bims-skolko Biomed News
on Scholarly communication
Issue of 2025–11–16
thirty papers selected by
Thomas Krichel, Open Library Society
  1. Undisclosed financial conflicts of interest among physician-authors in leading US psychiatry journals: a cross-sectional study.
  2. Is It Enough? Disclosure of Medical Industry Payments to Orthopaedic Surgery Journal Editors and the Need for Transparency.
  3. Influential list of highly cited researchers now shuts out more scientists: here's why.
  4. A Personal Note on "Retraction Notes": Distinguishing Author-Offered Retractions from Other Causes.
  5. Analyzing the citation impact of predatory journals in the health sciences.
  6. Preprint policies across journals and publishers in ecology and evolutionary biology.
  7. Academic boycotts: data hint at shifting research partnerships.
  8. The Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Journal Publishing.
  9. Challenges, Ethical Considerations, and Best Practices of Using AI-Assisted Translation in Medical Writing: Examples From Japanese-English Translations.
  10. Core principles of responsible generative AI usage in research.
  11. Future Landscape of Artificial Intelligence in Research: Can It Be Modified?
  12. Academic Productivity and Artificial Intelligence: Beyond Time Constraints.
  13. ChatGPT: how to use it and the pitfalls/cautions in academia.
  14. Authorial Integrity in the Age of Artificial Intelligence: A Scientific Autobiography.
  15. Rigor, respect and responsible reviewing for Metabolomics: essential tips for peer review success.
  16. Peer review for early career researchers.
  17. An expert criticism on post-publication peer review platforms: the case of pubpeer.
  18. How to Reject a VIS Paper, or Not?
  19. [How to publish a scientific article in a Journal?]
  20. Tips for Successful Manuscript Submission.
  21. Moving From Conference Presentation to Manuscript.
  22. Psychological, Cultural, and Linguistic Barriers to Presenting New Ideas.
  23. Reconsidering Case Reports: A Modest Call from a Seasoned Clinician.
  24. Artificial intelligence for manuscript writing: policies and implementation in cardiovascular journals.
  25. A survey of open science attitudes and behaviors among US pharmacy faculty.
  26. Ethical Challenges in Scientific Publishing: Insights from New Fireside Chats at the 2025 European Society of Cardiology Congress.
  27. Open science practices among early-career human-computer interaction researchers in the US.
  28. What Retractions Tell Us About Research Integrity in Mexican Academia.
  29. Advancing Dose-Response Research: Integrating Exposome, Multi-Omics, and Low-Dose Phenomena in Toxicology and Medicine.
  30. From Podium to Publication: the Fate of Abstracts Presented at ICS and IUGA/AUGS 2022.
  1. BMJ Open. 2025 Nov 12. 15(11): e104955
    Undisclosed financial conflicts of interest among physician-authors in leading US psychiatry journals: a cross-sectional study.
    Francis Gesel, James Baraldi, Jessica Goldhirsh, Brian J Piper.
       OBJECTIVE: To assess the prevalence and magnitude of undisclosed financial conflicts of interest (COIs) among physician-authors in high-impact US-based psychiatry journals.
    DESIGN: Cross-sectional study comparing the author self-reported disclosures to the journal(s) with payments mandatorily reported in the Open Payments database.
    METHODS: We examined original research articles published between 1 January 2020 and 31 December 2022 in two prominent US-based psychiatry journals: the American Journal of Psychiatry (AJP) and Journal of the American Medical Association Psychiatry (JAMA-PSY). Of 2872 publications screened, 74 articles authored by 27 eligible US-based physician-authors met the inclusion criteria.
    OUTCOME MEASURES: Total payments received by authors within the 3 years prior to publication and the proportion of undisclosed payments. Additional analyses assessed payment types (research vs general), author demographics and study characteristics associated with undisclosed COIs.
    RESULTS: US$4.54 million was paid to authors in the two journals, of which US$645 135 (14.2%) were undisclosed. AJP authors received US$205 943 (7.5% of total payments) in undisclosed payments, while JAMA-PSY authors received US$439 192 (24.8%). Research payments constituted 82.3% of all undisclosed payments. Total undisclosed payments among the top 10 highest-earning authors accounted for 84.8% (AJP) and 99.6% (JAMA-PSY) of all undisclosed payments to journals. Nearly all undisclosed payments, 96.2%, were made to authors conducting randomised controlled trials.
    CONCLUSIONS: Substantial undisclosed financial COIs were identified among the top 10 earners in high-impact psychiatry journals. These findings highlight potential risks to research transparency and integrity. Further research is needed to evaluate the effectiveness of disclosure policies and develop mechanisms to mitigate COIs in psychiatric research.
    Keywords:  ETHICS (see Medical Ethics); PSYCHIATRY; Research Design
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2025-104955
  2. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2025 Nov 13.
    Is It Enough? Disclosure of Medical Industry Payments to Orthopaedic Surgery Journal Editors and the Need for Transparency.
    Daniel L Riddle.
       BACKGROUND: Financial conflicts of interest (COIs) are arguably a powerful form of COI in scientific journal publishing. The purposes of this paper were to explore the financial COIs of the 6 most highly ranked U.S.-based orthopaedic surgery journals, to more thoroughly examine financial COIs in the journal with the highest industry payments, and to discuss possible approaches to mitigating the potential negative impact of financial COIs.
    METHODS: Two publicly available sources of data were used to characterize editor industry funding: the websites or mastheads of high-impact U.S.-based journals and the Open Payments database from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.
    RESULTS: From 2021 to 2023, the median General and Research Payments per editor varied substantially, from a low of $0 to Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research editors to $2,735,566 to The Journal of Arthroplasty editors.
    CONCLUSIONS: Financial COIs existed for some editors at each of the 6 most highly ranked U.S.-based orthopaedic surgery journals. For The Journal of Arthroplasty, the sixth-highest-ranking journal, the majority of the editors and editorial board members had financial COIs. Adverse journal consequences related to financial COIs could be mitigated by enhancing the transparency of disclosures and prominently displaying journal policies for handling COIs on journal websites.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.24.01623
  3. Nature. 2025 Nov 12.
    Influential list of highly cited researchers now shuts out more scientists: here's why.
    Nicola Jones.
      
    Keywords:  Authorship; Ethics; Publishing; Scientific community
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-025-03691-4
  4. JMA J. 2025 Oct 15. 8(4): 1480-1481
    A Personal Note on "Retraction Notes": Distinguishing Author-Offered Retractions from Other Causes.
    Shigeki Matsubara.
      
    Keywords:  honest error; manuscript; misconduct; paper; retraction
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.31662/jmaj.2025-0364
  5. J Med Libr Assoc. 2025 Oct 23. 113(4): 327-335
    Analyzing the citation impact of predatory journals in the health sciences.
    Erin Watson, Li Zhang.
       Objective: Predatory journal articles do not undergo rigorous peer review and so their quality is potentially lower. Citing them disseminates the unreliable data they may contain and may undermine the integrity of science. Using citation analysis techniques, this study investigates the influence of predatory journals in the health sciences.
    Methods: The twenty-six journals in the "Medical Sciences" category of a known predatory publisher were selected. The number of articles published by these journals was recorded based on the information from their websites. The "Cited References" search function in Web of Science was used to retrieve citation data for these journals.
    Results: Of the 3,671 articles published in these predatory journals, 1,151 (31.4%) were cited at least once by 3,613 articles indexed in Web of Science. The number of articles that cited articles published in predatory journals increased significantly from 64 in 2014 to 665 in 2022, an increase of 10-fold in nine years. The citing articles were published by researchers from all over the world (from high-, middle-, and lower-income countries) and in the journals of traditional and open access publishers. Forty-three percent (1,560/3,613) of the citing articles were supported by research funds.
    Conclusions: The content from articles published in predatory journals has infiltrated reputable health sciences journals to a substantial extent. It is crucial to develop strategies to prevent citing such articles.
    Keywords:  Predatory journals; Web of Science; citation analysis; health sciences
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2025.2024
  6. Proc Biol Sci. 2025 Nov;292(2058): 20250524
    Preprint policies across journals and publishers in ecology and evolutionary biology.
    Marija Purgar, Edward R Ivimey-Cook, Antica Culina, Joshua D Wallach.
      Preprints have the potential to accelerate knowledge dissemination and promote transparency in ecology and evolutionary biology. However, concerns about journal policies regarding prior publication may discourage researchers from preprinting their manuscripts. Therefore, we identified 230 eligible ecology and evolutionary biology journals, published by 69 different publishers, and assessed both their journal- and publisher-level preprint policies. At the journal level, 119 (51.7%) of the 230 journals included preprint policies in their author guidelines-either through journal-specific policies (109, 47.4%) or by directly referencing their publisher's preprint policies (10, 4.3%). Overall, 116 (97.5%) of these journals were supportive of considering preprints for publication. At the publisher level, 26 (37.7%) of the 69 publishers had explicit preprint policies, all of which supported considering preprints for publication. There were 38 (16.5%) journals without journal- or publisher-level preprint policies. While most journals and publishers were supportive of considering preprints for publication, instructions for authors, such as acceptable locations for posting preprints, timing of preprint posting relative to manuscript submission and requirements to link preprints to final published articles, were lacking. These findings highlight opportunities for ecology and evolutionary biology journals, along with their publishers, to clarify and refine their preprint policies and instructions for authors.
    Keywords:  biology; ecology; evolutionary; instructions; journals; policies; preprints; publishers; recommendations
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2025.0524
  7. Nature. 2025 Nov 12.
    Academic boycotts: data hint at shifting research partnerships.
    Katie Kavanagh.
      
    Keywords:  Politics; Publishing; Scientific community
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-025-03025-4
  8. Sci Diabetes Self Manag Care. 2025 Nov 14. 26350106251397460
    The Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Journal Publishing.
    James A Fain.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1177/26350106251397460
  9. J Korean Med Sci. 2025 Nov 10. 40(43): e320
    Challenges, Ethical Considerations, and Best Practices of Using AI-Assisted Translation in Medical Writing: Examples From Japanese-English Translations.
    Takako Kojima, Tomoko Morita, Helena A Popiel.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2025.40.e320
  10. AI Ethics. 2025 ;5(6): 6371-6377
    Core principles of responsible generative AI usage in research.
    Tim-Dorian Knöchel, Konrad J Schweizer, Oguz A Acar, Atakan M Akil, Ali H Al-Hoorie, Florian Buehler, Mahmoud M Elsherif, Alice Giannini, Evelien Heyselaar, Mohammad Hosseini, Vinodh Ilangovan, Marton Kovacs, Zhicheng Lin, Meng Liu, Anco Peeters, Don van Ravenzwaaij, Marek A Vranka, Yuki Yamada, Yu-Fang Yang, Balazs Aczel.
      In a rapidly evolving Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) landscape, researchers, policymakers, and publishers have to continuously redefine responsible research practices. To ensure guidance of GenAI use in research, core principles that remain stable despite technological advancement are needed. This article defines a list of principles guiding the responsible use of GenAI in research, regardless of use case and GenAI technology employed. To define this framework, we conducted an anonymised Delphi consensus procedure comprising a panel of 16 international and multidisciplinary experts in AI, social sciences, law, ethics, and scientific publishing. After three rounds of independent rating and feedback, the panel reached consensus on eight sequentially ordered principles required for responsible GenAI usage: Regulations, Data Security, Quality Control, Originality, Bias Mitigation, Accountability, Transparency, and Broader Impact. For the clear reporting of adherence to these principles, we created a checklist allowing active implementation into the research process. With these efforts, we aim to guide everyday research, support the development of further specified regulations, policies, and guidelines, and promote discussion about GenAI use in research.
    Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s43681-025-00768-8.
    Keywords:  Ethics; Generative artificial intelligence; Guidelines; Policy and regulation; Research integrity
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-025-00768-8
  11. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2025 Nov 11. pii: ezaf394. [Epub ahead of print]
    Future Landscape of Artificial Intelligence in Research: Can It Be Modified?
    Shigeki Matsubara.
      
    Keywords:  artificial intelligence; fabrication; human; research; writing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1093/ejcts/ezaf394
  12. JMA J. 2025 Oct 15. 8(4): 1476-1477
    Academic Productivity and Artificial Intelligence: Beyond Time Constraints.
    Shigeki Matsubara.
      
    Keywords:  artificial intelligence; motivation; paper; paper productivity; research
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.31662/jmaj.2025-0289
  13. Ann Pediatr Endocrinol Metab. 2025 Oct;30(5): 229-241
    ChatGPT: how to use it and the pitfalls/cautions in academia.
    Jeong-Moo Lee.
      The integration of large language models (LLMs) in academic research has transformed traditional research methodologies. This review investigates the current state, applications, and limitations of LLMs, particularly ChatGPT, in medical and scientific research. I performed a systematic review of recent literature and LLM development reports in artificial intelligence-assisted research tools, including commercial LLM services (GPT-4o, Claude 3, Gemini Pro) and specialized research platforms (Genspark, Scispace). I evaluated their performance, applications, and limitations across stages of the research process. Recent advancements in LLMs shows potential for improving research efficiency, particularly in literature review, data analysis, and manuscript preparation. Performance comparison revealed varying strengths: GPT-4o and o1 outperformed in the overall area, Claude 3 in writing and coding, and Gemini Pro in multimodal processing. Therefore, it is important to choose and use each model wisely according to its advantages. However, hallucination risks, inherent biases, plagiarism concerns, and privacy issues are concerns in LLMs. The emergence of Retrieval-Augmented Generation models and specialized research tools has improved accuracy and current information access. LLMs offer effective support for research productivity, but they should serve as complementary tools rather than primary research drivers. The successful application of these tools depends on a thorough understanding of their limitations, strict adherence to ethical guidelines, and preservation of researcher autonomy.
    Keywords:  Artificial intelligence; Biomedical research; Generative pre-trained transformer; Natural language processing; Research ethics
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.6065/apem.2550028.014
  14. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2025 Oct 20. pii: S1064-7481(25)00499-3. [Epub ahead of print]
    Authorial Integrity in the Age of Artificial Intelligence: A Scientific Autobiography.
    Christopher C Colenda.
      Writing a scientific autobiography is challenging due to the many factors influencing an academic career, including personal experiences, the era of one's career, research interests, available research tools, institutional environment, societal priorities, and mentorship. Despite changing contexts, certain obligations remain constant: scholars have an obligation to prioritize scientific and personal integrity above the pursuit of individual success, and they must ethically use research tools, including information technology search processes and writing technologies, as part of their scientific processes. The first obligation is built on personal integrity, which in turn characterizes how the second is implemented. My career spanned the last quarter of the 20th century through the first quarter of the 21st century. During this period, there were significant advancements in research methodologies, including the capability of internet search technologies to access scientific databases and desktop writing and referencing software. These advances pale in comparison to the meteoric rise of artificial intelligence large language models (AI LLMs) over the last 5 years, where information retrieval and writing tools have transformed how we access and use information - potentially placing our personal and authorial integrity at risk. Given this rapid transformation, my autobiography's objectives are: 1) to share my developmental perspectives on personal and authorial integrity and examine the impact of early experiences where perceived plagiarism helped me define those principles; 2) to review professional guidelines concerning research integrity and policy recommendations for AI LLMs; 3) to discuss changes in my scholarly content resulting from evolving search strategies, writing tools, and journal growth; and 4) by using examples of AI-generated and AI-assisted writing samples, to address the influence of AI LLMs on authorial integrity, including practical risks, opportunities, and current recommended strategies for managing AI LLMs in scholarly writing. By sharing my perspectives, I hope to provide guidance for those pursuing scholarly careers that ensures their authorial integrity.
    Keywords:  Authorial integrity; artificial intelligence; copyediting; information search; plagiarism
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jagp.2025.10.004
  15. Metabolomics. 2025 Nov 14. 21(6): 162
    Rigor, respect and responsible reviewing for Metabolomics: essential tips for peer review success.
    Royston Goodacre, Roan Louw.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11306-025-02349-6
  16. Nat Struct Mol Biol. 2025 Nov;32(11): 2131
    Peer review for early career researchers.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41594-025-01727-x
  17. Daru. 2025 Nov 13. 34(1): 1
    An expert criticism on post-publication peer review platforms: the case of pubpeer.
    Aristidis Tsatsakis, Michael Aschner, Dimosthenis Sarigiannis, Anca Oana Docea, Ramin Rezaee, Seyed Mojtaba Daghighi, Andrey A Svistunov, José L Domingo, Mohammad Abdollahi.
      While traditional peer review offers advantages in academic publishing, it is often hampered by significant weaknesses, leading to frustration among many authors. Scientific discoveries after publication depend on thorough discussions and critiques, making post-publication peer review (PPPR) an essential tool for identifying errors and encouraging authors to make necessary corrections. PPPR is defined as a critical, ongoing, and public review conducted by the broader scientific community once research findings are formally published. Its goal is to enable more academic experts to continuously examine, question, and validate the work, identifying potential flaws or strengths that might have been missed during the initial review. This ongoing dialogue promotes transparency and motivates authors to make necessary corrections. Although the goal of PPPR is to enhance scientific integrity, the open nature of PPPR platforms makes them vulnerable to misuse. It can also be exploited to undermine colleagues, suppress differing viewpoints, or further personal or organizational interests. We also observe an increase in "hyper-skepticism," which differs from constructive criticism, reflecting an overly critical mindset that focuses on doubt rather than fostering understanding. To fully realize the benefits of PPPR and prevent misuse, the scientific community must build a more equitable and more responsible framework. Addressing these challenges requires a thoughtful strategy that integrates technological advancements, strengthens editorial policies, enhances transparency measures, and provides robust protections for good-faith scientific debate.
    Keywords:  Hyper-ske; Post-publication peer review; Publication ethics; Pubpeer; Scientific integrity; pticism
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40199-025-00580-z
  18. IEEE Comput Graph Appl. 2025 Nov-Dec;45(6):45(6): 101-111
    How to Reject a VIS Paper, or Not?
    Min Chen, David Ebert, Theresa-Marie Rhyne.
      While it is necessary for most (if not all) visualization and visual analytics (VIS) publication venues to use peer review processes to assure the quality of the papers to be published, it is also necessary for the VIS community to appraise and improve the quality of peer review processes from time to time. In recent years, rejecting a VIS paper seems to have become rather easy, as many rejection reasons are available to criticize a given paper. In this article, we analyze possible causes of this phenomenon and recommend possible remedies. In particular, over the past decades, the visualization field has rapidly grown to include many types of contributions and specialized research areas. Given this large landscape of topics, we need to ensure that good contributions within each area are reviewed properly, published, and built upon to make significant advancement in the area concerned. Therefore, it is crucial that our review process applies specific criteria for each area and does not expect individual publications to satisfy many review criteria designed for other areas. In this way, we hope VIS review processes will enable more VIS research with X factors (original, innovative, significant, impactful, rigorous, insightful, or inspirational) to be published promptly, allowing VIS researchers and practitioners to make even more impactful contributions to data sciences.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1109/MCG.2025.3594817
  19. Rev Gastroenterol Peru. 2025 Jul-Sep;45(3):45(3): 227-228
    [How to publish a scientific article in a Journal?]
    Hugo Guillermo Cedrón Cheng.
      
  20. Compr Rev Food Sci Food Saf. 2025 Nov;24(6): e70329
    Tips for Successful Manuscript Submission.
    Mary Ellen Camire.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1111/1541-4337.70329
  21. West J Nurs Res. 2025 Dec;47(12): 1135-1136
    Moving From Conference Presentation to Manuscript.
    Todd Ruppar.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1177/01939459251391243
  22. JMA J. 2025 Oct 15. 8(4): 1470-1471
    Psychological, Cultural, and Linguistic Barriers to Presenting New Ideas.
    Shunsuke Koga.
      
    Keywords:  academic writing; artificial intelligence; large language models; letter; linguistic barriers; medical trainees
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.31662/jmaj.2025-0342
  23. JMA J. 2025 Oct 15. 8(4): 1478-1479
    Reconsidering Case Reports: A Modest Call from a Seasoned Clinician.
    Shigeki Matsubara.
      
    Keywords:  case; case report; concept; journal; original article
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.31662/jmaj.2025-0362
  24. Cardiovasc Diagn Ther. 2025 Oct 31. 15(5): 1107-1112
    Artificial intelligence for manuscript writing: policies and implementation in cardiovascular journals.
    Todd A Laffaye, Brian H Carlson, William K Freeman, Chadi Ayoub.
      Artificial intelligence (AI) has emerged as a widely used tool for writing, including in scientific research and publications. While its application to cardiovascular research is the focus of numerous studies, the policies related to its use for manuscript writing are rapidly evolving and not well understood. We sought to compare the policies of high-impact cardiovascular journals regarding AI for manuscript writing assistance and assess the prevalence of its use. Cardiovascular medicine journals with an SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) ≥3 and h-index ≥100 were screened for an AI policy. Journal policies were assessed for author disclosure requirements, standardization of disclosure section and language, and AI detection software used during the submission process. Each journal with an AI policy that required disclosure of its use was systematically searched to evaluate the prevalence of articles disclosing its use for writing assistance from January 2023 to August 2025. The number of publications with AI disclosure and publication characteristics was recorded. Seventeen journals met inclusion criteria and were screened for an AI policy, of which 14 journals (82%) contained such a policy. Among these, three journals (18%) had an AI policy that required disclosure, but that was not specific to AI use for manuscript writing. One journal (6%) did not require disclosure. The remaining three journals (18%) did not have any AI policy. None of the journals mandated a dedicated AI disclosure section or provided authors with standardized disclosure language. Fifteen journals (88%) used identifiable AI detection software, while only one posted this information publicly. Among the 14 journals with an AI disclosure policy, 11 AI-disclosing works were found. ChatGPT was the most common AI tool used (n=9, 82%). Journal policies regarding AI use for manuscript writing assistance vary widely, and therefore, there is a growing need for standardization. The prevalence of articles disclosing the use of AI was profoundly low across all journals evaluated, with significant variation in how AI use was disclosed. Having clear and consistent policies across journals and requiring authors to disclose their use of AI for manuscript writing is essential to uphold transparency and maintain medical research integrity.
    Keywords:  Artificial intelligence (AI); cardiovascular journals; disclosure policies; manuscript writing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.21037/cdt-2025-381
  25. Res Social Adm Pharm. 2025 Nov 07. pii: S1551-7411(25)00492-9. [Epub ahead of print]
    A survey of open science attitudes and behaviors among US pharmacy faculty.
    Spencer E Harpe.
       OBJECTIVES: To describe the attitudes, behaviors, and perceived disciplinary norms for open science practices among US pharmacy faculty and examine differences across pharmacy disciplines.
    METHODS: This cross-sectional study used the Center for Open Science's Open Scholarship Survey modules on data sharing, code sharing, materials sharing, preregistration, preprints, and open access publishing. Attitudes were measured using a scale from 1 (Very much against) to 5 (Very much in favor). The study questionnaire was administered to a random sample of 3200 faculty from the AACP Roster of Pharmacy Faculty as of February 2022. Individuals with ≥0.8 full-time equivalent faculty appointment in pharmacy practice or one of the pharmaceutical sciences were eligible to participate.
    RESULTS: Responses were obtained from 663 faculty (389 complete; 274 partial). Open access publishing (mean [SD]: 4.1 [0.9]) showed the most positive attitudes. Study preregistration (3.2 [0.9]) and posting preprints (3.1 [1.1]) were the least positive. Attitudes for data sharing, code sharing, and study preregistration were statistically significant across disciplines. The most commonly reported open science practice was open access publishing (mean [SD], 27.7 % [29.1 %]). Study preregistration was the least common (mean [SD], 1.7 % [7.0 %]). After accounting for respondent and institutional characteristics, disciplinary differences in data sharing, study preregistration, and posting preprints were noted.
    CONCLUSION: This study provides a baseline assessment of attitudes towards and engagement in open science practices among US pharmacy faculty. Given the relatively low frequency with which open science practices were reported, there is considerable room for improvement in the uptake of open science practices.
    Keywords:  Meta-research; Open access; Open science; Preprints; Preregistration
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sapharm.2025.10.012
  26. Eur Cardiol. 2025 ;20 e31
    Ethical Challenges in Scientific Publishing: Insights from New Fireside Chats at the 2025 European Society of Cardiology Congress.
    Alessandro Mugelli.
      
    Keywords:  Fireside chats; research ethics; research integrity; scientific publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.15420/ecr.2025.71
  27. PLoS One. 2025 ;20(11): e0334692
    Open science practices among early-career human-computer interaction researchers in the US.
    Tatiana Chakravorti, Sanjana Gautam, Sarah Rajtmajer.
      Many fields of science have heightened introspection in the wake of concerns around reproducibility and replicability of published findings. In recent years, the Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) community too has worked to implement policy changes and mainstream open science practices. Our work investigates early-career HCI researchers' perceptions of open science and engagement with best practices through 18 semi-structured interviews. In particular, we study researchers with mixed methods or qualitative research backgrounds. Our findings highlight opportunities and challenges for the adoption of open science practices within HCI. Participants describe barriers such as a lack of incentives, cultural resistance, and concerns about intellectual property. However, they also identify positive trends, such as increased awareness of open science practices, evolving norms around peer review, and perceived benefits such as enhanced visibility, transparency, diversity, accessibility, collaboration, and research credibility. We offer recommendations to address these barriers and to promote transparency and openness in HCI. We suggest that relatively small changes at major conferences like the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI) and Computer-Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) could meaningfully impact community norms. While our findings provide valuable insights about the open science practices of early-career HCI researchers, their applicability is limited to the USA only. In addition, interviews rely on self-reported data and are therefore subject to, e.g., recall bias. Future studies should include HCI researchers with different levels of experience and from various countries.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0334692
  28. Dev World Bioeth. 2025 Nov 14.
    What Retractions Tell Us About Research Integrity in Mexican Academia.
    Karina Ordoñez-Torres, Sergio Litewka, Elizabeth Heitman.
      Research integrity remains a challenge to public trust in science around the world. Retracted scientific papers can erode the public's trust by raising doubt about the reliability of the published literature. This paper assesses article retractions involving Mexican authors through analysis of relevant data and retraction patterns. The study examines 55 retracted articles with Mexican corresponding authors, categorizing them by publication venue, article type, scientific area, reasons for retraction, and time between publication and retraction. The findings underscore core challenges to research integrity in Mexico and the need to strengthen both research training and research integrity initiatives in Mexican research institutions. The paper concludes with recommendations for contextually relevant strategies for Mexican academia to foster research integrity.
    Keywords:  Mexico; research integrity; research misconduct; retractions
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1111/dewb.70011
  29. Dose Response. 2025 Oct-Dec;23(4):23(4): 15593258251395790
    Advancing Dose-Response Research: Integrating Exposome, Multi-Omics, and Low-Dose Phenomena in Toxicology and Medicine.
    Lu Cai.
      The field of dose-response research has evolved dramatically, propelled by advancements in exposomics concept, multi-omics technologies, and a growing appreciation of low-dose effects across disciplines. This editorial article highlights recent key publications in Dose-Response that reflect these trends and outlines the journal's renewed commitment to publishing rigorous, innovative research that bridges traditional toxicology with modern systems biology. Meanwhile, this editorial article also addresses the future directions for Dose-Response. Finally, Dose-Response will remain dedicated to advancing the science of biological responsiveness to low-dose stressors. By embracing exposomics, multi-omics, and mechanistic toxicology, we aim to foster interdisciplinary dialogue and translate research into evidence-based policies. Through collaboration with our authors, reviewers, and readers, from global scientific community, we wish and also confident to reach this exciting new chapter.
    Keywords:  Muti-omics; dose curve; dose-response; exposome
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1177/15593258251395790
  30. Int Urogynecol J. 2025 Nov 12.
    From Podium to Publication: the Fate of Abstracts Presented at ICS and IUGA/AUGS 2022.
    Reut Rotem, Mika Rabinovich, Bobby D O'Leary, Sarah E Kennedy, Barry A O'Reilly, Orfhlaith E O'Sullivan.
       INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Conference presentations are a cornerstone of academic dissemination, yet the proportion of abstracts that reach full-text publication varies. Limited data exist on publication outcomes from major Urogynecology conferences. This study was aimed at comparing publication rates of abstracts presented at the 2022 International Continence Society (ICS) and International Urogynecological Association/American Urogynecologic Society (IUGA/AUGS) meetings.
    METHODS: Abstracts from the ICS (oral presentations only) and IUGA/AUGS (oral and poster presentations) 2022 conferences were reviewed. A systematic PubMed search (January 2022-August 2024) was conducted to identify corresponding peer-reviewed publications. Abstracts were considered published if a full-text article with substantial overlap in study design and authorship was identified. Two reviewers independently confirmed publication status, with a third reviewer resolving discrepancies. Publication characteristics and author counts were recorded. Chi-squared and Mann-Whitney U tests were used for statistical comparisons.
    RESULTS: Among 788 abstracts (ICS: 300; IUGA/AUGS: 488), a total of 291 (36.9%) were published. Publication rates were similar for oral presentations at ICS and IUGA/AUGS (41.0% vs 42.4%, p = 0.80). Within the IUGA/AUGS, oral presentations were significantly more likely to be published than posters (42.4% vs 26.0%, p < 0.001). Published abstracts had more authors than unpublished ones (median 6 vs 5, p < 0.001). Over half of publications appeared in three journals: Urogynecology, International Urogynecology Journal, and Neurourology and Urodynamics. In multivariable analysis, oral presentations and higher author count independently predicted publication, whereas the conference was not a significant factor.
    CONCLUSIONS: More than one-third of abstracts progressed to publication, with oral presentations and higher author counts associated with increased publication rates. These findings underscore the enduring academic value of conference research and suggest that structured post-conference support might help to translate more abstracts into high-impact publications.
    Keywords:  Peer-reviewed publications; Research dissemination; Scientific conferences; Urogynecology
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-025-06407-4
This page is being maintained by Thomas Krichel. It was last updated on 2025‒11‒16 at 14:54.