bims-skolko Biomed News
on Scholarly communication
Issue of 2026–05–24
23 papers selected by
Thomas Krichel, Open Library Society
  1. Journal Prestige as Perceived by Health Administration Faculty in the United States.
  2. How to moderate an academic session effectively.
  3. NoTrue, Silence and Rubbish Communications: satirical journals give Chinese academics a pressure valve.
  4. Awareness, knowledge, and perceptions of predatory journals among medical students in the western region of Saudi Arabia: A cross-sectional survey.
  5. Understanding post-publication retractions - Implications for scientific integrity and scholarly accountability.
  6. Usage raisonné de l’intelligence artificielle générative dans la conduite et la rédaction des travaux académiques au cours des études de santé : élaboration d’une charte nationale française par la Conférence des doyennes et doyens des facultés de médecine.
  7. Scientific Writing, Generative Artificial Intelligence, and the Non-Native English Speaker.
  8. Researchers who use hallucinated references to face arXiv ban.
  9. Misquoting of Scientific Literature.
  10. The Peer Reviewer Crisis: Sustaining Scholarly Community or Reimagining the Future of Peer Review?
  11. Peer review: historical evolution and reviewers' learning.
  12. The Unpaid Infrastructure of Cardiovascular Science.
  13. Tough peer-review process? Your paper might end up being more highly cited.
  14. Highlighting Rigor, Reproducibility, and Transparency of Research in an Academic CV.
  15. Expanding equity horizons in knowledge sharing: How can global health journals level up?
  16. Research information systems and knowledge graphs: a review.
  17. Ensuring Traceability in Nontargeted HRMS Annotation Workflows: An Urgent Call for Editorial Standards.
  18. Publishing Prediction Models in Precision Oncology: A Summary of Guidelines and Recommendations.
  19. A Systematic Evidence Map of FAIR Compliance in Open-Access Metabolomics Research: Results from a Pilot Study.
  20. From publication to Dissemination: Using Social Media to Extend Scholarly Reach and Impact.
  21. Writing for impact: How to prepare a qualitative journal article for a surgical audience.
  22. Ten top tips for getting your paper rejected quickly: notes from the editorial desk.
  23. Topical editorials, papers and commentaries: next 10 years.
  1. J Healthc Manag. 2026 May-Jun 01;71(3):71(3): 212-222
    Journal Prestige as Perceived by Health Administration Faculty in the United States.
    Heather Taylor, Ashlyn Burns, Nir Menachemi.
       GOAL: Journal rankings play a critical role in guiding academic publishing decisions, assessing the productivity of health administration (HA) faculty, and informing their tenure and promotion evaluations. Healthcare executives and practitioners rely on rankings to help them assess the quality of empirical analyses and the underlying peer-review process of published articles. Despite periodic assessments in the HA field, journal prestige-an important metric for faculty success-has not been evaluated in more than a decade, leaving a gap in understanding current perceptions amid the rapidly evolving landscape of scholarly publishing. The objective of this current study is to update perceptions of journal prestige among HA faculty and examine changes over the past decade.
    METHODS: As part of a larger, periodic, anonymous online survey distributed to a nationally representative group of HA faculty members in 2024, respondents were asked to list three journals they considered most prestigious in the HA field. Data were coded and analyzed to identify top journals, assess changes in rankings since 2012, and examine variations by faculty characteristics and areas of expertise using logistic regression models.
    PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: The top-ranked journal was Health Affairs (35.1%), followed by Health Services Research (20.7%), Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) (15.9%), and Journal of Healthcare Management (10.9%). Rankings largely aligned with previous findings, though JAMA experienced a notable rise in prestige (+5 positions since 2012), partially driven by the emergence of its open access subjournal, JAMA Health Forum. Journal prestige was not correlated with journal impact factors (Spearman's Rho [ρ] = 0.053; p = .41). Variations in journal selection were observed among faculty with expertise in informatics and outcomes research, who ranked discipline-specific journals higher.
    PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS: This study's findings provide faculty with a current reference for selecting publication outlets and for documenting scholarly impact in promotion and tenure reviews. For department chairs and program directors, the findings offer a field-specific benchmark that can inform evaluation standards. For healthcare executives and practitioners, the top-ranked journals highlight priority sources for evidence-based decision-making and practice-oriented dissemination. The growing prominence of newer and open access journals further underscores the need for periodic reassessment of preferred outlets to ensure continued relevance in the HA field.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1097/JHM-D-24-00280
  2. J Hand Surg Eur Vol. 2026 May 19. 17531934261444255
    How to moderate an academic session effectively.
    Philippe Liverneaux.
      The role of the session moderator in scientific meetings is rarely described in the literature, although it directly influences the scientific, educational and institutional quality of conference sessions. Often perceived as an implicit or purely procedural role, moderation is in fact a specific skill requiring competencies in organization, communication, time management, scientific facilitation and education. Preparation before the session is essential and includes reviewing the programme, identifying session objectives, anticipating key discussion points and coordinating with co-moderators when necessary. Scientific transparency is also part of this responsibility, particularly by ensuring the declaration of conflicts of interest. During the session, the opening sets the tone, clarifies the rules and establishes a respectful and interactive atmosphere. Beyond time management, which remains a central responsibility, an important objective is to transform a sequence of presentations into a genuine scientific discussion by initiating questions, stimulating exchanges, encouraging dialogue between speakers and promoting audience participation. A significant educational responsibility also exists, particularly in supporting junior presenters and maintaining a constructive discussion environment. Adaptability is essential because the role varies according to session format. Effective moderation improves the overall quality of scientific meetings and should therefore be recognized and taught as an academic skill.
    Keywords:  Medical education; moderation skills; oral presentation; panel discussion; scientific communication; scientific meetings; session moderator; time management
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1177/17531934261444255
  3. Nature. 2026 May 20.
    NoTrue, Silence and Rubbish Communications: satirical journals give Chinese academics a pressure valve.
    Xiaoying You.
      
    Keywords:  Careers; Culture; Media; Publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-026-01548-y
  4. Medicine (Baltimore). 2026 May 22. 105(21): e49005
    Awareness, knowledge, and perceptions of predatory journals among medical students in the western region of Saudi Arabia: A cross-sectional survey.
    Ramy Samargandi, Hassan A Ahmed, Eid A Almasoudi, Abubakr S Alzwaihri, Abdullah M Otayn, Ahmed M Alzahrani, Ahmed Bashawyah, Abdullah S Algarni, Mohammed Barnawi, Khalid A Alzahrani.
      The rise in predatory journals poses a significant risk to academic integrity, particularly for inexperienced researchers. This research aimed to evaluate awareness, knowledge, and perceptions of predatory journals in the western region of Saudi Arabia. This cross-sectional survey was conducted between January and May 2024 using an anonymous, self-administered, online validated questionnaire distributed to medical students in their clinical years in the western region of Saudi Arabia. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, and associations between sociodemographic factors and knowledge of predatory journals were assessed utilizing chi-square and Fisher exact tests; all analyses were unadjusted. A total of 405 medical students participated in the study. Most participants (72.6%) regularly participated in faculty-mentored research activities, and over half (51.9%) published research in scientific journals. The primary reason for conducting this research was institution/program requirements (84.7%). Participation in faculty-mentored research and prior publication in scientific journals were strongly associated with predatory journal awareness (P < .001). Important factors for choosing a journal for publication were indexing in the major database (54.8%), rapid publication (48.9%), and a high journal impact factor (36.0%). Most participants (62.2%) had heard the term "predatory journal," with common sources being friends/colleagues (34.1%); only 54.3% reported knowing how to identify potentially predatory journals. Medical students in the western region of Saudi Arabia demonstrated moderate awareness of predatory journals, with gaps in knowledge regarding identifying characteristics. These findings underscore the need for targeted educational initiatives, including workshops and mentorship programs, to enhance understanding and promote ethical research practices. Improving awareness of predatory journals is essential for protecting academic integrity and fostering high-quality scientific contributions.
    Keywords:  Saudi Arabia; awareness; medical students; predatory journals; western region
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000049005
  5. Photodiagnosis Photodyn Ther. 2026 May 15. pii: S1572-1000(26)00181-X. [Epub ahead of print] 105514
    Understanding post-publication retractions - Implications for scientific integrity and scholarly accountability.
    Fawad Javed, Khalid Almas.
      Post-publication retractions have become an increasingly visible and contentious feature of contemporary academic publishing. Despite the rigorous expectations of peer review and editorial oversight, recent bibliometric analyses show that retractions have increased over the past two decades, with misconduct accounting for most cases. Yet authors are disproportionately held accountable for rejections, while institutional failures, inadequate research governance, and compromised or superficial peer review often remain unaddressed. This commentary critically examines the multifactorial reasons for article retractions, including honest or unintentional mistakes, scientific misconduct, compromised image or data integrity, authorship violations, editorial lapses, and political influence. The commentary also highlights the extent to which such events expose systemic weaknesses across journals, institutions, and regulatory frameworks. To address these challenges, future recommendations, including enhanced editorial accountability, stronger institutional integrity frameworks, standardized retraction procedures, article processing fee reform policies, and global guidelines outlining shared responsibility for research integrity have been proposed. Although post-publication retractions serve as an essential corrective mechanism in scholarly publishing, the multifactorial nature of retractions underscores the need for a shared-responsibility framework rather than an author-centric attribution of blame.
    Keywords:  Academia; Bioethics; Ethics; Publishing; Retraction
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pdpdt.2026.105514
  6. Sante Publique. 2026 ;38(2): 11-21
    Usage raisonné de l’intelligence artificielle générative dans la conduite et la rédaction des travaux académiques au cours des études de santé : élaboration d’une charte nationale française par la Conférence des doyennes et doyens des facultés de médecine.
    Cédric Annweiler, Marc Hazzan, T Moulin, Bruno Riou, Pascal Staccini, Marc Humbert, Isabelle Laffont.
       BACKGROUND: Generative artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly reshaping academic, educational, and scientific practices. Within health faculties, its deployment raises significant pedagogical, ethical, and regulatory challenges related to governance, accountability, and data protection. In response, the French Conference of Deans of Medical Faculties (CDD) initiated a French national charter to provide stewardship and oversight for the responsible use of generative AI in academic activities, including academic work, reports, theses, and dissertations in health education.
    METHODS: An institutional, consensus-based governance process was conducted in three sequential phases: scoping and documentary analysis, iterative co-drafting with human oversight, and broad consultation followed by formal validation and official adoption. All participants were university professors and hospital practitioners, the majority of whom were deans of faculties of medicine.
    RESULTS: The charter is structured around six core components: (i) general principles emphasizing complementary use, transparency, traceability, and human accountability; (ii) authorized and regulated uses, including text structuring, synthesis, linguistic editing, translation, and supervised code generation; (iii) prohibited uses, notably data fabrication or manipulation, plagiarism, substitution for critical reasoning, and the entry of personal or sensitive data into non-secure or non-sovereign systems; (iv) clearly defined responsibilities and accountability of students, supervisors, and institutions; (v) oversight mechanisms and proportionate sanctions to ensure academic integrity; and (vi) forward-looking perspectives and capacity-building measures. The final version of the charter was unanimously adopted by the CDD in plenary session on November 26, 2025, and is currently being disseminated nationally through formal adoption by each faculty council.
    CONCLUSIONS: The development of this charter demonstrates the collective capacity of faculties of medicine to exercise stewardship in response to a major technological innovation. Through a collegial and transparent process, it reconciles innovation with pedagogical relevance, scientific integrity, human oversight, and data protection. The charter now constitutes an evolving national reference framework to support responsible, accountable, and ethically grounded integration of generative AI in health sciences education.
    Keywords:  artificial intelligence; medical education; professional ethics.; scientific integrity; scientific writing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3917/spub.262.0011
  7. JAMA Intern Med. 2026 May 18.
    Scientific Writing, Generative Artificial Intelligence, and the Non-Native English Speaker.
    Adhari AlZaabi.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2026.1367
  8. Nature. 2026 May;653(8116): 988-989
    Researchers who use hallucinated references to face arXiv ban.
    Dalmeet Singh Chawla.
      
    Keywords:  Ethics; Machine learning; Publishing; Scientific community
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-026-01595-5
  9. Aust Dent J. 2026 May 20.
    Misquoting of Scientific Literature.
    Ivan Darby.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1111/adj.70053
  10. J Clin Nurs. 2026 May 22.
    The Peer Reviewer Crisis: Sustaining Scholarly Community or Reimagining the Future of Peer Review?
    Leslie Gelling, Leah East, Mark Hayter, Vanessa Heaslip, Brendan McCormack, Jed Montayre, Stephen Neville, Vinciya Pandian, Yenna Salamonson, Izabella Uchmanowicz.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.70374
  11. Insights Imaging. 2026 May 21. pii: 138. [Epub ahead of print]17(1):
    Peer review: historical evolution and reviewers' learning.
    Maria Pilar Aparisi Gómez, Francesco Sardanelli.
      Peer review is the result of a long historical evolution. From the Greek philosophy (the metaphor of Socratic maieutics) to the Cartesian method of systematic doubt and analytical reconstruction, from the informal editorial judgments of seventeenth-century scientific societies to the institutionalized systems of the twentieth century, the idea of examination of apparent certainties became what we know as "peer review." It is a pragmatic response to the growth and specialization of science, rooted in enduring epistemological traditions, started in Europe in 1665 with the Journal des sçavans and Philosophical Transactions. Through this process, authors are compelled to justify claims, expose underlying assumptions, and transform hypotheses into defensible knowledge. In radiology-particularly in the era of quantitative imaging, artificial intelligence, and biomarker development-peer review also functions as an educational tool. It sharpens the ability to detect methodological fragility, latent bias, and to distinguish exploratory from confirmatory research. Despite limitations such as reviewer fatigue and conservatism, peer review shapes scientific reasoning, allowing reviewers to learn science and clinical practice from authors and other reviewers. More than two thousand years ago, Lucius Annaeus Seneca wrote: Homines etiam cum alios aliquid docent, aliquid discunt-Even when humans teach others, they themselves learn something. CRITICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: While reviewing manuscripts is a time-demanding activity, for the reviewer, it can result in a substantial improvement in scientific and clinical knowledge that can be transferred to the daily practice of radiology. KEY POINTS: Peer review evolved from informal judgment into a structured scientific safeguard. A good peer review asks questions rather than simply giving verdicts. Reviewing papers is one of the most powerful ways scientists learn. Peer review shapes not only science, but the reviewers themselves as scientists.
    Keywords:  Knowledge; Methodology (research); Peer review; Radiology; Science
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1186/s13244-026-02302-8
  12. JACC Adv. 2026 May 21. pii: S2772-963X(26)00258-9. [Epub ahead of print]5(6): 102837
    The Unpaid Infrastructure of Cardiovascular Science.
    Wael A Jaber, Issam Motairek, Leslie Cho, Brett W Sperry.
      
    Keywords:  academic medicine; guideline development; health equity; peer review; physician workforce; volunteerism
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacadv.2026.102837
  13. Nature. 2026 May 20.
    Tough peer-review process? Your paper might end up being more highly cited.
    Mariana Lenharo.
      
    Keywords:  Computer science; Publishing; Scientific community
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-026-01615-4
  14. Clin Transl Sci. 2026 Jun;19(6): e70575
    Highlighting Rigor, Reproducibility, and Transparency of Research in an Academic CV.
    Mario Malički, Zach Chandler, Steven N Goodman.
      In academia, the curriculum vitae (CV) is the central document used for hiring, promotion, or tenure applications. The content and format of these CVs and accompanying documents varies among institutions and is a direct reflection of the institution's values. Few institutions consider rigor, reproducibility, or transparency practices for hiring, promotion, or tenure decisions. We developed a new CV template for Stanford's School of Medicine for researchers to highlight their use of those practices, making it possible to evaluate faculty not just on research reports, but how they do the research itself. The new additions include listing (and linking) availability of protocols, analysis plans, analytic code, data, public accessibility of results for research outputs; registration number and result reporting for clinical trials; details of peer review activities; and candidate's persistent identifier (e.g., ORCID iD). We also include a variety of practices supporting research rigor and reproducibility that can be described in a candidate's narrative statement. For those who dedicate time and resources to maximize the rigor, reproducibility, and transparency of their work, our new CV template makes these efforts visible, a precondition for valuing them. This can serve as a model for other institutions, while future advances in scholarly metadata and systems could facilitate easier collection and reporting.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1111/cts.70575
  15. Int J Public Health. 2026 ;71 1609678
    Expanding equity horizons in knowledge sharing: How can global health journals level up?
    Shashika Bandara, Carmen Sant Fruchtman, Nandi Joubert, Lucienne Zinsstag, Ananya Banerjee, Isabel Munoz Beaulieu, Moses Tetui, Vivian Qiang.
      
    Keywords:  academic publishing; epistemic justice; global health; governance; knowledge sharing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3389/ijph.2026.1609678
  16. Front Res Metr Anal. 2026 ;11 1786866
    Research information systems and knowledge graphs: a review.
    Muhammad Haris, Sören Auer, Markus Stocker.
      Digital research artifacts (articles, datasets, software, etc.) are the basis for scientific research. Due to the continuous growth and complexity (e.g., due to formats) of such artifacts, ensuring their organization and long-term availability for research is becoming increasingly challenging. It is essential to manage the artifacts so that they are easily discoverable, accessible and useable by relevant communities. Research Information Systems (RISs) have become indispensable in curating, managing, and publishing research artifacts and other research objects. Diverse communities actively use the data from these systems to conduct research-intensive activities across various fields, including computer science, engineering, and life sciences. We review the current state of the art in research information systems, specifically: scholarly identifier systems, bibliographic databases, Research Data Management (RDM) services, and Knowledge Graphs (KGs). These infrastructures play a crucial role in the management of research artifacts. First, we discuss infrastructures that enable the persistent identification of research artifacts to make them globally discoverable and citeable. Second, we discuss databases that manage metadata about research artifacts. Third, we present RDM services that support publishing and accessing research data. Finally, we provide a comprehensive overview of domain-specific and domain-agnostic KGs and databases that have been widely adopted to represent scientific knowledge in different domains in structured form.
    Keywords:  interoperable information systems; knowledge graphs; research data management; research information systems; scholarly communication; scholarly knowledge
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3389/frma.2026.1786866
  17. Anal Chem. 2026 May 21.
    Ensuring Traceability in Nontargeted HRMS Annotation Workflows: An Urgent Call for Editorial Standards.
    Francisco José Díaz-Galiano, Yann Guitton, María Murcia-Morales, Gaud Dervilly, Bruno Le Bizec.
      Untargeted high-resolution mass spectrometry (HRMS) is widely used in metabolomics, exposomics, and chemical monitoring. However, compound annotation, a central element for interpreting untargeted data, is frequently reported without sufficient information to allow independent evaluation. This communication examines current annotation practices in untargeted HRMS studies and remarks the increasing lack of standardized reporting of metadata, structural identifiers, and confidence criteria. Annotations are often reduced to compound names and exact masses, sometimes relegated to Supporting Information or omitted entirely, despite their central role in data interpretation. Although several community initiatives and guidelines have proposed reporting recommendations and identification confidence frameworks, their application and enforcement remain inconsistent. As a result, annotation traceability is often insufficient to support reproducibility, interstudy comparability, or long-term data reuse. These limitations affect downstream applications, including meta-analyses, automated data mining, and regulatory-relevant fields such as food safety and exposure assessment. This article argues that improving annotation traceability is essential for the scientific robustness of untargeted HRMS workflows and emphasizes the role of journals, reviewers, and authors in ensuring that annotation information remains verifiable, reusable, and scientifically accountable.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.analchem.6c00439
  18. JCO Precis Oncol. 2026 May;10(5): e2600356
    Publishing Prediction Models in Precision Oncology: A Summary of Guidelines and Recommendations.
    Natalie J DelRocco, Justin Jee, Ying Lu.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1200/PO-26-00356
  19. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2026 May 21. 336 1128-1132
    A Systematic Evidence Map of FAIR Compliance in Open-Access Metabolomics Research: Results from a Pilot Study.
    Charlie Harrison, Tulsi Suchak, Kris Elomaa, Reyer Zwiggelaar, Matt Spick.
      Metabolomics is a powerful tool for precision health and biomarker discovery, yet the field faces persistent transparency and reproducibility challenges. The FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable) Guiding Principles were established in 2016 with the aim of improving scientific data management, but compliance in metabolomics remains inconsistent. Here, we briefly describe our protocol for a Systematic Evidence Map (SEM) to assess data sharing practices in open-access metabolomics publications. We will also assess the accessibility of unpublished datasets claimed to be available on request, to improve understanding of the different incentives and disincentives around data sharing. We will draw from open-access records indexed in PubMed, PMC and DOAJ published between 2013 and 2024, spanning before and after the publication of the FAIR guiding principles. Articles will be screened for relevance and assessed based on their data availability statements and repository use. We will investigate which factors are associated with improved compliance, by funder, journal, and subject area as well as over time. The results of our pilot study of 1106 publications are also presented; we find that while the number of studies including a data availability statement increased from 9% in 2014 to 85% in 2024, 'Available on request' became the most common statement. Just 14% of studies in our pilot made their data available in a repository, suggesting that more work must be done to encourage FAIR compliance.
    Keywords:  FAIR; data availability; metabolomics; metascience; reproducibility
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3233/SHTI260374
  20. Acad Med. 2026 May 19. pii: wvag144. [Epub ahead of print]
    From publication to Dissemination: Using Social Media to Extend Scholarly Reach and Impact.
    Anthony R Artino, Colleen Roche, Zareen Zaidi.
      In academic medicine, publication has often been treated as the endpoint of scholarship. In today's crowded digital environment, however, publication alone does not ensure that important work will be seen, discussed, or used. This commentary argues that dissemination is an essential part of scholarship and that social media, when used thoughtfully, can play an important role in extending the reach and visibility of scholarly work. The authors make three central arguments. First, increasing the visibility of scholarship is a legitimate scholarly aim, not merely a marketing exercise, because greater visibility can help scholarship reach relevant audiences, stimulate engagement, and generate evidence of dissemination that complements traditional markers of impact. Second, concerns about self-promotion are understandable but should be reframed. Sharing one's work is more appropriately viewed as an act of scholarly dissemination and knowledge translation than as self-congratulatory or performative. Third, the authors offer practical, evidence-informed strategies for promoting scholarship on social media, including identifying target audiences, making scholarship easy to find and share, choosing platforms strategically, translating papers into accessible take-home messages, using visuals, posting more than once, involving coauthors and institutions in dissemination, using hashtags and at-mentions strategically, and documenting evidence of reach and engagement. The authors also note that the social media landscape has changed substantially in recent years, suggesting the need for updated research on newer and evolving platforms. Overall, they contend that helping scholarship reach the audiences who may benefit from it is not peripheral to academic work, but an important component of scholarly dissemination in contemporary academic medicine.
    Keywords:  information dissemination; publications; scholarship; social media
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1093/acamed/wvag144
  21. Surgery. 2026 May 04. pii: S0039-6060(26)00224-2. [Epub ahead of print]196 110299
    Writing for impact: How to prepare a qualitative journal article for a surgical audience.
    Sarah E Bradley, Lauren Szczygiel, Pasithorn A Suwanabol.
      Qualitative methods enable researchers to explore complex health care problems in greater depth and with more nuance than traditional quantitative approaches. While qualitative approaches are becoming more common in surgical research, they still constitute only a small proportion of articles published in surgical journals. This article offers recommendations for preparing qualitative research for publication and tailoring the presentation of qualitative findings for a surgical audience. We introduce practical strategies for each of the primary sections of an article (Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion, and Conclusion), focusing on methodologic rigor and clear communication. This guide is intended to help enhance the impact and usefulness of qualitative findings and to promote the dissemination of studies that foreground the human experience in surgical research.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2026.110299
  22. Indian J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2026 Jun;42(6): 695-697
    Ten top tips for getting your paper rejected quickly: notes from the editorial desk.
    Pradeep Narayan.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12055-026-02223-7
  23. BJPsych Open. 2026 May 21. 12(3): e141
    Topical editorials, papers and commentaries: next 10 years.
    Aileen A O'Brien, Kamaldeep Bhui, Richard Williams, Jill Stavert, Cornelius Katona, Kenneth R Kaufman.
      Editorials and commentaries have a central role in shaping debate, priorities and values within psychiatry. Reflecting on the first decade of BJPsych Open, we consider how topical writing both responds to and helps define emerging scientific, social, ethical and political challenges. Looking ahead, we suggest that global instability, technological change and pressures on academic freedom will increasingly shape psychiatric discourse, underscoring the importance of editorial independence, methodological rigour and openness to the airing of contested ideas in guiding the journal's next decade.
    Keywords:  Ethics; burden of disease; evidence-based mental health; health economics; transcultural psychiatry
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1192/bjo.2026.11048
This page is being maintained by Thomas Krichel. It was last updated on 2026‒05‒24 at 5:30.