bims-evares Biomed News
on Evaluation of research
Issue of 2026–10–18
nine papers selected by
Thomas Krichel, Open Library Society
  1. Suspected distortion of citations in high-impact cancer journals.
  2. Gender Representation in Authorship of Original Research Publications in Medical Student Journals.
  3. Women's Representation in Cardiac Anesthesiology Publications: A Multi-journal Retrospective Analysis.
  4. Analysis of pharmacist authorship in leading critical care journals.
  5. The Program for Research on Black Americans' Contributions to Sociology: A Review of the Literature.
  6. Business model, pricing, and transparency in neurosurgery and neurology journals.
  7. Reel or perish: the "social media impact factor".
  8. When promotion becomes a bounty on publications: how academic reward systems shape publication behavior, with lessons from Nepal.
  9. International Bioethics Training Program Funded by the Fogarty International Center, 2013-2023: Overview and Trends.
  1. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2026 Oct 20. 123(42): e2618402123
    Suspected distortion of citations in high-impact cancer journals.
    Baptiste Scancar, Jennifer A Byrne, David Causeur, Adrian G Barnett.
      Research and scholarship are shaped by article citations, which underpin the communication of ideas, assignment of credit, journal impact factors, and author career progression. Given their key influence on author and journal metrics, citations can be intentionally manipulated to inflate the reputation of journals and researchers. Paper mills, unethical organizations that produce and sell manuscripts and publishing services, may also be manipulating citations, but the extent of this manipulation is unknown. Here, we show that molecular cancer articles sharing features with retracted papers from paper mills display citation patterns that suggest systematic inflation. These articles were published in journals in the top decile of journal rankings. Suspected paper mill articles received 50 to 100% more citations than other papers 1 to 3 y after publication, while paradoxically attracting fewer readers and online accesses. Suspected paper mill articles also cited-and were cited by-other suspected paper mill articles, which frequently appeared in journals previously reported as paper mill targets. Citations from suspected paper mill articles measurably inflated journal citation metrics. These findings suggest that paper mills inflate the citation metrics of supported publications and affected journals at scale. This widespread manipulation of citation metrics may amplify unreliable findings, slowing scientific progress and spurring unreasonable citation benchmarks for research articles, journals, and authors. Our findings point to measurable signatures of citation manipulation that could support article- and journal-level screening.
    Keywords:  citation manipulation; journal metrics; molecular oncology; paper mills
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2618402123
  2. Adv Med Educ Pract. 2026 ;17 643215
    Gender Representation in Authorship of Original Research Publications in Medical Student Journals.
    Ibrahim S Al-Busaidi, Noreen Hassan, Ahmad Hassan, Kareem Sharif, Wassim Hassan, Uma L Sreedhar, Tim J Wilkinson.
       Background: Despite the increasing proportion of female medical students globally, women remain a minority of authors in mainstream medical journals. Whether similar differences in gender representation extend to medical student journals (MSJs) remains unknown. In this bibliometric analysis, we explored female author representation in student-authored original research articles published in MSJs over the past decade.
    Methods: Using a standardized search strategy, we identified English-language MSJs that are currently active and have been continuously operating for ≥10 years. We used a hierarchical approach to determine the likely gender of authors. We analyzed all student-authored original research articles published in the first issue in the years 2010, 2012, 2014, 2016, and 2018 to determine trends in authorship demographics and publication volume.
    Results: Seven out of 23 MSJs met the inclusion criteria with a median operation of 21 years (mean 34.9, range 15-102). Students contributed 79.2% (n = 57/72) of original articles (median 7, range 4-23; 50-100% of total articles per journal). Students were significantly more likely than non-students to be first authors (91.2%, p < 0.001). For all MSJs combined, women comprised 50.5% of authors, 56.1% (95% CI: 43.3-68.2%) of first authors, and 47.4% (95% CI: 35.0-60.1%) of last authors, neither of which differed significantly from equal representation of women and men. The proportion of first (p = 0.31) and last (p = 0.78) authors who were women did not change over time.
    Discussion: Gender representation among MSJ authors did not differ significantly from equal representation for student and first authors, while women made up a smaller share of non-student and last authors - a pattern that more closely resembles the gender differences reported in mainstream medical journals. The smaller gap may reflect either a true narrowing of these differences over time or a cohort effect, whereby current faculty entered academic medicine when women were less well-represented. Future research should further characterize gender representation in MSJ authorship and identify strategies to support continued progress.
    Keywords:  authorship; gender bias; medical education; medical student journal; publishing; research
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.2147/AMEP.S643215
  3. Ann Card Anaesth. 2026 Oct 01. 29(4): 564-569
    Women's Representation in Cardiac Anesthesiology Publications: A Multi-journal Retrospective Analysis.
    Ashutosh Kaushal, Soumya Thakur, Anuj Jain, Nikhil Nair, Shivanya Singh, Sweta Kumari.
       INTRODUCTION: Gender disparities in academic medicine persist despite increasing female enrollment. Cardiac anesthesiology, a predominantly male subspecialty, may reflect systemic inequities. India contributes substantially to cardiac anesthesiology literature, yet the representation of Indian women within this global scholarly output remains uncharacterized.
    MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective cross-sectional study of four cardiac anesthesiology journals, January 2020 to January 2026. All articles published in the Annals of Cardiac Anaesthesia, Journal of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Anesthesia, Seminars in Cardiothoracic and Vascular Anesthesia, and cardiac anesthesia section of Anesthesia and Analgesia analyzed. Author gender was determined by first-name analysis spanning 45 countries, supplemented by institutional verification.
    STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Chi-square tests were used to compare gender proportions across authorship positions, journals, and article types. The Cochran-Armitage trend test was used to assess linear temporal trends in female authorship over the study period. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
    RESULTS: Among 5,138 articles representing 22,829 author positions, women comprised 28.4% overall (F: M ratio 1:2.52). Female representation declined progressively from second authors (31.9%) to corresponding authors (22.5%) (P < 0.001). Indian women represented 26.4% of Indian first authors and 18.1% of Indian corresponding authors, both significantly lower than non-Indian counterparts (P = 0.009 and P = 0.001, respectively). Notably, Indian female first authorship showed a significant upward trend from 19.2% (2020) to 35.6% (2024) (Z = -3.65,P < 0.001).
    CONCLUSION: Significant gender disparities persist across cardiac anesthesiology publications globally, specifically among Indian authors. The pronounced underrepresentation of Indian women in corresponding authorship, despite an encouraging upward trend in first authorship, highlights compounded systemic barriers.
    Keywords:  Academic publishing; Indian authors; authorship; cardiac anesthesiology; gender disparity; women in medicine
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.4103/aca.aca_143_26
  4. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2026 Oct 10. pii: zxag340. [Epub ahead of print]
    Analysis of pharmacist authorship in leading critical care journals.
    Brianna Mendoza, Sergio Castaneda, Brian L Erstad.
       PURPOSE: To evaluate first and last (senior) pharmacist authorship in high-impact critical care journals with a focus on the representation and evolution of pharmacist contributions over time.
    METHODS: This literature-focused review analyzed pharmacist authorship across 6 high-impact critical care journals: Intensive Care Medicine, American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, Critical Care, Critical Care Medicine, CHEST, and Annals of Intensive Care. First and last authors were assessed for pharmacy-related degrees using article data and supplemental searches, with articles with unconfirmed pharmacist authorship excluded. Included study designs encompassed a variety of research and review article types, including, but not limited to, retrospective cohort studies, case-control studies, systematic reviews, case reports, surveys, narrative reviews, literature reviews, animal studies, clinical studies, evaluation studies, methods studies, and observational studies; nonresearch publications were excluded.
    RESULTS: A total of 83,608 articles published between 1973 and 2024 were identified, of which 24,257 met the inclusion criteria. Pharmacist authorship was identified in 272 articles (1.12%), with an overall upward trend observed over time. The highest annual representation occurred in 1988 (12 articles; 3.67%). CHEST, evaluated from 2020 to 2024, had the highest proportion of articles with pharmacist authorship (11 articles; 4.47%). Pharmacist-authored studies were commonly classified as "other study designs," including narrative reviews, literature reviews, experimental studies, and survey studies.
    CONCLUSION: Pharmacist authorship generally increased over the study period, although interpretation of temporal trends is limited by differences in journal inclusion across years; however, pharmacists remain underrepresented as first and last authors.
    Keywords:  authorship; critical care; interprofessional relations; pharmacist; pharmacy; research publications
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1093/ajhp/zxag340
  5. Sociol Focus. 2026 ;59(4): 525-551
    The Program for Research on Black Americans' Contributions to Sociology: A Review of the Literature.
    Robert Joseph Taylor, Krim K Lacey, Dawne Marie Mouzon, Analidis Ochoa, Brian Perron.
      This article has three goals. The first is to explain the contributions of the Program for Research on Black Americans (PRBA) to the field of sociology. The second is to provide a review of the scope of research conducted by PRBA scholars. This review covers research on Black families, marriage and romantic relationships, racial socialization, interpersonal violence, negative interactions, religious participation and spirituality, religion and mental health, social support, social isolation, mental and physical health, racism and discrimination, colorism, and Black politics. It also covers research on African American and Black Caribbean adolescents, adults, and older adults. The third goal of the article is a bibliometric analysis of National Survey of American Life (NSAL)-based publications including citation analysis, analysis of which journals have published the most NSAL-based articles, and authorship network analysis. The article ends with a brief discussion of our most recent data collection and a conclusion. The article shows that the PRBA, through its research, mentoring, and longevity, has met the criteria of Wright and Thomas's principles of Black sociology.
    Keywords:  Black family; discrimination; ethnicity; mental health; race
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1080/00380237.2026.2724434
  6. J Clin Neurosci. 2026 Oct 15. pii: S0967-5868(26)00490-X. [Epub ahead of print]155 112339
    Business model, pricing, and transparency in neurosurgery and neurology journals.
    Keyvan Mostofi, Kamran Shirbache, Gianluca Caragliano, Morad Peyravi.
      The business model of scientific journals - gold open access (OA), hybrid, or subscription - creates different financial incentives for publishers, since in the author-pays OA model publication fees (Article Processing Charges, APCs) are collected upon acceptance. This descriptive audit surveys 109 neurosurgery and neurology journals from six major publishing groups (Elsevier, Springer Nature/Wolters Kluwer, Wiley, SAGE, Taylor & Francis, Thieme) and verifies, journal by journal, business model, notoriety indicator (Journal Impact Factor or Scimago SJR), publication fee, and, where publicly available, acceptance rate. Every data point was individually re-verified against official publisher pages and Scimago Journal Rank, correcting a JIF/SJR confusion, several unrecorded transitions to full OA, and one misclassified business model present in the initial collection. After verification, 83 journals (76.1%) are hybrid and 26 (23.9%) are full OA, including 5 diamond (no-APC) journals; no journal is subscription-only. Mean notoriety was similar between hybrid and full-OA journals on both indicators tested separately (JIF: 3.51 vs 3.61; SJR: 0.87 vs 0.89), but full-OA journals excluding the five diamond titles showed higher and more dispersed SJR values (mean 1.24, SD 0.93) than the diamond subset (mean 0.20, SD 0.09). Publication fees were, on average, higher for the OA option of hybrid journals ($4,279, SD $755) than for full-OA journals ($3,415, SD $845). Acceptance rate was the least transparent variable: only 6 of 109 journals (5.5%) publish an identifiable rate, all hybrid; no full-OA or diamond journal discloses this figure. This sample is too small, and too skewed toward hybrid disclosure, to support any inference about whether business model influences acceptance decisions; it instead documents a broad lack of acceptance-rate transparency across neurosurgery and neurology journals and identifies pricing, not acceptance behavior, as the dimension on which a verified between-model difference could be established.
    Keywords:  Article processing charges; Diamond open access; Hybrid journals; Journal transparency; Neurology; Neurosurgery; Open access; Scholarly publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocn.2026.112339
  7. BMJ. 2026 Oct 12. 395 e101053
    Reel or perish: the "social media impact factor".
    Francesco Ferrara, Danilo Buonsenso.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj-2026-101053
  8. Ann Med Surg (Lond). 2026 Oct;88(10): 6380-6383
    When promotion becomes a bounty on publications: how academic reward systems shape publication behavior, with lessons from Nepal.
    Naveen Gautam.
      The criteria institutions use to appoint and promote academics shape how science is produced. Where advancement is tied tightly to publication counts, researchers respond rationally to the incentive, and publication behavior shifts toward volume. This article uses the faculty-promotion regulations of Tribhuvan University, Nepal's largest higher education institution, as a worked example of how publication-weighted criteria may reward output over scientific merit. The framework allocates the majority of open-competition marks to research publications, sets minimum article counts for promotion, fractionates credit by authorship position, and scores articles by journal tier. Such a structure illustrates a problem common across many low- and middle-income academic systems: it can encourage fragmented, lower-quality output, penalize collaborative authorship, and use journal-based metrics as surrogates for individual article quality, contrary to the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment. The institution's existing anti-plagiarism and anti-predatory safeguards show that meaningful reform is achievable. Drawing on DORA, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors authorship criteria, and Committee on Publication Ethics guidance, the article argues for a phased shift toward portfolio-based assessment that rewards the quality, integrity, and relevance of scholarship rather than the counting of papers.
    Keywords:  DORA; academic reward systems; bibliometrics; low- and middle-income countries; publication ethics; research assessment
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1097/MS9.0000000000005602
  9. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2026 Oct 13. 15562646261492746
    International Bioethics Training Program Funded by the Fogarty International Center, 2013-2023: Overview and Trends.
    Annette Rid, Barbara Sina.
      The National Institutes of Health Fogarty International Center has supported international bioethics training program funding for over two decades. This program aims to equip trainees with the knowledge and skills to serve as research ethics professionals and bioethics scholars in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) and support the ethical conduct of socially valuable research in these countries. In this paper, we update a review of the program's first decade (2000-2012) and describe trends in its second decade (2013-2023), including the successful launch of PhD and post-doctoral training and increasing leadership by principal investigators from LMICs. Despite important progress, more research ethics professionals and bioethics scholars are needed to build and sustain strong bioethics infrastructure in LMICs.
    Keywords:  Developing countries; ethics education; evaluation; international research; research ethics; responsible conduct of research
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1177/15562646261492746
This page is being maintained by Thomas Krichel. It was last updated on 2026‒10‒22 at 7:21.