bims-skolko Biomed News
on Scholarly communication
Issue of 2025–03–09
35 papers selected by
Thomas Krichel, Open Library Society



  1. Minerva. 2025 ;63(1): 115-133
      In the aftermath of the Second World War, effective handling of scientific information was identified as crucial for advancement and international competitiveness. Here, we study how the Soviet Union, through the founding of The All-Union Institute for Scientific and Technical Information (VINITI), developed its own grandiose system which served researchers and engineers throughout the USSR. By studying its inception, the way it was structured, and how it relates to similar grand visions of how to organise knowledge, we provide rare insights into a partly alternative history of how scientific information was organised in the latter half of the 20th century. Based on available sources in English and Russian, we consider the ideas behind this grand initiative for acquiring international literature, as well as how it was received and presented to a foreign audience. In this effort, we put particular emphasis on the first 25 years of VINITI (1952-1977) while at the same time focusing on central ideas in its organisation such as "enrichment", "abstracting" and "pre-printing". A key principle emerging from our analysis is how the notion of concentration becomes a fundamental principle for its operations. Overall, the activities of VINITI can today appear as both old-fashioned, bordering on the utopian, and as visionary and modern in its abandonment of journals and traditional forms of peer review.
    Keywords:  Academic publishing; Scholarly communication; Scientific information; Soviet
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-024-09545-z
  2. Crit Care Med. 2025 Mar 06.
       OBJECTIVES: Peer review typically relies on experts volunteering their time to review research. This process presents challenges for journals that may face a shortage of qualified referees, resulting in either delay in handling papers or less thorough review than is optimal. We experimentally tested the impact of providing cash incentives to complete peer review assignments at Critical Care Medicine.
    DESIGN: Quasi-randomized, blinded, interventional study with an alternating treatment design.
    SETTING: Critical Care Medicine (CCM), a peer-reviewed specialty journal.
    SUBJECTS: All reviewers receiving requests from CCM to review research articles during a 6-month period from September 2023 to March 2024 (excluding a 2-wk holiday window).
    INTERVENTIONS: In alternating 2-week blocks, reviewer invitation letters were sent out, including either an offer of $250 for accepting the peer review request (treatment) or the standard letter with no cash offer (control). Reviewers who fulfilled incentivized invitations received a $250 check from the journal.
    MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Our primary outcome was the rate of invitation-to-completed-review conversion, defined as the number of reviews submitted divided by the number of reviewer invitations sent out. Secondary outcomes included the "on-time" conversion rate, invitation acceptance rate, time to invitation acceptance, time to review submission, and review quality. Seven hundred fifteen reviewer invitations were sent out, 414 of which (57.9%) included an incentive offer. Two hundred eighteen (52.7%) of the incentivized invitations were accepted, compared with 144 (47.8%) in the control group. A greater proportion of reviewer invitations led to submitted peer review reports in the incentive group than in the control group (49.8% [206/414] vs. 42.2% [127/301]; p = 0.04). In a "survival analysis," invitations sent with an incentive offer were fulfilled faster on average (Cox proportional hazard ratio, 1.30 [1.04-1.62]; p = 0.02), corresponding to quicker review times of approximately 1 day (11 vs. 12 d). Of the 333 reviewer reports submitted, 205 (61.6%) were assessed by editors, with no difference in review quality noted between study arms.
    CONCLUSIONS: Providing cash incentive for completing peer review reports resulted in a modest increase in the share of invited reviewers who complete reviews for a specialty medical journal.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1097/CCM.0000000000006637
  3. J Med Internet Res. 2025 Mar 05. 27 e59970
       BACKGROUND: The publication of patient photographs in scientific journals continues to pose challenges regarding privacy and confidentiality, despite existing ethical guidelines. Recent studies indicate that key stakeholders-including health care professionals and patients-lack sufficient awareness of the ethical considerations surrounding patient photographs, particularly in the context of digital scientific publishing.
    OBJECTIVE: This qualitative study aims to explore how different stakeholders-patients, medical students, and doctors-understand the challenges of patient privacy and confidentiality in scientific publications. Additionally, it sought to identify key areas for future research, particularly in the context of online, open-access articles.
    METHODS: We conducted 4 online focus groups due to COVID-19 restrictions: 1 with patients, 2 with final-year medical students, and 1 with head and neck physicians and dentists who regularly handle patient photographs. Participants were invited via email, and those who accepted took part in discussions lasting approximately 1 hour. All interviews were recorded and transcribed for analysis. All 4 focus groups were asked the same set of questions, covering the following topics: (1) consent for publishing patient photographs, (2) information on guidelines and standards for consent to publish patient photographs, (3) the importance of informed consent for various purposes, (4) methods for deidentifying patient photographs, and (5) the use of patient photographs in online, open-access publishing.
    RESULTS: Three key themes emerged from the focus group discussions: (1) no definitive resources or practical recommendations available, (2) online publishing of patient images makes them more open to misuse, and (3) anonymization techniques have limitations. All stakeholder groups expressed a lack of knowledge about online publishing in general and concerns about the fate of patient photographs in the digital environment after publication. They emphasized the need for increased awareness among all relevant stakeholders and more stringent procedures for obtaining informed patient consent before publishing photographs. While they recognized the usefulness of image anonymization techniques in protecting patient identity, they were also aware that current methods remain insufficient to ensure complete anonymity.
    CONCLUSIONS: This qualitative study highlights that publishing patient photographs in open-access scientific journals is an important, serious, and largely unexplored issue, with all stakeholders still uncertain about the best ways to protect patient privacy. Clinicians, publishers, and journal editors should not only implement best practices to ensure fully informed patient consent for publishing identifiable photographs but also develop technical and governance safeguards. Future quantitative studies are needed to identify the most effective ways to enhance stakeholders' knowledge, policies, and procedures, ultimately guiding the development of practical recommendations for the ethical publication of patient photographs in scientific journals.
    Keywords:  data protection; ethical publishing; focus group.; informed consent; open access; patient photographs; patient privacy, confidentiality; scientific journals
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.2196/59970
  4. R Soc Open Sci. 2025 Mar;12(3): 241248
      Open Science seeks to make research processes and outputs more accessible, transparent and inclusive, ensuring that scientific findings can be freely shared, scrutinized and built upon by researchers and others. To date, there has been no systematic synthesis of the extent to which Open Science (OS) reaches these aims. We use the PRISMA scoping review methodology to partially address this gap, scoping evidence on the academic (but not societal or economic) impacts of OS. We identify 485 studies related to all aspects of OS, including Open Access (OA), Open/FAIR Data (OFD), Open Code/Software, Open Evaluation and Citizen Science (CS). Analysing and synthesizing findings, we show that the majority of studies investigated effects of OA, CS and OFD. Key areas of impact studied are citations, quality, efficiency, equity, reuse, ethics and reproducibility, with most studies reporting positive or at least mixed impacts. However, we also identified significant unintended negative impacts, especially those regarding equity, diversity and inclusion. Overall, the main barrier to academic impact of OS is lack of skills, resources and infrastructure to effectively re-use and build on existing research. Building on this synthesis, we identify gaps within this literature and draw implications for future research and policy.
    Keywords:  Citizen Science; FAIR Data; Open Access; Open Science; academic impact; scoping review
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.241248
  5. Nature. 2025 Mar 04.
      
    Keywords:  Authorship; Law; Publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-025-00612-3
  6. BMJ Open Qual. 2025 Mar 03. pii: e003131. [Epub ahead of print]14(1):
       OBJECTIVES: During the COVID-19 pandemic, BMJ, a leading journal on evidence-based medicine worldwide, published many views by advocates of specific COVID-19 policies. We aimed to evaluate the presence and potential bias of this advocacy.
    DESIGN AND METHODS: Scopus was searched for items published until 13 April 2024 on 'COVID-19 OR SARS-CoV-2'. BMJ publication numbers and types before (2016-2019) and during (2020-2023) the pandemic were compared for a group of advocates favouring aggressive measures (leaders of both indieSAGE and the Vaccines-Plus initiative) and four control groups: leading members of the governmental SAGE, UK-based key signatories of the Great Barrington Declaration (GBD) (favouring more restricted measures), highly cited UK scientists and UK scientists who published the highest number of COVID-19-related papers across science (n=16 in each group).
    RESULTS: 122 authors published >5 COVID-19-related items each in BMJ: 18 were leading members/signatories of aggressive measures advocacy groups publishing 231 COVID-19-related BMJ documents, 53 were editors, journalists or regular columnists and 51 scientists were not identified as associated with any advocacy. Of 41 authors with >10 publications in BMJ, 8 were scientists advocating for aggressive measures, 7 were editors, 23 were journalists or regular columnists and only 3 were non-advocate scientists. Some aggressive measures advocates already had strong BMJ presence prepandemic. During pandemic years, the studied indieSAGE/Vaccines-Plus advocates outperformed in BMJ presence leading SAGE members by 16.0-fold, UK-based GBD advocates by 64.2-fold, the most-cited scientists by 16.0-fold and the authors who published most COVID-19 papers overall by 10.7-fold. The difference was driven mainly by short opinion pieces and analyses.
    CONCLUSIONS: BMJ had a strong bias in favour of authors advocating an aggressive approach to COVID-19 mitigation. Advocacy bias may influence public opinion and policy decisions and should be mitigated in future health crises in favour of open and balanced debate of different policy options.
    Keywords:  Attitudes; COVID-19; Communication; Ethics; Evidence-based medicine
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjoq-2024-003131
  7. Nature. 2025 Mar 05.
      
    Keywords:  Peer review; Research management; Scientific community
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-025-00676-1
  8. F1000Res. 2024 ;13 915
       Background: We propose the creation of a journal transparency tool (JTT), which will allow users to obtain information about a given scholarly journal's operations and policies. We are obtaining preferences from different stakeholders to inform the development of this tool. This study aimed to identify the publishing community's preferences for the JTT.
    Methods: We conducted a modified three-round Delphi survey. Representatives from publishing houses and journal publishers were recruited through purposeful and snowball sampling. The first two Delphi rounds involved an online survey with items about JTT metrics and user features. During the third round, participants discussed and voted on JTT metric items that did not reach consensus after round 2 within a virtual consensus meeting. We defined consensus as 80% agreement to include or exclude an item in the JTT.
    Results: Eighty-six participants completed the round 1 survey, and 43 participants (50% of round 1) completed the round 2 survey. In both rounds, respondents voted on JTT user feature and JTT metric item preferences and answered open-ended survey questions regarding the JTT. In round 3, a total of 21 participants discussed and voted on JTT metric items that did not reach consensus after round 2 during an online consensus group meeting. Fifteen out of 30 JTT metric items and none of the four JTT user feature items reached the 80% consensus threshold after all rounds of voting. Analysis of the round 3 online consensus group transcript resulted in two themes: 'factors impacting support for JTT metrics' and 'suggestions for user clarity.'
    Conclusions: Participants suggested that the publishing community's primary concerns for a JTT are to ensure that the tool is relevant, user-friendly, accessible, and equitable. The outcomes of this research will contribute to developing and refining the tool in accordance with publishing preferences.
    Keywords:  ethics in publishing; health literacy; journal transparency tool; periodicals as topic; publications; scholarly publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.154408.2
  9. Res Integr Peer Rev. 2025 Feb 28. 10(1): 1
       BACKGROUND: Artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots are novel computer programs that can generate text or content in a natural language format. Academic publishers are adapting to the transformative role of AI chatbots in producing or facilitating scientific research. This study aimed to examine the policies established by scientific, technical, and medical academic publishers for defining and regulating the authors' responsible use of AI chatbots.
    METHODS: This study performed a cross-sectional audit on the publicly available policies of 162 academic publishers, indexed as members of the International Association of the Scientific, Technical, and Medical Publishers (STM). Data extraction of publicly available policies on the webpages of all STM academic publishers was performed independently, in duplicate, with content analysis reviewed by a third contributor (September 2023-December 2023). Data was categorized into policy elements, such as 'proofreading' and 'image generation'. Counts and percentages of 'yes' (i.e., permitted), 'no', and 'no available information' (NAI) were established for each policy element.
    RESULTS: A total of 56/162 (34.6%) STM academic publishers had a publicly available policy guiding the authors' use of AI chatbots. No policy allowed authorship for AI chatbots (or other AI tool). Most (49/56 or 87.5%) required specific disclosure of AI chatbot use. Four policies/publishers placed a complete ban on the use of AI chatbots by authors.
    CONCLUSIONS: Only a third of STM academic publishers had publicly available policies as of December 2023. A re-examination of all STM members in 12-18 months may uncover evolving approaches toward AI chatbot use with more academic publishers having a policy.
    Keywords:  AI chatbots; Academic publishers; Artificial intelligence; Author guidelines; ChatGPT; Policies
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-025-00158-y
  10. Lancet Glob Health. 2025 Mar;pii: S2214-109X(25)00070-1. [Epub ahead of print]13(3): e372
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/S2214-109X(25)00070-1
  11. Oncol Nurs Forum. 2025 Feb 18. 52(2): 86-87
      As scholars, we must do the uncomfortable task of offering productive criticism of manuscripts written by colleagues who have invested considerable effort and time. Writing is personal, and it can be painful when a colleague.
    Keywords:  clinical oncology; mentorship; oncology nursing research; peer review
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1188/25.ONF.86-87
  12. Nature. 2025 Mar 04.
      
    Keywords:  Careers; Lab life; Publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-025-00526-0
  13. Asia Pac J Ophthalmol (Phila). 2025 Mar 01. pii: S2162-0989(25)00041-6. [Epub ahead of print] 100174
      
    Keywords:  AI tools; Ophthalmology; generative artificial intelligence; journal guideline; medical research
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apjo.2025.100174
  14. Blood Res. 2025 Mar 06. 60(1): 15
      Large Language Models (LLMs), such as ChatGPT (OpenAI, CA, US), have revolutionized scientific writing and research processes across academic disciplines, providing comprehensive support throughout the entire research lifecycle. Generative artificial intelligence (GAI) tools enhance every aspect of scientific writing, from hypothesis generation and methodology design to data analysis and manuscript preparation. This review examines the applications of LLMs in hematological research, with particular emphasis on advanced techniques, including prompt engineering and retrieval augmented generation (RAG) frameworks. Prompt engineering methods, including zero-shot and few-shot learning along with a chain-of-thought approach, enable researchers to generate more precise context-specific content, especially in scientific writing. Integrating RAG frameworks with the current medical literature and clinical guidelines significantly reduces the risk of misinformation while ensuring alignment with contemporary medical standards. Even though these GAI tools offer remarkable potential for streamlining research writing and enhancing documentation quality, the study also addresses the critical importance of maintaining scientific integrity, ethical considerations, and privacy concerns in hematological research.
    Keywords:  Artificial intelligence; Hematology research; Large language models; Medical research; Prompt engineering; Scientific writing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s44313-025-00062-w
  15. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2025 Feb 25. pii: S0301-2115(25)00115-0. [Epub ahead of print]
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2025.02.046
  16. Updates Surg. 2025 Mar 03.
      
    Keywords:  Abstract; Artificial intelligence; ChatGPT; Human; Writing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13304-025-02160-x
  17. Am J Health Promot. 2025 Mar 01. 8901171251324731
    Paul E. Terry, Ph.D. Editor in Chief,
      The use of artificial intelligence (AI) and large language models to support research and scientific writing is new but expanding exponentially. This editorial provides guidance on how to cite the use of AI and discusses practical and ethical issues relating to AI-generated content in manuscript submissions to this journal and others. Author transparency and explicitly stating how AI was used is a core expectation of editors and publishers. What's more, this editorial provides examples of how vigilant researchers and writers need to be in verifying the output from AI queries. Though AI is thought to save time in many cognitive and professional tasks, the tendencies of AI towards misinformation and bias may well negate the advantages that AI has in surfacing requested information.
    Keywords:  AI; artificial intelligence; citation guidelines; ethical publishing; reference standards
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1177/08901171251324731
  18. Anim Welf. 2025 ;34 e12
      
    Keywords:  animal welfare; ethical implications; ethical review; harm-benefit; journal; publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1017/awf.2025.5
  19. J Conserv Dent Endod. 2025 Feb;28(2): 111
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.4103/JCDE.JCDE_70_25
  20. Neuroscience. 2025 Mar 04. pii: S0306-4522(25)00192-7. [Epub ahead of print]
      In pursuit of excellence in scholarly publishing, the Neuroscience editorial team shares valuable insights that are essential for authors, reviewers, and the broader scientific community. Firstly, we emphasize that impactful research is built on rigorous study design and execution. Beyond fundamental methodological safeguards such as randomization and blinded analysis, we highlight the importance of thoughtfully selecting study models, with deliberate attention to biological variables like sex and gender, as well as appropriate nomenclature. Secondly, as technological innovations reshape research landscapes, we advocate for combining methodological rigor with suitable analytical tools to ensure robust data collection and transparent reporting. Thirdly, for manuscripts reaching the revision stage, we frame the response to reviewers as a strategic process that requires objectivity, diplomacy, and evidence-based rebuttals where necessary. Finally, we call for intentional prioritization of inclusivity and diversity across all stages of scientific inquiry - from laboratory collaborations to editorial decisions - and urge stakeholders to actively counteract implicit biases in manuscript evaluation and citation practices. By embedding these principles into the scientific workflow, we argue that the research community can foster not only greater rigor but also a more equitable and innovative scholarly ecosystem.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroscience.2025.03.005
  21. J Med Toxicol. 2025 Mar 07.
      The meeting abstract is an important step in the process of disseminating new knowledge. The invitation to present an abstract at a scientific meeting is the first opportunity for an investigator to showcase their findings to an audience outside of their institution. The constructive feedback and generous insights from expert peers are valuable when preparing a manuscript for eventual submission to a journal. Knowing how to get the most out of a meeting abstract presentation is essential to scholars engaged in scientific discovery.
    Keywords:  Abstract; Manuscript; Publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13181-025-01066-9
  22. Water Res. 2025 Jan 20. pii: S0043-1354(25)00081-8. [Epub ahead of print]278 123167
      Quantitative analytical chemistry is an important tool for the aquatic sciences, turning environmental samples into meaningful data that support waterbody management and novel research. However, proper use of analytical data must include full and transparent reporting of quality assurance and control (QA/QC) information, something we have noted as consistently lacking in recent literature. Herein, we briefly discuss QA/QC theory and approaches, with the goal of informing interdisciplinary researchers who may not have received formal training in analytical labs. The core of this perspective is eight recommendations for effective QA/QC reporting in scientific products, including discussions on how and where to construct a transparent and concise QA/QC summary. We also discuss how to report detection limits and sample sizes - two commonly excluded parts of QA/QC reporting in our experiences. We end with a discussion of recent positive examples of effective QA/QC reporting in water science, as well as five points around the importance of QA/QC information for the broader aquatic science community (i.e., students, supervisors/mentors, data managers, and journal editors). Collectively, improved QA/QC reporting will extend the reach, usefulness, and longevity of our scientific data and research, enhancing the fundamental purpose of scientific publishing.
    Keywords:  Accreditation; Analytical chemistry; Contaminants; Fish; Publication; Quality assurance and control (QA/QC)
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2025.123167
  23. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2025 Jan 29. pii: S1048-891X(25)00190-2. [Epub ahead of print] 101665
      
    Keywords:  Academic Publishing; Quality Standards; Surgical Innovation; Surgical Videos; Video-Based Learning
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgc.2025.101665
  24. J Allied Health. 2025 ;54(1): e1
      Long days' journey for some journal manuscripts: As the Spring 2025 issue of the Journal of Allied Health is being made ready for distribution, shown below is an example illustrating the lengthy passage of time that can occur for processing a single paper. The Present and Future of Peer Review: A perspective offered in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA (PNAS) asks is there something wrong with the peer review system? Generative Artificial Intelligence and Academic Writing: As noted in the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, authors have used a combination of reporting guidelines and other tools, such as journals' guidelines, to optimize reporting.
  25. Turk J Phys Med Rehabil. 2024 Dec;70(4): 427-432
       Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate the fate of the articles after they were rejected from the Turkish Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (Turk J Phys Med Rehab).
    Materials and methods: Between January 2016 and December 2021, rejected manuscripts by the Turk J Phys Med Rehab were retrospectively analyzed and whether these rejected articles were published in another journal was identified. For the manuscripts published elsewhere, article type, change in the article name, and the number and order of authors were noted. The index of the new journal, the impact factor for SCI-E journals and journal quartile were recorded. Whether the journal was a national journal/international journal, a specialty or non-specialty journal, and whether the impact factors were higher, lower, or the same as Turk J Phys Med Rehab were evaluated.
    Results: Totally, 76% of 1,051 rejected articles were accepted for publication in another journal, after an average of 13.73 months. The name of the article, the order of the authors, and the number of the authors remained unchanged in 71.4%, 79.3%, and 80.8% of the articles, respectively. A total of 69.9% of the journals were non-specialty journals and 61.8% were general international medical journals. In addition, 32.6% of the journals were included in the SCI-E, and 70.9% of the articles in SCI-E were included in the Q4 and Q3 scope. The impact factor with 51.9% were lower or the same with the Turk J Phys Med Rehab.
    Conclusion: Our study results showed that a high percentage of the articles rejected by the Turk J Phys Med Rehab found a place in another journal later, and that non-specialty journals that accept general articles were more prominent in the selection of journal. The fact that an article rejected from a journal can be corrected and amended in accordance with valuable reviewer comments by improving its academic quality and seeking success in other journals may be promising for researchers who submit their articles to journals.
    Keywords:  <em>Turk J Phys Med Rehab; Fate; Turkish Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation.</em>; manuscript; rehabilitation; rejection
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.5606/tftrd.2024.15462
  26. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2025 Feb 17. PP
      This editorial presents the vision and strategic direction of IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging (TMI) under new leadership. Key points include restructuring the editorial board to enhance efficiency and diversity, streamlining the peer review process to improve decision quality and speed, and launching the AI for TMI (AI4TMI) initiative to integrate AI in journal management. Through these efforts, TMI aims to sustain excellence, adapt to emerging trends, and shape the future of medical imaging research.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1109/TMI.2025.3543049
  27. J Appalach Health. 2024 ;6(3): 4-9
      The recent destruction brought upon the Appalachian region by Hurricane Helene has emphasized the importance of the Journal of Appalachian Health. As an open-access peer-reviewed source of information, the Journal plays a critical role in not only facilitating public health research about Hurricane Helene, but also combating misinformation regarding the event. In the days following Hurricane Helene, misinformation about the federal government's response, along AI generated images, have left many in the region confused and misled about what had happened. Going forward, the Journal will play an necessary part in making sure accurate information is shared to understand how we can prepare for future natural disasters, combat misinformation regarding response efforts, and facilitate long-term healing across Appalachia.
    Keywords:  Appalachia; Hurricane Helene; public health; recovery
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.13023/jah.0603.02
  28. Mol Cell Biochem. 2025 Mar 01.
      The reviewers who serve at the National Institute of Health (NIH) study sections are in the unique position of identifying the most scientifically meritorious grant applications for consideration for funding. Consequently, the reviewers guide the direction of scientific discoveries in the US, which ultimately translate to patient care. Recently many investigators have expressed concerns about the quality of the reviews that they received from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) study section reviewers. I discuss some of these concerns, identify some of the deficiencies, and make suggestions to the reviewers on how to improve their review of the grant applications.
    Keywords:  Grant application; National Institute of Health; Peer review; Study section
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11010-025-05230-1