bims-skolko Biomed News
on Scholarly communication
Issue of 2022–10–30
twenty-six papers selected by
Thomas Krichel, Open Library Society
  1. BMJ journals collect gender, race, and ethnicity data on submissions.
  2. Scientific Integrity Requires Publishing Rebuttals and Retracting Problematic Papers.
  3. Main barriers and possible enablers of academicians while publishing.
  4. Journal declares an end to accepting or rejecting papers.
  5. Why Do Manuscripts Get Rejected?
  6. Is peer review running out of steam?
  7. Reflections on the publishing process.
  8. Ethics in Authorship: Considerations and Concerns.
  9. Effective Peer Review: Who, Where, or What?
  10. Publication games: In the web of reciprocity.
  11. Authorship Climate: A New Tool for Studying Ethical Issues in Authorship.
  12. COVID research is free to access - but for how long?
  13. Capacity Building in Peer-review: A Student-Led Journal Report.
  14. Checklists for reporting research in Advances in Clinical and Experimental Medicine: How to choose a proper one for your manuscript?
  15. What Author Instructions Do Health Journals Provide for Writing Plain Language Summaries? A Scoping Review.
  16. Practical Guide to Clinical Trial Publication.
  17. Industry funding to editorial board members of high-impact ophthalmic journals.
  18. How we promote rigour in systematic reviews and evidence maps at Environment International.
  19. Checklist for Artificial Intelligence in Medical Imaging Reporting Adherence in Peer-Reviewed and Preprint Manuscripts With the Highest Altmetric Attention Scores: A Meta-Research Study.
  20. [How often do medical guidelines refer to articles written in Dutch?]
  21. Time to publication for orthopaedic surgery peer-reviewed journals: A cross-sectional bibliometric analysis.
  22. Recommendations for making editorial boards diverse and inclusive.
  23. Diversity-related Factors in Research Mentorship and Publishing in the ACBS Community and the Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science.
  24. [Indexing of the Revista Médica del IMSS].
  25. The Evolution of Drug Metabolism and Disposition - a Perspective from the Editors.
  26. Psychological services: A wonderful journey.
  1. BMJ. 2022 Oct 28. 379 o2542
    BMJ journals collect gender, race, and ethnicity data on submissions.
    Mark Richards.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.o2542
  2. Stem Cell Rev Rep. 2022 Oct 26.
    Scientific Integrity Requires Publishing Rebuttals and Retracting Problematic Papers.
    Jérôme Barrière, Fabrice Frank, Lonni Besançon, Alexander Samuel, Véronique Saada, Eric Billy, Abraham Al-Ahmad, Barbara Seitz-Polski, Jacques Robert.
      Recently, an article by Seneff et al. entitled "Innate immunosuppression by SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccinations: The role of G-quadruplexes, exosomes, and MicroRNAs" was published in Food and Chemical Toxicology (FCT). Here, we describe why this article, which contains unsubstantiated claims and misunderstandings such as "billions of lives are potentially at risk" with COVID-19 mRNA vaccines, is problematic and should be retracted. We report here our request to the editor of FCT to have our rebuttal published, unfortunately rejected after three rounds of reviewing. Fighting the spread of false information requires enormous effort while receiving little or no credit for this necessary work, which often even ends up being threatened. This need for more scientific integrity is at the heart of our advocacy, and we call for large support, especially from editors and publishers, to fight more effectively against deadly disinformation.
    Keywords:  COVID-19; Cancer; Misinformation; Pseudoscience; Public Health; Retraction; SARS-CoV-2 mRNA Vaccines; Science Integrity; UN SDG3
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12015-022-10465-2
  3. Scientometrics. 2022 Oct 17. 1-28
    Main barriers and possible enablers of academicians while publishing.
    Abdulkerim Aydin, Süleyman Eren Yürük, İlknur Reisoğlu, Yuksel Goktas.
      This study aims to determine the cognitive, social, physical, and affective barriers that prevent academics from publishing and the enablers suggested to overcome these barriers. The study, using the phenomenological research method, involved semi-structured interviews conducted with 41 academicians differing in gender, branch, age, and experience. The deductive analysis of the obtained data showed that the academicians had cognitive difficulties especially in writing the IMRAD sections and writing in English. Their social barriers were found to include the difficulty of journal evaluation processes, the problems experienced in carrying out collaborative studies, and educational, administrative, and family responsibilities. The physical barriers included problems about time management, data collection process, and infrastructure. Lastly, the main affective barriers were not being in the right mood for writing, thinking that studies do not contribute to real life, fear of rejection, lack of self-confidence, and perfectionism. The academicians suggested various enablers, such as finding a good research topic, improving one's English language skills, cooperating, and insisting on acceptance.
    Keywords:  Academic writing; Barriers to writing; Motivation to write; Writer’s block; Writing enablers; Writing for publication
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-022-04528-x
  4. Science. 2022 Oct 28. 378(6618): 346
    Journal declares an end to accepting or rejecting papers.
    Jeffrey Brainard.
      Instead, eLife will offer to peer review selected submissions for $2000 fee, then make paper and critiques free to read.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adf4964
  5. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2022 11 01. 150(5): 1169-1173
    Why Do Manuscripts Get Rejected?
    Amy S Colwell, Frankie K Wong, Kevin C Chung.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000009627
  6. Eur J Hosp Pharm. 2022 Nov;29(6): 303
    Is peer review running out of steam?
    Philip Wiffen.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1136/ejhpharm-2022-003564
  7. Scand J Caring Sci. 2022 Oct 26.
    Reflections on the publishing process.
    Berit Lindahl.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1111/scs.13126
  8. Acta Med Port. 2022 Sep 01. 35(9): 699-700
    Ethics in Authorship: Considerations and Concerns.
    Inês Pinho, João Pinho, Filipe Nery.
      
    Keywords:  Authorship; Ethics; Retraction of Publication as Topic; Scientific Misconduct
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.20344/amp.18646
  9. JID Innov. 2022 Nov;2(6): 100162
    Effective Peer Review: Who, Where, or What?
    Russell P Hall.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.xjidi.2022.100162
  10. PLoS One. 2022 ;17(10): e0270618
    Publication games: In the web of reciprocity.
    Zoltán Barta.
      The present processes of research assessment, i.e. focusing on one or a few, related, scientometrics, foster questionable authorship practices, like gifting authorship to non-contributing people. An especially harmful one of these unethical practices is the formation of publication cartels, where authors offer gift authorship to each other reciprocally. Here, by developing a simple model and a simulation of the publication process I investigate how beneficial cartels can be and what measure can be used to restrict them. My results indicate that publication cartels can significantly boost members' productivity even if paper counts are weighted by the inverse of author number (the 1/n rule). Nevertheless, applying the 1/n rule generates conflicts of interest both among cartel members themselves and between cartel members and non-members which might lead to the self-purification of the academic publishing industry.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0270618
  11. Account Res. 2022 Oct 26.
    Authorship Climate: A New Tool for Studying Ethical Issues in Authorship.
    Hannah M Douglas, Kevin C Elliott, Isis H Settles, Georgina M Montgomery, Tangier Davis, Lexi Nadolsky, Kendra Spence Cheruvelil.
      Authorship of academic publications is central to scientists' careers, but decisions about how to include and order authors on publications are often fraught with difficult ethical issues. To better understand scholars' experiences with authorship, we developed a novel concept, authorship climate, which assesses perceptions of the procedural, informational, and distributive justice associated with authorship decisions. We conducted a representative survey of more than 3,000 doctoral students, postdoctoral researchers, and assistant professors from a stratified random sample of U.S. biology, economics, physics, and psychology departments. We found that individuals who tend to have more power on science teams (e.g., assistant professors and lead authors) perceived authorship climate to be more positive than those who tend to have less power (e.g., graduate students and non-lead authors). Alphabetical approaches for assigning authorship were associated with higher perceptions of procedural justice (i.e., perceptions of fairness and voice in processes and procedures) and informational justice (i.e., the extent to which individuals feel that information is justified and communicated honestly) but lower perceptions of distributive justice (i.e., perceptions of fairness in the outcomes of decisions). Individuals with more marginalized identities also tended to perceive authorship climate more negatively than those with no marginalized identities. These results illustrate how the concept of authorship climate can facilitate enhanced understanding of early-career scholars' authorship experiences, and they highlight potential steps that can be taken to promote more positive authorship experiences for scholars of all identities.
    Keywords:  Authorship; Authorship climate; Diversity; Empirical studies of research ethics; Organizational and institutional ethics; Organizational justice; Publication ethics; equity; inclusion in science
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2022.2140587
  12. Nature. 2022 Oct 24.
    COVID research is free to access - but for how long?
    Richard Van Noorden.
      
    Keywords:  Medical research; Publishing; SARS-CoV-2
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-022-03418-9
  13. Med Sci Educ. 2022 Oct;32(5): 959-964
    Capacity Building in Peer-review: A Student-Led Journal Report.
    Letícia Nunes Campos, Angela Theresa Zuffo Yabrude, Samantha Sartore Duque Estrada Medeiros, Taiane do Socorro Silva Natividade, Bárbara Okabaiasse Luizeti, Moisés da Costa Cunha, Rebeca Maria Gomes Guimarães Alves, Aristócles Hítallo Bezerra, Lucas Loiola Ponte Albuquerque Ribeiro, Lucas Helal.
      Peer-review optimizes the quality of research articles; however, new strategies need to be implemented to enhance peer-review capacity. This report comprises the peer-review process of a medical student-led journal editorial board, detailing its challenges and the students' role. The peer education approach conducted a capacity-building activity, developing guidelines, and practicing critical appraisal and constructive feedback in manners that classroom research training cannot. Understandings of an effective peer-review brought to discussion from standardization and blinding to ethical and scientific competencies essential in researchers. All parties, including students, should be allowed to extend their capabilities to enhance scholarly publishing.
    Keywords:  Education, Medical; Peer review, Research; Self-directed learning; Teaching
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40670-022-01601-1
  14. Adv Clin Exp Med. 2022 Oct;31(10): 1065-1072
    Checklists for reporting research in Advances in Clinical and Experimental Medicine: How to choose a proper one for your manuscript?
    Marek Misiak, Donata Kurpas.
      Various guidelines for authors of research papers and the checklists that often accompany these statements play an important role in the creation of carefully written scientific papers - for authors, they serve as tools to ensure the correct structure and content of the manuscript, increasing the chances that a paper will be published in a journal with a high rejection rate. The aim of this editorial is to provide a concise outline of the checklists most frequently used to guide the structuring of papers published in Advances in Clinical and Experimental Medicine, and to support current and prospective authors of this journal in choosing a checklist for their manuscript.The EQUATOR website is presented as a useful tool in choosing a checklist: https://www.equator-network.org/. Then, 8 checklists that are most popular among authors who publish their work in Advances in Clinical and Experimental Medicine are outlined: STROBE - for observational studies; ARRIVE - for any area of bioscience research using laboratory animals; CASP - for qualitative studies; CONSORT - for parallel group randomized trials; PRISMA - for all reviews and meta-analyses; SQUIRE - for studies on quality improvement in healthcare; STARD - for diagnostic accuracy studies; REMARK - for tumor marker prognostic studies. Each of the 8 presented checklists is discussed in a following order: 1) the name of the checklist is explained; 2) the type of articles to which it is intended is pointed out; 3) the structure of the checklist is explained; 4) if there are any extensions of the presented checklist for specific subtypes of papers, they are listed; 5) the most important literature on the presented checklist is provided.As a take-home message, basic tips for choosing a checklist are formulated. Finally, examples of papers adhering to each discussed checklist are provided.
    Keywords:  EQUATOR network; checklist; medical writing; quality; scientific journal
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.17219/acem/155921
  15. Patient. 2022 Oct 27.
    What Author Instructions Do Health Journals Provide for Writing Plain Language Summaries? A Scoping Review.
    Karen M Gainey, Jenna Smith, Kirsten J McCaffery, Sharon Clifford, Danielle M Muscat.
       BACKGROUND: Plain language summaries (PLSs) are intended for a non-expert audience in order to make health research accessible and understandable to the public. This is important because most research is written with jargon and at a high reading level. However, there is a high degree of variability in the instructions for writing PLSs, which may impede their usefulness as a tool for communicating health research to the public.
    OBJECTIVE: The aim of this scoping review was to conduct a detailed analysis of the author instructions for PLSs provided by leading biomedical and health journals.
    METHOD: We screened 534 health journals covering 11 categories selected from the InCites Journal Citation Reports linked to the top 10 non-communicable diseases. We included journals published in English that recommended the inclusion of a PLS (as defined by the National Institute for Health Research) and provided authors with text-based instructions on how it should be written. Two independent reviewers extracted data pertaining to common elements identified in author instructions, such as word count/PLS length, content, structure, purpose, wording to support plain language, and the use of jargon, acronyms and abbreviations. Other aspects of PLSs were recorded, such as the label used (e.g., plain language summary, lay summary, and patient summary), journal publisher, consumer involvement and whether the PLS is optional or mandatory. We recorded the frequency of each element and qualitative details of specific instructions. A consumer representative provided ongoing and iterative feedback on the methods, results, and reporting of this study RESULTS: Despite reviewing 534 journals across 10 non-communicable disease areas and 11 journal categories, we found only 27 (5.1%) contained text-based instructions for PLS. Of the 27 journals included in this review, most (70%) did not require a PLS. Approximately 70% of journals with PLS instructions included advice about the use of jargon, abbreviations, and acronyms. Only one journal recommended the use of a readability tool, however five noted that the reading level of the audience or readability of the PLS should be considered. Author instructions were highly heterogeneous between journals. There was inconsistency regarding the word count/PLS length (e.g., between 100 and 850 words), structure (e.g., paragraphs or bullet points), and varying levels of detail for other elements in the instructions. Although only one journal recommended consumer involvement in the development of PLSs, many recommended authors consult those who are not an expert in their field to review their summary prior to submission.
    CONCLUSION: The development of consistent author instructions could enhance the effectiveness and use of PLSs. Such instructions should be developed with consumers to ensure they met the needs of a lay non-expert audience.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-022-00606-7
  16. JAMA Surg. 2022 Oct 26.
    Practical Guide to Clinical Trial Publication.
    Des C Winter, Jason Haukoos, Paulina Salminen.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2022.4910
  17. Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2022 Oct 27.
    Industry funding to editorial board members of high-impact ophthalmic journals.
    Parth A Patel, Cheng Jiao, Kajol K Patel, Carter J Boyd.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1111/ceo.14184
  18. Environ Int. 2022 Oct 06. pii: S0160-4120(22)00470-6. [Epub ahead of print] 107543
    How we promote rigour in systematic reviews and evidence maps at Environment International.
    Paul Whaley, Nicolas Roth.
      In 2016, Environment International became the first environmental health journal to adopt specialist policies for handling systematic review (SR) submissions. This included the appointment of a dedicated editor of SRs, the use of the CREST_Triage tool for transparent and consistent enforcement of editorial standards for SRs, the acceptance of SR protocols as full manuscripts, and the extension of SR handling policies to systematic evidence maps as a novel evidence synthesis methodology. Our data on triage decisions for SR submissions, gathered via CREST_Triage, indicates several ways in which researchers are challenged by SR methods, including problem formulation, critical appraisal methods, and certainty assessment. We recommend that author teams invest in developing protocols as a means to de-risk SR projects, arguing that the benefits outweigh the potential increase in time it may take to complete the research project. Finally, we present evidence that reliance among environmental health journals on informal peer-review and editorial checks for standards compliance and quality control is insufficient for ensuring the rigour of SR publications. This emphasises the importance of specialist editors using triage instruments for the effective enforcement of standards. Observing that Environment International appears to be one of few journals implementing effective quality control measures for SR publications, we suggest that adoption of our SR policies by other journals may be beneficial to the field at large.
    Keywords:  Critical appraisal; Editing; Editorial standards; Publishing standards; Quality assessment; Reporting checklists; Systematic evidence maps; Systematic review
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2022.107543
  19. Can Assoc Radiol J. 2022 Oct 27. 8465371221134056
    Checklist for Artificial Intelligence in Medical Imaging Reporting Adherence in Peer-Reviewed and Preprint Manuscripts With the Highest Altmetric Attention Scores: A Meta-Research Study.
    Umaseh Sivanesan, Kay Wu, Matthew D F McInnes, Kiret Dhindsa, Fateme Salehi, Christian B van der Pol.
      Purpose: To establish reporting adherence to the Checklist for Artificial Intelligence in Medical Imaging (CLAIM) in diagnostic accuracy AI studies with the highest Altmetric Attention Scores (AAS), and to compare completeness of reporting between peer-reviewed manuscripts and preprints. Methods: MEDLINE, EMBASE, arXiv, bioRxiv, and medRxiv were retrospectively searched for 100 diagnostic accuracy medical imaging AI studies in peer-reviewed journals and preprint platforms with the highest AAS since the release of CLAIM to June 24, 2021. Studies were evaluated for adherence to the 42-item CLAIM checklist with comparison between peer-reviewed manuscripts and preprints. The impact of additional factors was explored including body region, models on COVID-19 diagnosis and journal impact factor. Results: Median CLAIM adherence was 48% (20/42). The median CLAIM score of manuscripts published in peer-reviewed journals was higher than preprints, 57% (24/42) vs 40% (16/42), P < .0001. Chest radiology was the body region with the least complete reporting (P = .0352), with manuscripts on COVID-19 less complete than others (43% vs 54%, P = .0002). For studies published in peer-reviewed journals with an impact factor, the CLAIM score correlated with impact factor, rho = 0.43, P = .0040. Completeness of reporting based on CLAIM score had a positive correlation with a study's AAS, rho = 0.68, P < .0001. Conclusions: Overall reporting adherence to CLAIM is low in imaging diagnostic accuracy AI studies with the highest AAS, with preprints reporting fewer study details than peer-reviewed manuscripts. Improved CLAIM adherence could promote adoption of AI into clinical practice and facilitate investigators building upon prior works.
    Keywords:  artificial intelligence; evidence-based medicine; guideline; methods; radiology; research design
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1177/08465371221134056
  20. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd. 2022 Oct 20. pii: D7042. [Epub ahead of print]166
    [How often do medical guidelines refer to articles written in Dutch?]
    Charlotte M W Gaasterland, Mattias Göthlin, Wouter Harmsen, J J Hans Duvekot, Mitchel Griekspoor, Sonja Wouters, Ingeborg van Dusseldorp, Teus A van Barneveld.
       OBJECTIVE: For Dutch medical guidelines, Dutch research articles published in the NTvG (NederlandsTijdschriftvoorGeneeskunde) and other medical journals are not searched systematically and are only used sporadically. Using these publications in the process of guideline development can be useful for recommendations regarding the Dutch context of care. In this research, we have investigated how often and in which parts of Dutch guidelines articles published in NTvG are used.
    DESIGN: We specifically investigated how often articles published in NTvG are mentioned in Dutch medical guidelines published on www.richtlijnendatabase.nl, that were developed in 2019, 2020 and 2021.
    METHOD: In all parts of new or revised Dutch medical guidelines published in these years on www.richtlijnendatabase.nl, we searched for references of articles published in NTvG.
    RESULTS: The results show that in 3% of all Dutch medical guidelines a reference to an article published in NTvG is made. These references were made in the literature summaries (21% of the references), the reflections on the literature for the Dutch context of care (48% of the references), or in other areas such as the introduction (10% of the references) or appendices (21% of the references).
    CONCLUSION: Articles published in NTvG may be relevant for making recommendations in Dutch medical guidelines, as these publications usually reflect the Dutch care context, and may do more so than research published in international journals. The results of this research show that the number of Dutch guidelines where these articles are used is limited. Dutch research articles may be a source of information that is yet to be tapped into.
  21. J Clin Orthop Trauma. 2022 Dec;35 102018
    Time to publication for orthopaedic surgery peer-reviewed journals: A cross-sectional bibliometric analysis.
    Aman Chopra, Lauren M Shapiro, Kevin M Klifto, Oke Anakwenze, David S Ruch, Christopher S Klifto.
       Background: The dissemination of research and evidence-based medicine is critical to advancing science and improving clinical practice. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the timing and associated factors of the publication process for the most influential orthopaedic surgery research journals.
    Methods: After analyzing 25 orthopaedic surgery journals with the highest impact factors, 14 journals provided the necessary information for data analysis. A minimum of three consecutive issues per journal from 2021 were collected for review. Within each issue, all articles were included except for reviews, commentaries, replies, letters to the editor, and invited articles. The publication times for received to accepted (RA), received to published in press (RP1), and received to published in print (RP2) were retrieved and compared. Journal impact factor, specialty, and article level of evidence were recorded.
    Results: A total of 1040 articles were included with a mean number of 74.3 ± 38 (range, 35-182) articles analyzed per journal. The mean impact factor for the 14 journals was 3.6 ± 1 (range, 2.5-5.8). The overall median duration of time for RA, RP1, and RP2 were 119 (IQR, 78-165) days, 157 (IQR, 102-216) days, and 291 (IQR, 243-378) days across all 14 journals, respectively. Journal of Arthroplasty demonstrated the shortest median duration of time for RA and RP1, while International Orthopaedics demonstrated the shortest median duration of time for RP2. Clinical Journal of Sport Medicine demonstrated the longest median duration of time for RA and RP2, while the American Journal of Sports Medicine demonstrated the longest median duration of time for RP1. Level three studies, which included retrospective case-control and cohort study designs, demonstrated the shortest publication times, while sports medicine journals demonstrated the longest publication times for all periods.
    Conclusion: There was substantial variation in publication times across orthopaedic surgery journals which may impact accessibility to clinical insights.
    Keywords:  Bibliometric analysis; Impact factor; Level of evidence; Orthopaedic surgery research journal; Publication time
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcot.2022.102018
  22. Trends Ecol Evol. 2022 Oct 21. pii: S0169-5347(22)00231-2. [Epub ahead of print]
    Recommendations for making editorial boards diverse and inclusive.
    Hayat Mahdjoub, Bea Maas, Martin A Nuñez, Rassim Khelifa.
      Lack of diversity in editorial boards hinders multifaceted perspectives in fields such as ecology, evolution, and conservation. We outline ten key actions for editorial boards to promote equity, diversity, and inclusion, benefiting the journal in attracting a wider readership, enhancing diversity among authors, and overcoming biases in editorial decisions.
    Keywords:  EDI; authorship; diversity; equity; gender; geographic bias; inclusion
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2022.09.011
  23. J Contextual Behav Sci. 2022 Oct;26 56-62
    Diversity-related Factors in Research Mentorship and Publishing in the ACBS Community and the Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science.
    Staci Martin, Amanda C Rhodes, Charlotte D Brill, Emily K Sandoz.
      Gender, racial, and ethnic disparities persist in the scientific community despite increasing attention to research-related equity. Men publish in biomedical, scientific journals more frequently than women researchers and have more leadership roles (e.g., first authorship) in these submissions. Similar differences in scientific publishing appear among under-represented minority (URM) authors compared to White counterparts. These findings of authorship disparities are not consistent across all journals and may relate to mentorship variables. This study aimed to investigate gender and racial patterns of publishing and research mentorship within the Association for Contextual Behavioral Science (ACBS) community, including in the Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science (JCBS). Two hundred and eighty-two ACT for Professionals listserv members responded to the anonymous 31-item survey. Men reported significantly more publications and more first author manuscripts than women, both in scientific journals generally and in JCBS specifically. White versus URM respondents more frequently reported publishing in JCBS, but not in other scientific journals. There were no differences in the total number of barriers noted between men and women or between White respondents and URM respondents. The top barriers to publishing among all respondents were lack of time, institutional support, and funding. Women more frequently reported lack of adequate research mentorship or collaboration as a barrier to publishing in scientific journals, as well as in JCBS specifically; men more frequently reported experiencing publishing barriers related to embargos and not having research that was appropriate for JCBS. Identifying as the same gender as one's primary research mentor did not relate to any areas of training. However, participants whose race differed from their mentor were significantly more likely to report training in running a study and receiving positive encouragement. Being matched in terms of gender or race with one's mentor did not relate to publishing variables. Findings highlight the continued gender and racial disparities in publishing within the ACBS community and in JCBS. Recommendations for decreasing these differences through research mentorship and structured training efforts are provided.
    Keywords:  disparities; gender; mentorship; publishing; race
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcbs.2022.08.009
  24. Rev Med Inst Mex Seguro Soc. 2022 Oct 25. 60(6): 599-601
    [Indexing of the Revista Médica del IMSS].
    Omar Chávez-Martínez, Paulina Ihuitzin Nez-Hernández.
      The Revista Médica del IMSS faces the challenge of maintaining the visibility of its articles within the science communication process through indexing in bibliographic databases that make the scientific articles published available to readers, thanks to automation and constant development of information search and retrieval systems. Indexing represents the main means by which a reader will consult your articles regardless of their geographic location, their educational specialization, their affiliation, and even their native language. Likewise, it allows the generation of bibliometric indicators, which are used to evaluate scientific production.
    Keywords:  Abstracting and Indexing; Bibliometrics; Periodical
  25. Drug Metab Dispos. 2022 Oct 23. pii: DMD-MR-2022-000986. [Epub ahead of print]
    The Evolution of Drug Metabolism and Disposition - a Perspective from the Editors.
    Edward T Morgan, Raymond F Novak, James R Halpert, Eric F Johnson, Jeffrey C Stevens.
      This article was solicited to commemorate the 50th anniversary of Drug Metabolism and Disposition (DMD) and features perspectives from five former Editors spanning the years 1994 to 2020. During that time frame the journal underwent significant changes in manuscript submission and processing as well as multiple generational changes in the composition of the Editorial Board and Associate Editors. A constant, however, has been the commitment to be the premier journal for publications of articles in the areas of drug metabolism, absorption, distribution, excretion, and pharmacokinetics. Advances in some of those areas during the past three decades have been monumental. Two cases in point involve cytochromes P450 and drug transporters. In 1994 rigorous characterization of human cytochrome P450 enzymes was in its infancy, there were no proven selective inhibitors, and the idea of a solving a human P450 X-ray crystal structure was just a fantasy. Likewise, little was known about individual drug transporters. Today, detailed knowledge of individual human P450 enzymes and drug transporters is integral in drug design and drug discovery and in avoiding drug interactions. In the face of these huge advances in knowledge, each Editor has been charged with maintaining the caliber and significance of the journal and its financial solvency, while serving the needs of individual authors. We present five individual perspectives on the challenges and rewards of serving as DMD Editor and hope that by humanizing the job, we will encourage others to assume positions of responsibility in publication of society journals. Significance Statement The five most recent former editors of DMD describe their experiences and perspectives on the position in the context of constantly changing scientific emphases, technology, and publishing practices. The article offers subscribers, authors, and future Editors and Editorial Board members valuable insights into the inner workings of the journal.
    Keywords:  ADME; drug metabolism; drug transport
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1124/dmd.122.000986
  26. Psychol Serv. 2022 Nov;19(4): 605-606
    Psychological services: A wonderful journey.
    Patrick H DeLeon, Gary R VandenBos.
      When we started our journey in 2006, with our original editorial team of Associate Editors Sheila Brandt, Leon Green, Jill Oliveira-Berry, and Morgan Sammons, Gary VandenBos served as managing editor. From the very beginning, we decided that Psychological Services was to be the division's journal and that we would craft its content to address the interests and needs of the membership, who primarily serve in public service, interdisciplinary systems. We wanted to increase the participation of psychologists in nonacademic settings in the editorial process, especially women and ethnic minorities. Throughout our tenure, we reached out to the division's leadership (especially its past presidents) for their thoughtful input. They would know the division's interests. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1037/ser0000699
This page is being maintained by Thomas Krichel. It was last updated on 2024‒11‒22 at 4:28.