bims-skolko Biomed News
on Scholarly communication
Issue of 2025–08–31
37 papers selected by
Thomas Krichel, Open Library Society
  1. RFK Jr demanded a vaccine study be retracted - the journal said no.
  2. Estimating the predictability of questionable open-access journals.
  3. Can ChatGPT Recognize Its Own Writing in Scientific Abstracts?
  4. From disclosure to evidence: Toward auditable AI use and contribution provenance.
  5. What counts as plagiarism? AI-generated papers pose new risks.
  6. Generative artificial intelligence in public health research and scientific communication: A narrative review of real applications and future directions.
  7. Blurred Lines but Clear Manuscripts: AI-Based Support Is Inevitable and Possibly Preferable: Commentary on an article by Tucker Callanan, MD, et al.: "Evaluating Artificial Intelligence-Based Writing Assistance Among Published Orthopaedic Studies. Detection and Trends for Future Interpretation".
  8. Artificial intelligence as an equaliser: How ChatGPT empowers academics in the Global South.
  9. Waiting for Publication Outputs: How Large Language Models Are Creating a New Style Guide.
  10. Redefining Medical Publishing in the Artificial Intelligence Era.
  11. Letter from the editor: Artificial intelligence (AI): The good, the bad and the ugly.
  12. Can artificial intelligence write science? A comparative analysis of human-written and artificial intelligence-generated scientific writings.
  13. Rethinking peer review: ethics and blind spots of scientific gatekeeping.
  14. Human Expertise in an AI-Collaborative Peer-Review Process.
  15. Arguments for blind peer review also need to be recognized.
  16. Peer review as professional practice: a hidden opportunity.
  17. Peer reviewers more likely to approve articles that cite their own work.
  18. The most prevalent perceived barriers to sharing research data at the point of manuscript acceptance in health and life sciences: a survey at the University of Bristol.
  19. More than a rebuttal: a field guide to letters to the editor in radiology.
  20. Reporting guidelines for music-based interventions checklist: Explanation and elaboration guide.
  21. Could adherence to SAMPL Guidelines improve statistical reporting in clinical manuscripts? Insights from 150 editorial reviews for specialty journals.
  22. Tips for writing effective abstracts.
  23. Hurdles to open access publishing faced by authors: a scoping literature review from 2004 to 2023.
  24. Style is the answer to the death of the academic author.
  25. Authorship, erased.
  26. Addressing post-publication discussion on Reiki study.
  27. Operational developments at the Journal of the Medical Library Association: improved production timelines, new policy introduction, and senior editorial team updates.
  28. Chiropractic & Manual Therapies: a critical review of 20 years as an open-access journal.
  29. Correction to 'Trustworthiness criteria for meta-analyses of randomized controlled studies: OBGYN Journal guidelines'.
  30. ASM incorporates Imagetwin to address image duplication and preserve scientific accuracy.
  31. Correction to 'Trustworthiness criteria for meta-analyses of randomized controlled studies: OBGYN Journal guidelines'.
  32. The European Journal of Paediatric Dentistry achieves Q1 status: a strategic advancement in specialised dental publishing.
  33. Beyond the numbers: How Journal of Clinical Imaging Science is shaping the future of radiology publishing.
  34. Honoring Our Peer Reviewers and the Role of Artificial Intelligence.
  35. Tackling paper mills requires us to prevent future contamination and clean up the past - the case of the journal Bioengineered.
  36. Congratulations on 50 years of excellence: The Nurse Practitioner: Reflections from a past editor-in-chief.
  37. A Look Back: The Rhode Island Medical Journal in 1925, 1950, 1975.
  1. Nature. 2025 Sep;645(8079): 13-14
    RFK Jr demanded a vaccine study be retracted - the journal said no.
    Rachel Fieldhouse.
      
    Keywords:  Public health; Publishing; Vaccines
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-025-02682-9
  2. Sci Adv. 2025 Aug 29. 11(35): eadt2792
    Estimating the predictability of questionable open-access journals.
    Han Zhuang, Lizhen Liang, Daniel E Acuna.
      Questionable journals threaten global research integrity, yet manual vetting can be slow and inflexible. Here, we explore the potential of artificial intelligence (AI) to systematically identify such venues by analyzing website design, content, and publication metadata. Evaluated against extensive human-annotated datasets, our method achieves practical accuracy and uncovers previously overlooked indicators of journal legitimacy. By adjusting the decision threshold, our method can prioritize either comprehensive screening or precise, low-noise identification. At a balanced threshold, we flag over 1000 suspect journals, which collectively publish hundreds of thousands of articles, receive millions of citations, acknowledge funding from major agencies, and attract authors from developing countries. Error analysis reveals challenges involving discontinued titles, book series misclassified as journals, and small society outlets with limited online presence, which are issues addressable with improved data quality. Our findings demonstrate AI's potential for scalable integrity checks, while also highlighting the need to pair automated triage with expert review.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.adt2792
  3. Cureus. 2025 Jul;17(7): e88774
    Can ChatGPT Recognize Its Own Writing in Scientific Abstracts?
    Paul Sebo.
       BACKGROUND: With the growing use of generative AI in scientific writing, distinguishing between AI-generated and human-authored content has become a pressing challenge. It remains unclear whether ChatGPT (OpenAI, San Francisco, CA) can accurately and consistently recognize its own output.
    METHODS: We randomly selected 100 research articles published in 2000, before the advent of generative AI, from 10 high-impact internal medicine journals. For each article, a structured abstract was generated using ChatGPT-4.0 based on the full PDF. The original and AI-generated abstracts (n = 200) were then evaluated twice by ChatGPT-4.0, which was asked to rate the likelihood of authorship on a 0-10 scale (0 = definitely human, 10 = definitely ChatGPT, 5 = undetermined). Classifications of 0-4 were considered human, and 6-10 were considered AI generated.
    RESULTS: Misclassification rates were high in both rounds (49% and 47.5%). No abstract received a score of 5. Score distributions overlapped substantially between groups, with no statistically significant difference (Wilcoxon p-value = 0.93 and 0.21). Cohen's kappa for binary classification was 0.33 (95% CI: 0.19-0.46) and weighted kappa on the 0-10 scale was 0.24 (95% CI: 0.15-0.34), both reflecting poor agreement.
    CONCLUSION: ChatGPT-4.0 cannot reliably identify whether a scientific abstract was written by itself or by humans. More robust external tools are needed to ensure transparency in academic authorship.
    Keywords:  ai; artificial intelligence; authorship; chatgpt; research integrity; scientific writing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.88774
  4. Account Res. 2025 Aug 25. 1-2
    From disclosure to evidence: Toward auditable AI use and contribution provenance.
    Hengzhi Hu, Harwati Hashim.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2025.2549993
  5. Nature. 2025 Aug;644(8077): 598-600
    What counts as plagiarism? AI-generated papers pose new risks.
    Ananya.
      
    Keywords:  Computer science; Machine learning; Scientific community
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-025-02616-5
  6. Digit Health. 2025 Jan-Dec;11:11 20552076251362070
    Generative artificial intelligence in public health research and scientific communication: A narrative review of real applications and future directions.
    Kishwen K Yoga Ratnam.
       Introduction: Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) tools such as ChatGPT-4o and Gemini are rapidly influencing public health research and communication. Their capacity to assist with drafting, summarising, and translating content offers significant potential, particularly in multilingual and resource-limited settings.This narrative review critically explored the adoption of GenAI tools in public health research and communication, focusing on their practical applications and ethical implications.
    Methods: This narrative review synthesised 18 recent peer-reviewed and grey literature (2023-2025) to explore the role of GenAI in public health research and communication. A hybrid human-AI approach was used, where colour-coded manual coding was combined with AI-supported thematic analysis. All AI-generated outputs were critically reviewed, verified, and refined by the author.
    Results: Five key themes were identified: (1) Supporting scientific research writing tasks; (2) enhancing language clarity and scientific tone; (3) bridging the gap between science and the public; (4) ethical concerns and quality assurance; and (5) future potential and the need for upskilling.
    Discussion: GenAI can democratise and accelerate public health research publication and communication, provided it is used transparently and critically. Human oversight and contextual judgement remain essential to ensure responsible use.
    Conclusion: With thoughtful implementation, GenAI can enhance human expertise in the realm of public health, academia and scientific communication. It offers an emerging opportunity to strengthen public health research and communication, particularly when supported by ethical guidelines, training, and institutional leadership.
    Keywords:  AI in scientific communication; ChatGPT-4o in scientific writing; Generative artificial intelligence; public health research
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1177/20552076251362070
  7. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2025 Aug 20. 107(16): e81
    Blurred Lines but Clear Manuscripts: AI-Based Support Is Inevitable and Possibly Preferable: Commentary on an article by Tucker Callanan, MD, et al.: "Evaluating Artificial Intelligence-Based Writing Assistance Among Published Orthopaedic Studies. Detection and Trends for Future Interpretation".
    Prem N Ramkumar.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.24.01633
  8. Trop Doct. 2025 Aug 21. 494755251369621
    Artificial intelligence as an equaliser: How ChatGPT empowers academics in the Global South.
    Dhananjaya Sharma.
      Artificial intelligence (AI) tools such as ChatGPT are revolutionising academic work, particularly for researchers in the Global South who often face inequitable access to resources and publishing support. This article explores how AI can empower early-career scholars, non-native English speakers, and unaffiliated researchers by aiding literature review, scientific writing, and language refinement - functions traditionally limited to those with institutional privileges. Drawing a parallel with the historical evolution from library binders to PubMed, the article challenges prevailing scepticism around AI use in academia. It questions the rationale behind journal policies that stigmatise AI-assisted writing, probing whether such resistance stems from genuine ethical concerns or a form of academic gatekeeping rooted in neo-colonial attitudes. Rather than dismiss AI, the article advocates for transparent, ethical use that democratises academic publishing and bridges global disparities in knowledge production.
    Keywords:  Public health
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1177/00494755251369621
  9. Retina. 2025 Aug 15.
    Waiting for Publication Outputs: How Large Language Models Are Creating a New Style Guide.
    Richard F Spaide.
      
    Keywords:  Artificial intelligence; armadillos; large language models
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1097/IAE.0000000000004645
  10. Health Care Sci. 2025 Aug;4(4): 314-315
    Redefining Medical Publishing in the Artificial Intelligence Era.
    You Wu, Haibo Wang.
      
    Keywords:  AI; data sharing; medical data; medical publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1002/hcs2.70026
  11. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2025 Aug 22. pii: S0190-9622(25)02665-9. [Epub ahead of print]
    Letter from the editor: Artificial intelligence (AI): The good, the bad and the ugly.
    Dirk M Elston.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaad.2025.08.039
  12. J Neurosurg Spine. 2025 Aug 22. 1-6
    Can artificial intelligence write science? A comparative analysis of human-written and artificial intelligence-generated scientific writings.
    Karim Rizwan Nathani, Ali-Muhammad Nathani, Maliya Delawan, Aleeza Safdar, Mohamad Bydon.
       OBJECTIVE: Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly capable of academic writing, with large language models such as ChatGPT showing potential to assist or even generate scientific manuscripts. However, concerns remain regarding the quality, reliability, and interpretive capabilities of AI-generated content. The authors' study aimed to compare the quality of a human-written versus an AI-generated scientific manuscript to evaluate the strengths and limitations of AI in the context of academic publishing.
    METHODS: Two manuscripts were developed using identical titles, abstracts, and tables of a simulated analysis: one authored by a physician with multiple publications, and the other generated by ChatGPT-4o. Three independent and blinded reviewers-two human and one AI-assessed each manuscript across five domains: clarity and readability, coherence and flow, technical accuracy, depth, and conciseness and precision. Each category was scored on a 10-point scale, and qualitative feedback was collected to highlight specific strengths and weaknesses. Additionally, all reviewers were asked to deduce authorship of the manuscripts.
    RESULTS: The AI-generated manuscript scored higher in clarity and readability (mean 9.0 vs 7.2), but lower in technical accuracy (mean 6.3 vs 9.3) and depth (mean 5.5 vs 7.5). However, reviewers noted that the AI version lacked depth, critical analysis, and contextual interpretation. All reviewers accurately identified the authorship of each manuscript and tended to rate the version more favorably when it aligned with their own origin (human or AI); i.e., human reviewers assigned higher scores to the human-written manuscript, while the AI reviewer scored the AI-generated manuscript higher.
    CONCLUSIONS: Although AI models can improve some aspects of scientific writing, particularly clarity and readability, they fall short in critical reasoning and contextual understanding. This reinforces the importance of human authorship and oversight in maintaining the critical analysis and scientific accuracy essential for academic publishing. AI may be used as a complementary tool to support, rather than replace, human-led scientific writing.
    Keywords:  ChatGPT; academic publishing; artificial intelligence; scientific writing; text generation; writing quality
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3171/2025.4.SPINE25519
  13. World J Pediatr. 2025 Aug 22.
    Rethinking peer review: ethics and blind spots of scientific gatekeeping.
    Javier Arredondo Montero.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12519-025-00960-0
  14. Oncol Nurs Forum. 2025 Aug 18. 52(5): 316-317
    Human Expertise in an AI-Collaborative Peer-Review Process.
    Janine Overcash.
      The implications of AI-generated peer reviews are concerning, particularly when not disclosed. If students are already turning to AI to complete academic tasks, it is not hard to imagine researchers are doing the same.
    Keywords:  artificial intelligence; ethics; peer review; publishing; research
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1188/25.ONF.316-317
  15. Nature. 2025 Aug;644(8078): 876
    Arguments for blind peer review also need to be recognized.
    Daniele Roberto Giacobbe.
      
    Keywords:  Publishing; Scientific community
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-025-02700-w
  16. Br J Community Nurs. 2025 Sep 01. 30(Sup9): S5-S6
    Peer review as professional practice: a hidden opportunity.
    Samantha Holloway.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.12968/bjcn.2025.0151
  17. Nature. 2025 Sep;645(8079): 14-15
    Peer reviewers more likely to approve articles that cite their own work.
    Rachel Fieldhouse.
      
    Keywords:  Peer review; Publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-025-02547-1
  18. F1000Res. 2025 ;14 482
    The most prevalent perceived barriers to sharing research data at the point of manuscript acceptance in health and life sciences: a survey at the University of Bristol.
    Rrita Bajraktari, Fiona Booth, Marcus Munafo, Nicholas Beazley-Long.
       Background: Sharing research data is critical for study validation and reuse, yet challenges persist across disciplines, such as psychology 1 and biomedical science 2. While global initiatives promote open science, understanding localized barriers in specific academic contexts is vital to implementing effective solutions.
    Objective: To investigate the most prevalent perceived barriers and reasons that prevent the sharing of research data underlying manuscripts, at the point of their acceptance for publication, within the Faculty of Health and Life Sciences (FHLS) at the University of Bristol, a research-intensive university in the UK.
    Methods: We distributed a comprehensive survey to FHLS researchers, addressing logistical, technical, and cultural challenges. A total of 143 participants provided insights into their experiences with data sharing.
    Results: The primary obstacles identified were time constraints and the complexity of the preparation process, with 34% reporting they "usually" or "always" lack sufficient time to adequately prepare their data for sharing. Additional barriers included not having the rights to share (27%), insufficient technical support (15%), and limited incentives within research teams. Moreover, qualitative responses highlighted a lack of confidence in data sharing infrastructure and guidance.
    Conclusions: These findings highlight the importance of targeted interventions to enhance data-sharing practices. Solutions should prioritize data preparation processes, clarify data ownership policies, and offer tailored training programs. Integrating data-sharing requirements into research workflows from the outset could significantly alleviate these challenges. Our study provides actionable recommendations to inform the development of resources and infrastructure that support a culture of open science within the FHLS at the University of Bristol.
    Keywords:  Health Sciences; Life Sciences; Open Science; barriers to sharing.; data sharing; open data; reproducibility; reuse
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.161819.2
  19. Eur J Radiol. 2025 Aug 21. pii: S0720-048X(25)00461-9. [Epub ahead of print]192 112375
    More than a rebuttal: a field guide to letters to the editor in radiology.
    Naoko Mori, Yu Mori, Motoko Konno, Tomoki Tozawa, Kento Hatakeyama, Shunji Mugikura.
      Letters to the Editor (LTEs) provide an important platform for academic communication. They enable researchers to engage with recently published studies, share their opinions, and contribute to the ongoing discussions in their fields. While traditionally viewed as rebuttal-type responses to target articles, LTEs can be written in more flexible formats, including matchmaking-type, agreement/praise-type, building-upon-type, independent-type, and case report-type LTEs. These variations allow for discussions that range from methodological critiques to new insights, interdisciplinary perspectives, or important clinical experiences. Unlike the text-based critiques common in other fields, LTEs in radiology often involve discussion of visual data or technical performance measures. Further, engaging with sociological issues such as the ethical considerations of radiation exposure or contrast agent use can help improve clinical judgment, not only for researchers but also for radiologists in daily practice. This review article introduces and classifies multiple types of LTEs based on examples of LTEs in journals related to radiology. Practical guidance is provided on how to select appropriate topics, structure arguments, and adhere to journal-specific submission guidelines. We also outline the publication process from submission to potential reply by the original authors. Writing LTEs has several benefits: it encourages critical thinking, improves scientific writing skills, and promotes participation in academic communication. Furthermore, LTEs contribute to the transparency in peer-reviewed literature and may inspire future research. When written respectfully and constructively, LTEs serve as a high-level tool for academic communication and scientific development. This review aims to make LTEs more accessible and practical for researchers, particularly in the field of radiology, by demonstrating their flexible formats and academic value.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2025.112375
  20. Integr Med Res. 2025 Sep;14(3): 101200
    Reporting guidelines for music-based interventions checklist: Explanation and elaboration guide.
    Sheri L Robb, K Maya Story, Elizabeth Harman, Debra S Burns, Joke Bradt, Emmeline Edwards, Tasha L Golden, Christian Gold, John R Iversen, Assal Habibi, Julene K Johnson, Miriam Lense, Susan M Perkins, Stacey Springs.
       Background: Detailed intervention reporting is essential to interpretation, replication, and eventual translation of music-based interventions (MBIs) into practice. Despite availability of Reporting Guidelines for Music-based Interventions (RG-MBI, published 2011), multiple reviews reveal sustained problems with reporting quality and consistency. To address this, we convened an interdisciplinary expert panel to update and improve the utility and validity of the existing guidelines using a rigorous Delphi approach. The resulting updated checklist includes 12-items across eight areas considered essential to ensure transparent reporting of MBIs.
    Methods: The purpose of this explanation and elaboration document is to facilitate consistent understanding, use, and dissemination of the revised RG-MBI. Members of the interdisciplinary expert panel collaborated to create the resulting guidance statement.
    Results: This guidance statement offers: (1) the scope and intended use of the RG-MBI, (2) an explanation for each checklist item, with examples from published studies, and (3) two published studies with annotations indicating where the authors reported each checklist item.
    Conclusion: Broader uptake of the RG-MBIs by study authors, editors, and peer reviewers will lead to better reporting of MBI trials, and in turn facilitate greater replication of research, improve cross-study comparisons and meta-analyses, and increase implementation of findings.
    Keywords:  Guidance statement; Intervention; Music; Music therapy; Reporting guidelines
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.imr.2025.101200
  21. Curr Res Transl Med. 2025 Aug 18. pii: S2452-3186(25)00045-5. [Epub ahead of print]73(4): 103536
    Could adherence to SAMPL Guidelines improve statistical reporting in clinical manuscripts? Insights from 150 editorial reviews for specialty journals.
    Michal Ordak.
       BACKGROUND: Although statistical reporting guidelines such as SAMPL (Statistical Analyses and Methods in the Published Literature) exist, statistical errors remain common in biomedical manuscripts. This study investigates whether early author adherence to SAMPL can reduce the need for statistical revision and offers recommendations for broader editorial implementation.
    METHODS: A retrospective analysis was conducted on 150 statistical reviews performed by the author between 2020 and 2025 for clinical medicine journals. Each manuscript was assessed for adherence to key SAMPL principles, including clarity of statistical methods, reporting of assumptions, and presentation of descriptive data. Outcomes were categorized as acceptance, revision (major/minor), or rejection.
    RESULTS: Of the 150 manuscripts, 99 (66 %) were accepted following SAMPL-based revisions: 87 after one round and 12 after two rounds (p < 0.001). The remaining 51 (34 %) were rejected, primarily due to issues such as inappropriate test use or lack of methodological justification. Among 39 manuscripts with conflicting reviewer opinions, SAMPL-based review helped resolve ambiguity, resulting in 25 rejections and 14 acceptances (p = 0.02). Of the accepted manuscripts, 65 % required major revisions and 35 % minor revisions (p = 0.004).
    CONCLUSION: Proactive adherence to the SAMPL Guidelines may reduce editorial workload, improve clarity, and lower preventable rejections. Integrating structured reporting standards into submission processes could enhance transparency and consistency in statistical reporting. These findings support the use of SAMPL-based checklists to improve manuscript quality and streamline peer review.
    Keywords:  Biostatistics; Clinical medicine; Research integrity; SAMPL Guidelines; Statistical analysis; Statistical review
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.retram.2025.103536
  22. J Am Assoc Nurse Pract. 2025 Aug 22.
    Tips for writing effective abstracts.
    Rodney W Hicks.
       ABSTRACT: Abstracts are critical components of scientific communication and conference planning. The digital age, through general search and academic search engines, has influenced the ability to locate and retrieve information. With such transformation, abstracts should be considered a marketing tool for manuscripts or presentations. Strategic forethought of keywords and synonyms will aid discoverability and help authors develop a legacy.
    Keywords:  Abstracts; publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1097/JXX.0000000000001191
  23. R Soc Open Sci. 2025 Aug;12(8): 250257
    Hurdles to open access publishing faced by authors: a scoping literature review from 2004 to 2023.
    Nataliia Kaliuzhna, Zeynep Aydin, Paul Müller, Christian Hauschke.
      Over the past two decades, numerous widespread efforts and individual contributions to shift scientific publishing to open access (OA) have faced a number of obstacles. Due to the complexity of knowledge production dimension and knowledge dissemination, the challenges encountered by researchers, publishers and readers differ. While examples of such barriers exist across multiple parties, no attempt has been made to synthesize these for active researchers. Thus, this scoping review explores the barriers documented in the scientific literature that researchers encounter in their pursuit of publishing open access. After screening 1280 relevant sources, 113 papers, published between 2004 and 2023, were included in the review. A total of 82 distinct barriers were identified and grouped into four subclusters: Practical Barriers, Lack of Competency, Sentiment, and Policy and Governance. The largest cluster in terms of barriers assigned was Sentiment, accounting for 51.2% (n = 42) of all barriers identified, suggesting that perceived barriers are the strongest determinants of publishing OA, while the most frequently occurring barrier was 'high article processing charges', reported in 88 papers. Furthermore, burdens faced specifically due to the location of the researcher were identified. Understanding and acknowledging these barriers are essential for their effective elimination or mitigation.
    Keywords:  academic publishing; open access barriers; open science; scholarly communication
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.250257
  24. Med Teach. 2025 Aug 22. 1
    Style is the answer to the death of the academic author.
    Timothy Daly.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2025.2550481
  25. Science. 2025 Aug 21. 389(6762): 850
    Authorship, erased.
    Hari Ram C R Nair.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aeb3340
  26. Afr J Reprod Health. 2025 08 26. pii: Afr J Reprod Health. [Epub ahead of print]29(8): 173
    Addressing post-publication discussion on Reiki study.
    Judith O Obaseki.
      The African Journal of Reproductive Health is committed to maintaining the highest standards of scientific rigor, transparency, and balanced discourse in reproductive health scholarship. Central to this commitment is our responsibility to provide a platform where research findings, particularly those that generate significant debate can be examined from multiple perspectives in a constructive and evidence-based manner.
    Keywords:  Addressing post-publication; Reiki study; post-publication discussion
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.29063/ajrh2025/v29i8.16
  27. J Med Libr Assoc. 2025 Jul 01. 113(3): 193-194
    Operational developments at the Journal of the Medical Library Association: improved production timelines, new policy introduction, and senior editorial team updates.
    Jill T Boruff, Michelle Kraft.
      In our editorial in the January/April 2023 issue of the Journal of the Medical Library Association (JMLA), we spoke of the challenges we faced when we took on the co-lead editor roles. At the end of that editorial, we stated our intention to get the publishing schedule back on track and to finally tackle other projects. And while it took us some time to report it, we are pleased to share that, in the publication year of 2024, JMLA resumed its regular quarterly publishing schedule.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2025.2289
  28. Chiropr Man Therap. 2025 Aug 27. 33(1): 37
    Chiropractic & Manual Therapies: a critical review of 20 years as an open-access journal.
    Bruce F Walker.
       BACKGROUND: This study reviews the 20-year history (2005-2025) of Chiropractic & Manual Therapies as an open-access, peer-reviewed journal. Originally launched in 1992 as COMSIG Review, the journal has undergone multiple title changes and is currently financially supported by three chiropractic societies. This review critically examines 20 years (2005-2025) as an open-access online journal and makes recommendations for future growth.
    METHODS: Data on all published articles in the journal Chiropractic & Manual Therapies for the period April 11, 2005, until April 10, 2025 were manually entered into SPSS Version 30.0.0.0 between the dates May 7, 2025 and May 16, 2025. The analysis examined article type, publication year, access numbers, citation counts, and Altmetric scores for each published article. Conclusions were then drawn, and recommendations made.
    RESULTS: Of the 800 articles published, research articles comprised the majority (59.1%) of publication type, yet systematic reviews demonstrated significantly higher citation rates and online engagement. There has been strong growth in research outputs over the 20 years. Systematic reviews, debate articles and narrative reviews showed notable higher accesses and impact, than other article types. Open access has broadened global reach with 7.49 million accesses over the 20 years examined. The current Impact Factor is 2.3 (2024), the highest for any chiropractic journal worldwide.
    CONCLUSION: Findings highlight the journal's substantial contribution to the chiropractic and manual therapy literature and offer insights for future editorial direction and impact enhancement. The journal's unique role as a society-supported publication has enabled exploration of emerging and controversial topics that have attracted high numbers of accesses indicating popularity and reach.
    Keywords:  Chiropractic; Journal; Manual therapies
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12998-025-00595-y
  29. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2025 Aug 21.
    Correction to 'Trustworthiness criteria for meta-analyses of randomized controlled studies: OBGYN Journal guidelines'.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1002/ijgo.70490
  30. mBio. 2025 Aug 25. e0199025
    ASM incorporates Imagetwin to address image duplication and preserve scientific accuracy.
    Aashi P Chaturvedi, Alicea Hibbard, Chad Nelson, Arturo Casadevall, Amy L Kullas.
      Image duplication in scientific articles-accidental or intentional-undermines trust in research, authors, institutions, and publishers. Duplications not only cast doubt on researchers' scientific rigor, but they also raise concerns about potential misconduct, jeopardizing careers and even calling into question the effectiveness of the peer review process and editorial oversight. Ultimately, these issues erode confidence in the published study and, more broadly, the entire scientific community. However, when combined with expert in-house staff verification and artificial intelligence-based tools like Imagetwin, Proofig, etc., publishers can detect potential image duplications before publication and strengthen the integrity of the scientific record. In 2023, the American Society for Microbiology (ASM) Journals program integrated Imagetwin into its editorial workflow and conducted a 1-year pilot study. Here, we present key findings and highlight how ASM Journals refined its processes to incorporate image duplication screening earlier in the manuscript lifecycle. The pilot identified image duplications prior to publication in 3.9% of accepted, eligible manuscripts screened with Imagetwin. Most image concerns were unintentional and readily resolved. Of the 2,627 accepted manuscripts screened during the pilot, acceptance was revoked for six (0.23%) due to unresolved issues. It is now a key component of the routine ethics checks performed by ASM journals.
    Keywords:  AI tools; Imagetwin; image duplication; image integrity; scientific integrity
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1128/mbio.01990-25
  31. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2025 Aug 27.
    Correction to 'Trustworthiness criteria for meta-analyses of randomized controlled studies: OBGYN Journal guidelines'.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.70098
  32. Eur J Paediatr Dent. 2025 Sep 01. 26(3): 171-172
    The European Journal of Paediatric Dentistry achieves Q1 status: a strategic advancement in specialised dental publishing.
    L Paglia, S Colombo.
      The European Journal of Paediatric Dentistry (EJPD) has attained a significant milestone by entering the first quartile (Q1) in the 2024 Journal Citation Reports (JCR), curated by Clarivate Analytics, in both the "Dentistry, Oral Surgery & Medicine" and "Paediatrics" categories". This dual recognition is a rare and significant achievement for a journal exclusively devoted to paediatric dentistry, underscoring its growing influence within both the dental and broader medical research communities. Since its initial inclusion in the Journal Citation Reports (JCR) in 2010, the European Journal of Paediatric Dentistry has demonstrated a consistent trajectory of growth. In 2015, with an Impact Factor (IF) of 0.421, the journal entered a phase of strategic consolidation marked by renewed editorial leadership and a refined scientific focus [Clarivate, 2024]. This evolution led to a steady and measurable increase in bibliometric performance, culminating in an Impact Factor of 2.7 in 2024. EJPD's ascent into Q1 status is thus not only a reflection of increased citations but also of enhanced selectivity, stringent peer review, and alignment with international standards of scientific publishing. The editorial workflow has been strengthened through the adoption of advanced manuscript handling systems, facilitating a more efficient and transparent peer-review process. This infrastructure supports rigorous scientific scrutiny, ensuring the publication of high-quality, evidence-based content. Moreover, the journal's early and proactive adoption of the Open Access model has significantly broadened its readership and facilitated global dissemination of its published research [Livas et al. 2018; García et al. 2022]. EJPD has established itself as a platform for high-impact contributions in key domains of paediatric oral health, including: maternal and paediatric dentistry, early childhood caries, prevention strategies behavioural and psychological management in paediatric patients craniofacial growth and developmental disorders dental trauma and restorative protocols in the paediatric population interdisciplinary research linking dentistry with nutrition, paediatrics, epidemiology, developmental medicine The journal has consistently prioritised research with clinical applicability, thereby serving not only the academic community but also informing best practices among paediatric dental practitioners worldwide. Of particular note is the journal's sustained commitment to the promotion of oral health and preventive medicine. Despite the universally acknowledged value of prevention in public health, current bibliometric analyses reveal that less than 6% of the global scientific literature addresses behavioural determinants of chronic disease prevention-a proportion that has been declining since 2015 [Stival et al. 2025]. EJPD has countered this trend by systematically integrating preventive perspectives into its editorial focus, with special attention to the maternal-infant period, a critical window for shaping lifelong oral and systemic health trajectories. The continued evolution of EJPD has been made possible by the steadfast support of the Italian Society of Paediatric Dentistry (SIOI) and its membership. Their contributions- scientific, logistical, and institutional-have been essential in enabling the journal to function as an authoritative voice in the international paediatric dental research landscape. The inclusion of the European Journal of Paediatric Dentistry in the Q1 segment of the JCR rankings represents not merely a bibliometric accomplishment, but a qualitative leap in the international scientific visibility of paediatric dentistry. By fostering methodological rigour, clinical relevance, interdisciplinary collaboration, and open dissemination, EJPD reaffirms its mission to serve as a benchmark for scientific excellence in its field. This achievement serves as both a recognition of the progress made and a stimulus for continued advancement. The journal remains committed to supporting innovative research that improves oral health outcomes in children and adolescents globally. Science with purpose. Progress with impact.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.23804/ejpd.2025.26.03.01
  33. J Clin Imaging Sci. 2025 ;15 27
    Beyond the numbers: How Journal of Clinical Imaging Science is shaping the future of radiology publishing.
    Vikram Dogra.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.25259/JCIS_148_2025
  34. Adv Skin Wound Care. 2025 Sep 01. 38(8): 396-397
    Honoring Our Peer Reviewers and the Role of Artificial Intelligence.
    Elizabeth A Ayello, R Gary Sibbald.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1097/ASW.0000000000000339
  35. Bioengineered. 2025 Dec;16(1): 2542668
    Tackling paper mills requires us to prevent future contamination and clean up the past - the case of the journal Bioengineered.
    René Aquarius, Elisabeth M Bik, David Bimler, Morten P Oksvold, Kevin Patrick.
      Taylor & Francis journal Bioengineered has been targeted by paper mills. Our goal is to identify problematic articles published in Bioengineered during the period 2010 to 2024. Dimensions was used to search for articles that contained the terms 'mouse' OR 'mice' OR 'rat' OR 'rats' in title or abstract, published in Bioengineered between January 1st 2010 to December 31st 2024. All articles were assessed by eye and by using software to detect inappropriate image duplication and manipulation. An article was classified as problematic if it contained inappropriate image duplication or manipulation or had been previously retracted. Problematic articles were reported on PubPeer by the authors if they had not been reported previously. All included articles were assessed for post-publication editorial decisions. We have excluded all articles published in 2024 from further analysis, as these were all retraction notices. We assessed the remaining 878 articles, of which 226 (25.7%) were identified as problematic, of which 35 had been previously retracted. One retracted article was later de-retracted. One article received a correction. None of the included articles received an expression of concern or the Taylor & Francis 'under investigation' pop-up. Taylor & Francis' lack of visible editorial action has left the scientific community vulnerable to reading and citing hundreds of problematic articles published in Bioengineered. To uphold scientific integrity, Taylor & Francis should use the findings of this study as a starting point to systematically identify all compromised articles in Bioengineered and take appropriate editorial action.
    Keywords:  Forensic Scientometrics; Inappropriate image duplication and manipulation; Scientific Integrity; Scientometrics
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1080/21655979.2025.2542668
  36. Nurse Pract. 2025 Sep 01. 50(9): 12-13
    Congratulations on 50 years of excellence: The Nurse Practitioner: Reflections from a past editor-in-chief.
    Linda Pearson.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1097/01.NPR.0000000000000358
  37. R I Med J (2013). 2025 Sep 02. 108(9): 52-53
    A Look Back: The Rhode Island Medical Journal in 1925, 1950, 1975.
    Mary Korr.
      
This page is being maintained by Thomas Krichel. It was last updated on 2025‒09‒08 at 9:24.