bims-skolko Biomed News
on Scholarly communication
Issue of 2026–07–05
fifty papers selected by
Thomas Krichel, Open Library Society
  1. "The system is obviously bonkers": The APC Trap and the bind of scholarly publishing across four research intensive institutions in the U.S.
  2. Article Processing Charges in General Surgery Journals: Implications for Equitable Publishing Access in Low-Income and Middle-Income Countries.
  3. Paper mill cancer studies get double the number of citations as genuine papers.
  4. The invisible double life of a manuscript: Concurrent submission and the limits of editorial trust.
  5. Un-AI-ing: Compliance, Evasion, and the Distortion of Research Writing in the Age of AI Detection.
  6. Artificial Intelligence in medical research and publishing: progress, risks, and future perspectives.
  7. Provenance, Not Prohibition: A Framework for AI in Scholarly Publishing.
  8. Artificial Intelligence in Scientific Judgment: Assistance, Dependence, or Disruption?
  9. From shadow AI to accountable assistance: a framework for level 2 AI-supported peer review in medical journals.
  10. Artificial Intelligence in Scientific Publications: From Theoretical Past to Transparent Future Regulation.
  11. Use of Artificial Intelligence in Undergraduate Medical Student Assessment, Scientific Writing & Peer Review: Promise, Pitfalls, and the Need for Educational Governance.
  12. Comment on "Human Dignity and Scientific Integrity: Using Artificial Intelligence in Scholarly Writing".
  13. The role of large language models in the writing of surgical reviews: fact or fantasy?
  14. Policy snapshots cannot establish journal AI-policy failure.
  15. From Silicon Valley to the Vatican-The Expanding Debate on AI Ethics.
  16. SPIRIT-CONSORT-ELM: Element-Level Assessment of Randomized Controlled Trial Reporting Using Large Language Models.
  17. Publication integrity and industry influences on the editorial process: a case study.
  18. Conducting a Substantive Peer Review of Environmental Chemistry Articles: Sharper Insights through Sharper Peer Review.
  19. The paradox of peer review: protecting science or policing thought?
  20. Behavior characteristics of peer reviewers in medical journals: a survey from China.
  21. Reviewing a paper: simple principles for better peer review.
  22. Why paying peer reviewers works, according to a journal's editor-in-chief.
  23. Improving data sharing in nutritional science: a symposium report of challenges, opportunities, and best practice recommendations.
  24. A survey to evaluate animal methods bias experienced by India-based researchers in the peer review of manuscripts and grant applications.
  25. Self-reported availability of research data in American Psychological Association journal articles: a cross-sectional investigation.
  26. Building internationally competitive journals for science data sharing: The evolution of three biomedical English academic journals launched in China.
  27. Capturing attitudes towards research and data sharing in down syndrome (CARDS-DS): Piloting a novel parent-report measure.
  28. What influences whether researchers adhere to healthcare reporting guidelines successfully? A thematic synthesis.
  29. How FAIR data are helping to build trust in science.
  30. Letter to the editor in reply to "Ethics of Rising Trends in Dermatology Publications Using Large-Scale Databases".
  31. A large language model pipeline for automated citation quality scoring across engineering journal quartiles with expert validation.
  32. Using an Open Science Checklist in Grant Proposal Reviews to Predict Reproducibility of Funded Publications.
  33. Master Class: Writing a Case Report - Reflections on a Recently Published Case Report.
  34. Thinking About Writing a Cover Letter.
  35. Writing up the Results section of a Research Report.
  36. A new chapter in the history of Naunyn-Schmiedebergs Archives of Pharmacology: appointment of international deputy editors.
  37. Many excellent and one bad news regarding the European Journal of Translational Myology and the 2027 Padua Days on Muscle and Mobility Medicine.
  38. Journal of Pediatric Urology Editorial Board policy statement on appropriate endpoints when conducting research on hydronephrosis/urinary tract dilation (UTD)/ureteropelvic junction obstruction (UPJO).
  39. The Journal of Clinical Pharmacology: 65 Years of History.
  40. Launching a new era for Short Communications in Journal of Synchrotron Radiation.
  41. Retractions in tuberculosis research: analyzing patterns, reasons, and temporal trends from 1993 to 2023.
  42. Nursing's power problem. Why are so many journal editors, experts in nursing and leaders of nursing male? Is there a nursing gender problem hiding in plain sight?
  43. Moving forward as a global journal: a farewell reflection from the Editor-in-Chief.
  44. Building the Conversation: Editorial Stewardship in Contemporary Surgical Publishing.
  45. Improving Scientific Research: Renegotiated Principles of Science, Proposals, Failures, and Successes.
  46. Advancing molecular and cellular neuroscience: Vision and priorities from the new editor-in-chief.
  47. Polish Heart Journal improves its standing: a record Impact Factor of 4.4.
  48. Reflections from Mathias Bähr, PhD, Editor-in-Chief for Molecular and Cellular Neuroscience, 2017-2026.
  49. Looking back on 50 years of cell biology in Japan.
  50. The ACS at 150: The History of Analytical Chemistry Publications and a Century of Progress.
  1. PLoS One. 2026 ;21(7): e0351430
    "The system is obviously bonkers": The APC Trap and the bind of scholarly publishing across four research intensive institutions in the U.S.
    Melissa H Cantrell, Rachel Caldwell, Jennifer A Mezick, Matthew Estill, Lauren B Collister.
      This study analyzes the cognitive dissonance displayed by authors at research intensive institutions in the United States (U.S.) regarding the scholarly publishing of Open Access (OA) publications. A qualitative analysis of 154 open-ended responses was conducted. Eight codes were identified, then each response was analyzed for the codes. The codes themselves coalesce around a phenomenon the authors of this study term the article processing charge (APC) Trap, in which privileged and well-resourced researchers in the U.S. experience highly contradictory sentiments about OA publishing. The cognitive dissonance characteristic of the APC Trap result in strong feelings of conflict as well as powerlessness. The qualitative analysis reveals the APC Trap as a deeply layered phenomenon, with manifestation dependent on positionality, including demographic features and interactions between APC Trap codes. While much has been made of the failings of the APC model of OA publishing for under-resourced researchers, this study reveals the ways this publishing model is unsustainable even for privileged researchers most well-positioned to participate.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0351430
  2. J Surg Res. 2026 Jul 03. pii: S0022-4804(26)00390-2. [Epub ahead of print]326 39-44
    Article Processing Charges in General Surgery Journals: Implications for Equitable Publishing Access in Low-Income and Middle-Income Countries.
    Brenda Feres, Nadia Palte, Sofia Wagemaker Viana, Majok Deng Akok Deng, Nathalia Schettino Samad, Jessica L Buicko Lopez, Tanaz Vaghaiwalla.
       INTRODUCTION: Open access publishing promotes broad dissemination of scientific knowledge, enhancing transparency and accessibility. However, article processing charges (APCs) required by many journals create significant financial barriers, particularly for researchers from low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Prior studies across multiple disciplines have shown that APCs disproportionately restrict LMIC authors' ability to publish, perpetuating inequities in academic representation. The impact of APCs within general surgery remains underexplored. This study aims to quantify APCs in surgical publishing and evaluate the equity of fee structures for authors from LMICs.
    METHODS: A cross-sectional analysis of APCs in general surgery publishing was performed using journals identified via SCImago Journal & Country Rank. Journals were classified as fully open access (OA), with all articles freely accessible, or hybrid, subscription-based journals offering optional OA publication for a fee. Data on APC amounts, reductions for LMIC authors, publishing model, country of origin, and impact factor (IF) were extracted from publicly available sites. Countries of origin were categorized by World Bank income levels. IFs were compared between journals offering and not offering APC reductions for LMIC authors using the Mann-Whitney U test. All APCs were standardized to US dollars.
    RESULTS: A total of 40 general surgery journals were identified and included in the analysis with 90% (36/40) charging APCs. Among these, 67% (24/36) were hybrid journals charging fees only for OA publication, whereas 33% (12/36) were fully OA. Of the journals charging APCs, 42% (15/36) offered reduced fees for LMIC authors. The median full APC for journals offering discounts was $3720 (interquartile range [IQR]: $3090-$3950), compared with $2904.50 [IQR: $1618.50-$3895] for those without discounts. Most journals (82.5%, 33/40) were based in high-income countries (HICs); among these, 27.3% (9/33) were fully OA, 72.7% (24/33) were hybrid, and 45.4% (15/33) offered reduced APCs for LMIC authors. Journals based in LMICs comprised 17.5% (7/40) of the total. All LMIC journals were fully OA, with 57% (4/7) charging no APCs. The remaining 43% (3/7) did not offer reductions but had lower median APCs of $500 [IQR: $150-$1500] compared to high-income country journals, with a median of $3650 [IQR: $2500-$3950]. Mann-Whitney U testing showed that journals offering reduced APCs for LMICs had significantly higher IFs than those without discounts (P = 0.04).
    CONCLUSIONS: Most general surgery journals levy high APCs that can create barriers for authors and perpetuate inequities in academic representation. Although 42% of the journals offer reduced charges, APC amounts remain substantial. LMIC-based journals show fully open access publishing can be achieved at minimal or no cost. These findings offer actionable, data-driven insights for key stakeholders to implement broader APC reductions and promote equitable access to surgical publishing.
    Keywords:  APCs; Article processing charges; General surgery; LMICs; Open access; Publishing models
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2026.06.016
  3. Nature. 2026 Jul 01.
    Paper mill cancer studies get double the number of citations as genuine papers.
    Mohana Basu.
      
    Keywords:  Cancer; Peer review; Publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-026-01908-8
  4. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc. 2026 Apr 10. 60(2):
    The invisible double life of a manuscript: Concurrent submission and the limits of editorial trust.
    Haluk Berk.
      We are at the doorstep of spring. The first warmth of the season is in the air. One can almost feel the transition taking place. The air carries the promise of renewal. Nature, in its quiet determination, has nearly completed its preparations for transformation. Look closely at the trees. Buds are on the verge of bursting. Observe the birds and stray cats who have endured the harshness of winter; one can sense, in their movements and sounds, their anticipation of brighter days ahead. Despite all that humanity imposes upon it, nature remains ready for change.   Cite this article as: Berk H. The invisible double life of a manuscript: concurrent submission and the limits of editorial trust. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc., 2026;60(2), 0003, doi: 10.5152/j.aott.2026.260003.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.5152/j.aott.2026.260003
  5. Ann Biomed Eng. 2026 Jun 29.
    Un-AI-ing: Compliance, Evasion, and the Distortion of Research Writing in the Age of AI Detection.
    Louie Giray.
      To protect research integrity from an influx of AI-generated content, academic journals have increasingly deployed AI detection tools. AI detection tools are designed to evaluate text and predict whether it was written by a human or a large language model. Rather than verifying factual truth or authorial honesty, they operate by measuring statistical predictability, primarily analyzing text through metrics like perplexity (word predictability) and burstiness (sentence structure variation). While journals adopt these tools as an efficient, scalable gatekeeping defense against academic fraud, this algorithmic surveillance has triggered a troubling counter-behavior known as un-AI-ing. Un-AI-ing is the deliberate modification of text specifically to evade algorithmic detection thresholds. Because formal, peer-reviewed scientific prose inherently relies on highly standardized and predictable language, authentic human writing is frequently misclassified as AI-generated, forcing authors to alter their work. This creates a dangerous systemic paradox divided into two behaviors. (1) Dishonest actors engage in opportunistic un-AI-ing, using AI humanizers or other maneuvers to artificially disrupt text predictability and easily launder synthetic content into literature. (2) Conversely, honest researchers, disproportionately non-native English speakers, are forced into compliant un-AI-ing. They must systematically degrade their clear, well-edited prose into awkward phrasing simply to bypass false positive thresholds. By policing metrics rather than merit, journals are not catching fraud, they are manufacturing marginalization. To restore true accountability, academic publishing must abandon automated gatekeeping and return to context-sensitive, disclosure-based authorship policies that judge the integrity of the scholar, not the algorithmic conformity of the text.
    Keywords:  AI detection bias; AI humanizers; Algorithmic governance; False positives; Generative AI in research; Manuscript integrity; Postplagiarism framework; Scientific authorship; Un-AI-ing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10439-026-04242-2
  6. Presse Med. 2026 Jun 30. pii: S0755-4982(26)00039-4. [Epub ahead of print] 104371
    Artificial Intelligence in medical research and publishing: progress, risks, and future perspectives.
    Douglas Jaxon Vadner, Angela N Brown, Michael H Gold.
      Artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly transforming medical research and scholarly publishing, reshaping how scientific knowledge is produced, evaluated, and disseminated. Initially developed as a decision-support tool, AI has evolved into a complex ecosystem encompassing machine learning, deep learning, and large language models, with applications spanning data analysis, diagnostic support, evidence synthesis, manuscript preparation, peer review, and post-publication analytics. These technologies offer substantial benefits, including accelerated research workflows, improved analytical precision, enhanced reproducibility, and expanded access to scientific communication, particularly for early-career investigators and non-native English authors. However, the integration of generative AI introduces significant challenges. Persistent risks include algorithmic bias, hallucinated or misattributed citations, erosion of authorship accountability, confidentiality concerns, and the potential degradation of peer review integrity. As AI-generated outputs increasingly resemble human scholarly work, longstanding norms surrounding authorship, transparency, and responsibility are being reexamined. In response, editorial organizations, journals, and global health authorities have begun to establish governance frameworks emphasizing disclosure, human verification, and ethical boundaries for AI use. This narrative review synthesizes current evidence on the evolution and applications of AI in medical research and publishing, critically examines associated risks and ethical dilemmas, and reviews emerging regulatory and editorial guidance. Finally, it outlines future directions centered on explainable and auditable AI, standardized AI literacy, and hybrid human-AI workflows. Ensuring that AI remains a tool for augmentation rather than replacement will be essential to preserving trust, rigor, and integrity in medical scholarship as these technologies become increasingly embedded in the scientific enterprise.
    Keywords:  Artificial intelligence; Ethics; Large language models; Medical publishing; Peer review; Research integrity
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lpm.2026.104371
  7. Laryngoscope Investig Otolaryngol. 2026 Aug;11(4): e70487
    Provenance, Not Prohibition: A Framework for AI in Scholarly Publishing.
    Romaine F Johnson.
      Generative AI is now embedded in scholarly workflows, yet publishing policy has often jumped to permission or prohibition without first defining what is being governed. The central risk is not tool use itself, but loss of provenance: readers, reviewers, and editors must be able to trace how claims, citations, analyses, and interpretations were produced and verified. Harm is already measurable, including fabricated references, distorted summaries, hollow reviews, and disclosure policies that are widely ignored. This commentary proposes a practical framework centered on human accountability: separate capability from responsibility, prioritize provenance over polish, avoid unverifiable bans, and pair disclosure with explicit verification. Because AI now enters every stage of review, the unit of governance is not the static manuscript but the feedback loop around it, and the same obligations bind authors, reviewers, and editors alike. Journals should govern outcomes and professional standards rather than tool lists, building a culture of transparent use instead of surveillance.
    Keywords:  disclosure; generative artificial intelligence; peer review; provenance; research integrity; scholarly publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1002/lio2.70487
  8. Pak J Med Sci. 2026 Jun;42(6): 1539-1540
    Artificial Intelligence in Scientific Judgment: Assistance, Dependence, or Disruption?
    Mariyah Hidayat.
      Artificial intelligence (AI) is transforming scholarly publishing not by replacing editors or reviewers, but by reshaping how scientific judgment is formed within editorial and peer review systems. Traditionally, manuscripts entered peer review carrying their methodological weaknesses, analytical inconsistencies, and unsupported conclusions for human reviewers to identify and challenge. That sequence is changing. AI is increasingly being used during editorial triage and peer review workflows to evaluate methodological coherence, identify analytical gaps, summarize manuscripts, and highlight potential weaknesses before independent human critique fully develops. While this may improve efficiency, manuscript quality, and the precision of editorial screening, its deeper influence lies in the less visible ways scientific evaluation may become framed by machine-generated interpretation. As reviewers increasingly begin their assessment through AI-generated summaries and critiques, concerns arise regarding the gradual outsourcing of scientific judgment and the potential erosion of independent critical thought. These shifts are emerging within academic systems already strained by publication pressure, reviewer fatigue, and expanding research output. AI may strengthen scholarly publishing by supporting human evaluation, but its growing influence also raises an important question: can scientific judgment remain truly independent when machine interpretation increasingly precedes human critique?
    Keywords:  Artificial intelligence; Editorial judgment; Peer review; Scholarly publishing; Scientific critique
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.12669/pjms.42.6.19570
  9. Jpn J Radiol. 2026 Jul 01.
    From shadow AI to accountable assistance: a framework for level 2 AI-supported peer review in medical journals.
    Shinji Naganawa, Rintaro Ito, Toshiaki Taoka.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11604-026-02046-x
  10. Int Urogynecol J. 2026 Jul 01.
    Artificial Intelligence in Scientific Publications: From Theoretical Past to Transparent Future Regulation.
    Valentín Manríquez Galán.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-026-06790-6
  11. Pak J Med Sci. 2026 Jun;42(6): 1327-1329
    Use of Artificial Intelligence in Undergraduate Medical Student Assessment, Scientific Writing & Peer Review: Promise, Pitfalls, and the Need for Educational Governance.
    Kamran Sattar, Mohamad-Hani Temsah, Shaukat Ali Jawaid.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.12669/pjms.42.6.19526
  12. J Am Coll Clin Pharm. 2026 Jul;9(7): e70255
    Comment on "Human Dignity and Scientific Integrity: Using Artificial Intelligence in Scholarly Writing".
    Shigeki Matsubara.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1002/jac5.70255
  13. Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2026 Jul 03. pii: 182. [Epub ahead of print]411(1):
    The role of large language models in the writing of surgical reviews: fact or fantasy?
    Daphne E DeTemple, Simon Störzer, Sahar Arbabzadah, Anna Riddermann, Felix Gronau, Kai Timrott, Hüseyin Bektas, Moritz Kleine.
       BACKGROUND: Amidst the current enthusiasm concerning artificial intelligence and its possible application in the composition of different kinds of scientific and non-scientific written documents, we evaluated the usage of artificial intelligence for writing surgical short reviews.
    METHODS: In order to assess the formal and content quality of AI-generated texts compared to human written texts, ten AI-based text generators (five chatbots and five content creators) and four surgeons in training received the same prompt for a short scientific article on a liver surgery theme. All texts were anonymized and subsequently evaluated by three experienced liver surgeons based on a pre-defined scoring scheme, as well as for quality of references and readability according to readability indices. Furthermore, all texts were tested for plagiarism using PlagScan.
    RESULTS: Overall percentage of correct assessment for AI/non-AI generation by experienced surgeons lay at 78.57%. Human written text had a mean word count of 1054 versus 874 in AI-generated text, with a higher mean Flesh Reading Ease Score (FRE, 26.2 ± 5.1 versus 17.7 ± 6.1). References were PubMed-listed in 100% for human versus 46% for AI-generated text, with only one non-human text reaching 100% formally correct citation of references. PlagScan found 6.4%±1.3 mean resemblance to existing texts for human versus 7.6%±4.5 for AI-generated text.
    DISCUSSION: Overall, AI could already mislead experienced scientific surgeons in 26.7% of cases into believing it to be human. However, formal requirements, especially considering referencing, are still in great need of improvement with only one of AI-generated articles fulfilling our quality requirements.
    Keywords:  AI-text generation; Hepatobiliary surgery; Large language model; Readability; Scientific writing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00423-026-04095-2
  14. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2026 Jul 07. 123(27): e2616276123
    Policy snapshots cannot establish journal AI-policy failure.
    Yibo Wang.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2616276123
  15. JAMA. 2026 Jul 01. e2610876
    From Silicon Valley to the Vatican-The Expanding Debate on AI Ethics.
    Roy Perlis, Yulin Hswen.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2026.10876
  16. medRxiv. 2026 Jun 15. pii: 2026.06.06.26354746. [Epub ahead of print]
    SPIRIT-CONSORT-ELM: Element-Level Assessment of Randomized Controlled Trial Reporting Using Large Language Models.
    Lan Jiang, Xiangji Ying, Andrew W Brown, Mengfei Lan, Wenxuan Song, Joe D Menke, Colby J Vorland, Evan Mayo-Wilson, Halil Kilicoglu.
      Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) play a central role in assessing the benefits and harms of interventions. Incomplete reporting in RCT publications can compromise the verifiability and usefulness of RCTs. SPIRIT and CONSORT reporting guidelines aim to improve the completeness of RCT protocols and results publications, respectively. However, many RCTs are not reported completely. Checking manuscripts automatically could help authors improve the completeness of reports prior to publication. We previously annotated SPIRIT-CONSORT-TM, a corpus of 200 articles (comprising 100 protocol-results publication pairs) using 83 checklist items drawn from SPIRIT 2013 and CONSORT 2010. We also trained machine learning models to automatically assess reporting at the item level. Each checklist item can include multiple constituent elements (i.e., specific details required for that item), and an item might be considered fully reported when all of its elements are present. However, prior work does not explicitly capture or evaluate reporting at the element level. To address this gap, we extended SPIRIT-CONSORT-TM by incorporating element-level annotations and using them to assess reporting completeness (SPIRIT-CONSORT-ELM). We formulated element-level assessment as a machine reading comprehension task, operationalized through 119 questions, where each question targets a specific reporting element within a checklist item. Using the 200 articles included in SPIRIT-CONSORT-TM, two annotators independently answered 119 questions for 50 articles (25 protocol-results pairs) and resolved any discrepancies through discussion; the remaining 150 articles (75 protocol-results pairs) were assessed by a single annotator. We then developed an automated pipeline for element-level assessment using SPIRIT-CONSORT-ELM. The pipeline first applies a PubMedBERT-based model to identify sentences containing item-level reporting information, then it uses a generative large language model (LLM; GPT-5) with chain-of-thought reasoning to answer element-level questions based on the retrieved evidence. Agreement between the two annotators was high (Gwet's AC1: 0.782) and our pipeline achieved high accuracy in identifying element-level reporting evidence (F1: 0.822, Gwet's AC1: 0.796). Ablation studies indicate that chain-of-thought reasoning and the inclusion of illustrative in-context examples modestly improve LLM performance on the machine reading comprehension task. SPIRIT-CONSORT-ELM provides a benchmark for evaluating reporting guideline completeness at the element level, enabling assessment of RCT transparency beyond the simple presence or absence of checklist items and is publicly available at https://osf.io/kznx4/ . The automated pipeline establishes a robust baseline for assessing RCT reporting and demonstrates potential as a practical aid for authors, reviewers, and editors to identify and address gaps in completeness and transparency of RCT reports.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.06.06.26354746
  17. Res Integr Peer Rev. 2026 Jul 01. pii: 30. [Epub ahead of print]11(1):
    Publication integrity and industry influences on the editorial process: a case study.
    Evan D Kharasch, Michael M Todd, Jean-Francois Pittet, William L Lanier.
      Scholarly publishing is facing unprecedented challenges. Journal scholarly integrity and ethics have historically focused on author conduct and conflicts of interest. We address apparent journal and editor conflicts of interest. We focus on a series of events attending the publication in a peer-reviewed biomedical journal of a research article and four contemporaneously published editorials. A time series of events and questions which they engender follows the events description. We dissect and question behaviors and motivations, and accompanying transparency and accountability, and how these can affect article and journal credibility. The need for journals and scholarly publishing to recognize their own conflicts is discussed, as is the need for the science publishing to be self-correcting, in addition to science articles themselves. Author conflicts of interest and the need for attendant disclosure have become part of the publication process. Journal conflicts can be no less impactful and important, and merit the same disclosure, transparency, and rigor, in order to protect the public trust in biomedical science and publishing. When issues are encountered, science publishing needs to be self-correcting.
    Keywords:  Conflict-of-interest; Ethics
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-026-00216-z
  18. Environ Sci Technol. 2026 Jun 30. 60(25): 17517-17518
    Conducting a Substantive Peer Review of Environmental Chemistry Articles: Sharper Insights through Sharper Peer Review.
    Garrett McKay, Juliana Laszakovits.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.6c08143
  19. Intern Med J. 2026 Jul 02.
    The paradox of peer review: protecting science or policing thought?
    Paul A Komesaroff.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1111/imj.70496
  20. Res Integr Peer Rev. 2026 Jul 01. pii: 28. [Epub ahead of print]11(1):
    Behavior characteristics of peer reviewers in medical journals: a survey from China.
    Guie Liu, Yuan Tian, Jing Peng, Lianyang Zhang, Lei Li.
       BACKGROUND: Peer review is fundamental to quality scientific communication, yet reviewer behavior remain underexplored. The impact of emerging large language models (LLMs) on peer review practices is similarly understudied. We aim to characterize behavioral traits of Chinese medical journal peer reviewers and identify evidence-based recommendations to optimize review willingness, efficiency and quality.
    METHODS: An online questionnaire survey was distributed to 532 medical researchers in China through the Wenjuanxing platform in February 2025. The questionnaire (38 questions) assessed four domains: basic information, peer review model and efficiency, peer review quality, and reviewer motivations. Statistical analysis included descriptive statistics, Spearman correlations, Kruskal-Wallis tests, etc. RESULTS: The response rate was 51.9% (276/532, 95% confidence interval (CI): 47.6%-56.1%). The valid questionnaires were 275: 91.6% male; 64.7% of 41-55 years old. Double-blind was supported by 80.7% of respondents, exceeding international prevalence. Reviewers exhibited social desirability bias in self-reported review turnaround time: 92.7% reported completing reviews within 15 d, whereas the actual recent 3-year administrative data was only 69.7% (P < 0.001, Cramér's V = 0.303). Reviewers expected their submissions to finish review in 15 d and at most 60 d, which was very pressurized for the editorial office. Efficient reviewers expected their manuscripts to be reviewed faster (ρ = 0.551, 95% CI: 0.460-0.630). Reviewers weighted scientificity and novelty most heavily (30% each), followed by clinical feasibility (20%). Review quality showed heterogeneity: 17.8% of respondents (49/275) reported < 50% agreement with feedback received on their submissions vs. 47.6% (131/275) reporting ≥ 70% agreement. Only 24.7% respondents used LLM for peer review assistance, yet 91.2% of users reported a positive impact. The most frequently used LLMs in China were DeepSeek, Doubao, ChatGPT and Kimi in sequence. Compared with males, female reviewers were more likely to use LLM for peer review assistance (43.5% vs. 23.0%, P = 0.029, Cohen's h = 0.439), but the difference was only significant in DeepSeek (P = 0.005). LLM use did not significantly alter main peer review characteristics (all P > 0.05). Regarding motivation, recognition and acknowledgment ranked first (74.9%), followed uniquely in China by requests for priority handling of their submissions (64.4%) and recommended submissions (63.6%), reflecting publication-pressure contexts.
    CONCLUSION: Misalignments exist between reviewer expectations and editorial capacity regarding review efficiency. System-level improvements in manuscript handling system and implementation of standardized review templates and training may improve review quality. Formal recognition of review contributions and fast handling of reviewer's submissions could enhance motivation while addressing unique pressures in Chinese academic journals.
    Keywords:  Behavioral characteristics; Feedback agreement; Large language models; Motivations; Peer review; Peer review speed
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-026-00215-0
  21. Indian J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2026 Jul;42(7): 829-830
    Reviewing a paper: simple principles for better peer review.
    Pradeep Narayan.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12055-026-02229-1
  22. Nature. 2026 Jul 01.
    Why paying peer reviewers works, according to a journal's editor-in-chief.
    Miryam Naddaf.
      
    Keywords:  Peer review; Publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-026-01973-z
  23. J Nutr Sci. 2026 ;15 e49
    Improving data sharing in nutritional science: a symposium report of challenges, opportunities, and best practice recommendations.
    Lauren Danielle Devine, Martina Rooney, Yashvee Dunneram, Eileen R Gibney, Kiera McNeice, Douglas Taren, Frederik Moller, Heli Reinivuo, Ellen Trolle, Mikael Fogelholm, Kirsi Laitinen, Bernard M Corfe.
      This paper summarises the proceedings from two symposia (IUNS-ICN, 2025 and a FENS Task Force Northern Europe Networking webinar, 2025) convened to discuss the status of data sharing in nutritional science, with a focus on the challenges, opportunities, and solutions for achieving future best practice and available nutrition-related data and exemplar collaborations. Improved data sharing practices offer the potential to enhance research efficiency and impact. Despite this, data sharing is constrained by structural, cultural, and methodological barriers. Challenges include institutional/geographical data fragmentation, dataset heterogeneity, time- and resource-intensive requirements, GDPR/consent considerations, and publication-focused academic incentives over data stewardship. Opportunities include the exploration of new research questions, reduced data duplication, and more robust, conclusive, and equitable science. Transitioning toward effective data sharing practices will require coordinated action across academic institutions, the research community, funders, and publishers, including clear training, incentives, policies, and an overall cultural shift toward open science.
    Keywords:  Data harmonisation; Data sharing; FAIR data; Nutritional science; Open science; Repositories
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1017/jns.2026.10112
  24. NAM J. 2025 ;1 100042
    A survey to evaluate animal methods bias experienced by India-based researchers in the peer review of manuscripts and grant applications.
    Surat Parvatam, Karishma Kaushik, Kasturi Mahadik, Goutami Nayak, Tejaswini Dhurde, Francesca Pistollato, Helder Constantino, Bipasha Gautam, Harshita Mittal, Catharine E Krebs.
      While peer review during manuscript or grant application forms the cornerstone of scientific evaluation and assessment, this process is also prone to biases and confounding. Animal methods bias is a specific form of peer review bias where a preference for animal-based research methods or a lack of expertise in nonanimal-based methods undermines the quality and fairness of assessments of nonanimal studies. In this study, we conducted a survey to assess the challenges and experiences of researchers in India to publish peer-reviewed publications and apply for grants based on projects using nonanimal methods. A cross-sectional survey with 19 questions was completed by 186 respondents working in various biological fields in India. Decision logic was used to route respondents through the survey, which led to varying number of responses per question. Fifty-six per cent of respondents (39 out of 70) said they have been asked by manuscript reviewers to add animal experiments to their otherwise nonanimal-based studies. Respondents reported complying to 24 % of these requests on average. Respondents indicated the primary impacts of requests for additional experiments were publishing in lower impact factor journals and manuscript rejection. In addition, 57 % (47 of 83 respondents) felt that the lack of animal experiments in their grant proposal negatively influenced its evaluation. Respondents were also asked about key factors influencing their use of animal and nonanimal methods, which revealed that some perceived animal methods as necessary to validate nonanimal methods and as more reliable for mimicking biological complexity, while others perceived nonanimal methods as more physiologically relevant and practically advantageous. This survey provides preliminary evidence of animal methods bias experiences during publishing and funding peer review faced by Indian researchers.
    Keywords:  Animal methods; Grant application; Nonanimal methods; Peer review bias
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.namjnl.2025.100042
  25. Res Integr Peer Rev. 2026 Jun 30.
    Self-reported availability of research data in American Psychological Association journal articles: a cross-sectional investigation.
    Claire C Guyatt, Gert Storms.
       BACKGROUND: Prior evidence suggests that journals requiring open data are associated with higher levels of data sharing in the published psychology literature. Data sharing policies are not, however, consistently implemented or enforced. The American Psychological Association (APA), in 2020, signed onto the Transparency and Openness Promotion Guidelines, which promote increasingly stringent data sharing policies. The current study examined self-reported data sharing in APA journals and whether stricter policies are linked to higher levels of self-reported data sharing.
    METHODS: We assessed self-reported data sharing practices in 1,250 articles published between 2023 and 2025 in 25 APA journals. Using logistic regression, we examined the association between journal policy level and self-reported data sharing. We then applied post-stratification weighting, based on the actual distribution of policy levels across APA journals and their associated percentages of data sharing, to estimate the overall percentage of self-reported data sharing.
    RESULTS: We estimated overall self-reported data sharing to be 30.3% (95% CI [27.7, 33.0]). Journal policy stringency was strongly associated with self-reported data sharing: among journals with no data sharing policy, 15.0% of articles reported shared data (30 out of 200; 95% CI [10.7, 20.6]); among journals that mandate that authors reveal whether they shared their data, 26.4% of articles reported shared data (145 out of 550; 95% CI [22.8, 30.2]), and among journals that mandate data sharing, 70.4% of articles reported shared data (352 out of 500; 95% CI [66.2, 74.2]). At the same time, even journals with more stringent data sharing requirements did not consistently enforce their policies.
    CONCLUSIONS: These results indicate that despite widespread endorsement of open science practices, data sharing is not yet a customary practice among psychology researchers. The observed self-reported data sharing practices do, however, show that more stringent journal policy requirements are associated with increased openness. While the observational nature of the present study precludes strong causal inferences, stricter journal policies may represent one potential factor relating to the adoption of data sharing practices, including the use of data embargoes and greater transparency around decisions not to share data. Overall, findings highlight a promising direction for ongoing efforts to promote openness in data sharing, while underscoring the need for future research to clarify the mechanisms that link policy to practice.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-026-00235-w
  26. Biosaf Health. 2026 Jun;8(3): 159-162
    Building internationally competitive journals for science data sharing: The evolution of three biomedical English academic journals launched in China.
    Huisheng Wang, Hao Cheng.
      Academic journals serve as the platform of scientific collaboration. As China's contribution to world-class science is advancing at a remarkable pace, cultivating world-class English-language journals has become a national imperative issue. Taking Academician George F. Gao and the three flagship journals he founded or led-Protein & Cell (2010), China CDC Weekly (2019), and hLife (2023)-as examples, herein we trace the evolutionary trajectory of English-language periodicals in China, dissecting their evolving missions, internationalization strategies and contributions to biosafety and ethical governance to provide a reproducible roadmap for currently-emerging journals. Through analyses of the case of clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR) gene-editing ethics controversy, pandemic-data-sharing protocols, and international cooperation frameworks, we highlight that journals are pivotal arenas where domestic and global scientific discourses on critical biosafety and public health issues are made. Building internationally competitive journals for science data sharing scientific governance will serve as a critical foundation for China's ambitions to become a scientific power and for its deeper engagement in global science and technology governance.
    Keywords:  Biomedical research; Internationality; Publications
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bsheal.2026.04.002
  27. Soc Sci Humanit Open. 2026 Jun;pii: 102673. [Epub ahead of print]13
    Capturing attitudes towards research and data sharing in down syndrome (CARDS-DS): Piloting a novel parent-report measure.
    Ankita A Menon, Betty Cohn, Stephen R Dager, Annette M Estes, Tanya St John, Heather C Hazlett, Natasha Marrus, Katherine E MacDuffie.
      Open science initiatives aim to accelerate research through data sharing. While prior research has explored public attitudes toward genomic data sharing, perspectives on sharing other data types, such as neuroimaging data, remain largely unexplored. To address this gap, we developed the CARDS-DS (Capturing Attitudes toward Research and Data Sharing in Down Syndrome) questionnaire, a novel survey designed to assess parental attitudes toward open-access data sharing in large-scale Down syndrome (DS) research. CARDS-DS items were adapted from existing surveys or newly written to fit the context. We conducted interviews to refine the survey items with 14 parents of infants with DS enrolled in a longitudinal neuroimaging study. Responses were analyzed using a structured qualitative coding framework and informed modifications to the final questionnaire. The finalized 35-item CARDS-DS survey encompasses five domains: (I) benefits of research participation, (II) concerns about participation, (III) attitudes toward data sharing, (IV) decision-making in research, and (V) access to research results. Parents in this pilot study expressed strong intrinsic motivation to participate in research, citing benefits for future generations. Most were comfortable sharing medical and behavioral data, but expressed concerns about videos, photographs, and genetic data due to privacy risks and potential misuse. Trust in researchers played a critical role in shaping parental attitudes. In future work, CARDS-DS can serve as a tool for assessing attitudes of large samples of participants toward data sharing in DS research, and has potential to be modified for use with other research populations.
    Keywords:  Bioethics; Data sharing; Down syndrome; Neuroimaging; Open access; Pediatric research
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2026.102673
  28. Res Integr Peer Rev. 2026 Jul 02. pii: 33. [Epub ahead of print]11(1):
    What influences whether researchers adhere to healthcare reporting guidelines successfully? A thematic synthesis.
    James Harwood, Charlotte Albury, Jennifer de Beyer, Zhaoxiang Bian, Yuting Duan, Shona Kirtley, Michael Schlüssel, Lingyun Zhao, Gary S Collins.
       BACKGROUND: Despite endorsement by medical journals, reporting guidelines have only modestly affected reporting quality in healthcare research. We aimed to identify influences affecting whether authors successfully adhere to reporting guidelines.
    METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsychINFO, AMED, WHO Global Index Medicus, SciELO, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Data, VIP Chinese Medical Journal Database, OSF, and MiRoR for qualitative research exploring researchers' experiences of reporting guidelines for healthcare research, published after 1996 in English, Chinese, Spanish, or Portuguese. We appraised studies using CASP-Qual. For thematic synthesis, we applied descriptive codes to all text reporting qualitative findings, then aggregated codes inductively into descriptive themes that captured the codes' meaning. We interpreted and contextualised possible influences from these descriptive themes to create analytic themes.
    RESULTS: From 18 eligible studies, we developed 12 analytic themes: 1) Researchers may not understand guidance as intended or what reporting guidelines are, even if they think they do; 2) Researchers report a variety of reasons for using reporting guidelines, and some are more important than others; 3) Researchers describe using reporting guidelines for different tasks and wanting guidance delivered in ways that better fit their needs; 4) Using reporting guidelines has costs which researchers may feel outweigh benefits; 5) Reporting guidelines may need to be revised and updated; 6) Researchers may not be able to report all items, which can leave them feeling uncertain or worried; 7) Awareness and accessibility may limit reporting guideline usage; 8) Reporting guidelines may be more useful to less experienced researchers, but these researchers may find them harder to use; 9) Researchers want or need design advice, but reporting guidelines may not be the right place to find it; 10) Reporting guidelines can be harder to use if their scope is too broad, too narrow, or poorly defined; 11) Researchers may have to use multiple sets of reporting guidelines, multiplying complexity and costs; 12) Researchers may use checklists but never read the full guidance.
    DISCUSSION: We identified many influences despite a paucity of evidence. Addressing these influences when developing, refining, and implementing reporting guidelines may improve adherence.
    Keywords:  CARE; CONSORT; COREQ; EQUATOR Network; MDAR; Medical research; Medical writing; PRISMA; SPIRIT; SQUIRE; SRQR; STARD; STROBE; TRIPOD; Usability
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-026-00209-y
  29. Nature. 2026 Jul;655(8121): 270-271
    How FAIR data are helping to build trust in science.
    Amanda Heidt.
      
    Keywords:  Databases; Publishing; Research data; Scientific community; Technology
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-026-01982-y
  30. Clin Dermatol. 2026 Jun 29. pii: S0738-081X(26)00155-0. [Epub ahead of print]
    Letter to the editor in reply to "Ethics of Rising Trends in Dermatology Publications Using Large-Scale Databases".
    Delaney D Ding.
      This Correspondence responds to Tessier-Kay and colleagues' article on ethical concerns surrounding large-scale database research in dermatology. It argues that the field should distinguish between rigorous, fit-for-purpose observational database research and database analyses whose methods, reporting, or interpretation are insufficiently aligned with the research question. It also emphasizes dermatology-specific applications, stronger transparency, reporting guidance appropriate to the study design and data source, such as STROBE, RECORD, and TARGET when applicable, methodological training, peer review, and incentives for meaningful scientific contribution.
    Keywords:  Dermatology; database research; epidemiology; observational research; real-world data; reproducibility; transparency
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clindermatol.2026.06.005
  31. Sci Rep. 2026 Jul 03.
    A large language model pipeline for automated citation quality scoring across engineering journal quartiles with expert validation.
    Murat Isik, Sultan Guleryuzlu.
      This study proposes and evaluates a two-stage large language model (LLM)-based pipeline for automated citation quality scoring in academic manuscripts. The pipeline operates as follows: in Stage 1, citation sentences are extracted from full-text PDFs and matched to their referenced articles using the Gemini 2.5 Flash model; in Stage 2, each citation-reference pair is scored for semantic relevance on a continuous 0-10 scale by a second LLM inference call operating under a structured five-tier rubric and a skeptical reviewer prompt persona. The pipeline was applied to a corpus of 121 Web of Science (WOS)-indexed engineering articles drawn from journals spanning all four Journal Citation Reports quartile strata (Q1-Q4), yielding 5,615 scored citation-reference pairs. Descriptive analysis revealed an overall mean relevance score of 7.76 (SD = 2.36), with 74.7% of citations rated as Strong or Excellent. A Kruskal-Wallis test confirmed statistically significant score differences across quartile groups (H(3) = 157.10, p < 0.001), though the overall effect size was small (ε² = 0.028). Post-hoc Mann-Whitney U tests with Bonferroni correction identified Q2 articles as recording the highest mean scores (M = 8.04), significantly outperforming Q1 (M = 7.52), Q3 (M = 7.73), and Q4 (M = 7.74). The Q3 versus Q4 comparison was the sole non-significant pairing (p = 0.756), indicating these strata are statistically indistinguishable in citation quality. Spearman correlation yielded a weak negative rank correlation (ρ = -0.105, p < 0.001), with Q1 recording the highest proportion of Irrelevant citations (10.7%). These findings challenge the assumption that citation quality improves monotonically with journal prestige. The lower mean score of Q1 coexists with one of the highest proportions of highly relevant citations, indicating a bimodal rather than uniformly weaker profile, and a systematic annotation showed that context-dependent pointer citations are disproportionately concentrated in the Q1 Irrelevant set. We therefore attribute Q1's pattern to the broader interdisciplinary scope of top-tier articles together with a measurement effect, rather than to any single cause such as AI-assisted writing. The proposed pipeline offers a scalable, content-aware complement to existing academic integrity tools, with practical applications in editorial pre-screening and automated peer review support. An inter-rater reliability study on a stratified subsample of 150 citation-reference pairs showed strong ordinal agreement between the LLM and expert majority vote (Spearman ρ = 0.643, p < 0.001), with exact-category agreement of 48.0% rising to 77.3% under ± 1 adjacent-category tolerance, and highest agreement at the Irrelevant (80.0%) and Excellent (71.0%) poles.
    Keywords:  Citation analysis; Machine learning; Natural language processing; Scientific publishing; Text analysis
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-026-60947-3
  32. J Clin Epidemiol. 2026 Jul 03. pii: S0895-4356(26)00275-1. [Epub ahead of print] 112399
    Using an Open Science Checklist in Grant Proposal Reviews to Predict Reproducibility of Funded Publications.
    Ayu Putu Madri Dewi, Anne Floor Holtrop, Nicholas J DeVito, Melissa L Rethlefsen, Zulfan Zazuli, Mathieu Repiquet, Ka Hin Tai, Constant Vinatier, Monika Varga, Stefan Wouters, Hengky Kurniawan, Nynke Swart, Gowri Gopalakrishna, Inge Stegeman, Mariska Leeflang.
       OBJECTIVE: To determine whether an open science checklist can be useful for predicting the reproducibility of publications resulting from these grant proposals when used by grant referees assessing them.
    STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: This is a comparative accuracy study design using funded grant proposals obtained from online sources (i.e., Open Grants, RIO Journal, NIH, and Grantome). Two independent groups of mock referees assessed open science practices in the proposals and predicted whether the resulting publications would be reproducible, with one group using an Open Science checklist as an intervention, and the other without. Then we attempted to reproduce the primary findings of a resulting publication from the grant proposal. Sensitivity, specificity, predictive values, and overall accuracy were calculated from 2×2 tables, comparing predicted versus actual reproducibility. The primary outcome is the level of reproducibility, measured by the predictive value, the proportion of (non)reproducible study findings that are accurately predicted. This study was conducted between April and September 2025.
    RESULTS: Of seven out of 101 publications (6.9%, 95% CI 2.8-13.8%), the primary results could be reproduced. When using the checklist, only 16.8% of the proposals were expected to be reproducible, while without the checklist 75.2% were expected to be reproducible. When using the checklist, 17 proposals were expected to be reproducible, while only 2 out of these 17 could actually be reproduced (positive predictive value (PPV) 11.8% (95% CI 3.3-34.3%)). Without using the checklist, 76 proposals were thought to be reproducible, while only six out of 76 could actually be reproduced (PPV 7.9% (95% CI 3.7-16.2%)). Sensitivity analysis by research field was not conducted because of small sample sizes in most categories.
    CONCLUSION: The Open Science checklist has a low positive predictive value, as expected given the low reproducibility prevalence in our sample. Although the differences between the group using the checklist and the group that did not use the checklist may also have been caused by their level of knowledge of reproducibility and open science, neither group could predict which proposals would or would not be reproducible.
    Keywords:  Open Science; funders; peer review; predictive accuracy; reproducibility
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2026.112399
  33. Gynecol Oncol Rep. 2026 Jun;65 102133
    Master Class: Writing a Case Report - Reflections on a Recently Published Case Report.
    Jennifer McEachron, Susan C Modesitt, Jamie N Bakkum-Gamez.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gore.2026.102133
  34. J Biol Rhythms. 2026 Jul 01. 7487304261461324
    Thinking About Writing a Cover Letter.
    Michael Rosbash.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1177/07487304261461324
  35. Sci Diabetes Self Manag Care. 2026 Jun 28. 26350106261464045
    Writing up the Results section of a Research Report.
    James A Fain.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1177/26350106261464045
  36. Naunyn Schmiedebergs Arch Pharmacol. 2026 Jul 01.
    A new chapter in the history of Naunyn-Schmiedebergs Archives of Pharmacology: appointment of international deputy editors.
    Roland Seifert, Mahmoud M El-Mas, Yuichi Hattori, Devesh U Kapoor.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00210-026-05641-x
  37. Eur J Transl Myol. 2026 Jul 03. 36(2):
    Many excellent and one bad news regarding the European Journal of Translational Myology and the 2027 Padua Days on Muscle and Mobility Medicine.
    Ugo Carraro.
      Recently, both Clarivate and Scopus announced improved metrics for the European Journal of Translational Myology (EJTM), bringing its Impact Factor to 2.0 and its CiteScore to 4.1. I am proud of these achievements and share the credit with the entire PAGEpress staff. Furthermore, many organizers and moderators for the "Padua Days on Muscle and Mobility Medicine" 2027 (2027 Pd3m) have accepted their roles and proposed improvements for the event, which will take place at the Euganean Thermal Baths (Padua, Italy) from March 9 to 12, 2027. The program remains open to numerous additional speakers. On the downside, rising operating costs are affecting both digital publishing and event organization; it is hoped that these increases will not negatively impact the submission of contributions to the EJTM and the 2027 Pd3m conference. Those interested can find further information and forms for active participation (registration, accommodation, abstract template, and participation details) at the following address: www.paduamuscledays.it. Undoubtedly, the 2027 Pd3m promises to be an engaging event, on par with all previous editions of the "Padua Days on Muscle and Mobility Medicine."
    Keywords:  2027 Padua Days on Muscle and Mobility Medicine; European Journal of Translational Myology; Impact factor; Scopus Cite Score
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.4081/ejtm.2026.15878
  38. J Pediatr Urol. 2026 Jun 16. pii: S1477-5131(26)00371-2. [Epub ahead of print] 106092
    Journal of Pediatric Urology Editorial Board policy statement on appropriate endpoints when conducting research on hydronephrosis/urinary tract dilation (UTD)/ureteropelvic junction obstruction (UPJO).
    Caleb P Nelson, Luis H Braga, Anthony A Caldamone, C D Anthony Herndon, Magdalena Fossum, Rosalia Misseri, Raimund Stein.
      
    Keywords:  Hydronephrosis; Outcomes; Pyeloplasty; Research methodology; UPJ obstruction
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpurol.2026.106092
  39. J Clin Pharmacol. 2026 Jul;66(7): e70227
    The Journal of Clinical Pharmacology: 65 Years of History.
    David J Greenblatt.
      The Journal of Clinical Pharmacology (JCP), published continuously since its founding in 1961, is the principal biomedical publication of the American College of Clinical Pharmacology (ACCP), and is one of the first scientific journals devoted to the discipline of clinical pharmacology. In its 65 years, more than 8000 scientific papers have appeared in the pages of JCP, leading to literature citations exceeding 66,000 in number. Eight distinguished and visionary scientists-beginning with the late McKeen Cattell-have served as Editors-in-Chief over the lifetime (so far) of the Journal, and have guided the growth and maturation of JCP. Other names linked with the early history of JCP and ACCP include Harry Gold, Duncan E. Hutcheon, Nathaniel T. Kwit, Benjamin Calesnick, and Arthur D. Herrick. The ACCP annually presents the McKeen Cattell Award-in honor of the first Editor-to the author of the top scientific paper during the proceeding year. The ACCP looks forward to the continuing development and broadening visibility of JCP as a biomedical publication devoted to excellence in both biomedical research and professional education in the essential field of clinical pharmacology.
    Keywords:  biomedical education; biomedical publications; board certification; clinical pharmacology
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1002/jcph.70227
  40. J Synchrotron Radiat. 2026 Jul 01.
    Launching a new era for Short Communications in Journal of Synchrotron Radiation.
    Dibyendu Bhattacharyya, Kristina Kvashnina, Makina Yabashi.
      The short communications.
    Keywords:  Journal of Synchrotron Radiation; short communications
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1107/S1600577526006740
  41. Arch Microbiol. 2026 Jun 29. pii: 463. [Epub ahead of print]208(9):
    Retractions in tuberculosis research: analyzing patterns, reasons, and temporal trends from 1993 to 2023.
    Vinit Kumar, Pragya Anand, Yusuf Akhter.
      The integrity of tuberculosis research is critical for global public health, yet the phenomenon of article retractions in this field remains underexplored. This study examines patterns, reasons, and temporal trends of retracted tuberculosis-related research articles. A comprehensive analysis of retracted tuberculosis articles published between 1993 and 2023 was conducted using data from the Retraction Watch database and scholarly databases, Scopus, PubMed and Web of Science. Journal characteristics, publisher distribution, retraction reasons, and keyword patterns were systematically analyzed. Concordance between official retraction notices and post-publication peer review discussions on PubPeer was assessed. The analysis revealed 150 retracted tuberculosis articles, with minimal retractions from 1993 to 2009 but substantial increases from 2010 onwards, peaking at 24 retractions in 2021. Retractions were distributed across all journal quartiles (Q1-Q4) and major publishers include Hindawi, Elsevier, Springer, and Taylor & Francis. The most frequent retraction reasons were unreliable results(n = 32), data concerns(n = 31), and journal investigations (n = 29). Most retraction notices cited 2-4 concurrent reasons from 60 unique categories, indicating complex integrity violations. Keyword analysis revealed predominance of molecular and genetic research, with "genetic," "cell," and "protein" as dominant terms. Animal models and drug development studies featured prominently. Comparison between Retraction Watch and PubPeer showed 80.3% concordance, though 15.2% of cases revealed discrepancies between official and community-identified concerns. Tuberculosis research retractions have increased substantially in recent years, affecting publications across quality tiers. The high-complexity nature of molecular tuberculosis research may contribute to vulnerability to data integrity issues. Post-publication peer review platforms provide valuable complementary oversight to traditional editorial processes.
    Keywords:  Bibliometric analysis; Data integrity; Peer review; Research integrity; Retraction; Tuberculosis
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00203-026-05009-y
  42. Nurse Educ Pract. 2026 Jul 02. pii: S1471-5953(26)00214-3. [Epub ahead of print] 104911
    Nursing's power problem. Why are so many journal editors, experts in nursing and leaders of nursing male? Is there a nursing gender problem hiding in plain sight?
    Marion Lynch.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nepr.2026.104911
  43. Ann Coloproctol. 2026 Jun;42(3): 261-263
    Moving forward as a global journal: a farewell reflection from the Editor-in-Chief.
    In Ja Park.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3393/ac.2026.00850.0121
  44. Am Surg. 2026 Jun 30. 31348261466124
    Building the Conversation: Editorial Stewardship in Contemporary Surgical Publishing.
    Don K Nakayama.
      Academic publishing in surgery has undergone profound change during the past several decades. Expansion of medical schools, residency programs, international academic centers, and digital publishing platforms has produced unprecedented growth in manuscript submissions and intensified competition for professional attention. Journals are judged both by readership, as measured by article downloads, and by scientific influence, as reflected in scholarly citation. At The American Surgeon, these changes prompted development of editorial frameworks designed to identify contributions most likely to matter to practicing surgeons and subsequent investigators. Many manuscripts contained observations whose significance was underrecognized by their authors. This observation led to the Hidden Publishable Idea (HPI), a framework for identifying contributions most useful to readers. Once identified, the HPI often revealed methodological limitations that imposed an evidentiary ceiling, preventing definitive conclusions while suggesting new hypotheses for future investigation. Analysis of downloads and citations suggested that readership and scholarly adoption are related but distinct outcomes. This observation led to development of the CitDL matrix, a two-by-two framework based on high and low download and citation performance. The editorial objective was not simply manuscript acceptance, but identification and development of contributions that could move manuscripts toward greater readership, greater scholarly engagement, or both. These concepts represent adaptive responses to the contemporary challenge of helping useful ideas find their audience and contribute to the advancement of surgical practice and science.
    Keywords:  academic publishing; bibliometrics; editorial decision making; research dissemination; scholarly publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1177/00031348261466124
  45. Eur J Clin Invest. 2026 Jul;56(7): e70240
    Improving Scientific Research: Renegotiated Principles of Science, Proposals, Failures, and Successes.
    John P A Ioannidis.
      Science is a self-correcting process, and scientific research aims to improve adequacy, accuracy, and utility. However, improving scientific research is a demanding task, especially when currently some key principles of science are challenged and renegotiated. Key challenges in the current environment include the increasing loss of trust in scientists; the production of most of the published scientific literature in countries without full democracy and/or in countries without fundamental freedoms, e.g., freedom of the press; limited public availability and transparency as most research is funded by non-public sponsors that do not prioritize or even seek publication of results; and rapid developments on the frontier of artificial intelligence where non-human agents can supplement and/or replace human researchers. Concurrently, there have been many proposals on how to improve research. Among a plethora of suggestions and guidance, some may not be useful or may even be harmful, and most lack evidence. Revisiting some key proposals shows mixed track records of failures and successes. Examples are provided from efforts to enhance collaboration, team science, and large studies; replication culture; registration and open science; containment of conflicts of interest; and statistical, computational, and informatics improvements. The optimal stages to improve research (early and/or late in the scientific process) may be debated, and the role, function, and mode of optimal peer review are also under scrutiny. Eventually, science and scientific research are demanding, hard enterprises. Genuine progress requires openness, honesty, and selflessness.
    Keywords:  conflicts of interest; freedom; guidelines; peer review; registration; replication; scientific research; team science; transparency; trust in science
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1111/eci.70240
  46. Mol Cell Neurosci. 2026 Jul 01. pii: S1044-7431(26)00039-4. [Epub ahead of print] 104109
    Advancing molecular and cellular neuroscience: Vision and priorities from the new editor-in-chief.
    Bonnie L Firestein.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mcn.2026.104109
  47. Kardiol Pol. 2026 ;84(6): 709
    Polish Heart Journal improves its standing: a record Impact Factor of 4.4.
    Anetta Undas.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.33963/v.phj.113398
  48. Mol Cell Neurosci. 2026 Jul 01. pii: S1044-7431(26)00028-X. [Epub ahead of print] 104098
    Reflections from Mathias Bähr, PhD, Editor-in-Chief for Molecular and Cellular Neuroscience, 2017-2026.
    Mathias Bähr.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mcn.2026.104098
  49. Cell Struct Funct. 2026 ;51(1): i-vii
    Looking back on 50 years of cell biology in Japan.
    Michiyuki Matsuda.
      Cell Structure and Function (CSF), the official journal of the Japan Society for Cell Biology (JSCB), celebrates its 50th anniversary in 2025. This essay traces the scientific evolution of CSF from its founding in 1975 to the present, drawing on bibliometric data retrieved from OpenAlex at ten-year intervals. Over five decades, CSF published 1,737 articles, with the Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) showing a consistent upward trend, even as total output declined following the journal's shift to electronic publication in 2005. A decade-by-decade analysis of the five most-cited articles reveals a clear evolution in research themes: early issues were dominated by plant cell biology and methodological papers in microscopy and biochemistry, while subsequent decades saw increasing focus on autophagy, the unfolded protein response, and intracellular membrane trafficking-fields in which Japanese researchers have played globally recognized pioneering roles. The turn of the millennium marked a peak in absolute citations, with landmark papers on bafilomycin A1, SNARE proteins, and a review of autophagy co-authored by Nobel Prize laureate Yoshinori Ohsumi. Two major milestones-electronic publication in 2005 and gold open-access adoption in 2016-fundamentally transformed the journal's publishing model. Looking ahead, the essay considers the role of artificial intelligence in peer review, arguing that while AI can assist in assessing novelty and reproducibility, the judgment of a manuscript's scientific significance must remain a human responsibility. CSF remains committed to disseminating reliable, foundational cell biology to the international community.Key words: Cell Structure and Function (CSF), bibliometrics, open access, artificial intelligence in peer review.
    Keywords:  Cell Structure and Function (CSF); artificial intelligence in peer review; bibliometrics; open access
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1247/csf.26037
  50. Anal Chem. 2026 Jul 03.
    The ACS at 150: The History of Analytical Chemistry Publications and a Century of Progress.
    Jonathan V Sweedler.
      In 2026, the American Chemical Society (ACS) is celebrating the 150th anniversary of its founding. The Perspective presents a historical account of the growth of the field of analytical chemistry and the journal Analytical Chemistry, as seen through the lens of the ACS. Beginning with the early influence of analytical chemists on ACS publications, leading to the creation of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry Analytical Edition in 1929, readers can follow the evolution of analytical chemistry, the fourth journal published by the ACS. Since its first volume, through 2026, the journal has seen continuous growth. Highlighting the impact of our seven Editors on the journal, this Perspective provides insight into our changing discipline through discussion of the most cited papers published in the journal. In a few years, analytical chemistry will mark its 100th anniversary. It is exciting to speculate about what changes are in store for the journal in the era of AI-enabled science, scientific writing, and publishing.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.analchem.6c03198
This page is being maintained by Thomas Krichel. It was last updated on 2026‒07‒07 at 0:47.