bims-skolko Biomed News
on Scholarly communication
Issue of 2026–05–03
fifty papers selected by
Thomas Krichel, Open Library Society
  1. Beyond genuine collaboration: the rise of strategic co-authorship in contemporary academic publishing.
  2. Authorship inflation in general practice research.
  3. Why preprint servers are increasing moderation - and what that means for researchers.
  4. Mapping the Landscape of Open Access Dashboards - A Dataset for Research and Infrastructure Development.
  5. The field factor: Industry publishing contribution and novelty in science.
  6. Science is always unfinished: rethinking the demand for complete stories.
  7. Scientific retractions: causes, processes, and implications for research integrity.
  8. Gender- and Sex-equitable Submission Guidelines in Emergency Medicine Journals Are Associated with Enhanced Publication Metrics.
  9. Disclosure is not enough: Rethinking the epistemic implications of AI in academic writing.
  10. Navigating the Challenges of Artificial Intelligence in Scholarly Writing.
  11. Letter re: Holding the Scalpel: Scientific Authorship and Responsibility in the Era of Generative Artificial Intelligence.
  12. Shifting from Pens to Algorithms-Detecting Artificial Intelligence Generated Content in Scholarly Publishing.
  13. Generative AI-Assisted Medical Illustrations in Pediatric Neurosurgery: Workflows, Ethical Safeguards, and Journal Policy Considerations.
  14. Author Guidelines in Dermatology Journals Regarding Use of Artificial Intelligence.
  15. Verify, Then Trust: Using Artificial Intelligence in Publication of Research.
  16. Artificial intelligence toolkit for scholarly writing.
  17. Endorsement of artificial intelligence guidelines across leading endocrinology journals: a cross-sectional analysis.
  18. Author guidelines in the AI era: Writing for readers, search engines, and reproducibility. Insights from editorial practice.
  19. Medical Writing, Yearning, AI Eroding?
  20. Artificial Intelligence - Friend or Foe for the Reviewer?
  21. Author-Centric AI Pre-Review: Interpreting Science Before It Is Judged.
  22. Financial Compensation for Peer Review in Academic Publishing.
  23. AInaccurate Anatomy: Prevalence of Artificial Intelligence-Generated Illustration Errors in Peer-reviewed Aesthetic Medicine Publications.
  24. Gatekeepers through time: Peer review and the making of nursing knowledge.
  25. Peer review in the age of machines: Who evaluates science now?
  26. Editorial responsibility and peer review in the age of artificial intelligence.
  27. Pillars of Peer Review.
  28. To hire good scientists, look at their peer-reviewing records.
  29. What reviewers request the most.
  30. Insurance Denials: A Comprehensive Review and Navigating the Peer Review Process.
  31. Reimagining Peer Review as Red Teaming.
  32. Rethinking Peer Review - Engaging Early Career Researchers and Promoting Disciplinary Diversity.
  33. Open peer review?
  34. From the Editor's Desk - Why Good Manuscripts Get Rejected.
  35. Clinical trial registration and CONSORT adherence in obstetrics and gynecology journals: a cross-sectional analysis of Chinese- and English-language publications.
  36. Open access and digital morphology data in evolutionary biology: expanding frontiers of knowledge.
  37. Mentoring for High-Quality Manuscript Writing: Effectively and efficiently supporting mentees in manuscript writing.
  38. Transitioning a Dissertation or Quality Improvement Project to a Journal Manuscript.
  39. Distinct challenges faced by surgeons in conducting and publishing surgical research: implications for training, ethics, and academic surgery.
  40. Enhancing, Understanding and Adoption of the Contributor Roles Taxonomy (CRediT).
  41. Publish or perish? The perils of pushing research on neurosurgical trainees.
  42. How to design effective scientific figures.
  43. Tips For Writing A Medical Review.
  44. The SCALE Guidelines: A Framework for Standardized Case Reports in Architecture and the Built Environment.
  45. Academic Medicine's work and recent initiatives.
  46. Are researchers allowed to publicly disseminate research findings before journal publication?
  47. Expanding the scope of collective responsibility in neuro-oncology: the integrity of the published record.
  48. Reflections on the Journal of Emergency Nursing Readership Survey.
  49. Scope evolution at the journal of biological chemistry: Advancing molecular insight in a changing scientific landscape.
  50. Medical Photography for Scientific Publishing (MedPhotoPubl) in Rheumatology and Rehabilitation.
  1. Res Integr Peer Rev. 2026 Apr 28. pii: 12. [Epub ahead of print]11(1):
    Beyond genuine collaboration: the rise of strategic co-authorship in contemporary academic publishing.
    Rui Marcelino.
      The near-disappearance of single-author publications in scientific literature represents one of the most dramatic shifts in academic publishing over the past two decades. While this trend is often attributed to increased scientific collaboration and research complexity, substantial evidence suggests that systemic publication pressures and metric-based evaluation systems have created incentives for "strategic co-authorship"-practices including honorary authorship, gift authorship, and publication cartels that violate established authorship criteria. This article synthesizes empirical evidence documenting the decline of single-author publications, the prevalence of authorship misconduct, and the systemic drivers underlying these practices. Drawing on bibliometric analyses, prevalence surveys, and studies of academic culture, evidence-based synthesis indicates that addressing authorship requires fundamental reforms to institutional assessment systems, enhanced editorial vigilance, and cultural change in how the academic community values research contributions. The integrity of the scientific record depends on honest attribution of intellectual work, yet current incentive structures systematically undermine this foundational principle.
    Keywords:  Authorship ethics; Honorary authorship; Publication pressure; Research assessment; Research integrity
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-026-00197-z
  2. Br J Gen Pract. 2026 May 01. 76(766): 206
    Authorship inflation in general practice research.
    Christopher E Clark.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp26X744753
  3. Nature. 2026 Apr 30.
    Why preprint servers are increasing moderation - and what that means for researchers.
    Jackson Ryan.
      
    Keywords:  Authorship; Publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-026-01203-6
  4. Sci Data. 2026 Apr 29. pii: 677. [Epub ahead of print]13(1):
    Mapping the Landscape of Open Access Dashboards - A Dataset for Research and Infrastructure Development.
    Johannes Schneider, Heinz Pampel.
      As Open Access continues to gain importance in science policy, understanding the proportion of Open Access publications relative to the total research output of research-performing organizations, individual countries, or even globally has become increasingly relevant. In response, dashboards are being developed to capture and communicate progress in this area. To provide an overview of these dashboards and their characteristics, an extensive survey was conducted, resulting in the identification of over 60 dashboards. To support a detailed and structured description, a dedicated metadata schema was developed, and the identified dashboards were systematically indexed accordingly. We provide an openly reusable dataset and an interoperable metadata schema that enable comparative and longitudinal analyses of Open Access dashboards across regions and operator types, and we invite the community to reuse, extend, and refine them. The dataset is particularly relevant for researchers in Library and Information Science and Science and Technology Studies, supporting both empirical analyses of Open Access and the methodological refinement of indicators and policy instruments in the context of Open Science.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-026-07217-z
  5. PLoS One. 2026 ;21(4): e0346227
    The field factor: Industry publishing contribution and novelty in science.
    Anubha Shokhand, Nilam Kaushik, Satyam Mukherjee.
      Firms frequently publish scientific articles as part of their R&D initiatives, motivated by commercial objectives. However, the extent of industry involvement in publishing varies across different scientific fields and can have implications for research within those fields. Novelty in science is associated with scientific and technological breakthroughs. In this paper, we examine a field-level antecedent of novelty-the extent of industry publishing contribution to a field-and its association with two key aspects of recombinant novelty of publications: the occurrence of a novel recombination (novelty occurrence), and the degree of novelty, captured through novelty breadth, reflecting the scope of novel integration of knowledge elements, and novelty distance, reflecting the extremity of conceptual divergence among novel knowledge recombinations. Drawing on a longitudinal dataset of 11.1 million publications across 1639 STEM fields from 2000 to 2014, we find that greater industry publishing contribution within a scientific field is associated with higher odds of novelty occurrence and greater novelty breadth, but lower novelty distance. Notably, university is an important driver of our results across the three dimensions of novelty highlighting the importance of industry publishing contribution in shaping the novelty of entire fields. In addition, we find that top-ranked research institutions appear better able to manage the trade-off between novelty distance and other forms of novelty as industry publishing contribution increases. Our findings emphasize the need for policymakers in encouraging and preserving more exploratory forms of novelty in fields with substantial industry publishing, where such exploration is particularly valuable.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0346227
  6. Trends Biochem Sci. 2026 Apr 29. pii: S0968-0004(26)00110-6. [Epub ahead of print]
    Science is always unfinished: rethinking the demand for complete stories.
    Roberto Munita.
      The 'complete story' has become the standard in top journals. Narrative structure helps communicate science, but requiring mechanistic completeness for publication can exclude important discoveries, delay their dissemination, and push researchers to overfit their data to a narrative. This essay makes the case for making room for rigorous, unfinished stories.
    Keywords:  narrative bias; scientific publishing; storytelling
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tibs.2026.04.010
  7. Naunyn Schmiedebergs Arch Pharmacol. 2026 May 01.
    Scientific retractions: causes, processes, and implications for research integrity.
    Louie Giray, Bench Fabros, Jane Xavierine.
      Retractions serve as a critical self-corrective mechanism within the scientific enterprise, yet their implementation remains inconsistent and unevenly consequential across disciplines and institutions. This paper examines the causes, patterns, processes, and impacts of retractions. This paper accentuates that the retractions arise from a complex interplay of individual misconduct, systemic publication pressures, inadequate peer review, and cultural conditions that discourage honest error correction. Retraction notices are found to be frequently incomplete, poorly disseminated, and inconsistently linked across bibliographic databases, allowing flawed findings to persist in citation networks long after formal withdrawal. The paper further demonstrates that retraction impacts fall disproportionately on early-career researchers, particularly those in developing countries. These findings carry relevance for journals such as Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's Archives of Pharmacology, which publishes translational research with direct clinical and regulatory implications. The paper also is aligned with the goals of United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 3 (good health and well-being) and SDG 16 (peace, justice, and strong institutions), as strengthening scientific integrity infrastructure supports both evidence-based healthcare and accountable research governance. Concrete reforms are proposed, including standardized retraction notices and open-access policies, to ensure that retractions fulfill their promise as instruments of scientific self-correction.
    Keywords:  Bibliometrics; Paper mills; Pharmacology; Research integrity; Retraction; Scientific misconduct
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00210-026-05410-w
  8. West J Emerg Med. 2025 Jun 10. 27(2): 465-470
    Gender- and Sex-equitable Submission Guidelines in Emergency Medicine Journals Are Associated with Enhanced Publication Metrics.
    Akash Manes, Michelle D Lall, Starr Knight, Ali S Raja, Faisal Khosa.
       INTRODUCTION: Gender and sex equity-promoting (GSEP) clinical research is essential to improving diversity and inclusivity in medicine. In this study we aimed to compare journal impact metrics in emergency medicine (EM) between journals that integrated gender- and sex-based considerations and those that did not.
    METHODS: We searched the 2023 Journal Citations Report (Clarivate Analytics) for EM journals. Submission guidelines of each EM journal were examined according to the SAGER (Sex and Gender Equity in Research) guidelines and stratified as conforming or non-conforming depending on whether at least one SAGER criterion was met. Our primary outcome measure was the journal impact factor. Secondary outcome measures included other citation and influence metrics: total citations; 5-year journal impact factor; journal citation indicator; article influence score, normalized Eigenfactor score; citable items; total articles; and immediacy index.
    RESULTS: Based on our classification system informed by the SAGER criteria, most journals (66%, 31/47) were classified as non-compliant. The EM journals that conformed to the sex and gender equity guidelines were rated higher than non-conforming journals across all studied journal metrics. We found that conforming journals had a significantly higher median difference (MD) than non-conforming EM journals in total citations (MD 1,586; GSEP: 3,599 vs non-GSEP: 901); 2023 2-year journal impact factor (MD 0.8; 2.3 vs 1.4); 5-year journal impact factor (MD 0.7; 2.5 vs 1.9); article influence score (MD 0.26; 0.76 vs 0.47); normalized Eigenfactor score (MD 0.79; 1.06 vs 0.26); citable items (MD 37; 103 vs 56), and total articles (MD 41; 87 vs 42). All differences were statistically significant (P < 0.05).
    CONCLUSION: Using criteria informed by the Sex and Gender Equity in Research guidelines, most EM journals (66%) were classified as non-conforming to these guidelines. This indicates a significant gap in the integration of gender- and sex-based considerations in EM research publication practices.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.5811/westjem.48527
  9. Med Teach. 2026 Apr 30. 1
    Disclosure is not enough: Rethinking the epistemic implications of AI in academic writing.
    Remy M J P Rikers.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2026.2660976
  10. Pain Manag Nurs. 2026 Apr 29. pii: S1524-9042(26)00139-6. [Epub ahead of print]
    Navigating the Challenges of Artificial Intelligence in Scholarly Writing.
    Elaine L Miller, Cecile Evans.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmn.2026.04.003
  11. Am Surg. 2026 Apr 28. 31348261448891
    Letter re: Holding the Scalpel: Scientific Authorship and Responsibility in the Era of Generative Artificial Intelligence.
    Shigeki Matsubara.
      
    Keywords:  artificial intelligence; human judgment; surgery; writing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1177/00031348261448891
  12. Am J Med Sci. 2026 Apr 29. pii: S0002-9629(26)00179-5. [Epub ahead of print]
    Shifting from Pens to Algorithms-Detecting Artificial Intelligence Generated Content in Scholarly Publishing.
    Ahmad Jasem Abdulsalam, Ahmad Alansari, Levent Özçakar.
      
    Keywords:  artificial intelligence; large language models; publication ethics; scholarly publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjms.2026.04.012
  13. J Korean Neurosurg Soc. 2026 Apr 30.
    Generative AI-Assisted Medical Illustrations in Pediatric Neurosurgery: Workflows, Ethical Safeguards, and Journal Policy Considerations.
    Jun Kyu Hwang, Dong-Su Jang.
      Generative artificial intelligence (AI) has emerged as a transformative tool for creating high-quality visual materials in medical research and education. In pediatric neurosurgery, where ethical and legal constraints limit the use of real patient photographs, AI-assisted illustrations offer significant potential. However, concerns regarding clinical accuracy, intellectual property, and the protection of vulnerable pediatric patients necessitate rigorous oversight. We present a human-in-the-loop workflow that integrates generative AI with vector-based digital editing to produce scientifically accurate and ethically grounded medical illustrations. We reviewed current AI usage policies from major medical journals, including the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) and the Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society (JKNS). To demonstrate practical application, we developed illustrative examples for conditions such as sacral dimple, Crouzon syndrome, and Down syndrome using clinician-led sketches and AI-assisted refinement. Vector-based workflows facilitate the transformation of AI-generated raster drafts into editable, high-resolution graphics, allowing clinicians to correct "hallucinations" and ensure anatomical precision. While most journals prohibit listing AI as an author, they permit its use for conceptual figures provided there is transparent disclosure of the tools and prompts used. Our proposed workflow emphasizes that AI should function as a "constrained assistant" rather than an autonomous creator, ensuring that the final output remains non-identifiable and respectful of pediatric patients' dignity. Generative AI tools can significantly enhance visualization in pediatric neurosurgery when governed by strict ethical and technical safeguards. Adherence to journal policies and the maintenance of human-directed validation are essential to uphold scientific integrity and patient privacy in the era of AI-assisted publishing.
    Keywords:  Artificial intelligence; Ethics; Medical illustration; Neurosurgery; Pediatric; Publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3340/jkns.2026.0037
  14. J Cutan Med Surg. 2026 Apr 29. 12034754261445883
    Author Guidelines in Dermatology Journals Regarding Use of Artificial Intelligence.
    Vera Wang, Kaileigh Yang, Jennifer M Fernandez.
      
    Keywords:  artificial intelligence; ethics; journal guidelines; large language models; publishers
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1177/12034754261445883
  15. Am J Crit Care. 2026 May 01. 35(3): 165-168
    Verify, Then Trust: Using Artificial Intelligence in Publication of Research.
    Cindy L Munro, Lakshman Swamy.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.4037/ajcc2026508
  16. Acad Med. 2026 Apr 25. pii: wvag112. [Epub ahead of print]
    Artificial intelligence toolkit for scholarly writing.
    Anita Samuel.
      From idea generation to publication, artificial intelligence (AI)-enhanced tools are transforming how scholars write, revise, and publish. This Last Page serves as a guide map to the academic writing process and identifies AI-enhanced scholarly tools designed to support each stage of the process.
    Keywords:  artificial intelligence; generative AI; research; scholarship
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1093/acamed/wvag112
  17. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2026 ;17 1767254
    Endorsement of artificial intelligence guidelines across leading endocrinology journals: a cross-sectional analysis.
    Eva Chen, Amy Nguyen, Kellen Keefer, Eddy Bagaruka, Mahad Chaudhry, Annes Elfar, Patrick Crotty, Alec Young, Andrew V Tran, Alicia Ito Ford, Matt Vassar.
       Background: With expanding applications of artificial intelligence (AI) within the research pipeline of endocrinology, it is essential that journals uphold explicit AI usage policies that maintain the rigor and integrity of published research. In this review, we aim to evaluate current AI policies of leading endocrinology journals to assess the current landscape of research and the implications of its progression.
    Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional review of the top endocrinology journals using the SCImago Journal Ranking (SJR) database. From November 2024 to July 2025, we reviewed AI usage guidelines from publicly available Instructions for Authors, including authorship, manuscript writing, and content/image generation. We also assessed whether journals endorsed AI-specific reporting guidelines (e.g., CONSORT-AI, SPIRIT-AI). Data were extracted independently and in duplicate using a standardized form. Reproducibility was supported through protocol registration on Open Science Framework.
    Results: Of the top 100 endocrinology journals, 84.0% (84/100) mentioned AI in their Instructions for Authors and 79.0% (79/100) required disclosure of AI use during submission. Although no journals (0/100) permitted AI tools for authorship, 64.0% (64/100) allowed its use in manuscript writing, 22.0% (22/100) for content generation, and 50.0% (50/100) for image generation. Despite these guidelines, only one (1.0%; 1/100) journal required a specific reporting guideline, and very few endorsed AI statements by the IMCJE (9/100), COPE (12/100), or WAME (0/100). No statistically significant correlations were identified between AI usage policies and SJR or impact factor.
    Conclusion: Many leading endocrinology journals have addressed AI use; however, their policies remain incomprehensive. It is critical that publishers and their journals establish explicit guidelines regarding the use of AI tools to promote transparent, reproducible, and reliable research.
    Keywords:  artificial intelligence; journal policy; reporting guidelines; reproducibility; transparency
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3389/fendo.2026.1767254
  18. Adv Clin Exp Med. 2026 Apr 27.
    Author guidelines in the AI era: Writing for readers, search engines, and reproducibility. Insights from editorial practice.
    Marek Misiak, Donata Kurpas.
      Scientific journals establish author guidelines to ensure manuscript consistency, enhance readability, and maintain editorial standards. However, the rationale behind specific requirements is not always apparent to submitting authors, leading to misunderstandings and noncompliance. This editorial examines the instructions for authors currently applied at Advances in Clinical and Experimental Medicine, explaining the purpose behind selected regulations that may initially seem arbitrary or overly prescriptive. We analyze requirements concerning manuscript titles (sentence case, study design specification, avoidance of nonstandard abbreviations), author affiliations (institutional hierarchy, geographic formatting), ORCID (Open Researcher and Contributor ID) usage, highlights preparation, taxonomic nomenclature (italicization of genus and species, distinction between genes and proteins), laboratory equipment reporting (manufacturer details, catalog numbers, software versions), abbreviation protocols, and supplementary file management. We demonstrate that these requirements serve essential practical functions: improving search engine optimization and discoverability, ensuring experimental reproducibility, preventing taxonomic and nomenclatural confusion, facilitating rigorous peer review, and enhancing reader comprehension across different formats and access points. The editorial also addresses the evolving nature of author guidelines in the era of artificial intelligence (AI) and digital publishing, emphasizing that editorial policies should function as adaptable documents that respond to technological advances and changing scholarly communication practices. By fostering open dialogue between editors and authors regarding the rationale behind publication requirements, journals can maintain high standards while remaining responsive to the legitimate concerns of the research community. We conclude that transparent communication about editorial policies not only improves compliance but also strengthens the collaborative relationship between journals and the researchers they serve.
    Keywords:  editorial policies; guidelines as a topic; scientific journal; scientific publishing; scientific writing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.17219/acem/218743
  19. J Eval Clin Pract. 2026 Jun;32(4): e70464
    Medical Writing, Yearning, AI Eroding?
    Shigeki Matsubara.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1111/jep.70464
  20. Pediatr Exerc Sci. 2026 May 01. 38(2): 113
    Artificial Intelligence - Friend or Foe for the Reviewer?
    Craig A Williams.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1123/pes.2026-0050
  21. J Med Imaging (Bellingham). 2026 Mar;13(2): 020101
    Author-Centric AI Pre-Review: Interpreting Science Before It Is Judged.
    Bennett A Landman.
      The editorial explores an author-centric approach to AI in scientific publishing, arguing for the use of AI as a pre-submission self-review tool to help authors anticipate interpretation, clarify arguments, and strengthen rigor, while preserving author responsibility as well as the human core of peer review and research integrity.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1117/1.JMI.13.2.020101
  22. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2026 Apr 29. pii: S0190-9622(26)02566-1. [Epub ahead of print]
    Financial Compensation for Peer Review in Academic Publishing.
    Ghassan Barnawi, Shari R Lipner.
      
    Keywords:  dermatology; ethics; medical journal; peer review; publication; research
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaad.2026.04.1967
  23. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2026 Apr;14(4): e7676
    AInaccurate Anatomy: Prevalence of Artificial Intelligence-Generated Illustration Errors in Peer-reviewed Aesthetic Medicine Publications.
    Yu Zhang, Danny J Soares.
      The rapid integration of generative AI tools into medical publishing has introduced new opportunities and risks, particularly in the creation of visual materials, such as anatomical illustrations. This study assessed the prevalence and characteristics of AI-generated facial anatomy images across peer-reviewed journals and online course promotional materials in plastic surgery and cosmetic dermatology. A total of 4734 manuscripts were screened, yielding 37 articles containing facial anatomical depictions. AI-generated content was identified in 10.8% (4 of 37) of relevant articles published in 2025, representing a marked increase from 2024, with all identified images demonstrating gross anatomical inaccuracies. A complementary web search of online anatomy courses also found that nearly half of the sites used erroneous AI-generated imagery in promotional content. These findings underscore growing concerns over the rapid and unregulated adoption of powerful AI tools for visual content in medical publishing, with regard to scientific misinformation, legal risks, and professional standards. In this special topic discussion, we describe how generative AI models function, outline their limitations, and explore the ethical, legal, and professional implications of their misuse. To ensure the safe and responsible integration of visual AI generators in medical publishing, the urgent adoption of clear standards and oversight protocols should be considered for anatomical and surgical depictions.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1097/GOX.0000000000007676
  24. Nurs Outlook. 2026 Apr 24. pii: S0029-6554(26)00111-9. [Epub ahead of print]74(3): 102788
    Gatekeepers through time: Peer review and the making of nursing knowledge.
    Kechi Iheduru-Anderson, Roberta Waite, Claire Valderama-Wallace.
      Peer review is central to how nursing defines, validates, and circulates knowledge, yet its historical role in shaping the discipline's intellectual boundaries has received limited critical examination. This conceptual-historical paper traces the evolution of peer review in nursing across three eras: early professionalization and nursing journal formation (1880s-1950s), the pursuit of scientific legitimacy and evidence hierarchies (1960s-1990s), and the contemporary metric-driven, impact-factor environment (2000s-present). Drawing on frameworks of epistemic injustice, coloniality of knowledge, patterns of knowing, and audit culture, we argue that peer review has functioned as a mechanism of epistemic gatekeeping that has progressively aligned nursing scholarship with ongoing colonization through dominant biomedical and positivist standards in pursuit of professional legitimacy. This alignment has marginalized qualitative, community-based, decolonial, and practice-rooted inquiry while reproducing racialized, classed, and gendered hierarchies across editorial authority, methods, and citation practices. Yet threads of resistance reveal possibilities for change. We propose strategies to expand paradigm-appropriate definitions of rigor, diversify epistemic leadership, resist metric dominance, and embed structural competence and accountability in review practices. Transforming peer review is essential if nursing is to produce knowledge that is equitable, accountable, and responsive to structural conditions shaping health and care.
    Keywords:  Audit culture; Decolonization; Epistemic gatekeeping; Epistemic injustice; Evidence-based practice; Nursing history; Nursing knowledge; Peer review
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.outlook.2026.102788
  25. BioTechnologia (Pozn). 2026 ;107(1): 1-2
    Peer review in the age of machines: Who evaluates science now?
    Maciej Kukula.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.5114/bta/220048
  26. Eur Spine J. 2026 Apr;35(4): 1525-1526
    Editorial responsibility and peer review in the age of artificial intelligence.
    Riccardo Cecchinato, Dino Samartzis.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-026-09968-0
  27. JACC Basic Transl Sci. 2026 Apr;pii: S2452-302X(26)00049-5. [Epub ahead of print]11(4): 101531
    Pillars of Peer Review.
    Matthias Nahrendorf.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacbts.2026.101531
  28. Nature. 2026 Apr;652(8112): 1420
    To hire good scientists, look at their peer-reviewing records.
    David Comerford.
      
    Keywords:  Computer science; Peer review; Scientific community
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-026-01368-0
  29. Nat Comput Sci. 2026 Apr;6(4): 317
    What reviewers request the most.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/s43588-026-00989-9
  30. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2026 May 15. 34(10): e1368-e1374
    Insurance Denials: A Comprehensive Review and Navigating the Peer Review Process.
    Ryan J Berger, Michael A Gaudiani, Paul T Fortin, Kevin Taliaferro.
      Insurance companies and third-party reviewers use the peer review process including prior authorization (PA) and the peer-to-peer (P2P) process to manage healthcare costs and ensure appropriate care, citing principles of value-based care. As the volume of initial denials increases, physicians face notable time burdens and increased administrative costs while patients can incur delays and possibly worse health outcomes. We aim to explore the legal and ethical framework of utilization management; examine the effect on treating physicians, patients, and reviewers; offer suggestions for navigating peer-to-peer reviews; and propose future directions and improvement opportunities.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.5435/JAAOS-D-25-01359
  31. J Eval Clin Pract. 2026 Jun;32(4): e70453
    Reimagining Peer Review as Red Teaming.
    Richard C Armitage.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1111/jep.70453
  32. Int Urogynecol J. 2026 Apr 29.
    Rethinking Peer Review - Engaging Early Career Researchers and Promoting Disciplinary Diversity.
    Baerbel Junginger.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-026-06673-w
  33. Rev Lat Am Enfermagem. 2026 Apr 27. pii: S0104-11692026000100204. [Epub ahead of print]34 e4909
    Open peer review?
    Maíra Terra Garcia, Sigmar de Mello Rode.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1590/1518-8345.0000.4909
  34. Indian J Surg Oncol. 2026 Mar;17(3): 477-478
    From the Editor's Desk - Why Good Manuscripts Get Rejected.
    Pankaj Kumar Garg, Pallvi Kaul, S P Somashekhar.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13193-026-02582-y
  35. PeerJ. 2026 ;14 e21140
    Clinical trial registration and CONSORT adherence in obstetrics and gynecology journals: a cross-sectional analysis of Chinese- and English-language publications.
    Min Sun, Yongqing Zhu.
       Objective: Clinical trial registration and adherence to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement are essential for improving transparency, reducing reporting bias, and enhancing the interpretability of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). However, the extent to which these practices are endorsed by journals and implemented in published trials varies across disciplines and publication contexts. This study aimed to evaluate journal policies regarding clinical trial registration and adherence to the CONSORT statement, and to assess registration and reporting practices among RCTs published in Chinese- and English-language medical journals in the field of obstetrics and gynecology.
    Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of obstetrics and gynecology journals publishing RCTs between 2019 and 2024. Journal instructions for authors were reviewed to determine requirements for clinical trial registration and CONSORT adherence. Published RCTs were assessed for trial registration status and the inclusion of a CONSORT flowchart. Journal characteristics, including membership in the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) and endorsement of CONSORT, as well as funding support, were extracted. Categorical variables were summarized as frequencies and percentages, and group comparisons were performed using Chi-square tests.
    Results: A total of 59 journals (51 English-language and eight Chinese-language) and 1,234 RCTs were included. Among the English-language journals surveyed, 70.6% (36/51) required clinical trial registration and 49.0% (25/51) mandated adherence to the CONSORT statement, compared with 12.5% (1/8) of Chinese-language journals requiring either practice in their journal policies and instructions for authors. Overall, 84.1% (1,038/1,234) of RCTs were registered and 83.5% (1,030/1,234) reported a CONSORT flowchart. Registration and reporting practices were more frequently observed in journals with explicit registration requirements, CONSORT endorsement, ICMJE membership, and funding support.
    Conclusion: In this sample of obstetrics and gynecology journals, substantial differences were observed in journal policies and in the implementation of clinical trial registration and CONSORT-related reporting practices between Chinese- and English-language publications. These findings highlight the association between journal policies and reporting transparency, while underscoring the need for continued efforts to strengthen trial registration and reporting standards within the field.
    Keywords:  CONSORT statement; Clinical trial registration; Instructions for authors; Journal policy; Medical journal; Randomized controlled trial
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.21140
  36. BMC Ecol Evol. 2026 Apr 28.
    Open access and digital morphology data in evolutionary biology: expanding frontiers of knowledge.
    Naomi De Leo, Margot Michaud, Luigi Maiorano, Carlo Meloro, Narimane Chatar, Davide Tamagnini.
      The recent integration of 3D imaging and digital methodologies has revolutionized evolutionary biology, offering unprecedented opportunities for analysing and sharing morphological data. However, the transition toward open access remains incomplete due to persistent technical, legal, and institutional barriers. Issues such as lack of standardization, massive file sizes, and unclear intellectual property rights continue to hinder data verification and reproducibility. These challenges have acquired new urgency with the rapid rise of machine learning and AI-based tools for automated segmentation, landmarking, and shape analysis, which require large, standardized, and openly accessible training datasets - making inaccessible 3D data not merely an inconvenience, but a source of systematic bias in the algorithms shaping the field's future. This review synthesizes technical, legal, and behavioural perspectives on open data in digital morphology, building on prior work to address the specific challenges of the current AI era. By advocating for the adoption of FAIR principles, the use of persistent digital identifiers, and the implementation of digital watermarking, we offer recommendations for establishing minimum standards in data publication. Ultimately, a shift toward responsible data stewardship is essential to ensuring that digital morphological resources remain accessible, reproducible, and scientifically valuable for both human and computational users.
    Keywords:  3D morphometrics; Digital morphology; Evolutionary biology; FAIR principles; Open access
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12862-026-02522-y
  37. Acad Pediatr. 2026 Apr 28. pii: S1876-2859(26)00111-7. [Epub ahead of print] 103329
    Mentoring for High-Quality Manuscript Writing: Effectively and efficiently supporting mentees in manuscript writing.
    Michelle C Gorecki, Alexandra M S Corley, Su-Ting T Li, Michelle A Lopez, Melissa D Klein.
      
    Keywords:  manuscript writing; mentee; mentor; mentoring; mentoring writing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acap.2026.103329
  38. MCN Am J Matern Child Nurs. 2026 May-Jun 01;51(3):51(3): 170-171
    Transitioning a Dissertation or Quality Improvement Project to a Journal Manuscript.
    Karen H Morin.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1097/NMC.0000000000001189
  39. Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2026 Apr 25.
    Distinct challenges faced by surgeons in conducting and publishing surgical research: implications for training, ethics, and academic surgery.
    Akef Obeidat, Mohamed Umair Aleem, Belal Nedal Sabbah, Saleha Abdul Rab, Abdalrahman Abuzubida, Ahmad Nedal Sabbah, Zaki Obaid, Al-Awwab Mohammad Dabaliz.
      
    Keywords:  Ethical considerations; Patient confidentiality; Publication barriers; Research methodology; Surgical research
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00423-026-04055-w
  40. Learn Publ. 2026 Apr;pii: e2048. [Epub ahead of print]39(2):
    Enhancing, Understanding and Adoption of the Contributor Roles Taxonomy (CRediT).
    Mohammad Hosseini, Simon Kerridge, Liz Allen, Veronique Kiermer, Kristi Holmes.
      
    Keywords:  CRediT; authorship; contributor roles; publication ethics; research integrity
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.2048
  41. Br J Neurosurg. 2026 Apr 27. 1-2
    Publish or perish? The perils of pushing research on neurosurgical trainees.
    Suzanne Murphy, Lauren Harris, Nitin Mukerji.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1080/02688697.2026.2661538
  42. Nat Hum Behav. 2026 May 01.
    How to design effective scientific figures.
    Ryosuke Fujii.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-026-02466-9
  43. Turk Arch Pediatr. 2026 Feb 01. 61(2): 92-94
    Tips For Writing A Medical Review.
    Özgür Kasapçopur.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.65717/TurkArchPediatr.2026.260201
  44. HERD. 2026 Apr 27. 19375867261429020
    The SCALE Guidelines: A Framework for Standardized Case Reports in Architecture and the Built Environment.
    Saman Jamshidi.
      BackgroundAn established publication type in medicine, case reports allow clinicians to share novel or unusual observations. Their strengths include the ability to identify new phenomena, facilitate communication between practice and research, generate hypotheses, and provide insights into conditions that it may be unethical or impractical to study directly. Architecture and environmental design lack an equivalent method for systematically sharing practice-based insights.PurposeThis paper establishes clear, structured guidelines for documenting and preparing case reports in architecture and environmental design.MethodsUsing a comparative and conceptual approach, this study adapts the CARE Guidelines-developed for case reporting in medicine-to the context of design practice. The study draws conceptual parallels between stages of clinical care (e.g., diagnosis, treatment, outcomes) and those of the design process (e.g., problem identification, interventions, post-occupancy evaluations). Building on this comparison, it introduces a new set of guidelines for architectural case reports.FindingsThe resulting framework, the SCALE Guidelines (Standardized Case reports for Architecture and the buiLt Environment), consists of 12 components that provide a standardized structure for writing design case reports. The guidelines will help practitioners share real-world insights in a format suitable for scholarly dissemination that promotes consistency, completeness, and rigor in reporting.ConclusionsAlthough evidence-based design aims to inform design decisions in practice through research, case reports serve the opposite function: informing research decisions through insights from practice. The formal recognition of case reports in design as a distinct publication type can help bridge the gap between design practice and research.
    Keywords:  built environment; case report; case study; design; reporting guidelines
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1177/19375867261429020
  45. Acad Med. 2026 May 01. 101(5): 461-462
    Academic Medicine's work and recent initiatives.
    Laura Weiss Roberts.
      
    Keywords:  assistant editor; associate editor; special features; submissions
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1093/acamed/wvag042
  46. J Med Ethics Hist Med. 2025 ;18 13
    Are researchers allowed to publicly disseminate research findings before journal publication?
    Azam Khorshidian.
      
    Keywords:  Communications media; Disclosure.; Health communication; Research ethics; Social media
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.18502/jmehm.v18i13.20105
  47. Neuro Oncol. 2026 Apr 25. pii: noag084. [Epub ahead of print]
    Expanding the scope of collective responsibility in neuro-oncology: the integrity of the published record.
    Timothy Daly, Jaime A Teixeira Da Silva.
      
    Keywords:  collective responsibility; linguistic errors; research integrity; truthfulness
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1093/neuonc/noag084
  48. J Emerg Nurs. 2026 May;pii: S0099-1767(26)00077-2. [Epub ahead of print]52(3): 531-534
    Reflections on the Journal of Emergency Nursing Readership Survey.
    Anna Valdez.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jen.2026.03.005
  49. J Biol Chem. 2026 Apr 24. pii: S0021-9258(26)00297-8. [Epub ahead of print]302(5): 111427
    Scope evolution at the journal of biological chemistry: Advancing molecular insight in a changing scientific landscape.
    Henrik G Dohlman, Alex Toker.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbc.2026.111427
  50. J Korean Med Sci. 2026 Apr 27. 41(16): e189
    Medical Photography for Scientific Publishing (MedPhotoPubl) in Rheumatology and Rehabilitation.
    Ilke Coskun Benlidayi.
      Medical photography is an essential component of scientific publishing in rheumatology and rehabilitation. Besides, challenges in daily clinical practice such as disease monitoring can be addressed with the support of medical photography. Although recommendations exist for medical photography in diverse areas of medicine, there is a lack of comprehensive literature addressing this point in rheumatology and rehabilitation. In this regard, the current article aimed to provide standards and recommendations for Medical Photography for Scientific Publishing (MedPhotoPubl) in rheumatology and rehabilitation. The adopted measures during medical photographing should be given in detail in publications. The details to be mentioned are 1) image acquisition protocol, 2) patient position, 3) anatomical region specification (e.g., laterality, reference landmarks), 4) photographic view, 5) task definition, 6) phase specification, 7) timepoint labeling, 8) image editing procedures, 9) image metadata documentation, 10) image storage, and 11) patient informed consent statement. Accordingly, a reporting checklist was developed based on the recommendations for MedPhotoPubl in rheumatology and rehabilitation.
    Keywords:  Image Processing; Medical Photography; Publishing; Rehabilitation; Rheumatic Diseases
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2026.41.e189
This page is being maintained by Thomas Krichel. It was last updated on 2026‒05‒03 at 4:52.