bims-skolko Biomed News
on Scholarly communication
Issue of 2025–05–18
24 papers selected by
Thomas Krichel, Open Library Society
  1. A literature review of non-financial conflicts of interest in healthcare research and publication.
  2. In-house editorials and journalistic pieces comprise a massive corpus in the scientific literature that can be improved.
  3. Mentoring the writing: a tricky task for research supervisors in the dissemination of scholarly work.
  4. Authorship Disputes: An Endemic Plague.
  5. Dear editors, your publication delays are damaging our careers.
  6. SCRIPting a Path to Scholarship: How Student Journals Reduce Barriers to Publication.
  7. Medical Student Comfort with Academic Publishing: A Single-Institution Experience with a Supplemental Interactive Lecture.
  8. Do peer reviewers comment on reporting items as instructed by the journal? A secondary analysis of two randomised trials.
  9. Who Reviews Our Manuscripts? - Some Ethical Perspectives on Peer Review.
  10. Verifying authors' claims to have conducted a Systematic Review? A checklist for journal editors and peer reviewers.
  11. Concerns regarding "Rejection and transfer".
  12. [Rethinking scientific integrity in plastic surgery: Reflections on editorial and institutional responsibilities].
  13. Assessment of whether use of a professional medical writer is associated with time to publication of papers reporting phase III oncology clinical trials in two high-impact general medicine journals.
  14. Is it OK for AI to write science papers? Nature survey shows researchers are split.
  15. Endorsement of reporting guidelines and clinical trial registration by tropical medicine and infectious disease journals: A cross-sectional study.
  16. Research transparency in articles published in orthodontic journals: is it clear?
  17. Improving transparency in publishing: gaps in standardised reporting across surgical pathology and laboratory medicine journals.
  18. Data sharing practices in high-impact rehabilitation journals.
  19. Analysis of Article Processing Charges of Orthopaedic Journals in the United States.
  20. Open access, "piracy" and Article Processing Charges (APC) in Argentina: an informed policy for the national research funding agency.
  21. Revisiting Artificial Intelligence in Research Dissemination.
  22. What Happens to Your Manuscript: Characteristics of Papers Published in Volume 193 of the American Journal of Epidemiology.
  23. Nature project to encourage early-career researchers in peer review is working.
  24. [The discreet beauty of the Abstract].
  1. BMC Med Ethics. 2025 May 15. 26(1): 61
    A literature review of non-financial conflicts of interest in healthcare research and publication.
    David Bauer, Devin A Orchard, Philip G Day, Marc Tunzi, David J Satin.
       BACKGROUND: Conflicts of interest (COIs) in healthcare research have received substantial attention over the past three decades. Although financial COI (FCOI) has an extensive literature, publications about non-financial COI (NFCOI) are comparatively rare. Disagreements surrounding the importance of NFCOIs in research and publication, including whether competing non-financial interests should even be considered COIs, present significant gaps in the literature. This lack of clarity prompted our literature review's aim to determine the current consensus about how NFCOIs should be treated in healthcare research and publication.
    METHODS: We searched the PubMed database using MeSH terms and keywords to identify articles published before November 6, 2023 about NFCOI in biomedical research and publication. We applied relevance, appropriateness, transparency, and soundness (RATS) criteria to develop a final dataset of 206 publications and reported using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) flow diagram. Qualitative and quantitative analyses revealed major themes and conclusions regarding consensus within the field.
    RESULTS: The literature centers around fundamental disagreements about (1) whether competing non-financial interests constitute COIs like FCOIs, (2) whether they need to be addressed in research, and (3) whether they should be managed with disclosure or with other strategies. Despite these disagreements, the balance of evidence and arguments suggests that (1) NFCOIs are meaningful conceptual entities like FCOIs [96%], (2) they require management [76%], and (3) disclosure is necessary but insufficient [55%] or necessary and sufficient [27%] as a management strategy.
    CONCLUSION: The topic of NFCOI enjoys far less attention and consensus compared to FCOI's robust body of literature developed over decades. We found general agreement about the relevance of NFCOIs and the need to address them, but not how to do so. Our results are consistent with Wiersma et al., the first review on this topic. Taken together, these reviews suggest a path forward for researchers, publishers, and healthcare professionals requiring new approaches for NFCOI management.
    Keywords:  Conflict of interest; Ethics; Institutional; Intellectual; Non-financial; Personal; Publication; Research
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-025-01221-5
  2. Eur J Clin Invest. 2025 May 09. e70061
    In-house editorials and journalistic pieces comprise a massive corpus in the scientific literature that can be improved.
    John P A Ioannidis, Michaéla C Schippers.
      In-house editorials and journalistic pieces are massively published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. This corpus has remained outside the efforts of evidence-based medicine and research reform, and it can be imbued with unchecked biases. High-impact journals publish such pieces massively and may generate strong support for specific narratives and perspectives. Pieces with a political slant are also a major issue. Besides high-impact journals, across the entire scientific corpus, such pieces may be (mis)used to boost impact factors, create implausibly prolific CVs (occasionally even fraudulent) and can be powerful instruments of opinion making favouring some sponsors. Here we propose how this influential literature corpus may be strengthened to maximize its benefits and diminish its potential harms. Helpful measures to consider may include bolstering transparency (on authorship, financial compensation, disclosures of publication-specific and generic conflicts of interest, handling of political issues, peer-review, commissioning and timing); self-regulation with limits per author, improvement of subject matter expertise (with experts, meta-researchers and methodologists); balance of perspectives (with debates and for choice of topics); and post-publication review, audit, correction and potential retraction, as needed. A systematic research agenda is needed to study better this phenomenon and also the effectiveness of proposed interventions.
    Keywords:  authorship; bias; editorial; fraud; peer review; science journalism
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1111/eci.70061
  3. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2025 May 15.
    Mentoring the writing: a tricky task for research supervisors in the dissemination of scholarly work.
    Susan van Schalkwyk, Ayelet Kuper, Patricia O'Sullivan.
      This article is the second in a series exploring the research supervision relationship. In the first article, this relationship was characterized as 'tricky'. In this article the authors home in on the mentor, focusing specifically on one of the trickier aspects of enabling the dissemination of the mentee's scholarly work - that of facilitating and supporting academic writing.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-025-10445-4
  4. Int J Low Extrem Wounds. 2025 May 14. 15347346251341635
    Authorship Disputes: An Endemic Plague.
    Miltos K Lazarides, Nikolaos Papanas.
      
    Keywords:  authorship; copyright; medical writing; misconduct
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1177/15347346251341635
  5. Nature. 2025 May 14.
    Dear editors, your publication delays are damaging our careers.
    Chia-Hsuan Hsu.
      
    Keywords:  Careers; Peer review; Publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-025-01072-5
  6. Med Sci Educ. 2025 Apr;35(2): 703-709
    SCRIPting a Path to Scholarship: How Student Journals Reduce Barriers to Publication.
    Niraj Vyas, Sonia Lobo.
      Early initiation of research activities among medical students is associated with later academic success and improved scientific productivity; however, barriers to publication in mainstream journals may deter students from disseminating their scholarly work. We sought to determine the impact of Scholarly Research in Progress (SCRIP), a student journal, on students' level of experience, knowledge, or practice related to writing and publication, writing apprehension, and scholarly productivity. Students from Geisinger Commonwealth School of Medicine were surveyed via Qualtrics to assess their experience and motivation to publish, determine publication rates, and better understand barriers to publishing practices. Data was reported using means and standard deviations for ranked questions. One hundred sixteen participants responded, and 77 completed surveys were included in the analysis. Participants who had previously published in SCRIP indicated they were more confident in writing manuscripts (p = 0.003), submitting articles (p = 0.002), navigating the publication process (p = 0.008), and navigating the peer-review process (p = 0.033) compared to those who had not previously published in SCRIP. SCRIP-published participants were also more likely to place a high value on publishing research in their careers (p = 0.028). There was no significant difference in the average number of total PubMed-indexed publications between SCRIP-published participants and non-SCRIP-published participants (p = 0.779). Overall, SCRIP positively impacted students' attitude towards future publication and was associated with improved writing confidence. Reviewer feedback was well-received by students and helped to improve their research to a publishable level while supporting development of their scientific writing skills and confidence.
    Keywords:  Publication; Publishing; Research; Scholarship; Student journals
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40670-025-02286-y
  7. Med Sci Educ. 2025 Apr;35(2): 1009-1015
    Medical Student Comfort with Academic Publishing: A Single-Institution Experience with a Supplemental Interactive Lecture.
    Sanjay V Menghani, George T Fantry.
       Introduction: Since the United States Medical Licensing Exam (USMLE) Step 1 shifted to a Pass/Fail scoring system, increased emphasis has been placed on research output. Medical students choosing to pursue competitive residencies have contributed to research at a higher rate than ever before. Despite this, many medical students may feel uncomfortable leading the effort to widely communicate the results of a project.
    Methods: A quantitative survey-based study was performed to investigate the medical student research landscape at the University of Arizona College of Medicine - Tucson (UACOM-T). Our team surveyed the medical student body on their familiarity and comfort with the publishing process, invited the full student body to attend an optional student-led interactive session on the topic, and surveyed attendees of this lecture to assess for any changes in comfort or attitudes.
    Results: A total of 71 medical students completed the pre-session survey, 24 medical students attended the lecture, and 23 medical students completed the post-session survey. Most survey respondents were actively involved in research while in medical school, equal to their involvement prior to matriculation into medical school. Most survey respondents were not comfortable with academic publishing or identifying a predatory journal prior to attending the supplemental educational lecture on academic publishing, which increased their comfort on these topics.
    Conclusions: In summary, most study participants were actively involved in research and were at baseline not comfortable with the academic publishing process. Attending a supplemental student-led interactive lecture on academic publishing increased medical student attendees' comfort in being able to identify a fake or predatory journal and increased their overall comfort in the academic publishing process. Similar interactive lectures can help bridge the gap in medical students' understanding of topics in academic publishing.
    Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40670-024-02278-4.
    Keywords:  Academic Publishing; Medical Education; Medical Student Research; Predatory Journals; Research Output
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40670-024-02278-4
  8. J Clin Epidemiol. 2025 May 08. pii: S0895-4356(25)00151-9. [Epub ahead of print] 111818
    Do peer reviewers comment on reporting items as instructed by the journal? A secondary analysis of two randomised trials.
    Hillary Wnfried Ramirez, Malena Chiaborelli, Christof M Schönenberger, Katie Mellor, Alexandra N Griessbach, Paula Dhiman, Pooja Gandhi, Szimonetta Lohner, Arnav Agarwal, Ayodele Odutayo, Michael M Schlussel, Philippe Ravaud, David Moher, Matthias Briel, Isabelle Boutron, Sally Hopewell, Sara Schroter, Benjamin Speich.
       OBJECTIVES: Two studies randomising manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals have previously shown that reminding peer reviewers about key reporting items did not improve the reporting quality in published articles. Within this secondary analysis of peer reviewer reports we aimed to assess at what stage the intervention failed.
    STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We exploratively analysed peer reviewer reports from two published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) conducted at biomedical journals. The first RCT (CONSORT-PR) assessed adherence to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) guideline in manuscripts presenting primary RCT results. The second RCT (SPIRIT-PR) included manuscripts presenting RCT protocols and assessed adherence to the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) guideline. In both RCTs the control group consisted of peer reviewers receiving no reminder, while all reviewers in the intervention group received a reminder of the 10 most important reporting items. For this secondary analysis two independent, blinded authors extracted from peer reviewer reports which of the ten most important reporting items were mentioned by peer reviewers for clarification. The main outcome of this secondary analysis was the difference in the mean proportion of these ten reporting items for which at least one peer reviewer requested clarification. Furthermore, we assessed how this difference changed if (i) only published manuscripts were considered and (ii) when only considering requested changes that were implemented by authors.
    RESULTS: We assessed peer reviewer reports from 533 manuscripts (n=265 intervention group; n=268 control group). Among the manuscripts in the intervention group, 21.1% (95% CI, 18.6-23.6%) of the ten reporting items were requested for clarification, compared to 13.1% (95% CI, 18.6-23.6%) in the control group, resulting in a mean difference of 8.0% (95% CI, 4.9-11.1%). However, this difference diminished to 4.2% when assessing solely accepted and published manuscripts and was even further reduced to 2.6% when accounting for changes actually implemented by authors.
    CONCLUSION: Reminding peer reviewers to check reporting items increased their focus on reporting guidelines, leading to more reporting-related requests in their reviews. However, the effect was strongly diluted during the peer review process due to rejected articles and requests not implemented by authors.
    Keywords:  Peer reviewers; publishing journals; randomized controlled trial; reporting; transparency
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2025.111818
  9. J Lifestyle Med. 2025 Feb 28. 15(1): 38-39
    Who Reviews Our Manuscripts? - Some Ethical Perspectives on Peer Review.
    Mini G Kurup.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.15280/jlm.2025.15.1.38
  10. Environ Evid. 2025 May 14. 14(1): 8
    Verifying authors' claims to have conducted a Systematic Review? A checklist for journal editors and peer reviewers.
    Andrew S Pullin, Biljana Macura.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1186/s13750-025-00361-w
  11. Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol. 2025 May;pii: S1028-4559(25)00104-4. [Epub ahead of print]64(3): 586-587
    Concerns regarding "Rejection and transfer".
    Shigeki Matsubara, Daisuke Matsubara.
      
    Keywords:  Artificial intelligence; Author guideline; ChatGPT; Regulation; Writing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tjog.2025.02.004
  12. Ann Chir Plast Esthet. 2025 May 14. pii: S0294-1260(25)00041-X. [Epub ahead of print]
    [Rethinking scientific integrity in plastic surgery: Reflections on editorial and institutional responsibilities].
    L Lantieri.
      Plastic surgery, by nature an innovative discipline, has historically relied on clinical case reports to advance its techniques. Often unique, these cases are a valuable vehicle for disseminating breakthroughs - especially in a field marked by highly individualized practices and artisanal surgical approaches, where randomized trials are often impractical. However, this reliance on case reports raises significant ethical concerns. In multidisciplinary settings, attribution of contributions often remains ambiguous. Misconduct, such as unauthorized publications or omission of institutional recognition, threatens the integrity of scientific output. As artificial intelligence reshapes biomedical research - automating literature reviews and meta-analyses - original case reports, by their singularity, escape these predictive models. Their heuristic value fully justifies their inclusion within the spectrum of scientific evidence. For this reason, their publication must be tightly regulated. Redefining publication standards in our field is essential. This includes the systematic application of international guidelines (CARE, SCARE, STROBE, GRIPP2), mandatory institutional approval before submission, formal training in research ethics for junior staff, and full transparency regarding patient consent and authorship attribution. When rigorous, novel, and well-contextualized, the clinical case remains a cornerstone of surgical progress. By safeguarding it from opportunistic misuse, we preserve its scientific and educational value.
    Keywords:  Artificial intelligence in research; Attribution des auteurs; Authorship attribution; CARE guidelines; Cas clinique; Chirurgie plastique; Clinical case report; Evidence-based medicine; Innovation chirurgicale; Intelligence artificielle et recherche; Intégrité scientifique; Lignes directrices CARE; Medical ethics; Médecine fondée sur les preuves (EBM); Plastic surgery; Publication ethics; Scientific integrity; Surgical innovation; Éthique de la publication; Éthique médicale
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anplas.2025.04.001
  13. Curr Med Res Opin. 2025 May 15. 1-7
    Assessment of whether use of a professional medical writer is associated with time to publication of papers reporting phase III oncology clinical trials in two high-impact general medicine journals.
    Moamen Hammad, Thomas Carvell-Miller, Bernard Kerr, Valerie Moss.
       OBJECTIVE: Professional medical writers assist authors with ethical and accurate publication of scientific research. We hypothesized that the support of a medical writer would enable timely publication of research and explored their association using papers reporting phase III oncology trials from 2019-2023. Given the time frame of this research, we also assessed the impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) pandemic on publication volume as a secondary objective.
    METHODS: We searched PubMed for phase III clinical trials published in New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) and the Lancet between 01/01/2019 and 12/31/2023. Publications reporting oncology trials were reviewed in full to document acknowledgement of medical writing support, data cut-off date, publication date and other key characteristics. Time from data cut-off to publication was compared for papers with and without medical writing support.
    RESULTS: Our search identified 442 papers reporting any phase III clinical trials, of which 164 (37%) reported oncology trials; 122/164 (74%) disclosed medical writing support. Mean time to publication was significantly shorter for papers disclosing medical writing support than those without (307 vs. 466 days; p < 0.0001). Median time to publication for papers with medical writing support appeared stable from 2019 to 2023. The volume (oncology and non-oncology) of phase III trials published in NEJM and the Lancet between 2019 and 2023 was lowest during 2020 to 2022 (n = 70-88) and highest in 2023 followed by 2019 (n = 110 and n = 96, respectively).
    CONCLUSIONS: Medical writing support is associated with timely publication of clinical trial results, even during events that may disrupt publication development such as the Covid-19 pandemic.
    Keywords:  Clinical Trial, Phase III; Medical Writing; Publications; Randomized Controlled Trial
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1080/03007995.2025.2505697
  14. Nature. 2025 May;641(8063): 574-578
    Is it OK for AI to write science papers? Nature survey shows researchers are split.
    Diana Kwon.
      
    Keywords:  Lab life; Machine learning; Publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-025-01463-8
  15. Trop Med Int Health. 2025 May 14.
    Endorsement of reporting guidelines and clinical trial registration by tropical medicine and infectious disease journals: A cross-sectional study.
    Alec Young, Eli Oldham, Makenna Hittner, Skylarr Beerman, Matthew Chancellor, Caleb A Smith, Danya Nees, Griffin Hughes, Matt Vassar.
       BACKGROUND: Studies published in academic medical journals inform and influence healthcare decisions. Sufficient study reporting is primarily charged to researchers. However, journals can promote more complete reporting of their published studies. Recommending or requiring reporting guideline use and prospective trial registration may ensure published studies adhere to rigorous reporting standards. This study aimed to evaluate 'instructions to authors' pages of tropical medicine and infectious disease (TM/ID) journals to assess endorsement of reporting guidelines (RGs) for common medical study designs and clinical trial registration.
    METHODS: Using a cross-sectional design guided by the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology checklist, we examined the top 100 infectious disease (ID) journals identified by the 2021 Scopus CiteScore tool and the 21 tropical medicine (TM) journals identified by Clarivate Web of Science. Each editorial journal staff was contacted for specific study designs accepted. Data were extracted from journals' 'instructions to authors' webpages with any discrepancies being resolved through consensus. We assessed adherence to RGs and clinical trial registration.
    RESULTS: This study identified 293 TM/ID journals. Among the top 100 ID journals selected (Scopus CiteScore), 2 unfit journals were replaced. Among the 28 TM journals selected (Clarivate Web of Science), 5 were removed due to being duplicates and 2 were removed due to not being published in English. The Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) Network was cited by 49% of journals, while 85% of journals referenced the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) was most cited (73%), Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses was least (2.6%). Clinical trial registration was mentioned by 73% of the journals.
    CONCLUSIONS: TM and ID journals demonstrated suboptimal endorsement of various RGs. Among our findings, however, CONSORT and clinical trial registration garnered over 70% endorsement. We propose journals streamline RGs, establish user-friendly 'instructions to authors' pages and mandate reporting guideline adherence. These insights inform future research on enhancing reporting guideline use and TM/ID research quality.
    Keywords:  CONSORT; PRISMA; reporting guidelines
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1111/tmi.14127
  16. Eur J Orthod. 2025 Apr 08. pii: cjaf028. [Epub ahead of print]47(3):
    Research transparency in articles published in orthodontic journals: is it clear?
    Matthew Chi Hong Yii, Martyn T Cobourne, Nikolaos Pandis, Jadbinder Seehra.
       BACKGROUND: Issues regarding research transparency have been highlighted in the literature. The aim of this investigation was to assess the trend of adhering to the reporting of key transparency practices (data sharing, code sharing, COI disclosure, funding disclosure, and protocol registration) by articles published in three leading orthodontic journals.
    MATERIAL AND METHODS: A Scopus database search was undertaken to identify articles published in 2013, 2018 and 2023 in three orthodontic journals. Independent data extraction was performed. Frequency distributions and cross tabulations (COI not disclosed vs COI disclosed) were calculated. Univariable logistic regression was undertaken to detect associations between COI disclosure and publication characteristics, journal type and reporting of transparency practices.
    RESULTS: 1498 articles were analysed. No data sharing statement (60.7%) was commonly cited. The intention to share data was stated in approx. 15% articles. No article stated a code sharing statement. Almost 70% articles had not registered a protocol. A third of articles disclosed the funder or sponsor (32.7.%), while approximately an equal number of articles disclosed (49.1%) or did not disclose (50.9%) any conflict of interest. Articles published in the EJO had higher odds of reporting protocol registration (OR 7.42; 95% CI: 4.55, 12.10; P < .01) and funding disclosure (OR 3.44; 95% CI: 2.52, 4.69; P < .01) compared to AO and AJODO. A COI disclosure statement was more likely to be in articles published in AJODO. The odds of reporting a data sharing statement were higher in articles published in EJO (OR 8.72; 95% CI: 5.72, 13.29; P < .001). Apart from code sharing, improvements over the 5-year intervals in reporting of transparency indicators were evident.
    LIMITATIONS: Only three journals were assessed which may impact the generalisability of the results.
    CONCLUSIONS: Despite improvements over the 5-year intervals, the reporting of research transparency indicators requires improvement in articles published in orthodontic journals. To encourage transparent research conduct and open science practices, journals and their editors should promote reporting of research transparency indicators.
    Keywords:  COI disclosure; code sharing; data sharing; funding disclosure; orthodontic; protocol registration
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjaf028
  17. J Clin Pathol. 2025 May 15. pii: jcp-2024-209858. [Epub ahead of print]
    Improving transparency in publishing: gaps in standardised reporting across surgical pathology and laboratory medicine journals.
    Griffin Hughes, Cameron O'Brien, Reece Anderson, Matt Vassar.
       AIMS: Research reporting checklists are itemised writing standards to improve transparency and facilitate reproducibility. Previous assessments of their recommendation or requirement have demonstrated improved checklist adherence across medical specialties and study designs. Here, we investigated the endorsement of reporting checklists within pathology, laboratory medicine and forensic science journals.
    METHODS: We queried Google Scholar Metrics and the Scopus CiteScore tool to identify top pathology and forensic medicine journals. Two authors independently assessed for the mention, recommendation or requirement or checklists-derived from the Enhancing the Quality and Transparency Of Health Research (EQUATOR) network-as well as study preregistration within each journal's aims and instructions for authors. Journal editors were contacted by one author every 3 weeks to confirm whether or not certain study designs would be considered for publication.
    RESULTS: Of the 88 journals evaluated, most did not mention or endorse the EQUATOR Network (73.9%) or International Committee of Medical Journal Editors reporting standards (51.1%). The most commonly reported checklists included Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments (38.6%), Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (28.4%) and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (25.0%). The CARE reporting checklist for case reports was required most often by five journals (5.7%). The final email response from journal editors and contacts was 9.1%.
    CONCLUSIONS: Reporting checklists were suboptimally mentioned and rarely required. Even with many basic and diagnostic science reporting checklists and initiatives, endorsement remains low. We recommend that authors, reviewers and editors become familiar with relevant reporting checklists for their fields and publishing spaces to improve checklist visibility and adherence for scientific transparency, reproducibility and rigour.
    Keywords:  Medical Laboratory Science; Methods; QUALITY CONTROL
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1136/jcp-2024-209858
  18. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2025 May 10. 25(1): 129
    Data sharing practices in high-impact rehabilitation journals.
    Ahmed Elghzali, Daniel Molina, Mahad Chaudhry, Jacob Duncan, Annes Elfar, Eli Oldham, Brody Dennis, Eli Paul, Alicia Ito Ford, Matt Vassar.
       BACKGROUND: The demand for rehabilitation services is rising due to the aging population and increasing number of chronic conditions. High-quality research is essential to address these challenges, with recent mandates emphasizing the importance of data sharing for transparency and reproducibility. However, data sharing remains limited across clinical research. Data sharing statements (DSS) have been proposed to improve accessibility, but their implementation and effectiveness in rehabilitation research remain unclear. We aim to identify barriers and guide future policies for standardizing data sharing in the field of rehabilitation.
    METHODS: On June 6th, 2024, a PubMed/MEDLINE search identified clinical studies from five top rehabilitation journals based on impact factor. We extracted DSS and general characteristics in a duplicated and masked fashion to identify influential factors on DSS inclusion and then used a hierarchical logistic regression and thematic analysis. Email requests were sent to authors to verify their willingness to share data.
    RESULTS: Of 1,278 studies that underwent data extraction, 25.5% of studies in our sample featured a DSS; however, this figure was significantly influenced by one journal with a 99% inclusion rate, while the other four journals collectively had only a 5% rate. Further analysis of 314 DSS revealed the majority designated a gatekeeper role for handling data requests. After emailing authors to verify their commitment to the reported DSS, only 22.7% adhered to them.
    CONCLUSIONS: Our study found substantial variation in DSS inclusion across rehabilitation journals, reflecting inconsistencies in how data sharing policies are implemented. We also identified a significant gap between stated data sharing intentions and actual author follow-through. These findings highlight the need for stronger accountability mechanisms. We recommend adopting the Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP) to provide a framework for data sharing in the field of rehabilitation. Further standardization of DSS is needed, as alternative methods like data repositories have been shown to improve transparency and reproducibility.
    TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical trial number: not applicable.
    Keywords:  Cross-Sectional Analysis; Data Sharing; Data Sharing Statements; Rehabilitation
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-025-02587-1
  19. J Orthop Res. 2025 May 10.
    Analysis of Article Processing Charges of Orthopaedic Journals in the United States.
    Allyson N Pfeil, Zachary Rickmeyer, Joshua H Taylor, Davin K Fertitta, Anay R Patel, T Bradley Edwards, Corey F Hryc.
      In the United States, article processing charges for orthopaedic journals can be excessive and may offer a poor cost-to-benefit ratio regarding article engagement. This study hypothesizes that article processing charges will not strongly correlate with metrics of engagement such as citations, regardless of publication model. The Journal Citation Reports (Clarivate, Philadelphia, PA) identified 136 orthopaedic journals, of which 83 were non-United States journals and six were not suitable for analysis, resulting in 47 journals for analysis. The collected variables included access options, article processing charge, publisher, impact factor with and without self-citations, immediacy index, normalized Eigenfactor (journal influence), article influence score, total citations, total articles, citations per open access article, and citations per restricted and free article. T- and Chi-square tests statistically compared continuous and categorical variables, respectively, and significance was determined at p < 0.05. Linear regressions computed a coefficient of determination to assess any correlation between cost and metrics of engagement, with strong correlation assessed at ≥ 0.80. Publishing unrestricted open access was significantly more expensive in hybrid journals. Hybrid journals received significantly more total citations than open access, however, no difference between hybrid or open access journals was noted when comparing citations per article within 3 years. No other differences or correlations were found in engagement metrics, publication models, or cost. Access and incorporation of novel findings into clinical practice may depend on scientific publishing practices and, specifically, our ability to maximize viewership while maintaining cost-effectiveness.
    Keywords:  article processing charges; orthopaedic publication price; orthopaedic research; publication costs
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1002/jor.26097
  20. An Acad Bras Cienc. 2025 ;pii: S0001-37652025000201802. [Epub ahead of print]97(2): e20241184
    Open access, "piracy" and Article Processing Charges (APC) in Argentina: an informed policy for the national research funding agency.
    María Sol Terlizzi, Mariano Zukerfeld, Fernanda Beigel.
      The article explores the growing influence of Article Processing Charges (APCs) in academic publishing, especially in Argentina, and the challenges they pose for non-hegemonic countries. It highlights the shift from traditional subscription models to open access models, driven by commercial publishers, which often impose significant financial burdens on researchers and institutions. The study aims to examine the issues arising from these models, particularly the commercial open access system, to describes the actions developed by the National Agency for the promotion of Research, Technological Development and Innovation from Argentina, and to discuss some public policy proposals. One major finding is that APCs can exacerbate global inequalities in scientific publishing, as researchers from middle- and low-income countries struggle to afford these fees. This trend can distort research agendas and limit international collaborations. Besides, public research funding agencies play a crucial role in shaping publishing practices, and thus have the power to either promote or hinder more equitable publishing models. The article concludes that non-commercial open access routes, like the "diamond" model, should be promoted, and research assessments should shift away from focusing on journal rankings to encourage more responsible research dissemination. The study calls for reforms in both national and global publishing policies.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1590/0001-3765202520241184
  21. West J Nurs Res. 2025 Jun;47(6): 439-440
    Revisiting Artificial Intelligence in Research Dissemination.
    Todd Ruppar.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1177/01939459251340459
  22. Am J Epidemiol. 2025 May 08. pii: kwaf104. [Epub ahead of print]
    What Happens to Your Manuscript: Characteristics of Papers Published in Volume 193 of the American Journal of Epidemiology.
    Sara Daniel, Lorraine T Dean, Catherine R Lesko, Harriett Telljohann, Lori E Biddle, Enrique F Schisterman, On Behalf Of The Editorial Board.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwaf104
  23. Nature. 2025 May;641(8063): 560
    Nature project to encourage early-career researchers in peer review is working.
      
    Keywords:  Careers; Peer review; Publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-025-01460-x
  24. Magy Seb. 2025 May 12. 78(1): 8-10
    [The discreet beauty of the Abstract].
    F Tamás Molnár.
      Az orvosi tudományos kommunikáció központi elemét, az "absztraktot" vizsgáljuk a hazai sebészeti környezetben, leíró módon. Két recens sebészeti kongresszus absztraktjainak formai értékelését végeztük. A tartalmi elemeket nem vizsgáltuk. A Magyar Sebész Társaság Coloproctologiai és az Endoszkópos és Robotsebészeti Szekció 56 absztraktjából egy sem felelt meg a mai nemzetközi formáknak, Ha a kritériumokon lazítottunk, 16%-os megfelelést találtunk. A Sebészeti Onkológiai Szekció 51 absztraktjának 47%-a felelt meg a formai követelményeknek. További 23,5%-nál a tagolás nélküli szerkezetet megfelelőnek találtuk. Önkritikára és jelentős javulásra van szükség, ha fel akarunk zárkózni a jelenlegi euro-amerikai tudományos kommunikációs mező gyakorlatához.
    Keywords:  abstract; absztrakt; etimologia; etymology; medical writing; orvosi szakirodalom; scientific communication; tudományos közlemények
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1556/1046.2025.10002
This page is being maintained by Thomas Krichel. It was last updated on 2025‒05‒22 at 18:12.