bims-skolko Biomed News
on Scholarly communication
Issue of 2024–07–28
38 papers selected by
Thomas Krichel, Open Library Society



  1. Nature. 2024 Jul 26.
      
    Keywords:  Publishing; Scientific community
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-02423-4
  2. Account Res. 2024 Jul 23. 1-24
      Amid the COVID-19 pandemic, while the world sought solutions, few scholars exploited the situation for personal gains through deceptive studies and manipulated data. This paper presents the extent of 400 retracted COVID-19 papers listed by the RetractionWatch database until the month of February 2024. The primary purpose of the research was to analyze journal quality and retractions trends. Evaluating the journal's quality is vital for stakeholders, as it enables them to effectively address and prevent such incidents and their future repercussions. The present study found that one-fourth of publications were retracted within the first month of their publication, followed by an additional 6% within six months of publication. One third of the retractions originated from Q1 journals, with another significant portion coming from Q2 (29.8%). An analysis of the reasons for retractions indicates that a quarter of retractions were attributed to multiple causes, predominantly associated with publications in Q2 journals, while another quarter were linked to data issues, primarily observed in Q1 publications. Elsevier retracted 31% of papers, with the majority published as Q1, followed by Springer (11.5%), predominantly as Q2. The study also examined author contributions, revealing that 69.3% were male, with females (30.7%) mainly holding middle author positions.
    Keywords:  COVID-19 retraction; authorship position; country collaboration; journal quartile; retraction reasons
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2024.2379906
  3. Nature. 2024 Jul 23.
      
    Keywords:  Authorship; Institutions; Publishing; Research management; Scientific community
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-02399-1
  4. Med Ref Serv Q. 2024 Jul-Sep;43(3):43(3): 243-261
      Health sciences librarians often lack knowledge of the motivations behind faculty publishing behavior. This study establishes some understanding of their choices through interviews with academic health sciences faculty members. Knowledge of the concepts of open access was lacking, as was the differences between open access and predatory publishing. Faculty had varied opinions on publication without robust peer review, its ethical implications, manuscript quality, and trust in scientific publishing. Evidence from this study suggests that librarians must take an active role in shaping the future of scholarly communication through education, advocacy, and a commitment to moving science forward equitably and ethically.
    Keywords:  Faculty publishing choices; health sciences faculty; open access publishing; predatory publishing; publication ethics; scholarly publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1080/02763869.2024.2373019
  5. Acta Cir Bras. 2024 ;pii: S0102-86502024000100502. [Epub ahead of print]39 e393824
       PURPOSE: To analyze the average time between submission and acceptance of national journals in seven Brazilian surgery journals from 2017 to 2022.
    METHODS: It consists of a cross-sectional and observational study with a quantitative approach to analyze the acceptance time of articles approved by Brazilian journals on general surgery and its subspecialties, including Acta Cirúrgica Brasileira, Jornal Vascular Brasileiro, Arquivos Brasileiros de Cirurgia de Digestiva, Revista do Colégio Brasileiro de Cirurgiões, Journal of Coloproctology, Revista Brasileira de Cirurgia Plástica, and International Brazilian Journal of Urology.
    RESULTS: The journals with the lowest average waiting times were Revista do Colégio Brasileiro de Cirurgiões, Acta Cirúrgica Brasileira, and Journal of Coloproctology, respectively, and, with the lowest interquartile range there is Acta Cirúrgica Brasileira. There was no significant difference between the pre-pandemic and pandemic periods. The study designs with the highest and lowest means were, respectively, ideas and innovations - also with the highest interquartile range - and expert opinion, while with the lowest interquartile range was technical skill.
    CONCLUSIONS: The acceptance time for articles in Brazilian surgery journals is extremely variable. Identifying these discrepancies highlights the importance of understanding editorial processes and seeking ways to improve consistency and efficiency in reviewing articles.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1590/acb393824
  6. Elife. 2024 Jul 23. pii: e100571. [Epub ahead of print]13
    eLife Editorial Leadership
      When deciding which submissions should be peer reviewed, eLife editors consider whether they will be able to find high-quality reviewers, and whether the reviews will be valuable to the scientific community.
    Keywords:  peer review; preprints; research assessment; research communication; scientific publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.100571
  7. J Dent. 2024 Jul 22. pii: S0300-5712(24)00432-9. [Epub ahead of print] 105263
       OBJECTIVES: To record the proportion of data sharing reporting in terms of primary data and/or statistical code of Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs), published across 12 high impact journals in Dentistry, covering 6 specialty domains. Associations with certain journal, publication and outcome characteristics were examined. Transparency indicators such as registration or funding statements were assessed.
    METHODS: We identified and included all RCTs published from January 1st, 2017 to December 31st, 2023 in journals of high impact of the following domains: Periodontology, Endodontics, Restorative Dentistry/Prosthodontics, Orthodontics, Pediatric Dentistry, Oral/Maxillofacial Surgery. The primary outcome was the proportion of RCTs reporting their intent to share or openly shared primary data and we tested for associations with potential predictors. Funding, registration, and statistical code/script sharing practices were also examined.
    RESULTS: A total of 752 RCTs were included, of which only 119 (15.8%) either openly provided their data or included a statement of intention to share upon request. Only one study openly provided the statistical code underlying the analysis used. RCTs in periodontology more frequently included statements about positive intent to share (57/210;27.1%), followed by Orthodontics (35/157;22.3%). Significant effects of year, dentistry domain and continent of authorship on data sharing practices were identified (p<0.001 in all cases). There was evidence that registered RCTs had 2.04 times higher odds for intention to share data (95%confidence interval: 1.06, 3.92;p=0.03).
    CONCLUSIONS: Overall, in oral health RCTs, empirical evidence suggested very low prevalence of positive data sharing practices. Enhancing transparency is pivotal in promoting reproducibility and credibility of research findings.
    CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The findings of this empirical report bring attention to key transparency indicators in randomized controlled trials. These largely impact on the credibility and reproducibility of the evidence base for clinical decision making.
    Keywords:  RCT; data sharing; dentistry; randomized controlled trials; statistical code sharing; transparency indicators
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2024.105263
  8. PLoS Biol. 2024 Jul;22(7): e3002715
      Awards can propel academic careers. They also reflect the culture and values of the scientific community. But do awards incentivize greater transparency, inclusivity, and openness in science? Our cross-disciplinary survey of 222 awards for the "best" journal articles across all 27 SCImago subject areas revealed that journals and learned societies administering such awards generally publish little detail on their procedures and criteria. Award descriptions were brief, rarely including contact details or information on the nominations pool. Nominations of underrepresented groups were not explicitly encouraged, and concepts that align with Open Science were almost absent from the assessment criteria. At the same time, 10% of awards, especially the recently established ones, tended to use article-level impact metrics. USA-affiliated researchers dominated the winner's pool (48%), while researchers from the Global South were uncommon (11%). Sixty-one percent of individual winners were men. Overall, Best Paper awards miss the global calls for greater transparency and equitable access to academic recognition. We provide concrete and implementable recommendations for scientific awards to improve the scientific recognition system and incentives for better scientific practice.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3002715
  9. R Soc Open Sci. 2024 Jul;11(7): 240480
      Over the past decade, open science (OS) has emerged as a global science policy and research initiative with implications for most aspects of research, including planning, funding, publishing, evaluation, data sharing and access. As OS has gained increasing prominence, it has also faced substantial criticism. Whether it is the worries about the equality of access associated with open-access publishing or the more recent allegations of OS benefitting those who act in the private interest without giving back to OS, there are, indeed, many potential as well as actual harms that can be linked to the practice of OS. These criticisms often revolve around ethical challenges and fairness concerns, prompting the question of whether a comprehensive ethical governance framework is needed for OS. This commentary contends that owing to the heterogeneous nature of the normative foundations of OS and the inherent diversity within scientific practices, a pluralistic and deliberative approach to governance is needed.
    Keywords:  challenges of open science; ethics; governance of science; open science; philosophy of science; scientific pluralism
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.240480
  10. BMJ Evid Based Med. 2024 Jul 22. pii: bmjebm-2024-112899. [Epub ahead of print]
    Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group
      Rapid reviews (RRs) are produced using abbreviated methods compared with standard systematic reviews (SR) to expedite the process for decision-making. This paper provides interim guidance to support the complete reporting of RRs. Recommendations emerged from a survey informed by empirical studies of RR reporting, in addition to collective experience. RR producers should use existing, robustly developed reporting guidelines as the foundation for writing RRs: notably Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses 2020 (PRISMA 2020; reporting for SRs), but also preferred reporting items for overviews of reviews (PRIOR) items (reporting for overviews of SRs) where SRs are included in the RR. In addition, a minimum set of six items were identified for RRs: three items pertaining to methods and three addressing publication ethics. Authors should be reporting what a priori-defined iterative methods were used during conduct, what distinguishes their RR from an SR, and knowledge user (eg, policymaker) involvement in the process. Explicitly reporting deviations from standard SR methods, including omitted steps, is important. The inclusion of publication ethics items reflects the predominance of non-journal published RRs: reporting an authorship byline and corresponding author, acknowledging other contributors, and reporting the use of expert peer review. As various formats may be used when packaging and presenting information to decision-makers, it is practical to think of complete reporting as across a set of explicitly linked documents made available in an open-access journal or repository that is barrier-free. We encourage feedback from the RR community of the use of these items as we look to develop a consolidated list in the development of PRISMA-RR.
    Keywords:  Evidence-Based Practice; Methods; Systematic Reviews as Topic
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjebm-2024-112899
  11. Enferm Clin (Engl Ed). 2024 Jul 18. pii: S2445-1479(24)00069-9. [Epub ahead of print]
      Case report is a narrative description of the problem of one or several patients. The CARE checklist (CAse REport) is the consensus document for reporting clinical case reports and through adaptations to the different CARE disciplines is used to define standards for authors in scientific journals; however, the specificity of the nursing process makes it difficult to adjust nursing case reports to CARE. The aim was to analyze the publications of clinical cases with a nursing perspective in scientific journals, as well as the quality standards and evaluation systems used. Few journals reviewed agreed to publish nursing case reports or stated standards for authors to adjust to CARE. Preliminary results indicated average or poor adherence to CARE, with the most reported elements being: Keywords, patient information and introduction. Adherence was lower for the elements: Timeline, therapeutic intervention, follow-up and outcomes, and patient perspective. The characteristics of the nursing process implies a low adherence to CARE, so it is necessary to unify criteria to guide researchers, authors, reviewers and editors of scientific journals, as well as to improve the rigor and quality of the reports. Currently, there are no specific guidelines for reporting clinical case reports with a nursing perspective available. These normative gaps could be solved by developing a CARE extension adapted to the methodological characteristics of the nursing process.
    Keywords:  Advance Care Planning; Case Reports; Informe de Investigación; Informes de Casos; Investigación en Enfermería; Nursing Research; Patient Care Planning; Planificación Anticipada de Atención; Planificación de Atención al Paciente; Research Report
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enfcle.2024.07.005
  12. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2024 Jul 12. pii: S0278-2391(24)00584-6. [Epub ahead of print]
    Task Force on Design and Analysis in Oral Health Research
      Adequate and transparent reporting is necessary for critically appraising research. Yet, evidence suggests that the design, conduct, analysis, interpretation, and reporting of oral health research could be greatly improved. Accordingly, the Task Force on Design and Analysis in Oral Health Research-statisticians and trialists from academia and industry-empaneled a group of authors to develop methodological and statistical reporting guidelines identifying the minimum information needed to document and evaluate observational studies and clinical trials in oral health: the Oral Health Statistics Guidelines. Drafts were circulated to the editors of 85 oral health journals and to task force members and sponsors and discussed at a December 2020 workshop attended by 49 researchers. The final version was subsequently approved by the task force in September 2021, submitted for journal review in 2022, and revised in 2023. The checklist consists of 48 guidelines: 5 for introductory information, 17 for methods, 13 for statistical analysis, 6 for results, and 7 for interpretation; 7 are specific to clinical trials. Each of these guidelines identifies relevant information, explains its importance, and often describes best practices. The checklist was published in multiple journals. The article was published simultaneously in JDR Clinical and Translational Research, the Journal of the American Dental Association, and the Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery. Completed checklists should accompany manuscripts submitted for publication to these and other oral health journals to help authors, journal editors, and reviewers verify that the manuscript provides the information necessary to adequately document and evaluate the research.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2024.06.174
  13. Can J Exp Psychol. 2024 Jul 25.
      A Registered Report is a type of research journal article in which the introduction, methods, and analysis plan are proposed and peer-reviewed prior to the execution of the study. The goal is to limit publication bias based on study findings by conducting peer review on the merits of the study before the results are known. First introduced in 2012 (Chambers, 2013; Chambers & Tzavella, 2022), this format of journal article publication has become more commonplace. Here we provide an overview of the format as well as eight core lessons we learned while preparing Registered Reports. We integrate guidelines from the literature with our experience to provide insight into the process of preparing and publishing a Registered Report for those who have not yet tried it. Though Registered Reports require researchers to invest more effort at the earlier stages of idea generation, design, and analysis planning, they will benefit from the feedback of reviewers when it is most beneficial and leave behind the fear of rejection due to unanticipated study limitations or null results. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1037/cep0000338
  14. BMJ Health Care Inform. 2024 Jul 22. pii: e101060. [Epub ahead of print]31(1):
      
    Keywords:  BCS Health; Health Communication; Information Technology
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjhci-2024-101060
  15. Eur J Intern Med. 2024 Jul 24. pii: S0953-6205(24)00295-4. [Epub ahead of print]
      The debate surrounding the integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into scientific writing has already attracted significant interest in medical and life sciences. While AI can undoubtedly expedite the process of manuscript creation and correction, it raises several criticisms. The crossover between AI and health sciences is relatively recent, but the use of AI tools among physicians and other scientists who work in the life sciences is growing very fast. Within this whirlwind, it is becoming essential to realize where we are heading and what the limits are, including an ethical perspective. Modern conversational AIs exhibit a context awareness that enables them to understand and remember any conversation beyond any predefined script. Even more impressively, they can learn and adapt as they engage with a growing volume of human language input. They all share neural networks as background mathematical models and differ from old chatbots for their use of a specific network architecture called transformer model [1]. Some of them exceed 100 terabytes (TB) (e.g., Bloom, LaMDA) or even 500 TB (e.g., Megatron-Turing NLG) of text data, the 4.0 version of ChatGPT (GPT-4) was trained with nearly 45 TB, but stays updated by the internet connection and may integrate with different plugins that enhance its functionality, making it multimodal.
    Keywords:  Artificial intelligence; ChatGPT; Chatbots; Large language models; Medical writing; Natural language understanding
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejim.2024.07.012
  16. PLoS Comput Biol. 2024 Jul;20(7): e1012252
      Open science principles are revolutionizing the transparency, reproducibility, and accessibility of research. Meta-analysis has become a key technique for synthesizing data across studies in a principled way; however, its impact is contingent on adherence to open science practices. Here, we outline 9 quick tips for open meta-analyses, aimed at guiding researchers to maximize the reach and utility of their findings. We advocate for outlining preregistering clear protocols, opting for open tools and software, and the use of version control systems to ensure transparency and facilitate collaboration. We further emphasize the importance of reproducibility, for example, by sharing search syntax and analysis scripts, and discuss the benefits of planning for dynamic updating to enable living meta-analyses. We also recommend publication in open-access formats, as well as open data, open code, and open access publication. We close by encouraging active promotion of research findings to bridge the gap between complex syntheses and public discourse, and provide a detailed submission checklist to equip researchers, reviewers and journal editors with a structured approach to conducting and reporting open meta-analyses.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1012252
  17. J Nat Prod. 2024 Jul 23.
      The process of writing a scientific document, whether it be a PhD thesis, a paper, review, chapter, book or even a book series, always begins with only one word. Why can writing a manuscript be so difficult to start? If there are sufficient data for the task, there is only one reason; vacillation. To address this serious and psychologically debilitating issue, this perspective will discuss the ethos of publishing and provide a solution for vacillation. The concept of sufficient novel data will be examined along with the criteria for identifying an appropriate home for a manuscript. The bare process of preparation will be described, which ultimately relies on discipline, routine, formatting and further discipline, with the ultimate goal being the production and quality control of a manuscript of the highest quality that you can achieve. The value of the secondary literature, namely reviews, chapters and books will be highlighted, specifically with regard to the building of a reputation and leaving a lasting legacy. The psychology of publishing, particularly dealing with success and failure will be covered, as this topic is often overlooked, and can have serious and deleterious mental health consequences. A balanced view of publication metrics will be given, showing that such factors are in some cases, purely a business strategy for publishing houses. Ideas to build one's career through networking, reviewing and being an ambassador for one's discipline are also given. As a former member of the Editorial Advisory Board of the Journal of Natural Products (2018-2022), an overview of the manuscript writing process from a personal and professional perspective is emphasized to encourage all to avoid the trials and tribulations of procrastination.
    Keywords:  discipline; health and fitness; kindness; manuscript preparation; routine; stamina; vacillation; writing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jnatprod.4c00562
  18. Nature. 2024 Jul;631(8022): 728-730
      
    Keywords:  Lab life; Publishing; Research data; Research management; Scientific community
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-02383-9
  19. Community Dent Health. 2024 Jul 26.
      The pressure on academics to publish is greater than ever. Sharing knew knowledge has always been satisfying and is necessary for career development. There are also ethical imperatives to avoid withholding knowledge and to prevent colleagues duplicating research unnecessarily, which would waste their time and burden participants. On top of these long-standing drivers, academic institutions must now manage their resources carefully and want to see a return on their investment in you, which will be measured in terms of quality and quantity of research outputs. As the need for publications has increased, so has the number of submissions and consequently, the competition to publish in the best-known journals. In some years CDH receives ten times more manuscripts than we can fit in the journal. Academics must publish more often, and their submissions must be of the highest quality to stand a chance of publication.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1922/CDH_Sept24Editorial04
  20. Clin Spine Surg. 2024 Jul 22.
      The abstract of a research paper functions to attract readers and highlight the clinical significance of a research project in a broadly appealing manner. Abstract structure is commonly dictated by the target journal, however, a basic style typically follows the "Introduction, Methods, Results and Discussion" structure of introduction, materials/methods, results, and discussion/conclusion. The abstract itself is commonly the initial accessible portion of a research paper, so writing in an engaging while informative manner is imperative for increasing manuscript views and citations. Overall, an abstract is a to-the-point synopsis of a research project that succinctly describes the entirety of your work.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1097/BSD.0000000000001667
  21. Arch Dermatol Res. 2024 Jul 23. 316(7): 486
      This study examines the influence of National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding on the publication choices of dermatologists, particularly in terms of journal tiers and pay-to-publish (P2P) versus free-to-publish (F2P) models. Utilizing k-means clustering for journal ranking based on SCImago Journal Rank, h-index, and Impact Factor, journals were categorized into three tiers and 54,530 dermatology publications from 2021 to 2023 were analyzed. Authors were classified as Top NIH Funded or Non-Top NIH Funded according to Blue Ridge Institute for Medical Research rankings. The study finds significant differences in publication patterns, with Top NIH Funded researchers in Tier I journals demonstrating a balanced use of P2P and F2P models, while they preferred F2P models in Tier II and III journals. Non-Top NIH Funded authors, however, opted for P2P models more frequently across all tiers. These data suggest NIH funding allows researchers greater flexibility to publish in higher-tier journals despite publication fees, while prioritizing F2P models in lower-tier journals. Such a pattern indicates that funding status plays a critical role in strategic publication decisions, potentially impacting research visibility and subsequent funding. The study's dermatology focus limits broader applicability, warranting further research to explore additional factors like geographic location, author gender, and research design.
    Keywords:  BRIMR; Bibliometric; Blue ridge institute for medical research; Clustering analysis; Dermatology; Free-to-publish; H-index; Impact factor; Journal; Journal rank; K-means; NIH; NIH funded; National institute of health; Pay-to-publish; SCImago journal rank; SJR
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00403-024-03237-0
  22. Australas Psychiatry. 2024 Jul 22. 10398562241265261
      The process of medical scientific journal publishing merits further explanation for authors and readers. Prospective authors need to understand the scope of the journal and the article types that are published. We give an overview of the editorial process, including selection of reviewers, peer review and decisions regarding revision, acceptance and rejection of papers for Australasian Psychiatry. We encourage authors and readers to submit papers, and volunteer as peer reviewers, working together with the journal editorial team.
    Keywords:  authors; editors; medical journal; peer review; peer reviewers
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1177/10398562241265261
  23. Blood Cells Mol Dis. 2024 Sep;pii: S1079-9796(24)00032-9. [Epub ahead of print]108 102854
      The journal Blood Cells was initiated in 1975 by Marcel Bessis, a French hematologist and cell biologist, as a vehicle for the publication of papers and discussions presented at an international blood club meeting he convened at L' Institut de Pathologie Cellulaire on the campus of Hôpital Bicétre in Kremlin Bicétre, France, a commune on the southern border of Paris. The group met at the Institute for the first time in October 1972. After the first meeting, Bessis published the articles describing the presentations in the Nouvelle Revue d'Hématologie Française, France's principal journal for articles on the science and practice of hematology of which he was the editor. The refusal of the Nouvelle Revue d'Hématologie Française to continue publishing the papers from the meeting of the blood club in English prompted Bessis to start a new journal, Blood Cells, in 1975. Blood Cells, also, began to accept individual submitted papers unrelated to the blood club meeting and, thus, it evolved into a standard journal. A decade later, when Bessis became ill, he asked Brian Bull, a hematopathologist and professor at Loma Linda University School of Medicine in California to assume the position as the second editor-in-chief. He and Bessis had become scientific collaborators and good friends in the preceding years. In 1995, Ernest Beutler, Chair of Molecular and Experimental Medicine at Scripps Research Institute, assumed the editor-in-chief position and transformed the Journal by making three consequential changes. He expanded its title to Blood Cells, Molecules and Diseases, converted its editorial board to past presidents of the American Society of Hematology plus a few additional experimental hematologists of note, a few from abroad, and he converted the Journal to a digital format, hosted on the Scripps Research Institute server. The Journal was the first published solely in a digital format. It, subsequently, was bought by Academic Press, then Harcourt and, then, by Elsevier. The next three editors-in-chief were (i) Marshall A. Lichtman, then Professor of Medicine (Hematology) and of Biochemistry and Biophysics and former Dean of the School of Medicine and Dentistry at the University of Rochester Medical Center, editor from 2000 to 2013, (ii) Mohandas Narla, then Vice President for Research and Director of The Laboratory of Red Cell Physiology at the New York Blood Center, editor from 2014 to 2021 and (iii) Lionel Blanc, Professor of Molecular Medicine and Pediatrics, Center for Autoimmune, Musculoskeletal and Hematopoietic Diseases, Institute of Molecular Medicine, The Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research and the Les Nelkin Professor of Pediatric Oncology Donald and Barbara Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra-Northwell from 2022 to the present. Although the Journal publishes papers on any aspect of hematology, it has developed a focus on disorders of red cells, erythropoiesis and hematopoiesis. In October 2024, it celebrates its 50th anniversary as a vehicle for the publication of papers in the discipline of hematology.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bcmd.2024.102854
  24. Acad Med. 2024 Jul 23.
       PURPOSE: Medical education journal editors work to improve scholarly rigor and expand access to scholarship. How editors conceptualize these dual roles is unknown and holds implications for the kinds of scholarship that are valued and made visible through publication. The authors applied the concept of capacity building to examine how medical education journal editors conceptualize and operationalize capacity building and to identify the contextual factors that support or constrain these efforts.
    METHOD: Using a reflexive thematic approach, the authors interviewed 13 editors of 11 medical education journals between February 2022 and March 2023. Data collection and analyses were performed iteratively. Interview transcripts were coded by 2 authors to generate initial codes, which were then refined by the research team until final themes were created.
    RESULTS: Editors viewed capacity building "making space" for people and perspectives. Making space for people included efforts to support editors and reviewers, offer feedback to authors, and engage with readers. Making space for perspectives included efforts to promote discussion on diversity and inclusion and to introduce ideas perceived to advance the field. How editors made space was shaped by a journal's ecosystem, including local features unique to each journal (e.g., aims, scope, readership) and system-level factors that influenced all journals (e.g., English as the language of science, academic promotion and tenure).
    CONCLUSIONS: Although medical education journal editors' capacity-building work will inevitably guide future scholars and scholarship, their work should be considered in the context of a larger ecosystem, including such features as institutional academies for scholarship and promotion and tenure policies. Improving rigor and expanding access will require clarifying how editors' approach and understand capacity building to advance as a field. Future work should clarify how individual journals' capacity-building efforts can be facilitated and how journals can collectively reimagine spaces for knowledge-building conversations.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000005826
  25. IJTLD Open. 2024 Jul;1(7): 283-284
      The launch of IJTLD OPEN, which is fully compliant with Plan S, has extended our author base and allowed readers worldwide to access the content for free. PubMed Central (PMC) has recently approved the journal for indexing (including indexing by PubMed), which will further improve visibility and access. Because authors retain copyright they can use their articles without restriction (e.g., to post on free digital repositories), helping to further disseminate their research. All these factors help to ensure that IJTLD OPEN has maximum reach and impact. However, we recognise that fees for open access may present a barrier for authors based in low- to middle-income countries. We call on the international community to ensure funding support for open access is broadly available, with equal opportunity for researchers worldwide.
    Keywords:  IJTLD; LMICs; PubMed Central; equity; lung health; open access; tuberculosis
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.5588/ijtldopen.24.0316