bims-skolko Biomed News
on Scholarly communication
Issue of 2026–02–22
thirty-one papers selected by
Thomas Krichel, Open Library Society



  1. Elife. 2026 Feb 20. pii: RP90049. [Epub ahead of print]12
      Women are particularly underrepresented as leading authors of papers in journals of the highest impact factor, with substantial consequences for their careers. While a large body of research has focused on the outcome and the process of peer review, fewer articles have explicitly focused on gendered submission behavior and the explanations for these differences. In our study of nearly 5000 active authors, we find that women are less likely to report having submitted papers to journals of the highest impact (e.g., Science, Nature, or PNAS) and to submit fewer manuscripts, on average, than men when they do submit. Women were more likely to indicate that they did not submit their papers (in general and their subsequently most cited papers) to high-impact journals because they were advised not to. In the aggregate, no statistically significant difference was observed between men and women in how they rated the quality of their work. Nevertheless, regardless of discipline, women were more likely than men to indicate that their 'work was not ground-breaking or sufficiently novel' as a rationale for not submitting to one of the listed prestigious journals. Men were more likely than women to indicate that the 'work would fit better in a more specialized journal'. We discuss the implications of these findings and interventions that can serve to mitigate the disparities caused by gendered differences in submission behavior.
    Keywords:  gender gap; impact factor; medicine; none; peer review; scholarly publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.90049
  2. Neuroscience. 2026 Feb 14. pii: S0306-4522(26)00098-9. [Epub ahead of print]
      This Perspective is motivated by the mounting distrust of science by the public fueled by integrity issues in scientific papers (1) and by the intense questioning of our own laboratory's work by PubPeer, a popular website for finding mistakes in papers (2). Science is primarily communicated via scientific papers whose integrity is being increasingly doubted because of often contradictory conclusions and large number of retractions. In this Perspective, I aim to discuss some of the underlying causes for the current science integrity problems and to offer potential solutions. My main proposition is that to regain the trust of the public in science, we scientists as a community need to reform science communication and science publishing and we need to manage and rectify science integrity issues more directly.
    Keywords:  PubPeer; Science Integrity; Scientific Publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroscience.2026.02.009
  3. Account Res. 2026 Feb;33(2): 2471513
      While the scientific community has traditionally responded to misconduct in publications through various penalties, the potential for encouraging self-retraction by waiving such punishments has been less explored. This approach could significantly enhance and accelerate the refinement of scientific discourse. Inspired by frequent reports of systematic collusion against the retraction of fraudulent publications, this paper proposes a model for Hierarchical Self-Retraction Forgiveness (HSRF). The model is specifically designed for retractions related to misconduct, aiming to mitigate systemic obstacles to retraction. By alleviating concerns over reputational damage, it seeks to encourage both authors and their affiliated institutions, as well as the higher supporting layers of the system, to engage in self-retraction without fear of social or institutional penalties. Robust safeguards have been integrated to prevent exploitation, and ongoing dialogue and refinement of these measures are encouraged to further enhance the model's effectiveness.
    Keywords:  Publication ethics; research integrity; scientific misconduct; systematic collusion
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2025.2471513
  4. BMJ. 2026 Feb 18. 392 e086467
       OBJECTIVES: To identify variables associated with non-prospective registration of clinical trials submitted to The BMJ; examine deficiencies in registration, disclosure of deficiencies, and subsequent publication status of such trials; and assess the authors' claims of prospective registration.
    DESIGN: Observational study.
    SETTING: The BMJ, London.
    POPULATION: 239 of 287 submissions to The BMJ (2019-23) reporting clinical trial results as defined by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) and flagged by editors as potentially not prospectively registered, and 239 trials prospectively registered in an ICJME accepted registry from a randomised list of all clinical trial submissions in the same period.
    MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Study outcomes included non-prospective registration in an ICJME accepted registry and, for non-prospectively registered trials, deficiencies in registration deficiencies in registration (retrospective in an ICJME accepted registry, registration in a non-ICJME accepted registry, or no registration), delay in registration of retrospectively registered trials, and subsequent publication status. Time to publication and disclosure of registration deficiencies on publication were also assessed, along with the journal's impact factor and whether the journal claimed adherence to the ICMJE registration recommendations.
    RESULTS: Reduced odds of non-prospective registration in an ICMJE accepted registry were associated with larger sample sizes (101-500 v 1-100; odds ratio 0.43, 95% confidence interval 0.22 to 0.84), corresponding authors from Oceania (reference: Europe; 0.35, 0.14 to 0.82), a greater number of authors (10 v 5; 0.71, 0.59 to 0.87), mention of Consolidated Standards Of Reporting Trials (0.22, 0.06 to 0.67), more recent submissions (2021-23 v 2019-20; 0.63, 0.42 to 0.95), and presence of funding (eg, non-profit v no funding or no information; 0.20, 0.09 to 0.41). Higher odds were observed for corresponding authors based in Asia (reference: Europe; 1.75, 1.07 to 2.89). Of 176 trials not prospectively registered in an ICMJE accepted registry submitted between 2019 and 2021, 146 (83%) were retrospectively registered (median delay 193 days), 23 (13%) were unregistered, and seven (4%) were registered in a non-ICJME accepted registry. Most (155 trials, 88%) were subsequently published; 138 (89%) of these appeared in journals with an impact factor (median 5.39) and 96 (62%) in journals claiming adherence to the ICMJE recommendations. The median time from initial submission to The BMJ to publication was 12 months. Only about one sixth explicitly disclosed registration deficiencies on publication. Of 72 authors responding about prospective registration on submission, 60 (83%) incorrectly claimed adherence.
    CONCLUSIONS: Many trials rejected by The BMJ for non-prospective registration in an ICMJE accepted registry were later published in high impact journals claiming adherence to the ICMJE recommendations, often without disclosure of registration deficiencies.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj-2025-086467
  5. Cont Lens Anterior Eye. 2026 Feb 18. pii: S1367-0484(26)00026-3. [Epub ahead of print]49(2): 102630
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clae.2026.102630
  6. J Am Acad Orthop Surg Glob Res Rev. 2026 Feb 01. 10(2):
       INTRODUCTION: This study aims to describe the cost of publication in orthopaedic journals and correlation to journal impact factor metrics.
    METHODS: Orthopaedic surgery and sports medicine journals were included for analysis. Data were recorded from publicly available records. Statistical analysis was conducted using R studio version 4.2.3. One-way analysis of variance with post hoc analysis (Tukey, Honest Significant Difference (HSD) was performed to compare SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) scores, H-index, and average cost (including the average submission, publication, or article processing charges [APCs] of a published article) between journals based on SJR quartile. Independent sample t-test and chi square or Fisher exact test were used to compare variables, with a Bonferroni P-value adjustment. Pearson correlation coefficient was calculated for SJR score, H-index, total journal references and publications as of 2022, years in publication, average cost, and APC (ie, the cost of publication associated with Open-Access publication). Correlation strengths were defined as excellent (>0.7), excellent-good (0.61 to 0.7), good (0.31 to 0.6), or poor (0.2 to 0.3). P values ≤0.05 were considered significant.
    RESULTS: Of 306 orthopaedic journals, 4.9% had submission fees. Subscription publication was available in 55.56%. The average APC for open-access options was $1,975.69 ± 1,524.53 US dollars (USD). Comparison of publication cost for journals with and without subscription options demonstrated significance ($2,939.19 vs. $857.94 USD, P < 0.005). No strong correlation was found between journal impact factor metrics and publication costs. The top 5 main publishers are listed. The top publisher, Elsevier, responsible for 13.07% of orthopaedic journals, offered subscription publication options for only 32.5% of journals, with an average APC of $2,180.21 ± 1,521.27 USD. The United States published the most (n = 86 journals), followed by the United Kingdom (n = 61).
    DISCUSSION: Open-access publication aims to ensure equitable access but is limited by large costs associated with publication charged to the authors, which do not strongly correlate with journal impact factor metrics.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/e25.00065
  7. Saudi J Anaesth. 2026 Jan-Mar;20(1):20(1): 63-67
    HeALgroup.AI Collaborative (Appendix)
       Background: ChatGPT is an Artificial intelligence (AI) language model that enhances readability in medical writing. However, the prevalence of ChatGPT-generated articles in English medical literature has not been systematically studied. This research aims to evaluate the frequency of these manuscripts, their adoption across medical subspecialties, and the countries of origin for the publishing companies.
    Methods: The term "delve" is primarily linked to ChatGPT-generated medical literature. In this observational study, we identified manuscripts as ChatGPT-generated based on this term in the title or abstract. We examined PubMed® from December 01, 2022, to May 14, 2024, and applied descriptive statistics as needed.
    Results: During the study period, 2.193.871 manuscripts were published in Pubmed®. The term "delve" was found in the title and abstract of 1996 scientific manuscripts, suggesting that at least 0.09% of all publications were ChatGPT-generated. At the same time, PubMed® hosted 982 journals. We report on those that published at least ten or more CHATGPT-derived manuscripts (top 25). Publishers with the highest number of ChatGPT-generated manuscripts were located in Switzerland (564; 27.6%), followed by the United States (552; 27.0%) and the United Kingdom (430; 21.0%). The Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI: 373; 20.3%) was the top publisher of ChatGPT-driven publications, followed by Elsevier (340; 18.5%) and Frontiers (160; 8.7%).
    Conclusion: Since the introduction of ChatGPT, medical publications are increasingly ChatGPT-supported or generated with an uncertain amount of author auditing and editing. High-frequency publishers were located in first-world countries.
    Keywords:  AI; CHATGPT; ChatGPT; delve; medical writing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.4103/sja.sja_526_25
  8. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2026 Feb 18. 108(4): 313-319
       BACKGROUND: The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) in orthopaedics and sports medicine (OSM) has transformed clinical practice and scientific inquiry. However, the increasing reliance on AI raises critical concerns regarding transparency, ethical considerations, and reproducibility. The aim of this study was to systematically evaluate the editorial policies of leading OSM journals concerning AI usage and the endorsement of AI-specific reporting guidelines (RGs).
    METHODS: A cross-sectional review was conducted in accordance with STROBE (Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology) guidelines. The top 100 peer-reviewed OSM journals were identified using the 2023 SCImago Journal Rank (SJR). Data extraction included journal characteristics, AI-related policies within Instructions for Authors, and references to AI-specific RGs. Data were collected in a masked, duplicate fashion, with discrepancies resolved through consensus.
    RESULTS: Of the 100 journals analyzed, 94% referenced AI in their editorial policies, all of which explicitly prohibited AI authorship and required the disclosure of AI use in manuscript preparation. AI-generated content was permitted in 82% of journals. AI-assisted image generation was permitted by 60% of journals and explicitly prohibited by 34%. Despite these policies, only 1% of journals referenced AI-specific RGs, with the Checklist for Artificial Intelligence in Medical Imaging (CLAIM) being the sole guideline mentioned.
    CONCLUSIONS: While most of the OSM journals had established policies on AI usage, there was a notable lack of standardization, particularly with respect to AI-generated images. Additionally, the absence of AI-specific RG endorsements highlights a gap in methodological guidance. Standardizing AI policies and encouraging the adoption of RGs could enhance the transparency, reproducibility, and ethical integrity of AI-driven research in OSM.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.25.00373
  9. Account Res. 2026 Feb 18. 2632083
      This study aims to examine how scholarly journals advise authors, peer reviewers, and journal editors about the acceptable use of artificial intelligence (AI) in the scholarly publishing process.Methods: Using a content analysis method, policies from 80 journals were collected in August 2024 from publicly available websites. Data from the journal policies related to AI authorship and allowable AI use by authors, peer reviewers, and editors were entered into a spreadsheet and analyzed using descriptive statistics.Findings: The results show that 62.5% (n = 50) of the journal policies mentioned AI. 96% of these journals did not permit AI to be listed as an author. 54% of journals allowed authors to use AI tools to improve language in their manuscript, whereas using AI to generate images was prohibited by 26% of journals. 64% of journals did not provide any AI-related guidance for peer reviewers/editors.Conclusion: This research advances the literature by detailing journal policies regarding AI authorship, the allowed use of AI for authors and peer reviewers, and disciplinary distinctions in AI treatment. The findings underscore the need for enhanced guidance directed at authors, peer reviewers, and editors regarding the ethical and appropriate application of AI tools.
    Keywords:  Artificial Intelligence; content analysis; publishing ethics; publishing policies; scholarly communications
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2026.2632083
  10. Anal Chem. 2026 Feb 16.
      The fast adoption of large language models has introduced new possibilities and challenges in scientific writing. While artificial intelligence (AI) tools have long supported researchers through grammar checking, reference management, and data processing, recent generative models such as ChatGPT are pretending now to be capable of producing complete sections of academic text that are comparable to conventional manuscripts. This development raises important questions regarding authorship, responsibility, and the integrity of the scientific record. In this work, we propose to examine how AI-generated and AI-assisted text is currently used in analytical chemistry writing, with particular emphasis on recurring linguistic, structural, and bibliographic patterns that may indicate automated drafting in a number of journals' submissions. We propose a reflection on the risks, including superficial, fast, unsustainable, or even misconceptions on science, biased reasoning driven by prompt formulation, and integrity failures linked to AI misuse. Finally, when is the case, we suggest a set of practical indicators and good practices aiming at supporting responsible, transparent, and critically supervised use of AI in analytical chemistry publications.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.analchem.6c00352
  11. Recenti Prog Med. 2026 02;117(2): 77-79
      This article analyzes the role of artificial intelligence (AI) in academic writing, proposing an approach that considers chatbots as artificial collaborators rather than tools to circumvent the difficulties of scientific production. The analysis is structured around three dimensions. First, in academic writing AI can assist with routine sections of papers while maintaining human control over methodological and bibliographic aspects, which represent the core of scientific validity. Second, AI-based peer review (AIPR) could revolutionize peer review by incorporating capabilities difficult for humans to manage: scientometric analysis, recognition of argumentative biases, and verification of methodological procedures. Third, potential "cognitive laziness" is addressed through the Hegelian master-slave dialectic metaphor: every technology that incorporates human competencies replaces them, but simultaneously generates new competencies. In the hypertrophic world of contemporary textual production, chatbots can serve as guides to navigate informational complexity, albeit with the limits of artificial rationality.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1701/4649.46619
  12. Tunis Med. 2025 Apr 05. 103(4): 397-402
       INTRODUCTION: Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) has increasingly found its way into scientific medical writing, which can be particularly inappropriate in non-native English-speaking countries. This study aimed to determine the occurrence of AI-generated texts in medical publications originating from the Greater Maghreb countries (Libya, Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco, and Mauritania).
    METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study that gathered all medical publications indexed on MEDLINE, published in the first week of July 2024, with first author affiliated with Greater Maghreb countries. The rate of AI-generated texts was calculated using the AI detection tool: ZeroGPT®. Each article was analyzed in its entirety and each section separately (Abstract, Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion). Articles or sections were considered "suspects of AI generation" (sAI-g) if the rate was ≥25%. Results were presented as medians associated with their corresponding Inter Quartile Range (IQR).
    RESULTS: In all, 48 scientific medical articles were published by first authors from the Greater Maghreb countries. Articles were classified as "sAI-g" in 65% of cases, with a median rate of 36.2%[IQR=11.0%-49.4%]. AI-generated text was detected mainly in three sections: "Methods" (sAI-g=86%, median=59.3%[IQR=28.5%-71.7%]), "Abstract" (sAI-g=69%, median=52.2% [IQR=0.0%-90.2%]) and "Introduction" (sAI-g=58%, median=43.2%,[IQR=0.0%-79.4%]), while the "Discussion" section had the lowest median rate (sAI-g=30%, median=10.4%,[IQR=0.0%-27.9%]).  Conclusion: Scientific medical articles from the Greater Maghreb countries used Generative AI extensively. This requires, on one hand, advancing medical education and mandating dissertations in English to build capacities for non-native English-speaking researchers, and on the other hand, providing training on the responsible use of AI  ..(abstract truncated at 250 words).
    Keywords:  ChatGPT; Chatbot; Communication Barriers; Generative Artificial Intelligence; Language Barriers; Large Language Models; Medical Writing; Publication; Scientific Misconduct
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.62438/tunismed.v103i4.5548
  13. J Stomatol Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2026 Feb 12. pii: S2468-7855(26)00047-9. [Epub ahead of print] 102751
      Two years after the first evaluation of ChatGPT (GPT-3.5) for medical scientific writing, this short communication reassesses its capabilities using the GPT-5 model. Under the same experimental protocol as in 2023, GPT-5 generated a coherent and factually accurate article, integrating verified references and a structured IMRaD format, with human oversight but without post-generation textual rewriting. The model demonstrated significant progress in factual reliability, reasoning, and technical architecture, reflecting the shift from static language prediction to retrieval-augmented reasoning. However, despite these advances, large language models remain dependent on human expertise for validation, ethical interpretation, and scientific judgment. The results highlight the potential of AI as a valuable assistant in medical writing, while reaffirming that authorship, responsibility, and critical analysis must remain human.
    Keywords:  ChatGPT; academic publishing; artificial intelligence; ethics; large language models; medical writing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jormas.2026.102751
  14. Front Res Metr Anal. 2026 ;11 1772427
      
    Keywords:  coercive citation; conflict of interest; editorial bullying; editorial misconduct; publication ethics
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3389/frma.2026.1772427
  15. Res Integr Peer Rev. 2026 Feb 16. 11(1): 5
      Scientific misconduct threatens patient safety, progress, and trust in medicine. On October 3, 2020, Frass and colleagues published a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial in The Oncologist (published by Wiley at the time) claiming that add-on homeopathy significantly prolonged survival in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. Since homeopathy contradicts established scientific principles, doubts about the trial's validity quickly emerged. Concerns were first published in October 2020, followed in 2021 by a detailed analysis alleging scientific misconduct. This prompted the Medical University of Vienna, the affiliation of the study's lead author, to request an investigation by the Austrian Agency for Research Integrity (OeAWI). After conducting an in-depth review, OeAWI concluded in September 2022 with a clear recommendation for retraction. However, The Oncologist issued only an 'Expression of Concern' at the time, despite five co-authors formally requesting the withdrawal of their authorship- a demand that remained unaddressed as of November 2025. Repeated inquiries to the journal and its publisher, Oxford University Press (OUP), yielded only vague assurances that the matter was "under review," with multiple deadlines passing without resolution. Finally, by November 24, 2025, The Oncologist retracted the paper. However, the retraction notice fails to address the specific concerns raised about the study's results and conclusions, nor does it provide a clear rationale for the retraction itself.Meanwhile, the paper has been cited more than 60 times (according to Google Scholar) and is widely circulated online as "proof" that homeopathy benefits cancer patients. This highlights the harmful consequences of delayed editorial action. According to COPE guidelines, misconduct must be dealt with swiftly and transparently. Our case reveals the opposite: incomplete corrections, prolonged inaction, and even the defense of implausible claims. Against the backdrop of increasing organized scientific fraud, this experience underscores the urgent responsibility of journals and publishers to protect the scientific record and prevent harm to patients.
    Keywords:  Homeopathy; Publication ethics; Scientific misconduct
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-026-00191-5
  16. Saudi J Anaesth. 2026 Jan-Mar;20(1):20(1): 109-125
       Background: Peer review has been the cornerstone of academic publishing for nearly 400 years, serving as a critical gatekeeping mechanism for new knowledge. However, it faces significant criticisms, including reviewer fatigue, superficial evaluations, and potential biases. This study aims to explore the peer review process within anesthesiology and pain medicine journals from the editors' perspectives, focusing on criteria for selecting reviewers and managing divergences between peer reviewers and authors.
    Methods: We conducted an online survey targeting editors in anesthesiology and pain medicine journals listed in the Scopus database. A total of 2083 unique editors were identified, and invitations to participate were sent via email, supplemented by reminders. The survey consisted of 27 questions regarding editorial roles, reviewer selection, and challenges in the peer review process.
    Results: A total of 207 editors entered the final analysis (9.9% of the sample). The survey revealed that most editors prioritize familiarity with reviewers' expertise over diversity of perspectives. A notable 61.8% of editors reported moderate workloads, yet challenges such as securing qualified reviewers and managing reviewer burnout were prevalent. While 55.8% expressed satisfaction with the current system, 69.9% identified a need for better reviewer training, and 8.3% suggested compensating reviewers as a potential enhancement to the process.
    Conclusions: Our findings highlight significant strengths and weaknesses in the peer review process for anesthesiology and pain medicine journals. There is an urgent need for improved strategies to diversify the reviewer pool and provide adequate training and support for reviewers.
    Keywords:  Anesthesia; editor; peer review
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.4103/sja.sja_652_25
  17. J Clin Transl Sci. 2026 ;10(1): e7
       Background: In team science, invitation to writing groups can be subjective and secretive. Confronted with this challenge in the ISCHEMIA trial, with 320 participating sites, 4 coordinating centers, 6 core laboratories, and numerous committees, we adapted an existing model to develop a transparent, objective, and equitable method for determining authorship eligibility.
    Methods: We developed a scoring system based on site performance of tasks critical to trial success that meet the ICJME criteria for authorship. Sites were ranked according to points earned, and points required for potential authorship were communicated to all sites. Site investigators were surveyed for their manuscript topic preferences for writing groups. Beyond the point-based system, authorship positions were also reserved for trial contributors who were not site investigators.
    Results: To date, 50 original, peer-reviewed ISCHEMIA trial manuscripts have been published. In total, 208 authors from 33 countries participated in at least one publication. Of the 87 sites that randomized at least 15 participants over a mean of 5 years, 72% had authorship positions across published manuscripts. Surveys were sent to 334 site investigators and 27% responded. Among respondents, 61% indicated that ISCHEMIA was the first trial they had worked on with performance-based criteria for authorship invitation. Respondents agreed the system was transparent (81%), objective (83%), and equitable for early career researchers (70%) and underrepresented minorities in research (57%).
    Conclusions: ISCHEMIA employed a point-based authorship eligibility system that most authors found objective, merit-based, transparent, and equitable. Implementation of such a system should be considered for team science publications.
    Keywords:  Authorship; multicenter studies; publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1017/cts.2025.10214
  18. Nepal J Ophthalmol. 2024 Jul;16(32): 64-73
       INTRODUCTION: Grant writing is a crucial skill for researchers seeking financial support for their projects. It involves crafting a compelling proposal demonstrating a project's value, feasibility, and societal relevance.
    OBJECTIVE: This paper aims to provide an overview of grant writing, including types of grants, steps in application, and strategies for effectively presenting research ideas. Also, challenges and solutions for successful grant proposal writing, emphasising the importance of structured planning and effective data visualisation techniques are presented.
    METHODOLOGY: Using Nepal's research funding scenario as a backdrop, this manuscript is based on the articles published in the peer-reviewed literature, and the author's experience of working as a grant reviewer for several organisations for over a decade. Practical examples and insights into the nuances of grant writing are included to guide researchers, particularly in resource-constrained settings like Nepal.
    RESULT: Information about grant and grant writing, funding organisations, their mode of awarding grants, steps of writing grant proposals, and dos and don'ts of grant proposals are elaborated in this review.
    CONCLUSION: Crafting an effective grant proposal is an iterative process that can be developed through practise and persistence. Familiarity with research methodologies, combined with guidance from an experienced mentor, plays a crucial role in successfully writing and securing funding for research projects.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3126/nepjoph.v16i2.85102
  19. Front Psychiatry. 2026 ;17 1678024
      This descriptive article offers an inside perspective of the experience of writing a publishable paper by an autistic early-career researcher. From an external perspective, this experience might be described as involving hyperfocus, indecision about framing, and conflicting norms of academic writing. The article develops an inside perspective on such experiences. The author adopts a philosophical approach, using phenomenological reflection on breakdowns as a method to explicate what is implicitly given in experience. Reflection on three types of research breakdown in academic writing results in an inside description of the complexities of this particular experience by someone who is both autistic and an academic researcher.
    Keywords:  academic writing; autistic academics; autistic experience; autistic researchers; autistic scholars; phenomenology; philosophy of autism
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2026.1678024
  20. J Gen Intern Med. 2026 Feb 17.
      Clinician-writers are publishing a growing corpus of personal accounts about their healthcare practices in clinical and general readership journals. For many clinician-writers, personal and creative writing offers a means for expressing both the rewards and the costs of clinical work, while providing a means to honor their patients and bear witness to their suffering. Many accounts include private, intimate moments with patients and families. Emerging at a time of consequential economic changes in healthcare systems, the inclusion of humanities, ethics, and the arts-including creative writing in medical journals-has been recognized to increase professional satisfaction and reduce burnout among physicians but also to deepen comprehension of patients' concerns and to increase patients' trust in their doctors. Alongside digital platforms, clinician-written essays occupy growing space in contemporary medical publishing, influencing larger public discussions about health and society. Publishing such writing creates a complex ethical dilemma regarding patient privacy and confidentiality. In this essay, we reflect on the ethical dimensions that arise when a clinician-writer considers publishing a nonfiction account that describes a patient or exposes private aspects of the writer's self. We review the salient published literature and discuss the divergent ethical stances among clinician-writers regarding the choice to publish their writing and issues surrounding consent from patients to publish descriptions of them. An examination of journal policy guidelines reveals a paucity of attention to the particular contributions of reflective, personal, and creative writing. Instead, most journals seem to rely on informed-consent guidelines for clinical trials to guide writers of personal and creative essays in their ethical decisions. Addressing issues of privacy for patients and trustworthiness of clinicians with insights from humanities and creative disciplines can illuminate patients' perspectives and clinicians' creative contributions to effective care. We suggest initial concrete steps toward that aim.
    Keywords:  Ethics of writing about patients; Informed consent; Narrative medicine; Privacy and confidentiality; Stories about patients
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-025-10132-5
  21. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc. 2026 Feb 13. pii: 2. [Epub ahead of print]116(1):
      I would like to share an important update about the future of the Journal of the American Podiatric Medical Association (JAPMA) [...].
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3390/japma116010002
  22. Insights Imaging. 2026 Feb 16. 17(1): 44
       OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the publication outcomes of oral presentations delivered at the European Congress of Radiology (ECR) 2019 and examine factors influencing conversion to full-text articles; findings were also compared with ECR 2010.
    MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 1817 oral presentations from ECR 2019 were analyzed. Publication status was determined by searching PubMed/MEDLINE up to December 2023. For each matched article, Journal Impact Factor (JIF) and Google Scholar citations/year were recorded. Additional variables included country of origin, collaboration type, imaging modality, and study design. Statistical analyses used chi-square and Kruskal-Wallis, with p < 0.05 considered significant.
    RESULTS: Of 1817 oral presentations, 844 (46.5%) were published, with no significant difference from ECR 2010 (43%, p = 0.091). Abstracts originated from 71 countries, with Italy (16.5%) and China (15.5%) contributing the most. Publications appeared in 254 journals. Publication rates varied significantly by country (p < 0.001), with Switzerland (74.4%) and the Netherlands (68.8%) achieving the highest rates. When analyzed by continent, abstracts from Asia showed a significantly higher publication rate than those from Europe (52.3% vs. 43.6%, p = 0.001). Publication outcomes also varied significantly by imaging modality (p = 0.002) and subspecialty (p < 0.001). Breast imaging achieved the highest median JIF (4.9), whereas Artificial Intelligence/Machine Learning (AI/ML) demonstrated the highest median annual citation count (10.5).
    CONCLUSIONS: Nearly half of the ECR 2019 oral presentations achieved peer-reviewed publication, maintaining rates from 2010. The congress's contributor landscape has become more global, with greater participation from Asia. While traditional radiological fields remain prevalent, AI/ML abstracts demonstrated high citation rates. These findings reflect contemporary trends in radiological research.
    CRITICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: By analyzing the publication outcomes of ECR 2019, with comparisons to 2010 data, this study examines evolving global patterns in publication outcomes, offering insights to enhance the dissemination of radiological research.
    KEY POINTS: Converting oral presentations to publications remains challenging in radiological research. Nearly half of the ECR 2019 oral presentations were published, showing a modest, non-significant increase from ECR 2010. The congress has become increasingly global, with notable growth in participation from Asia. This study reveals radiology's evolving scientific landscape and current research priorities.
    Keywords:  Bibliometrics; Congresses as topic; Journal impact factor; Publishing; Radiology
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1186/s13244-025-02198-w