bims-skolko Biomed News
on Scholarly communication
Issue of 2025–02–16
24 papers selected by
Thomas Krichel, Open Library Society
  1. Prospects of digital scientific publishing on blockchain: The concept of DAP.
  2. Ethical and academic dilemmas in authorship of clinical research publications: a medical oncologist's perspective.
  3. Publication bias in the social sciences since 1959: Application of a regression discontinuity framework.
  4. Publishers face antitrust lawsuit with potential implications for peer review, duplicate submission, and dissemination practices.
  5. Figure plagiarism and manipulation, an under-recognised problem in academia.
  6. Ethical Considerations of Assigning First Authorship to Medical Students.
  7. [Recognizing predatory journals.]
  8. [Preprints and open archives and social networks. To each his own.]
  9. [Beyond quantity: rethinking quality and integrity in scientific research.]
  10. Presenting New Ideas and Opinions in Academic Journals.
  11. [Making open access: history, developments and new challenges.]
  12. Bias in Peer Review of Forensic Psychiatry Publications.
  13. Artificial Intelligence in Medical Writing: Addressing Untouched Threats.
  14. Generative artificial intelligence (GAI) usage guidelines for scholarly publishing: a cross-sectional study of medical journals.
  15. Recommendations for Image and Video Articles in Scholarly Publishing.
  16. [Sharing research data.]
  17. Investigating the practices and preferences of health scholars in sharing open research data.
  18. Evaluating Data-Sharing Policies and Author Compliance in Leading Orthopaedic Journals.
  19. The Role of Reporting Guidelines in Research Publication.
  20. A new European platform for advancing regulatory science research.
  21. Preprints: A Revolution in Cardiovascular Science.
  22. Breaking language barriers: 'Not being fluent in English is often viewed as being an inferior scientist'.
  23. [From modern science to open science, publishing in the scientific field: copyright, Creative Commons and… beyond.]
  24. A century through the lens of Journal of Cell Science.
  1. Open Res Eur. 2023 ;3 117
    Prospects of digital scientific publishing on blockchain: The concept of DAP.
    Karolj Skala, Zorislav Šojat, Josip Maričević, Davor Davidović, Viktor Bojović, Tomislav Zubčić, Branimir Kolarek, Dario Pažin, Draško Tomić, Tadej Slapnik, Mario Pecimotika.
       Background: Traditional publishing models, open access and major publishers, cannot adequately address the key challenges of academic publishing today: Speed of peer review, recognition of work and incentive mechanisms, transparency and thrust of the system.
    Methods: To address these challenges, the authors propose Democratisation of Academic Publishing (DAP) platform, which is based on the novel HashNET DLT platform. The DAP introduces several innovative components: tracking the activities of all participants in the peer review process using blockchain and smart contracts, the introduction of the Scholarly Wallet for holding reputation (non-fungible) and reward (fungible) tokens, the use of the Scholarly Wallet as the main interface to the DAP platform, the Virtual Editor that enables automatic discovery of the research area and invitation of reviewers, and finally the global database of evaluated reviewers, ranked by the quality of their previous work.
    Results: The DAP platform is in the development phase, with the design and functionalities of all modules defined. An exception is the central component of DAP, the Scholarly Wallet module, whose first prototype has already been created, tested and published. The implementation of DAP is planned for the next phase of the HorizonEurope TruBlo project and other research initiatives. The DAP platform will be connected to the publishing ecosystem: 1) as a backend system (distributed blockchain database) for existing publishing platforms and 2) as a standalone publishing platform with its own API interface.
    Conclusions: The authors believe that DAP has the potential to significantly improve academic peer review and knowledge dissemination. It is expected that the use of blockchain technology, the fast HashNET consensus platform and tokens for reward (fungible) and reputation/ranking (non-fungible) will lead to a more efficient and transparent way of rewarding all participants in the peer review process and ultimately advance scientific research.
    Keywords:  Academic publishing; HashNet; blockchain; distributed computing; distributed ledger technology; reviewer recognition; reviewer success ranking; smart contract; transparent peer review
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.12688/openreseurope.15771.2
  2. Med Oncol. 2025 Feb 11. 42(3): 74
    Ethical and academic dilemmas in authorship of clinical research publications: a medical oncologist's perspective.
    Ozgur Tanriverdi.
      Authorship in clinical research carries significant academic, financial, and social implications. However, determining rightful authorship often introduces ethical and professional dilemmas, particularly in large, multidisciplinary studies, such as those common in oncology. This article explores the ethical complexities surrounding authorship in clinical research from the viewpoint of a medical oncologist. It addresses issues, such as academic jealousy, the inclusion of industry-affiliated researchers, honorary authorship, and the role of patient recruitment in authorship qualification. By examining current guidelines, ethical considerations, and practical cases, this paper aims to offer insights into fostering fair and transparent authorship practices in the field of clinical oncology.
    Keywords:  Authorship; Clinical trials; Ethics; Perspective
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12032-025-02617-4
  3. PLoS One. 2025 ;20(2): e0305666
    Publication bias in the social sciences since 1959: Application of a regression discontinuity framework.
    Julia Jerke, Antonia Velicu, Fabian Winter, Heiko Rauhut.
      While publication bias has been widely documented in the social sciences, it is unclear whether the problem aggravated over the last decades due to an increasing pressure to publish. We provide an in-depth analysis of publication bias over time by creating a unique data set, consisting of 12340 test statistics extracted from 571 papers published in 1959-2018 in the Quarterly Journal of Economics. We, further, develop a new methodology to test for discontinuities at the thresholds of significance. Our findings reveal, that, first, in contrast to our expectations, publication bias was already present many decades ago, but that, second, bias patterns notably changed over time. As such, we observe a transition from bias at the 10 percent to bias at the 5 percent significance level. We conclude that these changes are influenced by increasing computational possibilities as well as changes in the acceptance rates of scientific top journals.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0305666
  4. Health Aff Sch. 2025 Feb;3(2): qxaf018
    Publishers face antitrust lawsuit with potential implications for peer review, duplicate submission, and dissemination practices.
    Gregory Curfman.
      Scientific, technical, and medical (STM) publishers follow 3 basic tenets: (1) no compensation for peer reviewers; (2) manuscript submission only to one journal; and (3) no dissemination of manuscripts while under review. An antitrust lawsuit was filed in federal district court against STM publishers challenging these tenets. The lawsuit will have important implications for how STM research is published and will also affect authors and editors. Academic researchers (plaintiffs) who have served as authors and reviewers allege that the 6 largest STM publishers (defendants) have conspired to require authors to abide by the 3 basic tenets. The plaintiffs argue that the publishers have substantial market power, pursue anticompetitive policies, and violate Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. This article focuses principally on the second tenet, that research manuscripts may be submitted to only one journal. This requirement, which the plaintiffs believe is an antitrust violation, is not a feature of law journals, where multiple simultaneous submissions of manuscripts are a central part of the publishing process. This article will explain how the court may approach the legal analysis in this lawsuit and the important implications of the outcome of this litigation for the scholarly publishing ecosystem.
    Keywords:  and medical publishing; antitrust; peer review; restraint of trade; rule of reason; scientific; sherman act; technical
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1093/haschl/qxaf018
  5. Eur Radiol. 2025 Feb 13.
    Figure plagiarism and manipulation, an under-recognised problem in academia.
    Thomas Saliba, David Rotzinger.
      Academic plagiarism undermines the integrity of scientific research. While text-based plagiarism detection tools are widely used, the rise of artificial intelligence (AI) has introduced new challenges, particularly in text and image generation and manipulation. We briefly discuss the evolving landscape of plagiarism and the innovations that have come about with the proliferation of AI, focusing on the implications for text and image manipulation in academic writing and research. We discuss some of the current tools and practices used to detect AI-generated and manipulated text and images, including plagiarism detection software, computer vision algorithms, and manual reverse image searches. AI can enhance manuscript readability but also facilitates plagiarism and bias reinforcement due to the material it is trained on. Text-based detection tools are adapting to AI-generated content, yet image-based detection lags behind. Though tools to detect AI manipulation show promise, they are not perfect, particularly for manipulated images. Simple reverse image searches are a promising tool and can sometimes identify plagiarized figures that have undergone limited manipulation, but human oversight is often necessary. We believe that integrating image fabrication, manipulation and plagiarism detection into standard fraud detection packages is essential to uphold academic integrity in the new world of AI. Enhanced vigilance and technology are critical, particularly in fields like medical imaging, where image authenticity directly impacts research and thus clinical outcomes. KEY POINTS: We discuss the problems related to the rise of AI with regard to image manipulation in academic work, and how radiology is particularly at risk. We shed light on the rarely and little discussed topic of AI image manipulation and outright fraud. We hope to incite further discussion and adoption of image fraud prevention software. We discuss the use of some tools which are gradually becoming adopted and how some journals have begun to screen for image manipulation and fraud. We suggest an easy technique of using reverse image search that can sometimes be extremely useful despite its simplicity and can be easily adapted into researchers' practice.
    Keywords:  Academia; Artificial intelligence; Figure; Fraud; Plagiarism
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-025-11426-2
  6. Clin Dermatol. 2025 Feb 06. pii: S0738-081X(25)00035-5. [Epub ahead of print]
    Ethical Considerations of Assigning First Authorship to Medical Students.
    Ekaterina Korytnikova, Albert E Zhou, Brett Sloan, Jane M Grant-Kels.
      Authorship on a medical research publication signifies a significant contribution to a study, with first authorship indicating the individual with the most substantial input. Unfortunately, unethical misuse and misinterpretation of authorship persist, driven by increasing pressure on medical students to publish to secure competitive residencies. Assigning first authorship to medical students without meaningful contributions raises ethical concerns. We explore the root causes of authorship misuse, forms of authorship violations, and their practical and ethical implications for residency applications. We advocate for a shift toward a holistic evaluation of residency candidates, emphasizing the importance of fostering authentic and meaningful student research experiences. To uphold research integrity, authorship must be based on substantial contributions to study design, data collection, and manuscript preparation, ensuring fairness and credibility in scientific research.
    Keywords:  Ethics; authorship; contribution; dermatology; medical student; mentorship; publication; research
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clindermatol.2025.02.001
  7. Recenti Prog Med. 2025 Feb;116(2): 83-88
    [Recognizing predatory journals.]
    Manuela Moncada.
      Predatory journals cannot be considered trustworthy because of their lack of transparency and scientific rigor, for example within the peer review process. This phenomenon began to spread with the advent of open access journals and takes advantage of its economic model. Since a unanimous definition of predatory journal is lacking, it is difficult for a potential author of scientific articles to distinguish predatory journals from those respectful of the internationally shared best publication practices. To do so, it is useful to know the criteria by which scholarly journals are evaluated and considered, for instance for their indexing in bibliographic and bibliometric databases. These criteria relate primarily to the content of the journal, the internal organization of the journal and its business model, and the policies adopted to ensure research integrity, and are largely or entirely absent in predatory journals: the analysis of these aspects on journal websites can be crucial in order to choose the publishing venue for the publication of one's work.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1701/4450.44439
  8. Recenti Prog Med. 2025 Feb;116(2): 100-107
    [Preprints and open archives and social networks. To each his own.]
    Valeria Scotti.
      The article explores the topic of preprints and their growing use within the scientific community. Preprints are complete scientific manuscripts that authors upload to public repositories before undergoing peer review. This process allows for the near-immediate dissemination of research findings, enabling authors to receive early feedback from the scientific community. Preprints represent one of the key practices of Open Science, which aims to make research more accessible and transparent. The benefits of publishing preprints are numerous: researchers can quickly share their results, receive constructive criticism in a short time, and increase the visibility of their work, particularly for early-career scholars. The work further outlines the various preprint servers available and explains the difference between institutional repositories and academic social networks. Institutional repositories, managed by universities or public entities, are secure and ensure the long-term preservation of scientific data. In contrast, academic social networks, such as ResearchGate, are commercial platforms that may pose risks related to copyright violations. Finally, the document addresses the debate over the effectiveness of the traditional peer review system, which is often criticized for its slowness and lack of transparency. Preprints offer a complementary path to traditional publishing, allowing for faster and more open dissemination of scientific discoveries. However, they should be used cautiously, particularly in fields where peer review is essential to ensure the reliability of results.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1701/4450.44441
  9. Recenti Prog Med. 2025 Feb;116(2): 65-68
    [Beyond quantity: rethinking quality and integrity in scientific research.]
    Luca De Fiore.
      Scientific publications have been suffering from a credibility crisis for years. This is the consequence of an excess of quantity in the production of articles produced for the sole purpose of advancing one's career and acquiring new funding to produce new studies and, consequently, new publications. To the problems of quantity are added those of quality: useless research results in scientific literature of little value. The preventive filter - entrusted to the peer review system - continues to prove insufficient to prevent the publication of useless or, increasingly, fraudulent articles. The method of critical review process should be radically reconsidered, as should the tools for measuring the impact of scientific articles: impact factors and other citation indices have proved incapable of giving an insight into the quality of what is published. The increased attention being paid to the scientific publication crisis can be a useful deterrent to improve quality and limit fraudulent behaviour. New generations of clinicians and researchers must be educated to respect the rules, and stricter and more timely penalties are needed for those who do not meet the standards that the scientific community has established over the years. More generally, the assessment of the quality of scientific production, and not its quantity, should inspire the evaluation of professional profiles when allocating new funding and selecting candidates for academic positions. Finally, journalism schools and masters' degrees in science communication must train new professionals capable of carrying out investigative journalism, which must be intensified in order to bring to light opportunistic and fraudulent behaviour.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1701/4450.44436
  10. JMA J. 2025 Jan 15. 8(1): 310-311
    Presenting New Ideas and Opinions in Academic Journals.
    Soichiro Saeki.
      
    Keywords:  Correspondence; Medical Writing; Opinion; Postgraduate; Undergraduate
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.31662/jmaj.2024-0339
  11. Recenti Prog Med. 2025 Feb;116(2): 89-99
    [Making open access: history, developments and new challenges.]
    Monica Zedda.
      The article traces the history and evolution of the Open Access (OA) Movement, officially lunched in 2001 with the Budapest Conference and solidified in 2003 with the Berlin Declaration. The OA Movement advocates for free and unrestricted access to publicly funded research results, asserting that scientific knowledge should be accessible to everyone without legal, economic, or technological barriers. The two main pathways for OA are outlined: self-archiving (green road) and publishing in entirely OA journals (gold road). The work also explores the concept of transformative journals and transformative agreements, designed to facilitate the transition of scientific journals to OA, even if with controversial and problematic outcomes. Additionally, the challenges and distortions of the publishing industry are analyzed, particularly the rising costs of Article Processing Charges (APCs) and the new OA strategies. The importance of alternative publishing models, such as diamond journals and OA platforms, is highlighted to promote more equitable and sustainable scientific communication. The role of major research funding bodies, including the European Commission and cOAlition S, is examined regarding policies and mandates for OA, emphasizing the need for a common commitment to overcome current legal and economic barriers. The article concludes that despite the progress made, many challenges remain unresolved. It calls for greater involvement of all stakeholders to implement concrete measures for awareness and support of OA. Only through collaboration at the political and institutional levels will it be possible to reshape the future of scientific publishing, break the oligopoly of major commercial publishers, and enable more democratic access to scientific knowledge.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1701/4450.44440
  12. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law. 2025 Feb 11. pii: JAAPL.240090-24. [Epub ahead of print]
    Bias in Peer Review of Forensic Psychiatry Publications.
    Alan R Felthous, Robert M Wettstein, Jose Nassif.
      Bias can vitiate the quality and credibility of a mental health professional's forensic evaluations as well as scientific and scholarly contributions to the forensic process in forensic psychiatry publications. Our attention here is on this latter influence of bias, although the genres of bias identified here can as well occur in forensic practice and writings. Attention is given to multiple forms of bias in peer review: ad hominem, ideological, confirmatory, hindsight, the halo effect, gender, publication, conflict of (financial) interest, political, religious, nationality or country of origin, esthetic or linguistic, racial or ethnicity, and herding. No doubt much bias in peer review goes undetected and no absolute purification process exists. Nonetheless, as with almost any problem, the first step toward a remedy is recognition.
    Keywords:  bias in peer review; confirmatory bias; forensic psychiatry publication; herding bias; peer review; publication bias
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.29158/JAAPL.240090-24
  13. JMA J. 2025 Jan 15. 8(1): 273-275
    Artificial Intelligence in Medical Writing: Addressing Untouched Threats.
    Shigeki Matsubara.
      The advantages and disadvantages of the use of generative artificial intelligence, such as ChatGPT, in medical writing have been widely discussed; however, two concerns remain largely unexplored. The first involves "human touch," such as personal anecdotes and experiences. This touch often distinguishes human-written papers from those generated by ChatGPT as ChatGPT cannot independently access personal experiences. Although ChatGPT may mimic humanlike behavior, including the incorporation of a human touch, it lacks genuine emotions. With the lack of established guidelines on the acceptable levels of ChatGPT use and imperfect detection tools, many authors fear that their work could be perceived as overly reliant on ChatGPT. I worry that writers may artificially insert forced personal touches simply to assert their own writing. The second concern is the authors' worry and doubt about whether to use ChatGPT and, if so, to what extent, which may disrupt their reflective and quiet writing process. While I acknowledge the lack of empirical data, I offer practical suggestions to balance the benefits of ChatGPT assistance and the preservation of the integrity of human writing in medical publications.
    Keywords:  ChatGPT; artificial intelligence; human touch; paper; writing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.31662/jmaj.2024-0268
  14. BMC Med. 2025 Feb 11. 23(1): 77
    Generative artificial intelligence (GAI) usage guidelines for scholarly publishing: a cross-sectional study of medical journals.
    Shuhui Yin, Simu Huang, Peng Xue, Zhuoran Xu, Zi Lian, Chenfei Ye, Siyuan Ma, Mingxuan Liu, Yuanjia Hu, Peiyi Lu, Chihua Li.
       BACKGROUND: Generative artificial intelligence (GAI) has developed rapidly and been increasingly used in scholarly publishing, so it is urgent to examine guidelines for its usage. This cross-sectional study aims to examine the coverage and type of recommendations of GAI usage guidelines among medical journals and how these factors relate to journal characteristics.
    METHODS: From the SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) list for medicine in 2022, we generated two groups of journals: top SJR ranked journals (N = 200) and random sample of non-top SJR ranked journals (N = 140). For each group, we examined the coverage of author and reviewer guidelines across four categories: no guidelines, external guidelines only, own guidelines only, and own and external guidelines. We then calculated the number of recommendations by counting the number of usage recommendations for author and reviewer guidelines separately. Regression models examined the relationship of journal characteristics with the coverage and type of recommendations of GAI usage guidelines.
    RESULTS: A higher proportion of top SJR ranked journals provided author guidelines compared to the random sample of non-top SJR ranked journals (95.0% vs. 86.7%, P < 0.01). The two groups of journals had the same median of 5 on a scale of 0 to 7 for author guidelines and a median of 1 on a scale of 0 to 2 for reviewer guidelines. However, both groups had lower percentages of journals providing recommendations for data analysis and interpretation, with the random sample of non-top SJR ranked journals having a significantly lower percentage (32.5% vs. 16.7%, P < 0.05). A higher SJR score was positively associated with providing GAI usage guidelines for both authors (all P < 0.01) and reviewers (all P < 0.01) among the random sample of non-top SJR ranked journals.
    CONCLUSIONS: Although most medical journals provided their own GAI usage guidelines or referenced external guidelines, some recommendations remained unspecified (e.g., whether AI can be used for data analysis and interpretation). Additionally, journals with lower SJR scores were less likely to provide guidelines, indicating a potential gap that warrants attention. Collaborative efforts are needed to develop specific recommendations that better guide authors and reviewers.
    Keywords:  Coverage of recommendations; GAI usage guidelines; Medical journals; SJR score; Scholarly publishing; Type of recommendations
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-025-03899-1
  15. J Korean Med Sci. 2025 Feb 10. 40(5): e84
    Recommendations for Image and Video Articles in Scholarly Publishing.
    Ilke Coskun Benlidayi.
      Image and video articles have been increasingly used in scientific literature. These articles provide an improved understanding of a specific topic, enhance accessibility for people with reading difficulties, and play significant role in educational, scientific, and social contexts. Nevertheless, the quality of the articles still needs considerable improvement. The current article aims to review the role of image and video articles in scientific communication, discuss the technical and ethical aspects of creating image and video content, and provide recommendations for authors, reviewers, and editors. In terms of technical aspects, clear and high-resolution visuals, as well as adherence to the requirements (video structure, acceptable formats, etc.) of the targeted journal are required in image and video articles. In terms of ethical aspects, the existence of a statement on patient(s)' written informed consent for the publication of their visual data should be ensured. In order to enhance science communication, submission of image and video articles should be encouraged.
    Keywords:  Academic Writing; Journal Article; Medical Writing; Recommendations; Science Communication; Video Recording; Video-Audio Media
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2025.40.e84
  16. Recenti Prog Med. 2025 Feb;116(2): 77-82
    [Sharing research data.]
    Annarita Barbaro.
      Data sharing is essential for scientific advancement, as exemplified by the Covid-19 pandemic. This crisis underscored the critical challenges of managing and sharing research data, which are not yet fully ingrained in scientific culture. To generate data that can be shared and reused, researchers should adhere to specific practices and ensure their data is FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable). Major research funding agencies like Horizon Europe and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) now mandate the submission of Data Management Plans outlining how all project-related data will be managed and shared. The final section of this article delves into editorial policies regarding data sharing, the obstacles to sharing, and the emerging technologies and specialized roles needed to support efficient data management.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1701/4450.44438
  17. PLoS One. 2025 ;20(2): e0313644
    Investigating the practices and preferences of health scholars in sharing open research data.
    Muhamad Prabu Wibowo, Lorri Mon.
      This survey-based study examines health science scholars' perceptions of collaborative research behavior and sharing open research data in university settings. A total of 362 health science scholars from U.S. universities participated in an online questionnaire consisting of 59 questions. Descriptive and inferential statistical analyses of the data included frequencies, cross-tabulations, descriptive ratio statistics, and the non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis one-way analysis of variance. Four open-ended questions were also analyzed to provide further insights into the survey findings. The study reveals that health scholars share their data with colleagues within their institution or project, demonstrating a lesser inclination toward open research data sharing practices through institutional repositories and journal supplements. Motivating factors and challenges influencing researchers' decisions to share their research data were also identified. While scientific and knowledge advancement served as major incentives, health scholars working with human-related data expressed concerns about privacy and confidentiality breaches, which are primary barriers to data sharing. Some participants indicated that requirements and policies also influenced their willingness to share data. Disciplinary variations were observed regarding data-sharing practices through journal supplements, secondary data analysis, and personal communication. Furthermore, significant differences emerged between funded and non-funded scholars, impacting their practices, motivations, and challenges in sharing open research data. Important factors driving health science scholars to share open research data include resources, policy compliance, and requirements. This study contributes valuable insights for policy development by investigating factors that can foster openness and sharing of research data in the health sciences. The findings shed light on the complexities and considerations associated with open data-sharing practices, enabling stakeholders to develop effective strategies and frameworks.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0313644
  18. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2025 Feb 10.
    Evaluating Data-Sharing Policies and Author Compliance in Leading Orthopaedic Journals.
    Josh Major, Klaire Wild, Annes Elfar, Brody Dennis, Eli Oldham, Alex Hagood, Eli Paul, Jake X Checketts, Alicia Ito Ford, Matt Vassar.
       BACKGROUND: Orthopaedic surgery is a critical field, impacting global health-care expenditure and patient outcomes. Despite substantial research funding, issues of transparency and reproducibility persist, undermining the credibility of published in-print findings. Data-sharing initiatives aim to address these challenges by promoting accessibility and enhancing research reliability. We aimed to assess the landscape of data-sharing practices within the field of orthopaedic surgery, focusing on the top orthopaedic journals from 2020 to 2023.
    METHODS: Original research articles from 10 of the top orthopaedic journals were screened and analyzed for data-sharing statements (DSSs). Furthermore, we identified variables that were influential on the inclusion of DSSs in orthopaedic clinical studies, and thematically analyzed DSS content to identify prevalent themes. Lastly, corresponding authors were contacted to assess their willingness to share their data.
    RESULTS: Of the 1,084 reviewed articles, only 14% included a DSS. The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery demonstrated the highest proportion of articles with a DSS. Over time, clinical trials exhibited an increasing trend in DSS adoption, contrasting with consistently low rates among cohort studies. Thematic analysis identified the gatekeeper role and conditional data availability as predominant themes in orthopaedic DSSs. Of the 115 emails sent to corresponding authors, only 22 (19.1%) yielded responses, and of those who responded, only 12 (54.5%) expressed a willingness to share their data.
    CONCLUSIONS: Our findings underscore a substantial disparity in data-sharing practices across orthopaedic journals, highlighting the need for standardization and mandates for DSSs. Adopting the Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP) Guidelines can enhance accountability and foster a culture of open science within the field. By addressing these shortcomings, orthopaedic journals can improve research reproducibility and advance scientific knowledge effectively.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.24.00955
  19. J Dent Hyg. 2025 Feb;99(1): 63-67
    The Role of Reporting Guidelines in Research Publication.
    Danielle Rulli.
      A peer-reviewed journal preserves the quality of evidence in the literature by ensuring the manuscripts and research submitted is reliable and valid. For an article to be published, it must be of significance to the profession and body of evidence, have no flaws in the methodologies, contain suitable and complete statistical analyses, and appropriately interpreted results. Peer reviewers are experts whose role is to determine the quality of the research and how it is reported, protecting the profession and the public via the evidence on which it stands. The genesis of reporting guidelines can be found in medicine's effort to bring the quality of research methods in line with expected standards. Reporting guidelines build in quality control, requiring authors to clearly lay out the methodologies of how their research has been designed and conducted, and assisting peer reviewers in the standardized assessment of manuscripts. These reporting guidelines or "checklists" have become mainstream over the last 20 years as the means for upholding ethical, reliable, and valid research in health professions research. Reporting guidelines are simply the means for authors to easily demonstrate that their research was designed and performed in a valid manner, and that their findings are therefore reliable.
    Keywords:  Reporting guidelines; checklist; manuscript; peer review
  20. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2025 Feb 10.
    A new European platform for advancing regulatory science research.
    Liese Barbier, Pierpaolo Moscariello, Hubert G Leufkens, Ralf Herold, Anna Maria Gerdina Pasmooij.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41573-025-00024-y
  21. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2025 Feb 18. pii: S0735-1097(24)10666-3. [Epub ahead of print]85(6): 652-654
    Preprints: A Revolution in Cardiovascular Science.
    Harlan M Krumholz, Joshua D Wallach.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2024.12.014
  22. Nature. 2025 Feb 10.
    Breaking language barriers: 'Not being fluent in English is often viewed as being an inferior scientist'.
    Mariana Lenharo.
      
    Keywords:  Careers; Language; Publishing; Scientific community
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-025-00157-5
  23. Recenti Prog Med. 2025 Feb;116(2): 69-76
    [From modern science to open science, publishing in the scientific field: copyright, Creative Commons and… beyond.]
      The concept of copyright protection emerged and developed throughout history to promote the widest dissemination of information. After two centuries of its establishment, development, and maturation, the traditional system entered a full-blown crisis, undermined at its foundations by digital innovation and the socio-cultural transformation of the 20th century. This evolution, marked by continuous adaptations, has introduced elements that are currently limiting the free circulation of scientific knowledge and hindering access to information. Creative Commons (CC) licenses offer a more flexible model for managing copyright, allowing authors to reserve some rights while relinquishing others. There are different variants of CC licenses, ranging from simple attribution (CC BY) to restrictions on commercial use and derivative works (CC BY NC ND). These licenses have been used both to promote the openness of resources and to perpetuate their commercial or paid distribution. For a significant shift towards more open science, a rebalancing of power is needed among authors, publishers, and users, with greater awareness of their rights by those who play a key role in scientific production.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1701/4450.44437
  24. J Cell Sci. 2025 Feb 01. pii: jcs263859. [Epub ahead of print]138(3):
    A century through the lens of Journal of Cell Science.
    Saanjbati Adhikari, Seema Grewal.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1242/jcs.263859
This page is being maintained by Thomas Krichel. It was last updated on 2025‒02‒21 at 12:44.