin S Kim, Eric I Benchimol, Sinéad M Langan, Aaron M Drucker.
       OBJECTIVE: The REporting of studies Conducted using Observational Routinely Collected Data (RECORD) tool was developed to address gaps around reporting routinely collected health data. The objective of this study was to assess adherence to RECORD in general medical journals and to evaluate its correlation with study quality.
    METHODS: We searched PubMed using a filter to identify studies using routinely collected health data published in eight high impact medical journals between 2016-2023. Four journals endorsed RECORD, while four did not. For each journal, 24 articles were randomly selected, with three studies per year. Study characteristics, RECORD and quality assessments were completed in duplicate and described using proportions and means with standard deviations. Linear regression was used to estimate the association between journal and study characteristics with adherence to RECORD items.
    RESULTS: Studies reported a mean of 70.7% (SD 1.8%) of RECORD items. There was no substantial difference in adherence in RECORD-endorsing journals compared to non-RECORD endorsing journals (1.8 percent lower adherence; 95% CI: - 5.8, 2.2). Adherence of > 80% was reported for RECORD items 1.1, 1.2, 6.1, 7.1, 19.1 and 22.1.
    CONCLUSION: Studies in general medical journals had moderate adherence to RECORD, with no association between journals' endorsement of RECORD and reporting completeness. Other measures to improve adherence to RECORD should be explored, including refinements to the checklist itself. Authors and journals should be aware of and adhere to items required for RECORD reporting to improve the reproducibility of research using routinely collected health data.
    Keywords:  Observational; RECORD guidelines; adherence; routinely collected
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2025.111876
  28. BMJ Evid Based Med. 2025 Jun 24. pii: bmjebm-2025-113641. [Epub ahead of print]
    CARE extension guideline for acupuncture case reports.
    Yuting Duan, Zhirui Xu, Yongqi Zhang, Shujuan Liu, Juexuan Chen, Yaolong Chen, Nenggui Xu, Chunzhi Tang, Peijing Rong, Liming Lu, Yu Wang, Ye-Seul Lee, Tae-Hun Kim, David S Riley, Lin Shi, Myeong Soo Lee, Lin Yu.
      Existing reporting checklists lack the specificity and comprehensiveness required to effectively guide the documentation of acupuncture case reports. Therefore, we developed a reporting guideline tailored specifically for acupuncture case reports, building upon the CAse REport (CARE) statement. A multidisciplinary group of international experts including clinicians, researchers and methodologists was convened to draft the initial checklist in accordance with the methodology recommended by the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) network. Through an extensive literature review and a series of expert interviews, the final CARE for acupuncture checklist comprised of 30 items. 38 experts from diverse disciplines participated in three rounds of modified Delphi surveys to refine and clarify these items. CARE for acupuncture is a comprehensive reporting guideline focused on acupuncture case reports developed with rigorous methodology. We hope that CARE for acupuncture will further guide authors, editors, peer reviewers and readers to enhance the transparency, completeness and accuracy of reporting of case reports in acupuncture.
    Keywords:  Acupuncture; Methods
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjebm-2025-113641
  29. World J Methodol. 2025 Jun 20. 15(2): 95966
    Visualizing medicine: The case for implementing graphical abstracts in clinical reporting.
    Naveen Jeyaraman, Madhan Jeyaraman, Swaminathan Ramasubramanian, Sangeetha Balaji, Arulkumar Nallakumarasamy.
      Graphical abstracts (GAs) are emerging as a pivotal tool in medical literature, enhancing the dissemination and comprehension of complex clinical data through visual summaries. This editorial highlights the significant advantages of GAs, including improved clarity, increased reader engagement, and enhanced visibility of research findings. By transforming intricate scientific data into accessible visual formats, these abstracts facilitate quick and effective knowledge transfer, crucial in clinical decision-making and patient care. However, challenges such as potential data misrepresentation due to oversimplification, the skill gap in graphic design among researchers, and the lack of standardized creation guidelines pose barriers to their widespread adoption. Additionally, while software such as Adobe Illustrator, BioRender, and Canva are commonly employed to create these visuals, not all researchers may be proficient in their use. To address these issues, we recommend that academic journals establish clear guidelines and provide necessary design training to researchers. This proactive approach will ensure the creation of high-quality GAs, promote their standardization, and expand their use in clinical reporting, ultimately benefiting the medical community and improving healthcare outcomes.
    Keywords:  Academic publishing; Clinical data dissemination; Graphical abstracts; Research impact; Visual communication
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.5662/wjm.v15.i2.95966
  30. Front Psychol. 2025 ;16 1552659
    Reporting Guidelines for Music-based Interventions checklist: explanation and elaboration guide.
    Sheri L Robb, K Maya Story, Elizabeth Harman, Debra S Burns, Joke Bradt, Emmeline Edwards, Tasha L Golden, Christian Gold, John R Iversen, Assal Habibi, Julene K Johnson, Miriam Lense, Susan M Perkins, Stacey Springs.
       Background: Detailed intervention reporting is essential to interpretation, replication, and eventual translation of Music-based Interventions (MBIs) into practice. Despite availability of Reporting Guidelines for Music-based Interventions (RG-MBI, published 2011), multiple reviews reveal sustained problems with reporting quality and consistency. To address this, we convened an interdisciplinary expert panel to update and improve the utility and validity of the existing guidelines using a rigorous Delphi approach. The resulting updated checklist includes 12-items across eight areas considered essential to ensure transparent reporting of MBIs.
    Objective: The purpose of this explanation and elaboration document is to facilitate consistent understanding, use, and dissemination of the revised RG-MBI.
    Methods: Members of the interdisciplinary expert panel collaborated to create the resulting guidance statement.
    Results: This guidance statement offers: (1) the scope and intended use of the RG-MBI, (2) an explanation for each checklist item, with examples from published studies, and (3) two published studies with annotations indicating where the authors reported each checklist item.
    Conclusion: Broader uptake of the RG-MBIs by study authors, editors, and peer reviewers will lead to better reporting of MBI trials, and in turn facilitate greater replication of research, improve cross-study comparisons and meta-analyses, and increase implementation of findings.
    Keywords:  intervention; music; music therapy; reporting guidelines; reporting quality
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1552659
  31. Gerontology. 2025 Jun 19. 1-17
    A Cross-Sectional Study on the Endorsement of Reporting Guidelines by Journals in Geriatrics and Gerontology.
    Logan Corwin, Jacob Duncan, Shaelyn Ward, Caleb Smith, Danya Brewer, Griffin Hughes, Matt Vassar.
       INTRODUCTION: The use of reporting guidelines and clinical trial registration policies by academic journals reduces bias and improves transparency in clinical research. It is unknown whether geriatric and gerontology journals mention, recommend, or require their use for the studies they may potentially publish. The purpose of this study is to assess the submission guidelines of the top geriatric and gerontology journals for their editorial recommendation or requirement of predetermined reporting guidelines and clinical trial registration.
    METHODS: Using the 2021 Scopus CiteScore tool, we identified the top 100 journals in the "Geriatrics and Gerontology" subcategory. We reviewed each journal's "Instructions to Authors" for references to reporting guidelines commonly used for various study designs, categorizing them as "Not Mentioned," "Recommended," "Does Not Require," or "Required." Additionally, we assessed how each journal addressed clinical trial registration using the same classification system.
    RESULTS: Among the 100 journals reviewed, none referenced the QUOROM statement. In contrast, the CONSORT statement was the most frequently mentioned, with 44 journals (44%) recommending or requiring its use. PRISMA guidelines were omitted by 57 journals (57%), while study registration was recommended or required by 92 journals (92%).
    CONCLUSION: The recommendation or requirement of reporting guidelines and clinical trial registration in the top 100 geriatric and gerontology journals is inconsistent. Journal editors should strongly recommend that authors follow reporting guidelines to reduce potential bias and improve transparency in the articles they publish.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1159/000546516
  32. J Surg Res. 2025 Jun 26. pii: S0022-4804(25)00260-4. [Epub ahead of print]312 136-147
    Bridging the Gap: Improving Data Sharing Practices in Surgical Research.
    Ryan Sherry, Peter Lang, Alex Hagood, Taylor Gardner, Eli Oldham, Jacob Duncan, Annes Elfar, Eli Paul, Andriana M Peña, Alicia Ito Ford, Matt Vassar.
       INTRODUCTION: Data sharing is critical for improving patient outcomes and ensuring research transparency. However, adherence to the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors guidelines requiring data-sharing statements (DSS) in clinical trials remains inconsistent within surgical research.
    METHODS: A systematic review and cross-sectional analysis of 1094 articles from the top h-5 indexed surgery journals (2020-2023) was conducted. Articles were screened based on predefined criteria. Hierarchical logistic regression identified factors influencing DSS inclusion, and thematic analysis examined DSS content.
    RESULTS: Of the 1094 articles, only 141 (12.89%) included DSS, with higher rates in clinical trials (18.05%) compared to cohort studies (5.20%). Studies funded by government or industry and open-access articles (18.95%) were more likely to include DSS. Journals with higher impact factors were more likely to comply. Thematic analysis revealed recurring issues of gatekeeping, conditional data access, and privacy concerns. Out of 96 corresponding authors contacted, only 18 shared data.
    CONCLUSIONS: Data-sharing rates in surgical journals remain low, especially in non-open-access and unfunded studies. Strengthened policies are essential to improve transparency and reproducibility in surgical research.
    Keywords:  Availability; Cross-sectional; Data; Reproducibility; Sharing; Surgery; Transparency
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2025.04.036
  33. Radiology. 2025 Jun;315(3): e251731
    Fully Automated De-Identification of Medical Imaging Data.
    Daniel Pinto Dos Santos.
      "Just Accepted" papers have undergone full peer review and have been accepted for publication in Radiology. This article will undergo copyediting, layout, and proof review before it is published in its final version. Please note that during production of the final copyedited article, errors may be discovered which could affect the content.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.251731
  34. Nature. 2025 Jun 25.
    A guide to the Nature Index.
      
    Keywords:  Databases; Publishing; Technology
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-025-01930-2
  35. J Cell Commun Signal. 2025 Jun;19(2): e70029
    Cell line authentication and validation is a key requirement for Journal of Cell Communication and Signaling publications.
    Ralf Weiskirchen, Jamie Almeida, Brahim Chaqour.
      Cell lines are essential tools in biomedical research and drug discovery, often substituting for tissues or organs of origin. However, frequent misidentification and cross-contamination pose major quality control challenges, leading to unreliable data, hindering scientific progress, and impacting clinical translation. Even authenticated cell lines may undergo genetic and phenotypic changes over time, affecting experimental outcomes. To promote transparency, reproducibility, and rigor, the Journal of Cell Communication and Signaling (JCCS) reaffirms its commitment to best practices in cell line authentication and validation, in alignment with Wiley's publishing ethics. Authors submitting manuscripts must provide comprehensive cell line details, including species, sex, tissue origin, name, and Research Resource Identifier. They are also required to document the source, acquisition date, and authentication methods such as short tandem repeat (STR) profiling and adventitious agent testing, including mycoplasma screening. By enforcing strict guidelines, JCCS seeks to improve research integrity, reduce erroneous findings, and enhance reproducibility. This initiative not only strengthens the reliability of published studies but also supports the broader scientific community in accelerating discovery and translating research into clinical advances for better human health.
    Keywords:  JCCS; STR profiling; cell line authentication; cell line nomenclature; mycoplasma; validation
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1002/ccs3.70029
This page is being maintained by Thomas Krichel. It was last updated on 2025‒06‒30 at 16:54.