bims-skolko Biomed News
on Scholarly communication
Issue of 2026–05–31
38 papers selected by
Thomas Krichel, Open Library Society



  1. Science. 2026 May 28. 392(6801): 912-913
      Communication of policies is piecemeal and in some cases contradictory.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aej2011
  2. Nature. 2026 May;653(8116): 1262
      
    Keywords:  Government; Policy; Research management; Scientific community
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-026-01663-w
  3. Blockchain Healthc Today. 2026 ;9(1):
      
    Keywords:  DOAJ/COPE compliance; blockchain in healthcare; guest editors; peer review governance; publication ethics; research integrity; scholarly publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.30953/bhty.v9.504
  4. J Microbiol Biol Educ. 2026 May 27. e0019525
      Educators would benefit from developing course material that increases understanding of generative artificial intelligence (AI). General-purpose large language models (LLMs) popular among students often handle citations incorrectly. These LLMs produce fabricated references referred to as hallucinations and often cite even real citations erroneously. These citation hallucinations and errors offer an opportunity to correct mistakes, understand reference interpretation, and learn appropriate source type usage. Here we repurpose generative AI errors as examples for teaching the rigorous citation of primary and secondary sources in scientific writing. The designed exercise simultaneously achieves learning objectives with regard to AI and information literacy. Seeing the factual errors in writing and citation usage firsthand demonstrates a key weakness in generative AI. Also, our exercise gives students a structure in which to practice appropriate source type usage. The errors produced by generative AI provide opportunities to practice and improve scientific writing skills. Our article proposes a conceptual framework within which to implement this approach in the classroom.
    Keywords:  artificial intelligence; information literacy; students
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1128/jmbe.00195-25
  5. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2026 Jun 02. 123(22): e2605754123
      Large language models (LLMs) are rapidly changing academic research, raising questions of who is adopting these tools and under what conditions. This article analyzes full texts of 7.3 million journal articles published from 2020-2025 by four major publishers (Elsevier, Frontiers, MDPI, and PLoS) to track the prevalence of LLM-associated language and identify social and institutional correlates of adoption. A corpus of 228 focal words exhibiting sharp post-2022 frequency increases consistent with LLM output was developed; articles were scored on their rate of focal word usage. By 2025, an estimated 57% of published articles exhibited evidence of LLM influence, up from 12% in 2023. Among articles exhibiting LLM-influenced text, there is substantial heterogeneity, ranging from subtle linguistic influence to articles mostly or entirely LLM-generated. Difference-in-differences models reveal that LLM-associated language varies markedly across regions, institutional ranks, publishers, disciplines, and journal tiers. Economic development and proximity to English as a primary language are key predictors of regional variation. Lower-ranked institutions exhibit higher rates than elite universities, young for-profit publishers show elevated rates vis-à-vis competitors, and academic fields differ widely in adoption. LLM adoption in academic writing is pervasive but socially stratified. As models grow more powerful and their use becomes further entrenched in academic research, understanding social dynamics of adoption will be essential for governing the evolving relationship between AI and academic knowledge production.
    Keywords:  AI detection; academic integrity; academic publishing; diffusion of innovations; large language models
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2605754123
  6. Front Res Metr Anal. 2026 ;11 1815503
       Objectives: To quantify how artificial intelligence (AI) publications contribute to journal impact factor (JIF) in oral and maxillofacial radiology (OMFR) journals and to discuss implications for imaging research, peer review, and clinical translation.
    Methods: On 25 June 2025, Journal Citation Reports (JCR) data (2017-2024) were retrieved for Dentomaxillofacial Radiology, Oral Radiology, Imaging Science in Dentistry, and the Radiology section of Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology and Oral Radiology (OOOO). For each JCR year, citable items and JIF-accountable citations were exported and manually coded as AI article, AI review, non-AI article, or non-AI review by two observers (κ = 0.956). A descriptive indicator, named as notional JIF, was computed to illustrate the contribution of AI items. Citation rates were compared descriptively across document types.
    Results: In JCR 2024, AI papers represented 10.9%-25.2% of citable items among OMFR journals yet contributed 31.3%-53.7% of JIF-accountable citations; radiology AI papers contributed materially to OOOO's JIF despite comprising only 1.5%-2.4% of citable items. AI articles and reviews received 4.3-4.4 × more JIF-accountable citations per item than non-AI counterparts. Notional JIFs exceeded actual JIFs in 2020-2022, reflecting small-denominator effects and topic-specific citation acceleration that diminished as more AI papers were published in subsequent years.
    Conclusions: AI-related publications are associated with higher per-item citation rates in OMFR journals, consistent with recognized patterns of topic-focused citation concentration in fast-moving research areas. These descriptive findings highlight the importance of methodological transparency, robust validation practices, and balanced editorial policies as AI research continues to expand.
    Keywords:  artificial intelligence; cone-beam CT; dental imaging; editorial policy; journal impact factor; scientometrics
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3389/frma.2026.1815503
  7. Eur Heart J Digit Health. 2026 Jun;7(5): ztag070
    iCARE4CVD consortium
       Aims: Artificial intelligence (AI) tools utilizing large language models (LLMs) can accelerate scientific literature reviews by automating title, abstract, and full-text-based screenings of relevant patient populations and biomarkers. We developed an AI-based tool to automate and improve full-text screening performance using LLMs to accurately identify relevant publications that meet complex criteria.
    Methods and results: We conducted a literature review utilizing the Population, Intervention-biomarkers, Comparison, Outcome framework to define our inclusion and exclusion criteria, focusing on biomarkers in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). An AI-based full-text screening tool was created to process 5405 selected publications, combining multi-level and task-oriented retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) and agent-based methods, establishing ground truth standards to evaluate performance metrics both for the tool and human reviewers. Intra-LLM reliability was assessed by rerunning screenings on a batch of publications. Among the public and private domain models, LLaMA 3.3 70B was selected for its superior accuracy (82%), precision (71%), and recall (100%) in screening 49 manuscripts by LLMs. During the training phase, based on several hundred manuscripts, performance metrics significantly improved. Validation results showed a sensitivity of 91.4%, specificity of 53.2%, a false positive rate of 46.8%, and a false negative rate of 8.6%. The LLM outperformed human reviewers in F1 score and interrater reliability, achieving 100% consistency across multiple runs, with each run consisting of multiple LLMs on 1000 documents.
    Conclusion: Our study demonstrated that AI tool can reduce labour-intensive efforts while maintaining accuracy in literature reviews, with greater inter-rater agreement compared to human reviewers.
    Keywords:  Artificial intelligence (AI); Biomarkers; Full-text screening; Heart failure; Large language models (LLMs); Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG)
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1093/ehjdh/ztag070
  8. Nature. 2026 May;653(8116): 983
      
    Keywords:  Machine learning; Medical research; Publishing; Research data
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-026-01616-3
  9. Nurs Outlook. 2026 May 26. pii: S0029-6554(26)00126-0. [Epub ahead of print]74(4): 102803
       BACKGROUND: The rapid integration of generative artificial intelligence (AI) into scholarly work is reshaping nursing publication standards.
    PURPOSE: This study aimed to examine nursing journal policies governing the use of AI.
    METHODS: A cross-sectional analysis was conducted on 191 nursing journals listed in the Journal Citation Reports (JCRs) by Clarivate Analytics. Each journal's website was systematically evaluated to extract data on AI use and rationales for AI policies. Descriptive statistics were used to characterize journal attributes, publisher distribution, and patterns in AI-use policies. Thematic analysis was used for qualitative data.
    RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Among the 191 journals, 21% were published by Elsevier, 17% Wiley, 16% Wolters Kluwer Health, 12% SAGA Publishing, 4% Springer Publishing Company, 3% Taylor & Francis. None of the journals permitted AI to be listed as an author; all allowed the use of AI tools for text generation, data analysis, and language improvement. Over half (55%) of journals did not permit AI-generated images and AI-generated charts (57%). The majority of journals (98%) explicitly prohibited the use of AI as a peer reviewer. Themes for prohibiting AI use in peer review were: peer review as a human endeavor, insufficiency for critical and contextual domain-specific judgment, lack of accountability for scientific integrity, risk of bias/error/manipulation; and risk of confidentiality and intellectual property.
    CONCLUSION: There was a lack of operational guidance for AI disclosure about what to disclose, where to disclose, how detailed should be disclosed. The study findings underscore the need for operational clarity to guide ethical and responsible AI use and disclosure in nursing scholarship.
    Keywords:  Editorial governance; Generative technologies; Publication ethics; Research integrity; Scholarly publishing; Transparency
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.outlook.2026.102803
  10. Oncol Nurs Forum. 2026 Apr 29. 53(3): 1-2
      Ultimately, the responsible integration of AI into scholarship is not a threat to scientific rigor, but an opportunity. As the scientific community continues to define best practices for AI use, our collective responsibility.
    Keywords:  artificial intelligence; ethics; research; scholarly publishing; systematic reviews
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1188/26.ONF.e26535308
  11. J Neurosurg Spine. 2026 May 29. 1-6
       OBJECTIVE: With the advent of artificial intelligence (AI), scientific research and writing has benefitted from large language models to generate hypotheses, evaluate data, and draft manuscripts. However, this brings into question the prevalence, impact, and ethics of AI writing assistance on published literature. The purpose of this study was to quantify the extent of AI involvement in published spine articles and establish a statistical threshold for scientific integrity.
    METHODS: Spine-focused clinical journals were selected for their impact factor and comprehensive representation of the specialty. All full-length research articles published in 2005 and 2023-2024 in these journals were extracted. ZeroGPT was used to assess AI content in each article. Baseline AI utilization was evaluated on the 2005 data, with 2 standard deviations above the mean serving as the threshold for significant AI usage. Based on pre-AI era articles, a threshold ZeroGPT score of 48.8% was established. Articles exceeding this threshold in the 2023-2024 data were assessed across spine journals and years of publication.
    RESULTS: In total, 2790 post-AI articles published across 6 spine journals in 2023-2024 were examined. Among these spine journal articles, 25.7% were considered to have significant AI involvement. AI involvement varied significantly across spine journals, ranging from 20.2% for Spine (Phila Pa 1976) to 31.1% for Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine (p < 0.01). Likewise, AI involvement varied significantly across the years, with peak utilization at 32.0% at the start of 2023 and plateau in utilization at 20.7% by the second quarter of 2024 (p < 0.01).
    CONCLUSIONS: AI involvement in drafting manuscripts was observed in 25% of articles in recent spine literature. Although the use of AI has plateaued since mid-2024, likely due to the implementation of clear ethical guidelines and utilization of improved detection tools, continued efforts should be made with the evolving AI landscape to the ensure quality, authenticity, and integrity of spine research.
    Keywords:  ChatGPT; ZeroGPT; artificial intelligence; large language models; neurosurgical education; spine journals; spine literature; writing assistance
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3171/2025.8.SPINE25389
  12. Front Psychol. 2026 ;17 1868057
      [This corrects the article DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1796737.].
    Keywords:  ChatGPT; EFL writing; academic integrity; perception; student behavior
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1868057
  13. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2026 May 23. pii: S0885-3924(26)00804-3. [Epub ahead of print]
      
    Keywords:  artificial intelligence; incentive; regulation; review; reviewer
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2026.05.009
  14. Vet Rec. 2026 May/Jun 30;198(11):198(11): 478
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1002/vetr.70839
  15. Res Integr Peer Rev. 2026 May 29. pii: 35. [Epub ahead of print]11(1):
       BACKGROUND: Peer review remains a cornerstone of scientific knowledge dissemination, yet comprehensive, practically relevant training is limited. This inspired us to develop Peerspectives, a peer review training course for doctoral students in the biomedical sciences in Berlin, Germany. We aimed to assess the effectiveness of the Peerspectives course on editor-judged quality of peer review reports.
    METHODS: Doctoral students in health research fields who enrolled in the Peerspectives course between October 2020 and August 2022 were invited to participate in the study, and 80 consented. The ~18 week-long course provided training on the structure, purpose, and conduct of peer review and editorial processes in biomedical journals. It included 12 h of lectures, homework assignments, and 12 h of hands-on, small-group workshops, during which students reviewed original research manuscripts currently under consideration at The BMJ under the guidance of experienced mentors. The primary outcome was the overall quality of the peer review reports as judged by two independent BMJ editors using the global score of the Review Quality Instrument (RQI) pre- and post-intervention. Additionally, we compared participants' post-course scores with those of actual BMJ reviewers. We also compared participants' self-assessed knowledge and skills related to scholarly peer review (1-5 Likert scale) before and after the course.
    RESULTS: After course completion, the editor-assessed overall quality of the participants' peer review reports was higher than before the course (median increase of 0.5 points, p < 0.001; mean increase of 0.36 points, p < 0.001). The RQI scores of participants' post-course reports were not non-inferior to those of actual BMJ reviewers for the same manuscripts. Self-assessed peer review-related knowledge skills increased across all questionnaire items after course completion. Greatest improvements were seen in understanding reviewer expectations (increase in means from 2.9 to 4.5), confidence in reviewing (2.5 to 3.9), and knowing what to look for while reviewing (2.8 to 4.2).
    CONCLUSIONS: Providing doctoral students with comprehensive training resulted in an editorially significant increase in review report quality and improved understanding of the role and expectations of peer reviewers in the scholarly publishing processes and confidence in giving constructive feedback. PRE-REGISTRATION: https://osf.io/vndcx.
    Keywords:  Doctoral programs; Editorial practices; Education; Mentorship; Peer review; PhD students; Quality of peer review; Scientific publication; Training
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-026-00220-3
  16. Science. 2026 May 28. 392(6801): 905
      Throughout the world, peer review serves as the cornerstone of the scientific enterprise, providing rigorous quality control and building the confidence that underpins progress for both science and society. Without such a robust process, scientists and the general public would rapidly lose the ability to distinguish groundbreaking advances from noise, which undermines policy decisions, research translation, and most importantly, public trust in science. Sadly, that is exactly what has been happening in Australia.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aei8900
  17. J Clin Med. 2026 May 21. pii: 3981. [Epub ahead of print]15(10):
      Background/Objectives: Transparent and complete reporting of clinical trial information across registries and peer-reviewed publications is essential for reliable interpretation of clinical evidence. Previous studies have demonstrated discrepancies between trial registries and journal publications, but data specifically focusing on transfusion medicine trials remain limited. To assess reporting completeness and consistency for key WHO Trial Registration Data Set (WHO TRDS) items and safety outcomes across the trial life cycle in transfusion medicine-related clinical trials. Methods: We conducted a retrospective observational study of completed transfusion medicine-related clinical trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov, with registry results available between January 2009 and May 2019. Reporting of WHO TRDS items was evaluated at three predefined time points: initial registry entry, final registry update, and corresponding peer-reviewed journal publication. Changes and missing items were systematically assessed, and adverse event and mortality reporting were compared between registry records and journal publications. Results: A total of 67 eligible clinical trials were identified, of which 45 (67%) had corresponding peer-reviewed journal publications. At initial registration, several WHO TRDS items were frequently missing, particularly timeline- and outcome-related fields. Completeness improved substantially in final registry updates but remained inconsistent in journal publications, where discrepancies in eligibility criteria, outcome definitions, and study timelines were common. Differences between final registry updates and publications were observed in the majority of trials. Safety reporting also differed between sources: serious adverse events were reported in 31/45 (69%) registry entries and 26/45 (58%) publications, whereas deaths were more frequently reported in publications (27/45, 60%) than in registries (20/45, 44%). Conclusions: Clinical trials in transfusion medicine show inconsistencies between registry records and corresponding journal publications across key methodological and safety reporting domains. These differences may limit transparency, reproducibility, and the reliability of evidence synthesis. Closer alignment between trial registries and scientific publications is needed to strengthen the trustworthiness of clinical information in transfusion medicine.
    Keywords:  ClinicalTrials.gov; WHO trial registration data set; adverse event reporting; clinical trial registration; reporting consistency; transfusion medicine
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm15103981
  18. BMJ Open Qual. 2026 May 25. pii: e004043. [Epub ahead of print]15(2):
       BACKGROUND: Quality improvement reports (QIRs) are important for disseminating real-world interventions in healthcare. However, as a relatively new genre of scholarly writing, QIRs vary widely in clarity, methodological rigour and scholarly contribution. Despite the availability of reporting frameworks such as Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence (SQUIRE) V.2.0, key elements-such as methodological rigour, contextual detail and rationale for interventions-are often under-reported or poorly articulated. This study aimed to (1) identify best practices in publishing QIRs and (2) examine common methodological strengths and weaknesses in project design and execution.
    METHODS: We conducted a scoping review using the six-stage framework by Arksey and O'Malley. A purposeful sample of 71 QIRs published in 2019 across three leading quality improvement (QI) journals-BMJ Quality & Safety, BMJ Open Quality and Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Patient Safety-was analysed. Data extraction was guided by SQUIRE V.2.0 and supplemented by additional best practices. Return-of-findings sessions with QI scholars, journal editors, frontline practitioners and an international QI conference audience refined the findings and ensured practical relevance.
    RESULTS: Most QIRs described a local problem and intervention but only 22% articulated strong aim statements with measurable targets. Two-thirds referenced a QI methodology but many descriptions of common QI tools lacked rigour. Process and balancing measures were often missing or inadequately justified. While Plan-Do-Study-Act cycles were commonly reported, few met criteria for 'authenticity'. Data analysis and display methods varied, with several common weaknesses. Discussion sections frequently lacked depth and contextual factors-critical for reproducibility-were inconsistently described. Eight core lessons emerged to support more rigorous, transparent and impactful reporting.
    CONCLUSIONS: As an emerging genre of scholarly communication, many QIRs still fall short in conveying methodological rigour and transferable insights. This review provides practical recommendations, illustrated by strong examples, to help authors and educators improve the clarity and impact of QIRs across healthcare settings.
    Keywords:  PDSA; Quality improvement; Quality improvement methodologies
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjoq-2025-004043
  19. J Eval Clin Pract. 2026 Jun;32(4): e70458
       AIM: Reporting bias is widespread in clinical trials, yet a 2022 assessment of reporting bias specifically in homeopathy claimed to show 'a concerning lack of scientific and ethical standards.' If true, decisive action is needed. The aim of this study was thus to assess the reliability of these published claims.
    METHODS: Critical assessment of the 2022 published data (N = 231 studies) was performed through in-depth literature/trial registry searching and systematic data extraction. Substantial inaccuracies were identified and corrected. Reporting bias in homeopathy was then re-analyzed (N = 181 studies) emphasizing trial registration, publication rates and primary outcome change.
    RESULTS: Re-analysis of the corrected data showed that 93% of registered homeopathy trials are published; 60% of published trials are registered; 64% of registered trials were registered before trial completion; and 11% of prospectively registered and published trials had a primary outcome change. Compared to the published 2022 values (62%, 48%, 50% and 25% respectively), reporting bias in homeopathy is less common than claimed. Furthermore, 88% of homeopathy trials mentioned ethical approval, and 70% of journals publishing homeopathy trials comply with the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors' recommendations.
    CONCLUSION: This re-analysis shows that levels of reporting bias in homeopathy trials are at least comparable to those in the wider medical literature where half of registered trials remain unpublished and primary outcome change occurs in ~30%. Researchers in all medical disciplines, including homeopathy, should continue to strive towards the highest level of research standards, following international recommendations for registration and publication of all trials.
    Keywords:  clinical trials; critique; homeopathy; meta‐research; publication bias
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1111/jep.70458
  20. Worldviews Evid Based Nurs. 2026 Jun;23(3): e70149
       SIGNIFICANCE/BACKGROUND: Ensuring transparency in research dissemination and confidence in published findings is essential for advancing nursing science. Open science provides a framework for achieving this by promoting practices that make scientific knowledge openly accessible, rigorous, reproducible, and inclusive, thereby strengthening trustworthiness and accountability in scholarly work.
    AIMS: This study aimed to evaluate the extent to which nursing journals require pre-registration and reporting guidelines, assess adherence to these practices in published research reports and systematic reviews, and explore their relationship with journal impact factors.
    METHODS: We conducted an observational cross-sectional survey of nursing journals indexed in the Journal Citation Reports database. After applying inclusion criteria, a 25% random sample (n = 35) was selected. Author guidelines were reviewed for pre-registration and reporting guideline requirements. For each journal, the first original research article and first systematic review from the most recent issue were examined for evidence of adherence.
    RESULTS: Among sampled journals, 54% recommended or required pre-registration for original research and 14% for systematic reviews. Reporting guidelines were recommended or required by 71% of journals for original research and 74% for systematic reviews. In sampled articles, pre-registration occurred in 8.6% of original research papers and 35.7% of systematic reviews, while reporting guideline use was documented in 20% of original research and 64.3% of systematic reviews. Journal impact factors were slightly higher among journals that recommended or required these practices, but differences were not statistically significant.
    CONCLUSIONS: Pre-registration remains underutilized in nursing research despite journal recommendations. Reporting guidelines are more commonly used, especially in systematic reviews.
    LINKING EVIDENCE TO ACTION: Improving research integrity requires collaboration among all stakeholders beyond journal policy enforcement. Key strategies include training researchers, screening submissions for pre-registration and reporting guidelines, involving peer reviewers in compliance checks, and leveraging librarians for comprehensive searches.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1111/wvn.70149
  21. Ann Epidemiol. 2026 May 26. pii: S1047-2797(26)00124-9. [Epub ahead of print]120 110126
       PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to estimate the prevalence of data and code availability and sharing practices in meta-analyses from highly ranked sports journals.
    METHODS: A MEDLINE search via PubMed on September 11, 2024 identified 228 meta-analyses. We randomly selected 157 studies and assessed availability statements and sharing outcomes. Authors were contacted between October 2024 and January 2025.
    RESULTS: Of 157 studies, 34% (95% CI: 26-42%) had a data availability statement and 13% (95% CI: 8-19%) had a code statement. Overall, 33% (95% CI: 26-41%) shared data and 11% (95% CI: 6-17%) shared code. Prior to author contact, 15% (95% CI: 10-21%) shared data publicly and 3% (95% CI: 1-6%) shared code. Following contact, 22% (95% CI: 15-29%) provided data privately and 8% (95% CI: 5-14%) provided code. Studies with a code statement were more likely to share code (25% vs 9%; RD=16%, p = 0.03). Open-access articles had greater sharing than non-open-access articles for data (53% vs 28%; RD=25%, p = 0.011) and code (22% vs 8%; RD=14%, p = 0.049).
    CONCLUSION: Despite sharing statement mandates, actual meta-analysis sharing is limited, underscoring the need for greater journal policy enforcement and standardized transparency practices.
    Keywords:  Data sharing; Meta-analysis; Research integrity; Sports medicine; Systematic reviews
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annepidem.2026.110126
  22. PLoS Med. 2026 May;23(5): e1005107
    PLOS Medicine Staff Editors
      PLOS Medicine has always championed open science and data transparency. Now, recognizing that code is as essential a research artifact as the data it analyzes, we are strengthening our code sharing policy to further ensure reproducibility and trust in the scientific record.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1005107
  23. J Am Psychoanal Assoc. 2026 May 27. 30651261447796
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1177/00030651261447796
  24. Am J Pharm Educ. 2026 May 22. pii: S0002-9459(26)01362-8. [Epub ahead of print] 102006
      Collaborative projects help faculty produce scholarship while balancing teaching, research, and service responsibilities. However, faculty's assumptions about contributions and authorship definitions can lead to confusion and disappointment in collaborative scholarship. Lapses in communication can cause delays, uneven workload, and perceptions of unfairness. Inconsistent application of authorship criteria and lack of transparency in authorship order may further create frustration and disengagement for future projects, particularly when their contributions affect promotion and tenure. To promote transparent authorship attribution, project leads must clearly communicate contribution expectations and plan for accountability early in the project. Proactive, structured approaches, such as establishing authorship guidance, sharing Contributor Roles Taxonomy and formalized agreements such as collaboration charters, and outlining communication plans can alleviate common authorship conflicts and promote equity in collaborative projects. Moreover, senior contributors hold key roles in mentoring junior faculty and modeling ethical and inclusive authorship practices. These thoughtful practices may not only alleviate pressures tied to scholarship but also leverage teamwork to strengthen collegiality and trust among collaborators to ultimately produce meaningful, high-quality scholarly work. By fostering a collaborative scholarship grounded in transparency, shared accountability, and respectful communication, opportunities for meaningful collaborations can flourish and contribute to the academy.
    Keywords:  academic integrity; authorship; collaboration; collegiality; scholarship
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajpe.2026.102006
  25. Ir Med J. 2026 May 21. 119(5): 75
      
  26. MethodsX. 2026 Jun;16 103943
       Background: Nurse researchers often face challenges in publishing their work due to limited writing skills, inadequate mentorship, and insufficient institutional support. Strengthening research dissemination is essential for improving evidence-based practice, professional growth, and the visibility of nursing scholarship.
    Objective: Thisprotocol aims to identify barriers and facilitators to research publication among nurse researchers and to evaluate the effectiveness of a Mentored Writing Retreat Programme (MWRP) in optimizing the publication process.
    Methods: A participatory action research design will be adopted and implemented in two phases. Phase I will examine publication barriers and facilitators through a survey and focus group discussions among nurse researchers across Karnataka (n = 317). Phase II will use a quasi-experimental pre-test-post-test design with intervention and control groups (n = 50 per group). The MWRP will be developed based on Phase I findings and will include structured workshops, mentoring, and guided manuscript development over four months, followed by structured follow-up after six months post-intervention.
    Expected Outcomes: The protocol is expected to generate comprehensive evidence on challenges affecting research publication and to determine whether a structured writing retreat improves writing skills, increases publication readiness, and enhances scholarly productivity among nurse researchers. The findings will help inform future strategies to strengthen research capacity and enhance publication outcomes in nursing.Protocol Outline.
    Keywords:  Mentored writing retreat programme; Nurse researchers; Participatory action research; Research publication; Scientific writing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mex.2026.103943
  27. Nature. 2026 May;653(8116): 981
      
    Keywords:  Authorship; Funding; Peer review; Publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-026-01629-y
  28. JAC Antimicrob Resist. 2026 Jun;8(3): dlag082
      The British Society of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy (BSAC) Academic Publishing Workshop, held at the Birmingham City Event Centre in the UK from 19 to 20 March 2025, provided practical guidance for early-career researchers and healthcare professionals seeking to understand and actively engage with the academic publishing process. This perspective extends the workshop's expert insights to those who were unable to attend, summarizing key lessons across five thematic sessions. The first session addressed journal selection, guiding participants on evaluating scope, impact metrics, open-access models and identifying predatory journals. The second explored peer-review models including single-blind, double-blind and open review, and reinforced reviewers' role as guardians of research integrity. The third session focused on writing effective structured abstracts and developing resilience in managing desk and post-review rejections. The fourth provided a practical framework for converting conference poster presentations into full manuscripts. The fifth examined the evolving role of artificial intelligence in academic publishing, including its benefits for writing support and literature discovery, alongside ethical considerations. Complementing these sessions, hands-on peer-review exercises enabled participants to develop and apply concrete manuscript evaluation skills in a collaborative setting. This perspective underscores that successful academic publishing demands continuous professional development, and that structured, expert-led training is essential for advancing research careers and maximizing scholarly impact.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1093/jacamr/dlag082