bims-skolko Biomed News
on Scholarly communication
Issue of 2026–06–21
forty-five papers selected by
Thomas Krichel, Open Library Society
  1. Research "junkification" is caused by researchers, not journals.
  2. Irreproducible research and a typology of replication efforts.
  3. Retracted publications in medical journals: a cross-sectional, cross-disciplinary analysis.
  4. 'Student Geng' ignites research-integrity scandal in China after calling out senior academics.
  5. Extending Transparency in Conflict-of-Interest Management to Handling Editors.
  6. Journal Instructions Are Not Optional: Yet Authors Still Ignore Them.
  7. To AI or not to AI: A cross-sectional analysis of artificial intelligence policy among emergency management journals.
  8. Speed, Innovation, and Trust: Guiding Scientific Publishing in the Age of Artificial Intelligence.
  9. An update on AI in Academic Publishing.
  10. Unpacking the black box - a questionnaire study of how medical journals identify and manage conflicts of interest of editors and peer reviewers.
  11. Balanced Peer Review in the Era of Artificial Intelligence.
  12. AI as a peer reviewer: a blinded comparative study of LLM-generated and human reviews in a cardiology journal.
  13. Motivations and barriers to engaging in peer review: a qualitative study.
  14. Possibilities for the peer review of interdisciplinary research: a small-scale qualitative study.
  15. Ten simple rules for writing a peer review.
  16. Review System: Single or Double Blinded?
  17. Between Gift-Giving and Accumulation: Peer Review Economies in Psychology.
  18. Publishing Without Borders: Advancing Equity in Scientific Authorship.
  19. GitHub and Google Colab for Sharing Data and Code.
  20. Ethical and methodological considerations in publishing retrospective telepsychiatry consultation data.
  21. Data sharing must evolve towards data sovereignty.
  22. Journal research data policies in materials science.
  23. Rigor and Transparency in Two Neurotrauma-Publishing Journals: Editorial Policies Improve Transparent Reporting.
  24. Protocol for a SPIRIT extension for reporting Pragmatic and Explanatory trial protocols designed using the PRECIS tool. (SPIRIT-PRECIS).
  25. Contemporary practices in scoping review protocol registration: a meta-research analysis of high-impact health journals (2024-2025).
  26. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors recommendations: an update.
  27. SPIRIT 2025 statement: updated guideline for protocols of randomised trials.
  28. Balancing the Positives and Negatives: A Bibliometric Analysis of Positive and Negative Study Publication Patterns in High-Impact General Medical Journals.
  29. Barriers and enablers for publishing results of randomized trials: a cross-sectional survey of principal investigators in sub-Saharan Africa.
  30. Statistical reviewing for a medical journal: summary of workshop proceedings.
  31. The American Journal of Ophthalmology reckons with "race" and "ethnicity".
  32. Why a new structural and endovascular Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery journal?
  33. [The Medical Journal for Women: the earliest specialised journal of traditional Chinese medicine in modern China].
  34. Correction: Mapping the Landscape of Open Access Dashboards - A Dataset for Research and Infrastructure Development.
  35. Publishing experimental studies in NEP.
  36. Concerns regarding publication bias.
  37. The Chinese Medical Journal and the Chinese Medical Association: Centennial legacy and the institutionalization of a scholarly community.
  38. Launching the Annals of Emergency Medicine Peer Review Academy.
  39. Building publication competence: Insights from the "JPGM Conference 2025".
  40. Psychodynamic Psychiatry-Information for Authors.
  41. Biophysical Reviews: a forum for publication of review articles from the international biophysics community.
  42. ["Folia Urologica" - History of a journal (1907-1918)].
  43. Letter: Urology Publication Output in Potentially Predatory Journals from 2019 to 2024.
  44. Dataset for the study of gender disparities in publishing on energy.
  45. Advancing PFAS Analysis Through Scientific Publication.
  1. Front Psychol. 2026 ;17 1845947
    Research "junkification" is caused by researchers, not journals.
    Simon S Groome, Jose C Yong, Norman P Li.
      
    Keywords:  crowding out; evolutionary psychology; human capital; junkification of research; meta-science; research quality; scientific innovation; stabilizing selection
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1845947
  2. Res Integr Peer Rev. 2026 Jun 15. pii: 19. [Epub ahead of print]11(1):
    Irreproducible research and a typology of replication efforts.
    Adrian Treves, Sedona Chinn, Miha Krofel.
      The scholarly and scientific literature does not automatically correct itself. Erroneous findings may persist without correction or retraction. Following prior definitions of zombie articles that are retracted but continue to be cited affirmatively, we add another category of 'undead' articles. We define 'vampire' articles by two jointly necessary conditions. The first condition is irreproducibility, demonstrated by one or more failed efforts at replication or conditions that make replication impossible. We offer a novel typology of four categories of replication efforts. We propose a rule of thumb for how many failed efforts at replication might be required for each type of replication effort before the original finding is deemed irreproducible. The second necessary condition for a putative vampire article is that it is cited affirmatively in public policy, the scholarly literature, or private (neither governmental, nor published in the peer-reviewed scholarly literature) communications, after the first condition is met. We discuss rules of thumb for how many such affirmative citations might lead qualified researchers in that subfield to propose correction, retraction, or editorial note of concern for the article in question. Our first case concerns aerial shooting at coyotes and the second case predicted over-fishing. We discuss the damaging effects of vampire articles and why the metaphor has heuristic value and utility. Perhaps the current retraction guidelines could be sharpened to include considerations around vampire articles. We also discuss lessons from the communication sciences about how to remedy misinformation, offering recommendations to researchers, publishers and editors who are concerned with correcting their literatures and public trust in science generally.
    Keywords:  Correction; Post-publication review; Replication; Reproducibility crisis; Retraction; Scientific publishing; Trust in research; Unreliable findings
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-026-00203-4
  3. Swiss Med Wkly. 2026 Apr 27. 156 4685
    Retracted publications in medical journals: a cross-sectional, cross-disciplinary analysis.
    Paul Sebo.
       OBJECTIVE: To quantify the number and proportion of retracted publications across 131 high-impact medical journals spanning nine clinical disciplines and to compare retraction rates and the proportion of misconduct-related retractions across journals and disciplines.
    METHODS: This cross-sectional study analysed all retracted publications in 131 top-ranked journals (15 per discipline) in anaesthesiology, dermatology, general internal medicine, gynaecology/obstetrics, neurology, oncology, paediatrics, psychiatry and radiology. Journals were selected using the 2023 Journal Impact Factor from Clarivate's Journal Citation Reports. Retractions were identified in the Retraction Watch Database (RWD), PubMed and the Web of Science from journal inception to 15 December 2024. Retraction rates per 1000 publications were calculated using total publication output indexed in PubMed. The proportion of misconduct-related retractions was determined based on the RWD classification.
    RESULTS: 878 retracted publications have been identified among 422,827 publications in total, corresponding to a retraction rate of 2.1 per 1000. Among the 811 retractions with available data on reasons, 542 (66.8%) were attributed to misconduct. Retraction rates and the proportion of misconduct-related retractions varied widely across disciplines. Anaesthesiology accounted for the highest retraction rate (7.0 per 1000) and the highest proportion of misconduct-related retractions (88.9%). All authors with ≥20 retracted articles were anaesthetists based in Japan or Germany.
    CONCLUSION: Retractions and misconduct-related retractions are unevenly distributed across disciplines. These findings underscore the importance of strengthening editorial oversight and promoting research integrity.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.57187/4685
  4. Nature. 2026 Jun 12.
    'Student Geng' ignites research-integrity scandal in China after calling out senior academics.
    Xiaoying You.
      
    Keywords:  Government; Peer review; Publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-026-01902-0
  5. J Clin Epidemiol. 2026 Jun 19. pii: S0895-4356(26)00267-2. [Epub ahead of print] 112391
    Extending Transparency in Conflict-of-Interest Management to Handling Editors.
    Clovis Mariano Faggion.
      
    Keywords:  Authorship; Conflict of Interest; Editorial Policies; Ethics; Peer Review; Publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2026.112391
  6. Indian J Psychol Med. 2026 Jun 11. 02537176261455515
    Journal Instructions Are Not Optional: Yet Authors Still Ignore Them.
    Rajshekhar Bipeta.
      Many authors view manuscript rejection as editorial bias, especially when it is before peer review. Often, the real reason is simple: basic journal instructions are not followed. Common problems include missing ethical declarations, absent checklists, improper formatting, and failure to follow journal-specific guidelines. These requirements are not arbitrary. They are based on frameworks such as ICMJE, CONSORT, PRISMA, and STROBE, which promote transparency, reproducibility, and efficiency. When authors do not comply, peer review slows, research is wasted, and scientific communication weakens. Good publishing starts before peer review, with close attention to journal instructions.
    Keywords:  Editorial policies; manuscripts as a topic; publishing; reproducibility of results; research reporting
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1177/02537176261455515
  7. J Emerg Manag. 2026 May-Jun;24(3):pii: jem.0962. [Epub ahead of print]24(3): 433-444
    To AI or not to AI: A cross-sectional analysis of artificial intelligence policy among emergency management journals.
    Amidu Kalokoh, Issa B Thullah, Hans Louis-Charles.
      Artificial intelligence (AI) continues to transform our society, with direct impacts on the field of emergency management. As AI becomes increasingly integrated into educational institutions, scholars have expressed concerns regarding the ethical and educational implications of AI usage in higher education. This impact and use of AI will have tremendous implications for the scholarship of teaching and learning and the core competencies of the emergency management profession. This study argues that, within the discipline of emergency management, a lesser-used but valuable metric for academic AI guidance can be found in the policies of the most revered journal publications in the field. This study provides a snapshot of how journal publications in emergency management currently approach AI usage with regard to authorship, peer review, and the editorial process. This study presents a cross-sectional analysis of 108 emergency management journals across multiple databases, identifying 71 journals with publicly available AI guidelines for authors, reviewers, or editors. For potential authors, our qualitative thematic findings reveal consensus support for AI use in proofreading and moderate support for use in statistical analysis. There is moderate support for the use of generative AI/large language models (LLMs) in passage creation, and low support for image/figure creation; however, both require full disclosure and accountability when used. There was a unanimous stance against granting authorship or coauthorship to AI. Guidelines for reviewers show strong opposition against using AI, especially LLMs, due to confidentiality and privacy concerns. Likewise, editors are mostly banned from using LLMs, unless they are used only for identifying potential reviewers or provided with an in-house publisher-owned AI tool. Our study concludes with a discussion on the contradictory nature of existing guidelines and pedagogical advice to current and future instructors in emergency management.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.5055/jem.0962
  8. Cureus. 2026 May;18(5): e108762
    Speed, Innovation, and Trust: Guiding Scientific Publishing in the Age of Artificial Intelligence.
    Alexander Muacevic.
      Scientific publishing is changing - and it's changing fast. Digital platforms have made it easier than ever to share research across borders, open-access models have pulled down paywalls that once limited who could read or contribute to scientific discourse, and global collaboration has become the norm rather than the exception. Into this already shifting landscape, artificial intelligence (AI) has arrived - quietly at first, and now with considerable force - touching nearly every stage of how research gets done, analyzed, and communicated. The promise here is real. But so is the tension it creates. The central question facing the scientific community isn't whether to embrace these changes - that ship has largely sailed - but whether we can move this quickly without eroding the credibility that makes science worth doing in the first place. For journals, this isn't a theoretical problem. Editorial standards are the backbone of the scientific record, and right now, those standards are being stress-tested. As the Editor-in-Chief of Cureus, I think we're at a moment that calls for clarity, not hedging - a moment to say plainly what principles must hold even as everything else shifts. Cureus was built around a straightforward idea that medical publishing was too slow, too exclusive, and too gatekept to serve science well. The journal set out to change that by reducing barriers to dissemination while keeping editorial rigor intact. That core mission hasn't changed. What has changed is the environment in which we pursue it. Two issues now sit at the center of that effort: the responsible use of AI in scholarly communication and the ongoing fight to protect research integrity.
    Keywords:  artificial intelligence in medicine; artificial intelligence in scientific writing; artificial intelligence journal; artificial intelligence medical journals; scientific writing and artificial intelligence
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.108762
  9. J Extra Corpor Technol. 2026 Jun;58(2): 100-101
    An update on AI in Academic Publishing.
    Raymond K Wong.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1051/ject/2026023
  10. J Clin Epidemiol. 2026 Jun 15. pii: S0895-4356(26)00252-0. [Epub ahead of print] 112376
    Unpacking the black box - a questionnaire study of how medical journals identify and manage conflicts of interest of editors and peer reviewers.
    Christoffer Bruun Korfitsen, Helena Van Beersel Krejčíková, Camilla Hansen Nejstgaard, Isabelle Boutron, Lisa Bero, Asbjørn Hróbjartsson, Andreas Lundh.
       OBJECTIVES: To describe how medical journals identify and manage conflicts of interest of editors and peer reviewers, how policies are enforced, and whether practices are concordant with policies.
    STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Between April and September 2024, we contacted 250 medical journals, randomly sampled from Clarivate Journal Citation Reports. We sent a questionnaire related to the peer review process, practices for identifying and managing conflicts of interest of editors and peer reviewers, and enforcement of journal policies. We analysed open-ended responses using content analysis. In a subset of journals with conflict of interest policies, we assessed concordance between actual practice and policy content.
    RESULTS: Of the 250 invited medical journals, 80 (32%) responded to the questionnaire (median completion of questions 94%). Seventy percent of respondents were editors, and 18% publisher representatives. Sixty-six percent of journals identified financial and non-financial interests of editors, 54% did not allow any financial interests, and 46% did not allow any non-financial interests. Peer reviewers with conflicts of interest were not invited by 66% of journals. Disclosures were required in peer review reports by 41% of journals, 22% verified all or some disclosure information, and 57% informed reviewers on how to handle conflicts of interest. If reviewers had conflicts of interest, 36% of journals would not use the review report. In cases where undisclosed conflicts of interest were identified before or after publication, more than one-third of journals either did not have procedures in place or respondents were unaware of their journal's practices. For a subset of journals with public policies (N = 55 for editors and N = 54 for peer reviewers), some of the reported practices were discordant with the policy for editors in 45% and for peer reviewers in 50% of journals.
    CONCLUSION: The majority of medical journals identify both financial and non-financial interests of editors, but not those of peer reviewers. Conflicts of interest are usually managed by disqualification, but journals often lack procedures, staff are unaware of practices, and practices are not aligned with policies, creating room for inconsistent management of conflicts of interest. These findings highlight the need for comprehensive policies and staff education to promote transparency and integrity in the editorial processes.
    Keywords:  Conflicts of interest; clinical research; editorial management; editors; peer review; publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2026.112376
  11. J Arthroplasty. 2026 Jun 18. pii: S0883-5403(26)00674-1. [Epub ahead of print]
    Balanced Peer Review in the Era of Artificial Intelligence.
    Michael J Taunton, James A Browne, Giles R Scuderi, Chase W Smitterberg, Michael A Mont.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2026.06.053
  12. Eur Heart J Imaging Methods Pract. 2026 Jan;4(1): qyag097
    AI as a peer reviewer: a blinded comparative study of LLM-generated and human reviews in a cardiology journal.
    Edoardo Zancanaro, Andreas Giannopoulos, Alessia Gimelli, Karl-Patrik Kresoja.
       Aims: Peer review is a cornerstone of scientific quality control, yet it is increasingly burdened by growing manuscript volumes and reviewer fatigue. Large language models (LLMs) have emerged as potential tools to support scientific review, but it remains unclear whether AI-generated reviews are equivalent to human reviews on the endpoint that ultimately matters, agreement with the final editorial decision.
    Methods and results: We retrieved 40 manuscripts previously submitted to a cardiology journal (20 ultimately accepted, 20 de novo rejected) along with all available historical human peer reviews (n = 77). For each manuscript, we generated a corresponding peer review using LLM in deep research mode (n = 41). All 118 reviews were reformatted into a single anonymous template by two unblinded investigators and scored independently by two blinded editors across seven domains (digestion, focus, balance, suggestions, precision, politeness, and conclusiveness; 0-2 scale). The primary endpoint was concordance between each reviewer recommendation (in favour of vs. against publication) and the final editorial decision. Secondary endpoints were domain-specific quality scores and AI-human inter-rater agreement (Cohen's κ). Concordance with the final editorial decision was 67.5% for AI-generated reviews (27/40) and 71.9% for the human consensus (23/32 evaluable; P = 0.74). Stratified by editorial outcome, AI correctly recommended publication in 75% of accepted manuscripts and rejection in 60% of rejected manuscripts; the corresponding figures for the human consensus were 88% and 56%. AI-generated reviews scored significantly higher than human reviews in five of seven quality domains (focus, balance, suggestions, precision, and conclusiveness; all P < 0.05), with a higher total sum score (13.2 ± 0.9 vs. 11.4 ± 2.0; P < 0.001). AI-human inter-rater agreement was substantial (κ = 0.73), exceeding human-human agreement on the same articles (κ = 0.54). AI reviews were generated in 2-6 min vs. a median 17-day turnaround for human reviews.
    Conclusion: LLM-generated peer reviews are non-inferior to human reviews in terms of agreement with the final editorial decision, while showing higher internal consistency, comparable quality on structured domains, and substantially shorter turnaround. These findings support the integration of AI as a complementary tool in editorial workflows, rather than as a replacement for human peer review.
    Keywords:  artificial intelligence; cardiology; editorial decision; large language models; peer review
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1093/ehjimp/qyag097
  13. Res Integr Peer Rev. 2026 Jun 18. pii: 23. [Epub ahead of print]11(1):
    Motivations and barriers to engaging in peer review: a qualitative study.
    Júlio Belo Fernandes, Ana Silva Almeida, Faiza Magsi, Ana Catarina Maia, Sónia Fernandes.
       BACKGROUND: Peer review is a central mechanism of scientific communication. However, despite its critical role in safeguarding research quality and integrity, there is limited evidence on how reviewers themselves perceive the factors that motivate or hinder their engagement. This study explored reviewers' perceptions of the motivations and barriers shaping participation in peer review.
    METHODS: A qualitative, exploratory-descriptive design was adopted. Semi-structured interviews were conducted between June and September 2025 with participants holding an academic title in health sciences who had completed at least one peer review for a scientific journal. Participants were recruited through purposive sampling. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analysed inductively using thematic analysis following Braun et al.'s framework. Data collection and analysis proceeded iteratively until thematic saturation was reached.
    RESULTS: Twenty-seven academics from seven health science disciplines participated in the study. Participants were predominantly female (63%), with similar proportions holding doctoral (52%) and master's degrees (48%), and peer-review activity in the previous 12 months ranging from 1 to more than 10 reviews. Findings were organised into two domains, motivations and barriers, comprising ten themes. Motivations included contribution to science, scientific development, career development, personal satisfaction, and financial incentives. Barriers included high workload, lack of recognition and incentives, perceived competence, research integrity, and editorial shortcomings.
    CONCLUSION: Reviewer engagement appears to be a negotiated process in which academics weigh motivations against barriers when deciding whether to participate in peer review. These trade-offs shape decisions to accept or decline review invitations. Strengthening recognition, transparency, and editorial support may help sustain reviewer participation in the health sciences.
    Keywords:  Barriers; Challenges; Motivations; Peer review; Reviewer engagement
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-026-00208-z
  14. Res Integr Peer Rev. 2026 Jun 16. pii: 20. [Epub ahead of print]11(1):
    Possibilities for the peer review of interdisciplinary research: a small-scale qualitative study.
    Georgia Vesma.
       BACKGROUND: Despite critiques from across academia, double-anonymised peer review is still considered the 'gold standard' quality-assurance tool for the publication of academic research. While some journals make use of 'open' peer-review practices to make elements of academic publishing more transparent, anonymised is still used by the majority of academic journals, with anonymity considered the best guarantor of reviewer objectivity. Anonymised peer review remains a 'black box' which conceals diverse and idiosyncratic practices by reviewers, editors and journals. This paper seeks to uncover the impact of such practices on the peer review of interdisciplinary research.
    METHODS: The author first conducted a survey of 164 self-identified interdisciplinary researchers from a range of disciplines at one research-intensive UK university to identify barriers to and enablers of high-quality peer review for interdisciplinary papers. This quantitative/qualitative survey was supplemented by interviews with authors, editors and reviewers from across biological and medical sciences, physical sciences and engineering and social sciences and humanities.
    RESULTS: Authors of interdisciplinary research papers reported experiencing disadvantage in peer review practices, including perceived bias against interdisciplinary research by mono-disciplinary reviewers and the assignment of unsuitable reviewers. Reviewers reported being assigned papers to review that were not within their field of expertise, and insufficient editorial guidance on review processes for interdisciplinary papers. Editors reported that the 'reviewer crisis' has further complicated the already challenging process of seeking peer review for interdisciplinary research. In interviews, reviewers shared strategies to overcome weaknesses in the review process for interdisciplinary papers. These included confidence reporting where the reviewer did not feel able to comment on all aspects of the paper, and seeking advice from colleagues to enhance their review. Practices were employed with varying degrees of formality, and in some cases undermined the stated goals of anonymised peer review.
    CONCLUSIONS: Considering the possible implications of the informal strategies employed by peer reviewers, the paper proposes a framework for interdisciplinary peer review informed by existing open peer review practices that formalises and incorporates existing strategies used by reviewers and editors to enhance the peer review of interdisciplinary research papers.
    Keywords:  anonymous peer review; interdisciplinarity; open peer review
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-026-00204-3
  15. PLoS Comput Biol. 2026 Jun;22(6): e1014359
    Ten simple rules for writing a peer review.
    Farzana Rahman, Dan DeBlasio.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1014359
  16. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2026 Jun;52(6): e70379
    Review System: Single or Double Blinded?
    Shigeki Matsubara.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1111/jog.70379
  17. Minerva. 2026 ;64(2): 287-312
    Between Gift-Giving and Accumulation: Peer Review Economies in Psychology.
    Wolfgang Kaltenbrunner.
      Peer review is crucial for academic communities to ensure high-quality research, but yields relatively limited formal rewards for the individuals who perform it. Drawing on 39 semi-structured interviews, I study how reviewers for three publishing outlets in psychology experience the tension between community responsibility and various priorities of a more individual kind. Peer review functions as a gift economy, in which authors are expected to repay the work reviewers have invested in their submission by providing peer review for others. This gift economy is embedded in other economies, which are based on the accumulation of various types of capital (recognition, visibility, money etc.). If not kept in check, the competitive dynamics of accumulation tend to undermine the sense of reciprocity required for the continued functioning of peer review. One of the journals studied here is particularly prestigious and operates with a traditional format of pre-publication peer review. The model effectively exploits the tensions between gift giving and accumulation. It exposes reviewers to various undesirable submission practices characteristic of high impact publishing, but compensates them with a share of its reputation that reviewers can use to advance their own careers. The other two publishing outlets are based on not-for-profit business models and feature elements such as open peer review, portable reviews, and registered reports. Reviewers can thereby more easily see their work as something akin to co-authorship. This alleviates tensions between gift giving and the various encompassing economies, contributing to the sustainability of the respective peer review systems.
    Keywords:  Accumulation; Gift economy; Peer review; Psychology; Scholarly communication
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-025-09582-2
  18. Cureus. 2026 May;18(5): e108871
    Publishing Without Borders: Advancing Equity in Scientific Authorship.
    Shweta Tanwar, Amit Kumar.
      Researchers from low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) remain underrepresented in global academic publishing despite their substantial contributions to science and public health. Evidence indicates that only a small proportion of articles in leading medical journals originate from LMIC regions that account for the majority of the global population, alongside limited representation in editorial leadership, which remains largely concentrated in high-income countries (HICs). Structural factors, including constrained access to mentorship, limited editorial inclusion, and persistent gender and geographic disparities, continue to restrict equitable participation. These challenges may also influence publication outcomes, contributing to lower acceptance rates, higher desk rejections, and reduced visibility of manuscripts from LMIC authors compared with those from HICs. Although mentorship and capacity-building initiatives have been introduced to address these gaps, their impact remains limited, as many programs operate at a small scale, engage relatively few participants, and lack long-term follow-up for sustained improvements in publication outcomes. Achieving equity in scientific publishing will require sustained structural reform. This includes greater investment in manuscript development, diversification of editorial boards, adoption of equitable authorship practices, and inclusive institutional partnerships between the Global North and South. Journals that adopt inclusive models with minimal financial barriers have a unique opportunity to lead this transformation and contribute to a more representative and just global research ecosystem.
    Keywords:  authorship; open access publishing; publication ethics; scientific collaboration; scientific publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.108871
  19. J Insur Med. 2026 Jun 15. 53(2): 199-202
    GitHub and Google Colab for Sharing Data and Code.
    David Wesley.
      A traditional print journal is not ideal for the dissemination of computer code and related data. Without the actual code and data, reproducibility cannot be assessed, and there can be no validation of the premise of such an article. Fortunately, there are inexpensive modern ways to share both data and code while providing for explanatory text: GitHub and Google Colaboratory. This article introduces both and provides 3 different examples for the reader to experience.
    Keywords:  GitHub; Google Colaboratory; Kaggle; Python; actual to expected mortality studies; laboratory test results; repository
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.17849/insm-53-2-1-4.1A
  20. Asian J Psychiatr. 2026 Jun 10. pii: S1876-2018(26)00226-1. [Epub ahead of print]122 105053
    Ethical and methodological considerations in publishing retrospective telepsychiatry consultation data.
    Madhuri H Nanjundaswamy, Rahul Patley, Narayana Manjunatha, Channaveerachari Naveen Kumar, Suresh Bada Math.
      
    Keywords:  Data protection; Retrospective data; Telepsychiatry
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajp.2026.105053
  21. BMJ. 2026 Jun 15. 393 e372314
    Data sharing must evolve towards data sovereignty.
    Trudie Lang.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj-2026-372314
  22. Digit Discov. 2026 Jun 08.
    Journal research data policies in materials science.
    Lukas Hörmann, Hemanadhan Myneni, Rwayda Kh S Al-Hamd, Katarina Batalović, Silvia Bonfanti, Federico Grasselli, Saulius Gražulis, Bahattin Koç, Konstantinos Konstantinou, Ivor Lončarić, Nataliya Lopanitsyna, José Manuel Oliveira, Paolo Pegolo, Patrícia Ramos, Kevin Rossi, Sebastian P Schwaminger, Edith Simmen, Milica Todorović, Markus Stricker, Jonathan Schmidt.
      Open and reproducible research in materials science relies on the availability of data, code, and established metadata standards. Journal research data policies (RDPs) are a primary mechanism by which these community norms are enforced. We survey RDPs for 171 materials science journals spanning 17 publishers, using an expanded coding framework that captures both data-and-code sharing behavior as well as refereeing standards. We find clear signs of progress in comparison to earlier research on RDPs: nearly all journals provide an RDP, and most mention data availability statements. However, enforceable requirements remain uncommon, public deposition of underlying data is rarely mandatory, and FAIR publication is typically encouraged rather than required. Expectations for research software are substantially less developed than those for data, with limited attention to versioning and persistent identifiers, dependency disclosure, reproducible execution environments, or software quality practices. Aggregating the findings on policy features into an open research data score reveals pronounced heterogeneity across journals. Neither impact factor nor access model reliably predicts policy strength. Double-coding further shows that more complex policies and stricter policies can be more challenging to interpret consistently, and we highlight challenges in consistent RDP encoding across studies. Lastly, we conclude with recommended best practice directions for the future.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1039/d6dd00111d
  23. J Neurotrauma. 2026 Jun 17. 8977151261450399
    Rigor and Transparency in Two Neurotrauma-Publishing Journals: Editorial Policies Improve Transparent Reporting.
    PRECISE-TBI Investigators
      Preclinical research in traumatic brain injury (TBI) continues to significantly increase knowledge and yield a large number of peer-reviewed studies, but translation of these results to the clinical setting has been minimal. Rigor and transparency factors such as concealment of group allocation (e.g., "blinding") or ensuring that reagents are identifiable are critical in ensuring that scientific studies are replicable and translatable. Yet, nearly all efforts aimed at measuring these factors have concluded that reporting practices are problematic and incomplete. One way to improve transparency of reporting practices is to require that authors address a set of transparency-related items in some way, such as a checklist or an article section. Recently, Journal of Neurotrauma, a leading publisher of preclinical TBI research, instituted a required rigor-related section, which is explained to authors via a set of transparency, rigor, and reproducibility (TRR) instructions (one example for each article type). These documents include specific transparency sections explaining blinding, power calculations, protocols, code, and data deposition. Experimental Neurology is a journal that is similar in size, impact, and topic, but the journal does not have explicit instructions to authors about transparency items. The purpose of this study was to assess the degree to which transparency reporting items were included in published articles comparing reporting practices in the Journal of Neurotrauma and Experimental Neurology. We used a commercial software, SciScore, which is an AI tool tuned to detect rigor/transparency sentences in published articles and count the number found (roughly dividing by the number expected) to obtain a score. Overall, SciScore found that in six of eight items that were explicitly asked for, such as power calculations, investigator blinding, inclusion criteria, attrition, and data, there were significant differences (more than 10%) compared to Experimental Neurology. However, in Journal of Neurotrauma articles with the extra rigor section, three of four rigor items that were not explicitly asked for in the template rigor documents, such as subject demographics or transparent antibody reporting, were not different from Experimental Neurology. One item, reporting of the sex of subjects, was significantly better in Experimental Neurology. This shows that the Journal of Neurotrauma's required rigor section is effective in improving reporting, but it would be far better if sex as a biological variable and transparent reporting of reagents (items present on major checklists, including NIH rigor criteria) would be included.
    Keywords:  RRID; age; gender; guidelines; journal policy; rigor; sex; transparency
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1177/08977151261450399
  24. J Clin Epidemiol. 2026 Jun 17. pii: S0895-4356(26)00256-8. [Epub ahead of print] 112380
    Protocol for a SPIRIT extension for reporting Pragmatic and Explanatory trial protocols designed using the PRECIS tool. (SPIRIT-PRECIS).
    Jeremy Y Ng, Merrick Zwarenstein, Azadeh Barzideh, Alexandra M Bodnaruc, An-Wen Chan, Kelly Cobey, Jodi Edwards, Dean A Fergusson, Joel Gagnier, Malcolm King, Jessie McGowan, Arya Rahgozar, Dawn P Richards, Frances Shiely, Holger Cramer, Claudia Witt, Monica Taljaard, Shaun Treweek, Andrea C Tricco, Andrew Willis, David Moher.
      The need to design randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with explicit intent, either pragmatic or explanatory, and matching design features is well recognised. There is a need for clear, standardised reporting recommendations for protocols for these RCTs to facilitate communication of trialists' intention and trial design choices. This protocol outlines the development process of a SPIRIT (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials) extension applicable to RCTs where authors explicitly declare their intention for the trial. This will enhance the transparency, reproducibility, and comprehensiveness of RCT protocol reports. Using the EQUATOR Network's structured multi-phase approach, the study begins with a scoping review to identify existing literature and reporting guidelines for pragmatic and explanatory RCTs designed using the PRECIS tool (PRECIS RCTs), which will inform a draft checklist. An international panel including trialists, trial methodologists, clinicians and policy decision-makers, biostatisticians, regulatory representatives, research funders, journal editors, and patient partners, will then participate in a Delphi process to achieve consensus on essential checklist items. This will involve at least two rounds of structured surveys. A consensus meeting with approximately thirty experts will meet to finalize the checklist items, incorporating findings from both the scoping review and the Delphi process. The authors will draft the final SPIRIT-PRECIS checklist and accompanying explanation documents., The checklist will be pilot tested with end users to ensure their clarity and practical utility. The final checklist will be refined based on feedback from pilot testing and disseminated through publications, workshops and online training opportunities.
    Keywords:  PRECIS; SPIRIT; explanatory trials; pragmatic trials; randomized controlled trials; reporting guideline
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2026.112380
  25. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2026 Jun 17.
    Contemporary practices in scoping review protocol registration: a meta-research analysis of high-impact health journals (2024-2025).
    Fernando César Paraizo Borges, Raissa Tabosa Ferreira, Kevin Henrique Azevedo Duarte, Clarice Wanderley de Sousa, Ana Beatriz Maia Fernandes, Manuella Rocha Boaventura Pinheiro, Thereza Eduarda Medeiros Pimentel, Gustavo Andrade de Oliveira, Manuela Queiroz Reis, Maria Heloísa Pignataro Lange, Maycon Willian Fontes da Costa, Giovanna Kettlen Mendes Silva, Bruno Fontenele Carvalho, Fabio Gamboa Ritto, João Vitor Dos Santos Canellas.
       BACKGROUND: Scoping reviews are widely used across the health sciences to map evidence, clarify concepts, and identify knowledge gaps. Although protocol development and registration are increasingly encouraged, empirical evidence describing contemporary registration practices remains limited.
    METHODS: This study aimed to evaluate current practices in scoping review protocol registration and reporting in high-impact health sciences journals published between 2024 and 2025. We conducted an empirical meta-research study of scoping reviews published in first-quartile journals according to the Journal Citation Reports and indexed in PubMed. Data were extracted independently using a standardized form and included protocol registration status, registry platform, public accessibility, peer-reviewed protocol publication, reported protocol components, and methodological guidance cited. Descriptive analyses were used to assess registration patterns and methodological consistency. Multivariable logistic regression models were fitted to explore factors associated with protocol registration reporting and the presence of a peer-reviewed protocol.
    RESULTS: Among 2,546 screened records, 1,267 scoping reviews underwent full data extraction. Overall, 549 reviews reported a registered protocol, of which 483 were publicly accessible and included in the analysis. Protocol registration was identified in 43.3% of scoping reviews, while peer-reviewed protocol publication was rare (5.1%). Most protocols were registered on the Open Science Framework (OSF) (n = 478). Protocol content frequently included core methodological elements but also reported additional items beyond those addressed in the JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis. Although many methodological documents were cited, only two provided explicit guidance for scoping review protocol development. Post hoc analyses identified substantial heterogeneity in protocol registration practices across journals, publishers, and corresponding author countries, suggesting that registration practices are influenced by a combination of editorial policies, local research cultures, and differing methodological perspectives.
    CONCLUSION: Protocol registration practices in scoping reviews remain heterogeneous across high-impact health sciences journals. The findings demonstrate substantial variability in protocol content, registration approaches, and use of methodological guidance, while reinforcing ongoing methodological discussions regarding protocol registration and standardization in scoping reviews.
    Keywords:  Evidence synthesis; Health sciences; Meta-research; Protocol registration; Reporting standards; Research transparency; Scoping reviews
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-026-02919-9
  26. Eur Heart J. 2026 Jun 13. pii: ehag290. [Epub ahead of print]
    International Committee of Medical Journal Editors recommendations: an update.
    Fernando Alfonso, Filippo Crea.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehag290
  27. Lancet. 2025 May 17. pii: S0140-6736(25)00770-6. [Epub ahead of print]405(10491): e19-e27
    SPIRIT 2025 statement: updated guideline for protocols of randomised trials.
    An-Wen Chan, Isabelle Boutron, Sally Hopewell, David Moher, Kenneth F Schulz, Gary S Collins, Ruth Tunn, Rakesh Aggarwal, Michael Berkwits, Jesse A Berlin, Nita Bhandari, Nancy J Butcher, Marion K Campbell, Runcie C W Chidebe, Diana R Elbourne, Andrew J Farmer, Dean A Fergusson, Robert M Golub, Steven N Goodman, Tammy C Hoffmann, John P A Ioannidis, Brennan C Kahan, Rachel L Knowles, Sarah E Lamb, Steff Lewis, Elizabeth Loder, Martin Offringa, Philippe Ravaud, Dawn P Richards, Frank W Rockhold, David L Schriger, Nandi L Siegfried, Sophie Staniszewska, Rod S Taylor, Lehana Thabane, David J Torgerson, Sunita Vohra, Ian R White, Asbjørn Hróbjartsson.
      The protocol of a randomised trial is the foundation for study planning, conduct, reporting, and external review. However, trial protocols vary in their completeness and often do not address key elements of design and conduct. The SPIRIT (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials) statement was first published in 2013 as guidance to improve the completeness of trial protocols. Periodic updates incorporating the latest evidence and best practices are needed to ensure that the guidance remains relevant to users. We aimed to systematically update the SPIRIT recommendations for minimum items to address in the protocol of a randomised trial. We completed a scoping review and developed a project specific database of empirical and theoretical evidence to generate a list of potential changes to the SPIRIT 2013 checklist. The list was enriched with recommendations provided by lead authors of existing SPIRIT/CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) extensions (Harms, Outcomes, Non-pharmacological Treatment) and other reporting guidelines (TIDieR). The potential modifications were rated in a three-round Delphi survey followed by a consensus meeting. Overall, 317 individuals participated in the Delphi consensus process and 30 experts attended the consensus meeting. The process led to the addition of two new protocol items, revision to five items, deletion/merger of five items, and integration of key items from other relevant reporting guidelines. Notable changes include a new open science section, additional emphasis on the assessment of harms and description of interventions and comparators, and a new item on how patients and the public will be involved in trial design, conduct, and reporting. The updated SPIRIT 2025 statement consists of an evidence based checklist of 34 minimum items to address in a trial protocol, along with a diagram illustrating the schedule of enrolment, interventions, and assessments for trial participants. To facilitate implementation, we also developed an expanded version of the SPIRIT 2025 checklist and an accompanying explanation and elaboration document. Widespread endorsement and adherence to the updated SPIRIT 2025 statement have the potential to enhance the transparency and completeness of trial protocols for the benefit of investigators, trial participants, patients, funders, research ethics committees, journals, trial registries, policymakers, regulators, and other reviewers.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(25)00770-6
  28. Cureus. 2026 May;18(5): e108720
    Balancing the Positives and Negatives: A Bibliometric Analysis of Positive and Negative Study Publication Patterns in High-Impact General Medical Journals.
    Benjamin S Vipler, Cameron Arnet, Angela Keniston, Matthew Mardo, Christopher J King.
      Despite calls to publish negative studies in prominent medical journals, greater submission and acceptance of positive results remains an issue. We aimed to quantify the degree to which high-impact general medical journals publish negative study results. We searched MEDLINE/PubMed for all randomized controlled trials published in five high-impact general medicine journals: Annals of Internal Medicine, the British Medical Journal (BMJ), the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), the Lancet, and the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM). Our search spanned a 10-year period from 2014 to 2023, which included data from before and after the emergence of the COVID-19 global pandemic. We performed single-author data extraction via abstract review to determine study positivity, defined as statistical significance for the primary outcome, flagging abstracts for secondary review if positivity was not clear. Two authors reviewed all flagged abstracts. We calculated the proportion of negative studies (i.e., not meeting statistical significance for the primary outcome) overall, by journal, and by publication year. We used logistic regression to model the odds of a study reporting a negative result by journal and year. Our search yielded 3722 individual citations, with screening resulting in 3600 randomized controlled trials for review, with 31% of studies reporting negative results. The proportion of negative studies varied, ranging from 22% in the Lancet to 51% in BMJ and JAMA. The proportion of negative studies remained consistent over time. High-impact general medical journals vary widely in the percentage of negative studies that they publish but did not change over time, even during and after a global pandemic. Further study is needed to determine factors influencing this phenomenon and what can be done to minimize publication bias.
    Keywords:  bibliometric analysis; general internal medicine; negative studies; publication bias; randomized controlled trial
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.108720
  29. Res Integr Peer Rev. 2026 Jun 19. pii: 29. [Epub ahead of print]11(1):
    Barriers and enablers for publishing results of randomized trials: a cross-sectional survey of principal investigators in sub-Saharan Africa.
    Ameer Hohlfeld, Tamara Kredo, Michael Clarke.
       OBJECTIVES: To investigate the views and experiences of principal investigators (PIs) based in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) regarding publication bias of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and strategies to mitigate it.
    DESIGN: Cross-sectional online survey, informed by previous reviews and prior surveys on publication bias. The survey consisted of closed-ended items with Likert scales and optional free text.
    SETTING: We emailed invitations to African-based PIs that we identified through the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform.
    PARTICIPANTS: 6056 invitations were sent, 610 opened the survey, 433 were eligible to partake, and 409 consented and proceeded with the survey.
    MAIN OUTCOME MEASURED: Awareness and perceived magnitude of publication bias in SSA, experiences of timely publication, non-publication, delayed publication and their perceived effectiveness of mitigating strategies.
    RESULTS: Awareness that all RCTs are to be published was 62.7% (227/362). More than 90% agreed that PIs are responsible for ensuring that their RCTs are published (295/323), and 84% (272/323) within 24 months of completion. Publication bias in SSA scored a median of 71/100 (IQR: 50 - 84) for geographical region and 66 (IQR = 40 -79) for the respondent's specific field of research. Of the respondents, 63.1% (219/347) published the findings of at least one RCT within 24 months, and 23.6% (82/347) were unable to publish at least one complete RCT. Notably, 74% (246/332) indicated not having had prior training in writing RCT-specific manuscripts. Of the 82 that were unable to publish, their reported reasons for non-publication included 30.5% (25/82) journal rejection, 29.3% (24/82) time constraints, 14.6% (12/82) non-significant or 13.4% (11/82) non-positive results, 13.4% (11/82) methodological concerns and 12.2% (10/82) lack of confidence in writing. 41.2% (143/347) of respondents reported delays greater than 24 months, 47.9% (69/347) attributed time constraint, 38.9% (56/347) time-consuming analysis, and 36.8% (53/347) journal rejection. Of the 332 participants that answered questions on mitigating strategies, the following were suggested to be very effective: 56.6%(188/332) dedicated writing time, 37.1% (123/332) guidance on writing a manuscript and 35.8% (119/332) peer-review prior to submission. Furthermore, 52.7% (175/332) rated the CONSORT checklist as effective/very effective, and 37.4% (124/332) noted artificial intelligence tools somewhat effective.
    CONCLUSIONS: SSA PIs note that publication bias is a problem, which is a result of barriers such as time constraints, analysis difficulties, journal rejection, and limited writing support. Enablers include mentorship, dedicated writing time, and structured reporting tools.
    Keywords:  Cross-sectional survey; Publication bias; Randomised controlled trials; Research waste; Sub-Saharan Africa
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-026-00207-0
  30. Res Integr Peer Rev. 2026 Jun 15. pii: 36. [Epub ahead of print]11(1):
    Statistical reviewing for a medical journal: summary of workshop proceedings.
    Derrick Bennett, Sam Leary, Paula Dhiman, Jen Lewis, Julie Morris, Gordon Prescott, Andy Vail, Ashma Krishan, Antonia Marsden, Clare Robinson, Jamie Sergeant.
      The use of statistical methods in medical research has long been a concern and careful review of these methods is required to ensure that published papers are of sufficient statistical quality. However, there is a shortage of statistical reviewers for medical journals and there is a dearth of training for those with little or no experience. An online workshop on statistical reviewing for medical journals was convened by the Improving Statistical Literacy and Early Career Development streams of the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Statistics Group to address this gap. This article summarizes the key learnings from this workshop and provides some practical advice for those potentially interested in undertaking statistical reviews for a medical journal.
    Keywords:  General medical journals; Recommendations; Reviewing; Statistical
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-026-00227-w
  31. Am J Ophthalmol. 2026 Jun 13. pii: S0002-9394(26)00301-6. [Epub ahead of print]
    The American Journal of Ophthalmology reckons with "race" and "ethnicity".
    Richard K Parrish.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajo.2026.06.001
  32. JTCVS Struct Endovasc. 2024 Sep;1-2 100001
    Why a new structural and endovascular Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery journal?
    Lars G Svensson, Samir Kapadia.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.xjse.2024.100001
  33. Zhonghua Yi Shi Za Zhi. 2026 May 28. 56(3): 148-155
    [The Medical Journal for Women: the earliest specialised journal of traditional Chinese medicine in modern China].
    Z K Zhang, H L Ren, L Zhang, Y S Duan.
      The Medical Journal for Women, chiefly edited by Wang Shenxuan as a specialised journal on women's health , was founded by the Suzhou Women's Medical Association in the winter of 1927. The original intention of the journal was to 'help change women's condition and improve academic communication'. It was initially planned to be published quarterly in February, May, August and November each year. However, it was not released on schedule because of Wang Shenxuan's busy clinic. The journal was closed partly because the Suzhou Women's Medical Association no longer specialised in the medicine for women, with the enlargement of its enrollment size, and partly because it changed its name to the Suzhou National Medical Society. The journal released a total of 12 issues. It took root in traditional Chinese medicine theories in the content and focused on exploring practice clinically and academically with reference of western medicine. As the journal of the Suzhou Women's Medical Association, it also undertook the mission of liaising with internal and external members of the association and teaching and training people for the purpose of public health. The journal showed the development of women's medicine in the Republic of China as key historical material for the research of the interaction and communication of journals in the period of the Republic of China and the transformation of women's status in modern times. However, as a medical journal issued for the public, the journal showed its limitation of academic openness since it simply had the papers published, written by the teachers and students of the Suzhou Women's Medical Association.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.cn112155-20250227-00028
  34. Sci Data. 2026 Jun 13. pii: 890. [Epub ahead of print]13(1):
    Correction: Mapping the Landscape of Open Access Dashboards - A Dataset for Research and Infrastructure Development.
    Johannes Schneider, Heinz Pampel.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-026-07603-7
  35. Nurse Educ Pract. 2026 Jun 17. pii: S1471-5953(26)00201-5. [Epub ahead of print] 104898
    Publishing experimental studies in NEP.
    Roger Watson, Kathryn Hinsliff-Smith, Amanda Lee, Mary Sidebotham.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nepr.2026.104898
  36. Lancet Glob Health. 2026 Jun;pii: S2214-109X(26)00099-9. [Epub ahead of print]14(6): 103954
    Concerns regarding publication bias.
    Yoshihide Inayama, Toshiaki A Furukawa, Yoshitsugu Chigusa, Masaki Mandai.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langlo.2026.103954
  37. Chin Med J (Engl). 2026 Jun 17.
    The Chinese Medical Journal and the Chinese Medical Association: Centennial legacy and the institutionalization of a scholarly community.
    Jingjing Su, Daqing Zhang.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1097/CM9.0000000000004103
  38. Ann Emerg Med. 2026 Jul;pii: S0196-0644(26)00318-5. [Epub ahead of print]88(1): 1-2
    Launching the Annals of Emergency Medicine Peer Review Academy.
    Andrea L Klein, Stephen M Schenkel, Richelle J Cooper, Tyler W Barrett, David L Schriger, Donald M Yealy.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annemergmed.2026.05.013
  39. J Postgrad Med. 2026 Jun 11.
    Building publication competence: Insights from the "JPGM Conference 2025".
    S S Bhide, M S Tullu, S V Jalgaonkar, P Vaideeswar, S K Kamat, C P Lanjewar.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.4103/jpgm.jpgm_260_26
  40. Psychodyn Psychiatry. 2026 Jun;54(2): 373-374
    Psychodynamic Psychiatry-Information for Authors.
    César A Alfonso, Jennifer I Downey.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1521/pdps.2026.54.2.373
  41. Biophys Rev. 2026 Apr;18(2): 251-254
    Biophysical Reviews: a forum for publication of review articles from the international biophysics community.
    Wilma K Olson.
      This Editorial introduces the contents of Volume 18, Issue 2 of Biophysical Reviews, the official journal of the International Union for Pure and Applied Biophysics (IUPAB). The broad scope of the articles in the Issue and the geographically widespread locations of the contributing authors mirror the goals of IUPAB, namely to organize worldwide advancements, co-operation, communication, and education in biophysics.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12551-026-01438-7
  42. Urologie. 2026 Jun 15.
    ["Folia Urologica" - History of a journal (1907-1918)].
    Florian G Mildenberger.
      The official "Zeitschrift für Urologie" was not the only journal in the field of Urology in Germany at the beginning of the 20th century. The Berlin-based "Folia Urologica" was at least as influential and important and probably the better known journal. It relied on international exchange, disputes, and interdisciplinary work. With the outbreak of World War I in 1914, the international discourse ended.
    Keywords:  Alfred Rothschild; History of urology; James Israel; Leopold Casper; Scientific journal; World War 1
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00120-026-02870-z
  43. J Urol. 2026 Jun 16. 101097JU0000000000005143
    Letter: Urology Publication Output in Potentially Predatory Journals from 2019 to 2024.
    Ihtisham Ahmad, Joshua S Cheruvathur, Hasan Al-Hasani, Tiange Li, Priyank Yadav, Tuan Thanh Nguyen, Jason Y Lee, Girish Kulkarni, Raj Satkunasivam, Aly-Khan Lalani, Naeem Bhojani, Michael Leveridge, D Robert Siemens, David-Dan Nguyen, Christopher J D Wallis.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000005143
  44. Data Brief. 2026 Aug;67 112896
    Dataset for the study of gender disparities in publishing on energy.
    Matúš Mišík, Veronika Oravcová, Kateryna Yakovenko, Raffaele Mattera, Péter Vakhal.
      Gender differences are studied in academic literature from various angles, including the variances in publishing strategies between male and female authors. In many research communities, the quantity and quality of publications are detrimental to career development, academic position, and other factors. The quality of publications is, however, difficult to evaluate, and the impact factor of a journal is often considered a proxy for the journal's quality. This article presents a dataset of 1842 articles published between 2004 and 2017 on the topic of energy in Central and Eastern Europe in journals with assigned impact factors and listed in the Web of Science database. Previously published studies relied on machine-assisted assignment of gender, which has limited accuracy in assigning gender. We have manually collected English-language articles and coded the gender of their authors to overcome these challenges. This dataset presents data on articles (journal in which they were published, year of publication, impact factor of the journal, research area, etc.), as well as their authors (name of the first author and their gender, number of co-authors, names of all co-authors) and their gender. The article "Gender and authorship in energy studies: Is there an impact?" [1] uses this data as the principal source for its analysis.
    Keywords:  Academia; Disparities; Energy; Gender; Impact factor; Research
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dib.2026.112896
  45. J AOAC Int. 2026 Jun 19. pii: qsag058. [Epub ahead of print]
    Advancing PFAS Analysis Through Scientific Publication.
    Kai Zhang, Mengliang Zhang.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1093/jaoacint/qsag058
This page is being maintained by Thomas Krichel. It was last updated on 2026‒06‒23 at 4:24.