bims-skolko Biomed News
on Scholarly communication
Issue of 2025–05–04
35 papers selected by
Thomas Krichel, Open Library Society



  1. Sci Data. 2025 Apr 30. 12(1): 677
      Scientific literature is the primary expression of scientific knowledge and an important source of research data. However, scientific knowledge expressed in narrative text documents is not inherently machine readable. To facilitate knowledge reuse, knowledge must be extracted from articles and organized into databases post-publication. The high time costs and inaccuracies associated with completing these activities manually has driven the development of techniques that automate knowledge extraction. Tackling the problem with a different mindset, we propose a pre-publication approach, known as reborn, that ensures scientific knowledge is born readable, i.e. produced in a machine-readable format with formal data syntax during knowledge production. We implement the approach using the Open Research Knowledge Graph infrastructure for FAIR scientific knowledge organization. With a focus on statistical research findings, we test the approach with three use cases in soil science, computer science, and agroecology. Our results suggest that the proposed approach is superior compared to classical manual and semi-automated post-publication extraction techniques in terms of knowledge accuracy, richness, and reproducibility as well as technological simplicity.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-025-04905-0
  2. Account Res. 2025 Apr 28. 1-8
      The retraction of flawed scientific journal articles is one of the most important means by which science "self-corrects." The prevailing consensus is that retraction is appropriate only when the reported findings are unreliable due to research misconduct or honest errors, ethical violations have occurred, or there are legal concerns about the article. Recently, however, retractions seem to be occurring for political reasons. This trend is exemplified by recent editorial guidance from Nature and Human Behavior which advises the retraction of works that risk significant harm to members of certain social groups. This commentary argues that while "political" retractions may be appropriate in rare cases, retraction is typically not the best means to address potentially harmful research. The politicization of retraction risks harm to science in general as it may further undermine diminishing public trust in science and may encourage scientists to self-censor their work, leading to the under-exploration of some important scientific issues.
    Keywords:  Retractions; harm; ; politicization
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2025.2498428
  3. Nature. 2025 Apr 25.
      
    Keywords:  Medical research; Publishing; Research management; Scientific community
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-025-01266-x
  4. PLoS One. 2025 ;20(4): e0322012
      Editors of scientific journals make central decisions in the publication process. Information peripheral to the content of a manuscript such as the editor's professional circle and authors' publishing record may influence these decisions. This constitutes reputation whose role in the publication process remains poorly investigated. Analyzing three decades of publications of 33 Nature journals in physical and life sciences, we show that reputation is tied with publications at the level of editors. The establishment of a non-financial conflict of interest policy and the journals' impact factor were associated with changes in the number of publications of editors' former co-authors and authors with a publishing record in Nature journals. We suggest changes at the author and journal levels to mitigate the role of reputation in the publication process.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0322012
  5. BMJ Open. 2025 Apr 27. 15(4): e098130
       BACKGROUND: The proverbial gap between research and translation to the real world is a complex and multi-factorial issue that persists and threatens the impact of research. Dissemination and implementation science emerged as significant contributors to knowledge translation. Much attention has been focused on implementation, with less developed methods and work dedicated on dissemination. Our academic research centre identified the need to better understand the intersection of ageing research and dissemination science for impactful and equitable dissemination of ageing research beyond the academic audience.
    OBJECTIVE: We describe the purpose, deliverables, and plans of the Dissemination Special Interest Group (SIG) as a model for academic research centres to support and advance the dissemination efforts of their members.
    SUMMARY OF KEY ARGUMENTS: In the long term, achieving robust dissemination will require restructuring academic and research incentives, alongside developing infrastructure and methods to assess the impact of dissemination efforts on the translation of ageing research findings. However, actionable efforts can be taken immediately for meaningful impact.
    CONCLUSION: Our Dissemination SIG can serve as a model for advancing and supporting dissemination within other research centres, regardless of content and focus areas. More work is needed to develop infrastructure capable of assessing the reach and impact of dissemination efforts on the adoption of research findings.
    Keywords:  Aging; Community Participation; MEDICAL JOURNALISM; Methods
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2024-098130
  6. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2025 Apr 30.
      
    Keywords:  Sponsorship, pharmaceutical companies, publications
  7. Ann Behav Med. 2025 Jan 04. pii: kaaf029. [Epub ahead of print]59(1):
       OBJECTIVE: Little research has examined rates or correlates of adherence to Open Science practices such as data sharing. We investigated how often researchers share data for inclusion in a meta-analysis and their reasons for not sharing data, and tested factors that could be associated with data sharing.
    METHODS: We requested data for 189 studies (167 authors) as part of a National Cancer Institute-funded meta-analysis of quit intentions and smoking cessation. Authors were contacted via email up to 4 times. We tracked responses, reasons for not sharing data, and coded 23 features of the author team (eg, number of authors and h-index), the request (eg, amount of information requested), and the study (eg, year of publication and preregistration).
    RESULTS: Thirty-five percent of authors provided the requested data, 21% responded but did not provide data, and 44% never responded to our request. Of the 37 reasons offered for not sharing data, the most common were loss of access to data (76%) and lack of time (11%). More recent trials, fewer citations, publication in medical (vs. behavioral) journals, and study preregistration were each associated with providing the requested data (Ps < .05).
    CONCLUSIONS: Contacting authors for unpublished data resulted in a moderate response rate (56%) and modest provision of data (35%). Barriers to data sharing such as access and time constraints highlight challenges faced by behavioral health researchers in promoting transparency. The factors associated with responsiveness underscore the importance of journal policies and Open Science practices in enhancing data sharing.
    Keywords:  meta-analysis; pre-registration; replicability; reproducibility
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1093/abm/kaaf029
  8. Nature. 2025 May;641(8061): 39
      
    Keywords:  Machine learning; Peer review
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-025-01327-1
  9. Account Res. 2025 Apr 30. 1-6
      The role of the editor-in-chief, or sometimes an associate editor, is pivotal in determining the fate of a manuscript submitted for publication in scientific journals. This decision-making process should involve a willingness to engage in discussions regarding the outcomes of submitted works. Many journals explicitly outline in their submission guidelines that once a decision on manuscript rejection is made, that decision is final and cannot be appealed by the authors. This policy can create a significant barrier for authors seeking clarity or reconsideration. Moreover, several journals impose limits on the number of rounds of review during the peer-review process. These restrictions can significantly diminish the authors' chances to thoroughly address the reviewers' comments and opinions, potentially overlooking valuable feedback that could enhance the quality of their work. This commentary advocates for a paradigm shift in how editors handle communications with authors during the peer review process. It emphasizes the need for a more flexible and open approach, where editors foster a dialogue with authors about their submissions. Such open lines of communication are crucial for cultivating a fair and transparent peer-review experience that benefits all parties involved, ultimately leading to higher-quality published research.
    Keywords:  Peer review; conflict of interest; ethics; publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2025.2499639
  10. Nat Med. 2025 Apr 29.
      The protocol of a randomized trial is the foundation for study planning, conduct, reporting and external review. However, trial protocols vary in their completeness and often do not address key elements of design and conduct. The SPIRIT (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials) statement was first published in 2013 as guidance to improve the completeness of trial protocols. Periodic updates incorporating the latest evidence and best practices are needed to ensure that the guidance remains relevant to users. Here, we aimed to systematically update the SPIRIT recommendations for minimum items to address in the protocol of a randomized trial. We completed a scoping review and developed a project-specific database of empirical and theoretical evidence to generate a list of potential changes to the SPIRIT 2013 checklist. The list was enriched with recommendations provided by lead authors of existing SPIRIT/CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) extensions (Harms, Outcomes, Non-pharmacological Treatment) and other reporting guidelines (TIDieR). The potential modifications were rated in a three-round Delphi survey followed by a consensus meeting. Overall, 317 individuals participated in the Delphi consensus process and 30 experts attended the consensus meeting. The process led to the addition of two new protocol items, revision to five items, deletion/merger of five items, and integration of key items from other relevant reporting guidelines. Notable changes include a new open science section, additional emphasis on the assessment of harms and description of interventions and comparators, and a new item on how patients and the public will be involved in trial design, conduct and reporting. The updated SPIRIT 2025 statement consists of an evidence-based checklist of 34 minimum items to address in a trial protocol, along with a diagram illustrating the schedule of enrollment, interventions and assessments for trial participants. To facilitate implementation, we also developed an expanded version of the SPIRIT 2025 checklist and an accompanying explanation and elaboration document. Widespread endorsement and adherence to the updated SPIRIT 2025 statement have the potential to enhance the transparency and completeness of trial protocols for the benefit of investigators, trial participants, patients, funders, research ethics committees, journals, trial registries, policymakers, regulators and other reviewers.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-025-03668-w
  11. J Surg Res. 2025 Apr 26. pii: S0022-4804(25)00155-6. [Epub ahead of print]310 209-217
      Almost all scientific articles include tables, but there is little guidance on how to prepare tables. Authors should enhance the focus on the tables' data-ink, the essential information, and minimizing the no-data-ink, nonessential elements. The six principles of Gestalt on human perception can also be applied to the table to increase readability. Through this review, we provide a practical guide and an overview of how to prepare readable, informative tables. The five steps for the preparation of tables include (1) tables with a clear purpose; (2) using a universal layout; (3) selecting relevant data for Table 1 versus other tables; (4) simplifying variables by categorizing, standardizing, and reducing; and (5) enhancing the readability of numbers and decimals. This results in informative tables that contain data, serving a specific purpose for the reader and increasing readability.
    Keywords:  Biomedical research; Documentation; Guideline; Publishing; Tables
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2025.03.034
  12. Nature. 2025 May;641(8061): 270-271
      
    Keywords:  Authorship; Communication; Microscopy; Research data; Technology
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-025-01299-2
  13. Transplant Proc. 2025 Apr 25. pii: S0041-1345(25)00222-2. [Epub ahead of print]
       BACKGROUND: Reporting guidelines for diverse study designs and the formal registration of clinical trials play a pivotal role in curbing bias and enhancing transparency in research methodologies. However, there has been no prior assessment of surgical transplantation journals regarding their endorsement or omission of reporting guidelines and clinical trial registration. Therefore, this study aims to investigate these journals and categorize the "instructions to authors" concerning the inclusion, recommendation, or stipulation of reporting guidelines and trial registration.
    METHODS: A total of 46 transplantation clinical journals, as determined by the Scopus CiteScore tool, met the eligibility criteria for analysis. The journals' titles, 5-year impact factors, and details of 18 reporting guidelines were extracted by 2 independent investigators in a masked, duplicate manner from each journal's "instructions to authors" section. Furthermore, information about whether these journals mandated clinical trial registration was also gathered. As part of our methodology, we initiated email correspondence with the journals every 3 weeks to provide them an opportunity to clarify their accepted publication types. In instances where certain study designs were not accepted by journals, we excluded those study designs from our analysis related to the corresponding reporting guidelines..
    RESULTS: A total of 12 (12 of 46; 26.1%) transplantation journals mentioned the EQUATOR Network, an online resource of validated and developing reporting guidelines. Of the 46 journals examined, CONSORT was the most commonly mentioned guideline with 10 (10 of 46; 21.7%) journals requiring it and 19 (19 of 46; 41.3%) journals recommending it. The QUOROM guideline was never mentioned by any journal. Finally, 24 (24/46; 52.2%) required and 8 (8/46; 17.4%) recommended the clinical trial registration, totaling 32 (32/46; 69.6%) mentioning clinical trial registration.
    CONCLUSION: A notable deficiency of mandated reporting guidelines exists within the leading transplantation journals. Given the complex nature of transplantation medicine and its focus on critically ill patients, it is imperative for transplantation journals to enforce either mandatory or highly recommended adherence to reporting guidelines. This step is vital to enhance the quality of research that potentially shapes patient care practices.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.transproceed.2025.03.010
  14. AEM Educ Train. 2025 Apr;9(Suppl 1): S88-S100
      While medical educators are publishing more than ever, many barriers still exist, causing some to feel disheartened. Ongoing strategies are desirable to support educators who are facing challenges when submitting and revising their scholarly manuscripts to journals. Increasing publication rates can enhance an educator's promotion and tenure progress and career satisfaction and aid in the establishment of a community of practice. On a broader scale, increased publication encourages a diversity of voices contributing to and advancing the field of medical knowledge. In this article, we present a guide for those looking to engage more deeply in medical education (MedEd) research and scholarship. First, we describe the difference between MedEd research (which seeks to develop and/or answer a research question and expand general knowledge) and other forms of scholarship (which may include, but are not limited to, curricular innovations, infographics, educational downloads, commentaries, editorials, reviews, last pages, instruments, case scenarios, and instructional toolboxes). Next, we discuss an eight-step process to prepare for publication: (1) formulate the idea, (2) implement the project, (3) select the appropriate journal, (4) write the paper, (5) submit the manuscript, (6) receive journal feedback, (7) revise the manuscript, and (8) resubmit the manuscript. It is the hope that with practice and mentorship, and the help of this guide, medical educators can more successfully publish their work moving forward.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1002/aet2.70023
  15. J Craniofac Surg. 2025 Apr 29.
      Manuscript writing is essential for scientific communication, enabling researchers to share findings, refine ideas, and advance knowledge. Despite its significance, many authors struggle with structuring and articulating their work effectively. This study outlines key components of a well-crafted manuscript, providing a practical framework to enhance clarity, impact, and publication success. A structured approach to manuscript preparation is presented, detailing each section's purpose, common pitfalls, and optimization strategies. Key elements include formulating a research question, drafting a hypothesis, and navigating the peer review process. Best practices are illustrated through examples, and ethical considerations such as authorship criteria and responsible AI use in writing are discussed. A systematic breakdown of manuscript structure is provided, emphasizing strategies to improve readability, logical flow, and engagement with the intended audience. Practical recommendations for crafting impactful titles, abstracts, and discussions are included, along with guidance on responding to reviewer feedback and maximizing post-publication reach.
    Keywords:  Manuscript preparation; peer review; plastic surgery; publishing; scientific writing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0000000000011447
  16. Arch Public Health. 2025 Apr 27. 83(1): 115
      The rapid dissemination of scientific findings through media and social networks can profoundly impact public health policies and behaviors. However, the reliability of such data is crucial, as evidenced by significant cases like the retracted study on hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) during the COVID-19 pandemic. This paper examines the retraction of a widely publicized study by Pradelle et al., which concluded that HCQ was associated with an excess of 16,990 deaths during the pandemic's first wave. This finding was heavily influenced by a meta-analysis that did not robustly support its conclusions, particularly regarding the dose-response relationship of HCQ. Our analysis identified significant methodological flaws, including the misapplication of effect sizes and a lack of sensitivity analyses, rendering the study results unreliable. The retraction process, however, lacked transparency, failing to adequately describe in details the reasons for the study flaws to the public. This case underscores the broader challenges in scientific publishing, including the robustness of the peer-review process, the rise of fraudulent practices, and the erosion of trust in scientific institutions. We advocate for reforms to enhance transparency, improve data verification, and incentivize thorough peer review to maintain public trust and ensure the accuracy of scientific literature.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1186/s13690-025-01596-2
  17. FEBS Open Bio. 2025 Apr 25.
      Scientific societies constitute a cornerstone in our scientific landscape by supporting research activities, fostering networking opportunities and promoting extensive training and education in basic sciences. As membership-based organisations, scientific societies provide their members with access to meetings, workshops, educational programs and also funding opportunities through fellowships and awards. Societies also run and supervise the publishing activities of their sponsored journals that benefit authors and the entire community by enabling the publication of high-quality studies by scientists, for scientists. Most societies or not-for-profit publishing organisations financially lean on memberships and their journals to support their activities. Therefore, engaging with and advocating for scientific societies and not-for-profit journals is important to help sustain their impactful activities and to raise awareness for fellow unaware scientists. In this piece, we discuss with our newly appointed Publishing Liaison Officer, Pierre Santucci, how scientific societies and sponsored journals can have a direct and beneficial impact on a scientist's career. Pierre also provides a short testimonial of his experience with FEBS initiatives and FEBS Press journals.
    Keywords:  FEBS; early career researcher; mycobacteria; not‐for‐profit; scientific societies
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1002/2211-5463.70045
  18. Nat Ecol Evol. 2025 Apr 28.
      Recent work has illuminated huge inequities in academic publishing based on author demographics such as assumed gender, geography, language and prestige. Yet, little attention has been paid to the inequities that scientists with disabilities face. We reviewed the websites of 541 ecology and evolution journals to examine the extent to which they prompt authors to prepare accessible manuscripts. Here we show that nearly three-quarters of journals do not encourage authors to consider accessibility when preparing manuscripts. Existing guidelines focus primarily on colour-blind-friendly figures, which were mentioned almost twice as often as any other recommendation. Our survey signals an urgent need for widespread journal policy reforms that require authors to format their manuscripts according to Universal Design principles. As a starting point to improving manuscript accessibility, we provide an accessibility checklist for authors to reference when preparing manuscripts. We conclude with recommendations for an iterative process of reform in collaboration with the disability community.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-025-02694-8
  19. Am J Health Promot. 2025 Apr 28. 8901171251336588
      Quantitative research methods serve to advance health promotion science, sometimes by testing novel study questions and, more often, by reexamining questions that others have answered, sometimes over the course of many years. Replicability of findings is a central feature of getting at the truth about what works and what does not work in health promotion. This editorial taps into the experience and expertise of Dr Janani Rajbhandari who is an Associate Editor in Chief of this journal and who is a scholar with a strong portfolio of studies that use quantitative research methods. In this interview we discuss research challenges, problem solving and the vital role of peer reviewers.
    Keywords:  peer review; quality improvement; quantitative research; research methods
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1177/08901171251336588
  20. Am J Health Promot. 2025 Apr 30. 8901171251338076
      In this editorial, I feature the vital contributions that qualitative research methods make to the continuous improvement of health promotion practices. To discuss best practices in qualitative research I interviewed Dr Tsitsi Masvawure who is one of this journal's Associate Editors in Chief (AEIC). Masvawure's research most often employs qualitative research methods and she teaches a seminar on qualitative research methods. Our AEIC's play a central role in improving the quality of manuscripts submitted to this journal which often involves reviewing and offering feedback on multiple rounds of manuscript revisions. AEIC's make the final determination to accept or reject papers. It should go without saying but reviewing this journals submission guidelines is a first step toward a successful submission.
    Keywords:  COVID-19; peer review; qualitative research; quality improvement; quantitative research; research methods
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1177/08901171251338076
  21. Reprod Biomed Online. 2025 Apr;pii: S1472-6483(25)00060-4. [Epub ahead of print]50(4): 104853
      Reproductive BioMedicine Online has now reached its 25th year and in marking the anniversary this article looks back to its earliest years and the practicalities faced by its founder, Sir Robert Edwards, in establishing a new journal based on internet publication. The narrative follows the first years of production, with a full-time staff of just two, and how the journal quickly set a forward-looking tone of innovation in reproductive medicine. Despite its name, and despite its originating principle of internet production, since 2010 RBMO has been produced - online and in print - in collaboration with a commercial publisher, which greatly streamlined the management of manuscripts and their rapid publication. While Bob Edwards has remained the inspiration for the journal's progress, each of the editors who succeeded him - Jacques Cohen, Bart Fauser, Juan Garcia-Velasco and Nick Macklon - each gave renewed identity to the title, expanded its reach and nurtured its growth.
    Keywords:  Embryo research; Nobel Prize; RBMOnline; Reproductive health; Sir Robert Edwards
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2025.104853
  22. J Toxicol Sci. 2025 ;50(5): R1
      We would like to express our gratitude for your contributions to our official scientific journals, The Journal of Toxicological Sciences and Fundamental Toxicological Sciences.We have decided to make both journals open access in order to internationalize them and expand their reach to a broader audience. Articles will be published under the Creative Commons license with the highest degree of freedom, CC BY (4.0). As a result of this change, article copyright will belong to the authors, and secondary use, including copying, distribution, display, storage, modification, and commercial use, can be carried out without the relevant society's permission.The new Instructions for Authors will be published on the journal websites in advance. These new submission guidelines 
will apply to papers submitted on or after June 1, 2025 (Japan time). Please note that the previous Instructions for Authors will apply to papers submitted until May 31, 2025 (Japan time).We hope that this change will encourage you to submit more of your excellent papers to The Journal of Toxicological Sciences and Fundamental Toxicological Sciences.Toshiyuki Kaji, Ph.D.Editor-in-ChiefThe Journal of Toxicological SciencesAkira Naganuma, Ph.D.Editor-in-ChiefFundamental Toxicological Sciences.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.2131/jts.50.R1
  23. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2025 Apr 29. pii: jech-2025-223668. [Epub ahead of print]
      
    Keywords:  BIOSTATISTICS; EPIDEMIOLOGY; GENETICS; MENDELIAN RANDOMIZATION ANALYSIS
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1136/jech-2025-223668
  24. Autism Adulthood. 2025 Apr;7(2): 133-140
       Abstract: The academic research landscape, rich with complexity, reveals its potential for innovation when explored through a neurodiversity lens. This perspective article presents a nuanced examination of the unique strengths that autistic thinking brings to scholarly pursuits, such as enhanced pattern recognition and systematic rigor-qualities that have personally empowered my own grant writing endeavors. It also confronts the challenges that arise from the prevailing neurotypical standards within the academic milieu. Merging a scholarly review with selective personal insights, this article advocates for a redefinition of scholarly communication and mentorship that is inclusive of neurodiversity. I aim to provide insights and experiences that offer guidance to fellow autistic researchers, their mentors, research institutions, and funding bodies. Drawing from my perspective, I delve into communication complexities, the perennial struggle to conform to neurotypical writing standards, the weight of "imposter syndrome," and the pivotal role that mentors play in supporting and advocating for autistic early career researchers. The recommendations offered in this study aim to establish an academic environment that not only welcomes but also leverages the distinctive capabilities of autistic researchers. This perspective aspires to serve as a catalyst for mentors, colleagues, and funding bodies to embrace a more neuroinclusive approach in their practices.
    Abstract: The purposes of this article were to highlight specific challenges and strengths of autistic researchers in academia, particularly in the context of grant writing and scholarly communication, and to offer actionable recommendations to foster a neuroinclusive academic environment. From my perspective as an autistic researcher who has navigated both the triumphs and trials of grant acquisition and publication, I offer a personal and professional vantage point. The insights drawn from these experiences shed light on the difficulties autistic researchers face and underline the need for systemic change.
    Abstract: As an early career researcher, I find myself at a juncture, navigating not only the demands of the scholarly world but also life as a late-diagnosed autistic woman, who has journeyed through the labyrinthine world of grant writing. I offer a glimpse into my world, which includes successes with 2 federal grant awards, 1 foundation grant, 5 intramural grants, 14 peer-reviewed publications and unsuccessful attempts with 1 federal grant, 2 foundation grants, and 2 peer-reviewed articles. I bring a blend of personal experience and professional expertise.
    Abstract: The current academic dialogue acknowledges neurodiversity but often falls short in offering the necessary structural support for the distinct communication styles and cognitive approaches of autistic researchers. Although there is a recognized benefit in mentorship and clearer communication within academia, the practical implementation varies widely.
    Abstract: I propose a series of recommendations to bridge these gaps. These include the establishment of grant programs accessible to autistic researchers, the improvement of mentorship and training programs to include an appreciation for neurodiversity, and the education of grant reviewers about the strengths inherent in autistic researchers. In addition, the article suggests revising application processes to increase inclusivity, encouraging the participation of autistic researchers in peer review, promoting community engagement and networking opportunities, allocating funding specifically for research by autistic scientists, and enhancing collaboration with organizations dedicated to autism.
    Abstract: The implementation of these recommendations has the potential to significantly improve the academic environment for autistic adults, not only enhancing their current academic engagement and success but also setting a foundation for inclusivity and respect for neurodiversity. Such systemic changes hold the promise of nurturing a future generation of autistic researchers, acknowledging and celebrating the unique insights we bring to the scientific community.
    Keywords:  autistic communication; early career researcher; grant writing; mentorship; neurodiversity; research writing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1089/aut.2023.0182