bims-skolko Biomed News
on Scholarly communication
Issue of 2025–12–14
38 papers selected by
Thomas Krichel, Open Library Society



  1. Soc Stud Sci. 2025 Dec 12. 3063127251386080
      STS is now a global endeavour, with journals, scholars, and associations in a wide range of regions, languages, and transnational networks of knowledge. Building on recent debates about decolonizing research, we contribute to debates about epistemic injustice and asymmetries in the discipline by analysing a large sample of articles in 17 STS journals, published between 1976 and 2023. Our goal is to understand the multiplicity of factors that shape processes that lead to hegemony and canonization. Drawing on a database of 12,045 articles, we describe the language of publication and geography of authorship, in addition to the language policy of the journals and location of their editorial offices. We then analyse the 350 most cited articles (ca. 3%) in our sample and focus our analysis on the 40 most cited publications, looking at the processes of canon-formation in the discipline. We argue that while STS has always emphasized the situatedness of knowledge and promoted epistemic pluralism, there is still significant work to be done to analyse how asymmetries in publishing and circulation of knowledge take place. To address epistemic injustice, more needs to be done to undo the processes through which canon formation takes place, moving the field further away from the Euro-American networks of knowledge and power in which it is still primarily embedded.
    Keywords:  STS canon; citational justice; decolonizing; epistemic pluralism; internalized symmetry
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1177/03063127251386080
  2. BMJ Open. 2025 Dec 12. 15(12): e102010
       OBJECTIVES: Monitoring systems exist for clinical research transparency in high-income countries, but systematic assessment of these practices in global health (GH) research (GHR) is limited. We evaluated methods for monitoring GHR transparency and engagement.
    DESIGN: Cross-sectional study.
    DATA SOURCES: Three sources were used: (a) ClinicalTrials.gov, (b) publications from 20 journals with 'international' or 'global' in the title and (c) outputs from selected GH funder websites.
    ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: From ClinicalTrials.gov, we selected 200 interventional trials on maternal health and tuberculosis (2008-2019), ensuring two-thirds were from low- and middle-income countries (LMIC). From journals, we included 200 trial publications (2011-2023). From funder websites, we included outputs with sufficient metadata to track trial registration and reporting.
    DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Trials were extracted independently by two reviewers for result publications; journal articles were screened to confirm whether they reported trial results. Across all sources, we assessed registration timing, result reporting, open access and stakeholder engagement.
    RESULTS: For 200 trials, 37% were prospectively registered, 65% published results in journals and 15% reported summary results in ClinicalTrials.gov. Only 34% reported results in any format within 24 months of completion. Of 200 publications, 72% were freely accessible, and 23% of the 100-article subsample included stakeholder engagement statements. The funder website sample yielded insufficient metadata for analysis.
    CONCLUSIONS: Monitoring GHR is feasible using registries and journals, though funder websites provide limited tracking. While open-access rates are encouraging, timely reporting and engagement documentation remain weak. These results highlight opportunities for developing GHR-specific monitoring approaches through collaborative efforts among global stakeholders.
    Keywords:  Clinical trials; Depression & mood disorders; Postpartum Period; Puerperal Disorders; Tuberculosis
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2025-102010
  3. Account Res. 2025 Dec 07. 2596063
      The Contributor Role Taxonomy (CRediT) was released in 2014 with the aim of improving the attribution of credit and responsibilities in scholarly publications. Besides encouraging researchers to use CRediT for specification of contributions in publications, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Intramural Research Program (IRP) has been using CRediT as a tool to investigate and resolve authorship disputes pre- and post-publication. In this article, we share the policies and procedures used at the NIH IRP for resolving authorship disputes, with the hope that other administrators and institutions might find value in our approach and provide feedback where necessary. The NIH IRP employs CRediT to offer a more objective and structured approach to understanding how a supervisor, complainant, or other parties involved in a dispute view the overall contributions in a project. This approach provides both the research group and the mediator or investigator with a common vocabulary to describe contributions and minimizes the likelihood of misunderstanding. Developing robust and transparent institutional mechanisms to address and resolve disputes, including guidance on how to address conflicts on authorship and authorship order, might contribute to a more productive and healthier research environment.
    Keywords:  Authorship; Authorship Disputes; CRediT Taxonomy; Publication Ethics; Research Integrity
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2025.2596063
  4. Account Res. 2025 Dec 07. 2587576
      Weather and climate research is an area of science in which private companies, government agencies, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) have substantial interests at stake, but little is known about how academic journals address these interests. The primary aim of this study was to help address this question by analyzing the content of funding disclosure polices of journals that publish research on weather and climate. We reviewed and analyzed policies from 100 journals that focus on weather and climate research and found that most of them have comprehensive policies for disclosing conflicts of interest (COIs) and funding sources. 98% of the journals require disclosure of COIs; 91.8% require funding disclosure; 87.9% require disclosure of non-financial COIs; 86.9% define COIs, 80.8% provide examples of COIs, and 65.7% policies that apply to reviewers and editors, and 55.6% have enforcement mechanisms for violations of COI policies. Several of the policies were positively associated with a higher journal impact factor. Although most journals that publish research on weather and climate research have comprehensive COI and funding disclosure policies, additional research is needed to determine the extent to authors, reviewers, and editors understand and follow these policies.
    Keywords:  Conflict of interest; climate; journals; policies; weather
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2025.2587576
  5. Nature. 2025 Dec;648(8094): 518
      
    Keywords:  Databases; Institutions; Publishing; Scientific community
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-025-03839-2
  6. Neurosurg Rev. 2025 Dec 13. 49(1): 69
       Open access (OA) publishing facilitates free access to knowledge. However, OA journals often demand high article processing charges (APCs), which pose significant challenges for authors from low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). This study aimed to investigate the perspectives of Turkish neurosurgeons on OA publishing, and to identify the challenges they face during the publication process. A national online survey was conducted in April-May 2025 and was completed by 210 neurosurgeons. The survey collected data on demographics, academic productivity, funding access, and opinions on OA versus hybrid publishing models. The highest participation rate was among specialists (n = 86), followed by residents (30.5%), associate professors (12.9%), professors (10.5%), and assistant professors (5.2%). In total, 43.3% reported authorship of at least one SCI-E publication in the past year. Of the 70 participants who had paid APCs, 23 obtained support for at least one manuscript, 49 fully self-funded at least one, and 15 reported adding non-contributing co-authors to reduce costs. Among those who paid alone, 28/49 stated they would not have done so if they had already achieved their target academic title. Additionally, 49.5% believed that selecting the OA option increases the likelihood of acceptance, while 30.5% anticipated a long-term decline in the quality of fully OA journals compared to hybrid ones. While OA publishing improves access to academic content, the lack of adequate funding mechanisms in LMICs hinders the ability of researchers to disseminate their findings. This imbalance may risk driving authors toward predatory journals and compromise academic integrity.
    Keywords:  Low and middle income country; Neurosurgery publication; Open access publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10143-025-04002-1
  7. Pediatr Res. 2025 Dec 07.
      The digital era has dramatically expanded scientific publishing, with journals and the annual number of publications increasing unprecedentedly. While this growth has enhanced accessibility, collaboration, and dissemination, it has also introduced significant challenges to the integrity of scientific literature. Mega-journals and open-access models, although beneficial in many respects, have contributed to inequities and facilitated the rise of predatory journals, which often publish low-quality or misleading research with minimal peer review. At the same time, the use of spin, defined as rhetorical strategies that exaggerate or misrepresent findings, has become widespread and can influence the interpretation of results by researchers, clinicians, and the public. Importantly, low-quality, misleading, and even fraudulent research is not confined to predatory outlets and can occur in well-established, high-impact journals, highlighting the limitations of relying solely on journal reputation. While critical appraisal remains central to evaluating research, traditional approaches often fail to fully address the risks of spin, predatory publishing, and fraud. This article explores these challenges, examining how such practices compromise scientific integrity, distort evidence, and affect decision-making. It also outlines practical strategies for researchers, reviewers, and clinicians to critically assess publications, safeguard reliability, and uphold the credibility of scientific literature. IMPACT STATEMENT: Researchers and clinicians now require a guide to navigate the modern landscape of scientific publishing, which is challenged by the proliferation of predatory journals, the use of "spin" to misrepresent findings, and outright fraud, which has eroded scientific integrity, leading to a need for a new level of scrutiny. This paper outlines practical strategies and tools for researchers, clinicians, and reviewers to identify unreliable evidence, emphasizing that critical appraisal must go beyond traditional methods to assess trustworthiness and integrity. By promoting these skills, all can safeguard the credibility of science and protect evidence-based practice.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41390-025-04647-0
  8. BMJ. 2025 Dec 11. 391 e086941
       OBJECTIVE: To quantify the time lag between biomedical articles and the studies they describe as "recent," a term widely used to imply timeliness despite rarely reflecting the actual age of the cited evidence.
    DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of suspiciously timeless citations based on a structured PubMed search of 20 predefined "recent" expressions.
    SAMPLE: 1000 English language, full text biomedical articles in which a "recent" expression is directly linked to a citation.
    MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Time lag in years between citing articles and their referenced "recent" studies.
    RESULTS: The age of the cited "recent" studies varied widely. The citation lag ranged from 0 to 37 years (mean 5.53 years, median 4 years, interquartile range 2-7). The most frequent lag was one year (n=159, 15.9%), and 177 references (17.7%) were at least 10 years old. Citation patterns varied across medical specialties: critical care, infectious diseases, genetics, immunology, and radiology showed shorter median lags (around two years), while nephrology, veterinary medicine, and dentistry displayed substantially longer lags (ranging from 8.5 to 14 years). Among expressions, "recent approach," "recent discovery," and "recent study" were linked to older references, whereas "recent publication" and "recent article" had much fresher citations. The citation lag was similar across world regions and gradually decreased over time, with the most recent publications showing the shortest lags. Journals with high impact factors (≥12) cited more up-to-date work.
    CONCLUSIONS: This playful analysis suggests that "recent" is applied with striking elasticity across biomedical literature. While some authors cite genuinely recent work, others stretch the definition to decades. Readers and reviewers should take "recent" claims with a grain of chronological salt.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj-2025-086941
  9. Med Ref Serv Q. 2025 Dec 09. 1-22
      Scientific studies conducted without adhering to ethical principles or without obtaining necessary approvals may lead to retractions, thereby undermining both scientific credibility and public trust. This study examines Retractions due to Ethical Violations or Lack of Approval (REVLA) in medical and allied disciplines, analyzing the trend over time, classifying the reasons for retractions, and explaining how they are communicated. REVLA published between 2003 and 2022 were identified using Web of Science and Scopus. Reasons for retraction were extracted from the Retraction Watch Database (RWD). A total of 969 articles meeting the criteria were identified. Original research and clinical studies accounted for over 95% of REVLA. The number of retractions increased substantially in the last decade. 37.67% of REVLA are either under a paywall or unavailable on the journal pages. Papers on clinical practice constitute 57.79% of REVLA, followed by biological sciences (20.02%) and cancer research (15.69%). The analysis shows that no publishers or journals are immune to REVLA. Strengthening institutional review boards (IRB), imparting education on research and publication ethics, and ensuring public access to retraction notices and articles are essential to uphold research integrity. Stricter editorial vigilance and peer review are crucial to prevent the publication of ethically compromised studies, thereby reducing the need for future retractions.
    Keywords:  Ethical violations; Library and Information Science; institutional review board; lack of approval; medical retractions; retraction
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1080/02763869.2025.2588222
  10. Anesthesiology. 2025 Dec 09.
      The rapid adoption of large language models (LLMs) in healthcare has created opportunities for innovation but also has raised critical concerns about scientific rigor. This article provides a toolbox for clinicians, researchers, and reviewers involved with LLM studies, highlighting the importance of methodologic transparency, reproducibility, and ethical considerations. It addresses foundational aspects of LLM functioning, including their training data, inherent biases, and black-box nature. Prompt engineering strategies are reviewed to understand and optimize model interaction, emphasizing the necessity of systematic evaluation of these methods. Key challenges around interpreting outputs are discussed, advocating for explainability and fairness. It stresses clear reporting of computational resources, environmental impacts, and the risks of rapid model iteration on study obsolescence. Given the pace at which LLMs evolve, traditional peer-review practices are often outpaced, requiring new guidelines and rigorous qualitative assessments to ensure validity, fairness, and clinical utility. Recommendations to enhance reporting and reproducibility standards are provided.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1097/ALN.0000000000005795
  11. Int J Surg. 2025 Dec 11.
      As Large Language Models (LLMs) continue to advance, they have garnered widespread public attention and extensive application across numerous industries and academic disciplines. The proliferation of LLMs has sparked considerable research interest, with studies primarily focusing on their technical characteristics and specific application scenarios. However, systematic research examining the impact of LLMs on academic integrity remains relatively scarce. Academic integrity is of paramount importance in the biomedical field. Therefore, this paper aims to examine both the opportunities and challenges that LLMs present to academic integrity in the biomedical field, and proposes solutions for optimizing the beneficial applications of LLMs. From a positive perspective, LLMs offer substantial benefits to researchers by enhancing research efficiency, improving research quality, and facilitating the generation and dissemination of academic insights. However, they also present numerous challenges, including the potential for promoting academic misconduct, generating content inaccuracies or ambiguous expressions, introducing bias and fairness concerns, compromising peer review mechanisms, facilitating the dissemination of misinformation, and undermining higher education-all of which demand careful attention. To address these issues, we propose solutions and feasible strategies centered on ten core dimensions: establishing policies and regulatory guidelines, enhancing AI literacy and application capabilities, developing and improving relevant technical tools, establishing human-AI collaboration models, reforming peer review procedures and academic evaluation systems, promoting international cooperation and standardization, increasing transparency and strengthening disclosure, reinforcing professional ethics education, and advancing artificial intelligence detection technologies. Overall, while LLMs undoubtedly pose challenges for maintaining academic integrity, their potential for positive impact remains promising. It is anticipated that with technological advancement and improved ethical standards, LLMs will ultimately preserve and strengthen academic integrity.
    Keywords:  academic integrity; academic misconduct; challenges; large language models
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1097/JS9.0000000000003839
  12. BMC Med. 2025 Dec 09.
       BACKGROUND: Redundant publication, the practice of submitting the same or substantially overlapping manuscripts multiple times, distorts the scientific record and wastes resources. Since 2022, publications using large open-science data resources have increased substantially, raising concerns that Generative AI (GenAI) may be facilitating the production of formulaic, redundant manuscripts. In this work, we aim to quantify the extent of redundant publication from a single, large health dataset and to investigate whether GenAI can create submissions that evade standard integrity checks.
    METHODS: We conducted a systematic search for the years 2021 to 2025 (year to end-July) to identify redundant publications using the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) dataset. Redundancy was defined as publications analysing the same exposures associated with the same outcomes in the same national population. To test whether GenAI could facilitate creating these papers, we prompted large language models to write three synthetic manuscripts using redundant publications from our dataset as input, instructing them to maximise syntactic differences and evade plagiarism detectors. These three synthetic manuscripts were then tested using a leading plagiarism detection platform to assess their similarity scores.
    RESULTS: Our search identified 411 redundant publications across 156 unique exposure-outcome pairings; for example, the association between oxidative balance score and chronic kidney disease using NHANES data was published six times in 1 year. In many instances, redundant articles appeared within the same journals. The three synthetic manuscripts created by GenAI to evade detection yielded overall similarity scores of 26%, 19%, and 14%, with individual similarity contributions below the typical 5% warning thresholds used by plagiarism detectors.
    CONCLUSIONS: The rapid growth in redundant publications (a 17-fold increase between 2022 and 2024) suggests a systemic failure of editorial checks. These papers distort meta-analyses and scientometric studies, waste scarce peer review resources, and pose a significant threat to the integrity of the scientific record. Current checks for redundant publications and plagiarism are no longer fit for purpose in the GenAI era; greater co-operation between publishers and modified guidelines will be needed to address new innovations in paper mill production.
    Keywords:  COPE; Generative AI; Integrity; NHANES; Paper mills; Plagiarism; Redundant publication
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-025-04569-y
  13. Perspect Med Educ. 2025 ;14(1): 882-890
       Introduction: It is estimated that large language models (LLMs), including ChatGPT, are already widely used in academic paper writing. This study examined whether certain words and phrases reported as frequently used by LLMs have increased in medical literature, comparing their trends with common academic expressions.
    Methods: A structured literature review identified 135 potentially AI-influenced terms from 15 studies documenting LLM vocabulary patterns. For comparison, 84 common academic phrases in medical research served as controls. PubMed records from 2000 to 2024 were analyzed to track the frequency of these terms. Usage trends were normalized using a modified Z-score transformation.
    Results: Of the 135 potentially AI-influenced terms, 103 showed meaningful increases (modified Z-score ≥3.5) in 2024. Terms with the highest increases included "delve," "underscore," "primarily," "meticulous," and "boast." The linear mixed-effects model revealed significantly higher usage of potentially AI-influenced terms compared to controls (β = 0.655, p < 0.001). Notably, these terms began increasing in 2020, preceding ChatGPT's 2022 release, with marked acceleration in 2023-2024.
    Discussion: Certain words and phrases have become more common in medical literature since ChatGPT's introduction. However, the use of these terms tended to increase before 2022, indicating the possibility that the emergence of LLMs amplified existing trends rather than creating entirely new patterns. By understanding which terms are overused by AI, medical educators and researchers can promote better editing of AI-assisted drafts and maintain diverse vocabulary across scientific writing.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.5334/pme.1929
  14. Account Res. 2025 Dec 07. 2593625
       BACKGROUND: Many peer review attributes are widely criticized and poorly investigated, particularly in the context of proposals' peer review. This study aims to explore stakeholders' perspectives on the role of (un)blinding and the implications of open peer review for biomedical proposals' peer review.
    METHODS: We conducted a generic descriptive qualitative study within a constructivist paradigm, using semi-structured interviews. Twenty-three participants were selected through purposive and snowball sampling from funding agencies in Belgium and Qatar. Transcribed interviews were analyzed according to the 6-step thematic framework analysis. During the interviews, participants were asked to rate 7 quantitative statements to supplement the qualitative data.
    RESULTS: Codes with shared characteristics were grouped into categories, and ultimately three themes were generated: (1) the importance of increased transparency in fund allocation procedures while maintaining blinded reviewers' identities, (2) open peer review as a feasible approach for enhancing transparency and accountability in proposals' peer review, and (3) a growing critical stance toward traditional peer review systems.
    CONCLUSION: While there remains a strong preference for double-blinded review within the context of our study, its limitations have become evident-particularly given current funding challenges. These shortcomings highlight the need for greater openness in peer review and increased transparency in fund allocation processes.
    Keywords:  (un)blinding; Proposals’ peer review; open peer review; open science movement; qualitative research
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2025.2593625
  15. J Community Health. 2025 Dec 09.
      Magazines are periodicals characterized by their articles, pictures, and advertisements to generally inform and entertain readers on a variety of topics. In contrast, professional journals are publications that update and provide new research results for professionals in a specific field. Unlike magazines, the articles in professional journals have undergone assessments by their professional peers for validity and reliability of their content. In other words, peer review is the hallmark of professional journals informing and advancing the knowledge of a professional field. No where else is it more important than in health-related journals to have valid and reliable information. This commentary's purpose is to review the process of peer review, and the journals professional roles involved in that process.
    Keywords:  Academic journals; Health-related journals; Peer review; Peer review process; Professional journals; Publishing ethics
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10900-025-01531-0
  16. Cad Saude Publica. 2025 ;pii: S0102-311X2025001100100. [Epub ahead of print]41(11): e00200825
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1590/0102-311XEN200825
  17. Behav Genet. 2025 Dec 09.
      The conduct and translation of scientific research is shaped by academic and journalistic publishing. Academic journals issue editorial guidelines and policies that inform how researchers shape and present their studies. Journalists select and report on academic studies for public audiences. Despite the potential importance of journal editors and journalists in the scientific process, little has been done to examine how these groups think about their roles and responsibilities-especially when it comes to ethically sensitive scientific domains like social and behavioral genomics (SBG): the study of whether and how genetic differences between individuals correlate with differences in behaviors such as aggression and outcomes such as educational attainment. To begin filling this gap, we conducted semi-structured interviews with editors working at academic journals that publish SBG research (n = 10) and journalists who have reported on SBG studies (n = 13). Journal editors largely saw themselves as mediators between authors and peer reviewers who help to shepherd along research. Journalists frequently described themselves as translators of science for wide audiences; at times they also saw themselves as interrogators of science. While both groups considered SBG especially ethically sensitive and prone to risks such as misinterpretation, many expressed that systematic ethical review processes and guidelines for SBG are lacking. Further, many deferred the ethical responsibility to minimize risks associated with SBG to others. Our findings highlight the need for more explicit frameworks in academic and journalistic publishing to support the ethically responsible conduct and communication of SBG.
    Keywords:  ELSI; Journal editors; Journalism; Roles and responsibilities; Social and behavioral genomics
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10519-025-10245-x
  18. Int J Nurs Stud. 2025 Dec 02. pii: S0020-7489(25)00321-9. [Epub ahead of print] 105311
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2025.105311
  19. Cureus. 2025 Nov;17(11): e96314
      In order to improve education, foster professional growth, and facilitate the dissemination of research, scientific publications and poster presentations are crucial elements of academic communication. Their diverse responsibilities are particularly important given how higher education and interdisciplinary research are developing. A qualitative synthesis of the literature gathered from databases such as PubMed, Google Scholar, and Scopus was used to perform this narrative review. To glean thematic insights on the functions and advantages of scientific writing and presentations, pertinent English-language publications over the last 20 years were examined, including guidelines, academic commentary, and relevant articles. Posters and scientific publications are powerful resources for academic communication, professional involvement, and in-depth study. They facilitate the dissemination and critique of research findings, encourage teamwork through multi-author contributions, support ongoing education through literature exploration and content synthesis, develop critical, creative, and technical skills, and play a crucial role in postgraduate and doctoral education. Engaging in these kinds of activities has also been connected to improved academic achievement and professional growth. Across fields, scientific articles and poster presentations are essential and interrelated to people's academic and professional development. To develop a capable, research-focused, and internationally competitive academic community, their inclusion and promotion in academic curriculum and institutional culture are essential. The aim of this paper is to investigate and clarify the many roles and effects of scientific publications and poster presentations in the fields of research, teamwork, skill development, advanced academic training, and continuing education.
    Keywords:  academic communication; continued education; higher education; poster presentation; research dissemination; scientific writing; skill development
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.96314
  20. Med Sci (Paris). 2025 Nov;41(11): 915-924
      In the context of multidisciplinary biomedical research (biological, biophysical, clinical, computational, environmental, human, and social sciences), the framework of scientific integrity and ethics is becoming increasingly complex. This essay explores its dimensions: respect for living beings, societies, and the environment; open science based on FAIR principles and open access; integration of "ethics-by-design" in the face of digital risks and Artificial Intelligence (AI); and reformed and responsible evaluation. Responsibility for this framework lies with both institutions and researchers, who are aware of the political aspects, issues, and criticisms.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1051/medsci/2025186
  21. Psychophysiology. 2025 Dec;62(12): e70187
      The choices we make during the recording, preprocessing and analysis of event-related potentials (ERP) data can affect study outcomes. As such, it is critical that they are transparently reported to allow for reproducibility. Yet, systematic reviews of reporting practices in the field have shown that journal articles often do not meet this goal and that existing reporting guidelines have not resulted in a sufficient improvement in reporting transparency. An easier workflow for transparently documenting pipelines used in regular journal articles is needed. The ARTEM-IS (Agreed Reporting Template for EEG Methodology-International Standard) initiative is working towards addressing this issue by building dynamic, interactive web applications that support documenting information required by existing publication guidelines in the form of a standardized metadata template. Completing an ARTEM-IS form results in a human-reader-friendly PDF or DOCX and a machine-readable JSON summary of methodological information. This level of specificity surpasses conventional article methods sections, ensuring fewer omissions and ambiguities. These can be used as supplements to a publication, as a memory aid when writing a paper, or as records that allow easier metadata extraction. Here, we present the ARTEM-IS for ERP, which supports describing a typical ERP study, including most of its core methodological aspects (study description, experimental design, hardware, data acquisition, pre-processing, measurement, visualization, additional comments). We discuss the current functionalities of ARTEM-IS for ERP, its development via a grassroots collaborative initiative, and potential extensions (e.g., including complex designs or statistical analyses). In doing so, we highlight how widespread adoption of ARTEM-IS can benefit researchers, reviewers, and the broader scientific community by improving transparency, reducing reporting errors, and expediting rigorous replication efforts.
    Keywords:  ARTEM‐IS; event‐related potentials; good scientific practice; open science; reproducibility; transparency
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1111/psyp.70187
  22. Indian J Psychiatry. 2025 Nov;67(11): 1079-1085
       Background: Specialty-focused reporting guidelines can help cater to the nuances of manuscripts pertaining to a medical field.
    Aim: The present work describes the development of reporting guidelines for case reports and case series in mental health and psychiatry.
    Methods: A set of mental health and psychiatry experts followed a step-wise process of examining the existing reporting guidelines for case reports, generating items for reporting guidelines specific to mental health and psychiatry, refinement, and developing consensus.
    Results: The Case Reports In Mental health and Psychiatry (CRIMP) reporting guidelines have 8 items, with two having sub-items. The CRIMP can be used for reporting a single case or case series of up to 10 cases, but is not applicable for case reports with detailed review of literature and long-format case studies. The items include: identification as case report/case series in the title, introduction mentioning the novelty or reasons for reporting, case demographics and setting, case description and assessment, case diagnosis, discussion of the key issue(s), pertinent references, and ethical aspects.
    Conclusion: The CRIMP reporting guidelines have potential utility for authors, reviewers, and editors in the field of mental health and psychiatry, while drafting or appraising case reports and case series.
    Keywords:  Authors; case report; editors; publishing; reporting guidelines
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.4103/indianjpsychiatry_882_25
  23. Swiss Med Wkly. 2025 Dec 09. 155 5203
      Although the medical literature is flooded with case descriptions, it is difficult to dismiss the significant impact that a clinical observation limited to one or two patients can have. Case reports can also play a critical role in other areas such as drug safety by serving as early warning signals for adverse drug reactions. Unlike the aggregated data and statistical abstractions of clinical trials or meta-analyses, case reports reflect the real-world context of medical practice, where decisions are made patient by patient. This alignment with everyday clinical experience makes case reports particularly relatable and valuable to practicing clinicians, offering insights that resonate far beyond the confines of population-based evidence. The "Swiss Medical Weekly" wishes to participate in the dissemination of high-quality case reports. A new section entitled "Clinical reasoning" will provide a dedicated platform for well-structured case reports while upholding the journal's high and very strict editorial standard and its Diamond Open Access model.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.57187/s.5203
  24. Int J Dent Hyg. 2025 Dec 09.
       OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to identify the variables associated with full-text access rates in studies published in Periodontology and Implantology.
    METHODS: A bibliometric analysis was performed by reviewing the 30 top-ranking journals in Dentistry, Oral Surgery and Medicine. Only journals with a number of text accesses were included. Independent variables analysed included publication date, first author's country, open access status, h-index, study design, and thematic focus. Multivariable Poisson regression with robust variance was used.
    RESULTS: A total of 3880 studies were included, revealing an access rate (number of views per month) of 83.68 ± 143.62. The journal's impact factor (rate ratio [RR]: 1.09; 95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 1.07-1.11) and being in the open access mode (RR: 1.78; 95% CI: 1.64-1.94) influenced the access rate. Moreover, studies from America (RR: 1.16; 95% CI: 1.02-1.31), Oceania (RR: 1.56; 95% CI: 1.23-1.98), and Europe (RR: 1.50; 95% CI: 1.33-1.69) had significantly higher access rates than those from Asia. Regarding study designs, randomised clinical trials (RCT) (RR: 1.70; 95% CI: 1.47-1.97) and literature reviews (non-systematic reviews [RR: 1.65; 95% CI: 1.27-2.14] and systematic reviews [RR: 1.78; 95% CI: 1.52-2.08]) exhibited greater access than in vitro/animal studies.
    CONCLUSION: Access to articles in Periodontology is significantly linked to study design (RCTs and reviews), open access availability, and higher journal impact factors.
    Keywords:  data science; information dissemination; periodontology; publications
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1111/idh.70032
  25. Acta Med Port. 2025 Dec 02. 38(12): 759-761
      
    Keywords:  Editorial Policies; Peer Review; Periodicals as Topic; Publishing; Research
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.20344/amp.24098
  26. Development. 2025 Dec 01. pii: dev205346. [Epub ahead of print]152(23):
      Journals build identities to attract authors and subscribers. Name changes make the stakes explicit. This article explains how the plain Journal of Embryology and Experimental Morphology (JEEM) turned into the glossy Development in 1987. Newly opened archives reveal long-term negotiations that illuminate transformations in periodical publishing and in disciplinary politics. Founded in 1953, JEEM welcomed descriptive as well as experimental research on animal development, but the rise of molecular approaches called into question title and scope. In 1970, the editors refocused on mechanisms of development, but a powerful editorial board rejected a new name. Then the owner, The Company of Biologists, abolished the board and began to professionalize; editors promoted gradual reform. Responding to intensified competition, represented by the journal Cell, and to falling submissions and declining library sales, the Company pushed for molecular papers as it became its own publisher and printer. This let the relaunched Development offer speed, colour and reinvestment in science to recruit personal subscribers as well as authors from a community generating hot data. The story spotlights the actions of a charity in the transition from clubbiness to professionalism and evidences a commitment to the experimental tradition while promoting molecular studies.
    Keywords:  Embryology and developmental biology; History of scientific journals; Molecular cell biology; Serial title changes; The Company of Biologists
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1242/dev.205346
  27. Nurs Womens Health. 2025 Dec;pii: S1751-4851(25)00179-5. [Epub ahead of print]29(6): 329-331
      Recent and upcoming updates to Nursing for Women's Health include an inaugural impact factor, transition to online-only publication, and website enhancements.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nwh.2025.09.001