bims-skolko Biomed News
on Scholarly communication
Issue of 2026–08–30
thirty-two papers selected by
Thomas Krichel, Open Library Society
  1. Self-rankings as a predictor of scientific impact beyond peer review.
  2. Changes in ethics and transparency reporting in dental journal articles between 2021 and 2025: a full-text cross-journal analysis.
  3. Cost of Article Processing Charges to Adhere to National Institutes of Health Public Access Policy.
  4. Public Access, Open Access, and the Need for NIH Governance.
  5. Amend copyright licences to halt AI misuse and reassert human control.
  6. A guide to securing your first research fellowship: what reviewers are looking for.
  7. Diamond Open Access publishing practices among researchers in Ghana.
  8. AI writing assistants shrink linguistic diversity and blur personal identity.
  9. What IDOJ Expects from its Authors in the Evolving Landscape of Use of Artificial Intelligence in Scientific Writing.
  10. Humanization of AI-generated abstracts in oral radiology: Role of chatbots and dedicated platforms.
  11. Stop paying predatory publishers of academic journals-A policy proposal to restore scientific integrity and transparency.
  12. Expression of concern to: Journal of Controlled Release 140 (2009) 148-156.
  13. Neuroscience Insights: Publishing Rigorous Work Through Fair Review Process.
  14. A Small Hope for Journals: Declaring Philosophy for Artificial Intelligence Use in Writing.
  15. AI-detection tools have made huge leaps forward - how good are they?
  16. Editorial: Top tips for getting published in Analytical Methods.
  17. The future of peer review requires AI support, not AI bans.
  18. Post publication peer review - VAR intervention in science!
  19. Navigating the use of artificial intelligence in the peer review process: Cautionary pearls from the editorial board.
  20. Is there a limit to limitations? A proposal for structured limitations reporting in scientific manuscripts.
  21. Generative artificial intelligence and scientific integrity in medical physics: opportunities, risks, and responsibilities in AI-assisted scientific writing and peer review.
  22. Tips for Writing a Successful Research Article.
  23. PubMed or Pushcart?: A Comparative Analysis of Publication Options for Medical Poetry and Prose.
  24. Getting your publication right - Part 2 - Structuring a research manuscript: A guide to writing a case report.
  25. Dealing with article rejection: Listen to the editor.
  26. Building the reviewer community: a Peer Review Week reflection.
  27. Enabling equitable open access to commercially funded research publications.
  28. Adherence to ethics reporting standards in locally accredited medical journals: a case study from a developing country.
  29. The 2026 Headache Editorial Board conflict of interest declarations.
  30. Artificial Intelligence in Scientific Writing - Our Editorial Position.
  31. A review issue - in a journal for all of emergency medicine, and only emergency medicine.
  32. From Publication to Scientific Communication: The Expanding Role of Social Media in the Future of TJAR.
  1. Nat Comput Sci. 2026 Aug 24.
    Self-rankings as a predictor of scientific impact beyond peer review.
    Buxin Su, Natalie Collina, Garrett Wen, Didong Li, Kyunghyun Cho, Jianqing Fan, Bingxin Zhao, Weijie Su.
      Peer review in academic research aims to ensure factual correctness and identify work of high scientific potential, but rapid submission growth has made this increasingly difficult. Here we investigate an additional measure for identifying high-impact research: authors' rankings of their own submissions to the same artificial intelligence (AI) conference. Grounded in game-theoretic reasoning, we hypothesize that self-rankings are informative because authors understand their work's conceptual depth and long-term promise. We tested this hypothesis in a large-scale experiment at a leading AI conference. Over more than a year, papers ranked highest by their authors received twice as many citations as their lowest-ranked counterparts, and self-rankings were especially effective at identifying highly cited papers. Self-rankings also outperformed peer-review scores in predicting future citation counts. These findings show that authors' self-rankings can complement peer review when identifying high-impact AI research.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/s43588-026-01039-0
  2. Front Oral Health. 2026 ;7 1901870
    Changes in ethics and transparency reporting in dental journal articles between 2021 and 2025: a full-text cross-journal analysis.
    Hadar Better, Thabet Asbi, Gavriel Chaushu, Keren Better, Doron Haim.
       Introduction: Explicit reporting of research ethics and transparency practices is increasingly emphasized in biomedical publishing, but whether recent changes have occurred uniformly across reporting domains remains unclear.
    Methods: We conducted a full-text, cross-journal text-mining study of 240 dental journal articles published in 2021 and 2025, with 20 articles per journal-year stratum across six established dental journals. Full text was screened for eight predefined markers: ethics approval, informed consent, conflict-of-interest disclosure, funding disclosure, data availability, trial registration, animal ethics, and AI/LLM disclosure. Automated detection was checked against single-reader manual coding of a 36-article sample (96.2% agreement). Prevalence was compared using Fisher exact tests. Reported percentages are corpus-level detection rates across all 120 articles per year, not compliance rates among the studies to which each marker applies.
    Results: Data availability showed by far the largest change, increasing from 4.2% to 47.5% (p < 0.001) and was the only marker with a statistically robust increase. Ethics approval (53.3% to 69.2%), funding disclosure (58.3% to 73.3%), and animal ethics (1.7% to 8.3%) showed smaller directional increases. Conflict-of-interest disclosure was near-universal in both years (95.8% and 97.5%). Informed consent and trial registration showed little change. AI/LLM disclosure was detected only in 2025 (0% to 4.2%). Mean detected markers per article increased from 2.73 to 3.55, and no 2025 article reported zero markers.
    Discussion: These findings indicate uneven changes in dental reporting, with the clearest gains in data availability statements and little change in ethics approval, consent, or trial registration.
    Keywords:  data availability; dental journals; research ethics; text mining; transparency reporting
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3389/froh.2026.1901870
  3. JAMA Intern Med. 2026 Aug 24.
    Cost of Article Processing Charges to Adhere to National Institutes of Health Public Access Policy.
    Ryan Huebinger, Marla Hertz, Ryan A Coute.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2026.3463
  4. JAMA Intern Med. 2026 Aug 24.
    Public Access, Open Access, and the Need for NIH Governance.
    Adam A Markovitz, Himali M Weerahandi, Audrey D Zhang, Timothy S Anderson.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2026.3468
  5. Nature. 2026 Aug;656(8129): 1070
    Amend copyright licences to halt AI misuse and reassert human control.
    Katie Seaborn, Daniel L Gardner, Katta Spiel.
      
    Keywords:  Intellectual-property rights; Law; Machine learning; Publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-026-02633-y
  6. Nature. 2026 Aug 25.
    A guide to securing your first research fellowship: what reviewers are looking for.
    Stefan Howorka, Christoph Salzmann.
      
    Keywords:  Careers; Chemistry; Funding; Institutions
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-026-02115-1
  7. PLoS One. 2026 ;21(8): e0356546
    Diamond Open Access publishing practices among researchers in Ghana.
    Dominic Dankwah Agyei, Philip Larry Anguah, Christopher Ayisah, George Clifford Yamson, Fred K Hayibor, Patrick Ngulube.
      The rise of Diamond Open Access (DOA) represents a major transformation in scholarly communication, redefining traditional systems of knowledge distribution. Diamond open access model has gained recognition as the most equitable and sustainable form of open access publishing. This study aimed to assess the awareness, perception and knowledge of DOA publishing practices among researchers in Ghana. A cross-sectional study design was used to conveniently collect data from 237 researchers across various institutions in Ghana. Data were collected using structured questionnaires Via Microsoft Forms and analysed using STATA version 17. Descriptive statistics, t-tests, ANOVA, factor analysis, Fisher's exact test and logistic regression were conducted to identify patterns and relationships in the data. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05 with a 95% confidence interval. Over half of the participants had no prior experience with Open Access (OA) publishing whilst about two-third of them had never heard of DOA. Only a small proportion could correctly identify the CC BY license, reflecting limited understanding of open licensing. Most of the respondents demonstrated poor knowledge of DOA, with many knowing about the concept through peers and informal networks. Knowledge of DOA was significantly associated with age, type of institution, current rank, and level of academic qualification. Perceived benefits of DOA, particularly regarding visibility and dissemination, differed significantly by current rank and academic qualification. The findings underscore the need for strong policy and institutional reforms to enhance awareness and adoption of DOA in Ghana. Universities and research institutions should develop clear OA and DOA policies, integrate open-access education into research training, and establish sustainable funding mechanisms to support equitable publishing. Strengthening library led advocacy, creating institutional repositories, and fostering national collaboration among academic bodies and policymakers are vital to promote transparency, inclusivity, and global visibility in scholarly communication.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0356546
  8. Nat Hum Behav. 2026 Aug 24.
    AI writing assistants shrink linguistic diversity and blur personal identity.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-026-02549-7
  9. Indian Dermatol Online J. 2026 Sep 01. 17(5): 625-626
    What IDOJ Expects from its Authors in the Evolving Landscape of Use of Artificial Intelligence in Scientific Writing.
    Dipankar De, Hitaishi Mehta.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.4103/idoj.idoj_951_26
  10. Braz Oral Res. 2026 ;pii: S1806-83242026000105401. [Epub ahead of print]40 e067
    Humanization of AI-generated abstracts in oral radiology: Role of chatbots and dedicated platforms.
    Caio Alencar-Palha, Thaís Ocampo, Thaísa Pinheiro Silva, Deborah Queiroz Freitas, Frederico Sampaio Neves, Matheus Lima Oliveira.
      The rise of generative artificial intelligence (AI) in scientific writing has prompted the development of platforms designed to "humanize" AI-generated text by rephrasing content to reduce its detectability as machine-generated. This study aimed to evaluate the performance of chatbots and dedicated platforms in humanizing AI-generated abstracts. Thirty high-impact scientific articles published in dentomaxillofacial radiology journals were selected. The Methodology and Results sections of each abstract were used to prompt two chatbots-ChatGPT and Gemini-to generate complete abstracts. These AI-generated abstracts were then humanized using the same chatbots along with two dedicated platforms: HumanizeAI and StealthWriter. The percentage of AI-generated content was determined for all abstracts (n = 330), including the original human-written abstracts, using GPTZero. AI detection rates were compared using two-way analysis of variance followed by Tukey's post hoc test (α = 0.05). The results showed that original abstracts and AI-generated abstracts humanized by HumanizeAI and StealthWriter exhibited significantly lower GPTZero detection rates (p < 0.05), whereas abstracts generated or humanized by chatbots showed significantly higher detection rates (p < 0.05). In conclusion, chatbot-generated scientific abstracts humanized by dedicated platforms exhibit low AI detection rates, whereas those humanized by chatbots exhibit considerably higher detection levels. Educators must prepare students with critical appraisal skills to identify AI-generated content and uphold academic integrity, ensuring that AI serves as a complementary tool rather than a means of misrepresentation.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1590/1807-3107bor-2026.vol40.067
  11. FEBS Lett. 2026 Aug 26.
    Stop paying predatory publishers of academic journals-A policy proposal to restore scientific integrity and transparency.
    Paul B Rainey, Kenneth N Timmis, Paul A Williams, Zeynep Ceren Karahan, Purificación López-García, Max Chavarria, Chris Greening, Karen Steward, Cristina Silva Pereira, Rafael Giraldo, Willy Verstraete, Stipan Jonjić, Juan Luis Ramos, Olga Nunes, Antonio Ventosa, Rachel Armstrong, Angela Sessitsch, Eliora Ron, Hui Wang, Michael E Hochberg, Brandon Berryhill, Bruce R Levin.
      Scientific publishing is undergoing a systemic breakdown. Thousands of journals now collect article processing charges (APCs)-increasingly paid from public research funds-while providing minimal editorial oversight. This erodes standards, distorts incentives and threatens public trust in science. APC payments to six major publishers exceeded 8 billion dollars between 2019 and 2023, with almost no transparency over how these fees are set or spent. This cannot continue. We propose that public and institutional funds support journals-whether through APCs, subscriptions or bundled agreements-only where they are accredited against a transparent, enforceable quality standard. Implemented in stages and led by funding bodies and learned societies, such accreditation would narrow the space in which predatory journals operate without resorting to blacklists.
    Keywords:  Article processing charges; Journal accreditation; Open access policy; Predatory publishing; Research integrity
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1002/1873-3468.70451
  12. J Control Release. 2026 08 10. pii: S0168-3659(26)00516-X. [Epub ahead of print]396 115113
    Expression of concern to: Journal of Controlled Release 140 (2009) 148-156.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jconrel.2026.115113
  13. Neurosci Insights. 2026 ;21 26331055261481948
    Neuroscience Insights: Publishing Rigorous Work Through Fair Review Process.
    Michel Cayouette.
      This editorial marks the beginning of my tenure as Editor-in-Chief of Neuroscience Insights. The journal's founding aims of publishing rigorous, mechanistically grounded research spanning the nervous system from molecule to behavior remain unchanged. But as the incoming Editor-in-Chief, I am committed to changing how we support authors in reaching publication: a peer-review process built to distinguish genuinely necessary revisions from optional ones. We also intend to strengthen our presence in cellular and molecular neuroscience.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1177/26331055261481948
  14. J Eval Clin Pract. 2026 Aug;32(5): e70574
    A Small Hope for Journals: Declaring Philosophy for Artificial Intelligence Use in Writing.
    Shigeki Matsubara.
      
    Keywords:  artificial intelligence; journal; philosophy; regulation
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1111/jep.70574
  15. Nature. 2026 Aug;656(8129): 808-811
    AI-detection tools have made huge leaps forward - how good are they?
    Miryam Naddaf, Richard Van Noorden.
      
    Keywords:  Computer science; Machine learning; Peer review; Publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-026-02569-3
  16. Anal Methods. 2026 Aug 24.
    Editorial: Top tips for getting published in Analytical Methods.
      Our editors share their best advice for preparing your submission to Analytical Methods. Drawing on their collective experience and the issues they most often encounter in manuscripts, their top tips offer clear, practical guidance to support you. This advice reflects the editors' commitment to helping you strengthen your work and ensure your manuscript communicates its contribution to the field with clarity, rigour and confidence.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1039/d6ay90104b
  17. Nature. 2026 Aug;656(8129): 1070
    The future of peer review requires AI support, not AI bans.
    Xuegong Zhang.
      
    Keywords:  Machine learning; Peer review; Scientific community
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-026-02631-0
  18. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent. 2026 Jul 01. 44(4): 357-358
    Post publication peer review - VAR intervention in science!
    Sharath Asokan.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.4103/jisppd.jisppd_421_26
  19. Neurosurg Rev. 2026 08 24. pii: 535. [Epub ahead of print]49(1):
    Navigating the use of artificial intelligence in the peer review process: Cautionary pearls from the editorial board.
    Keng Siang Lee, Brian T Jankowitz, Christopher Hong, Joacir Graciolli Cordeiro, Osvaldo Vilela-Filho, Daniel M Prevedello, Isaac Yang.
      Peer review remains a cornerstone of academic publishing, underpinning the integrity and credibility of the scientific literature. High-quality peer review is both a human art and a learned skill, requiring an understanding of study design, critical appraisal and subject-specific expertise. However, the rapid expansion of scientific publishing has placed increasing strain on the peer review ecosystem, contributing to reviewer fatigue, delays, and variability in review quality. Recent advances in artificial intelligence (AI) offer potential opportunities to enhance the efficiency and consistency of peer review, but their integration into editorial workflows requires careful consideration. In this editorial, we explore the evolving role of peer review, the challenges facing the current ecosystem, and the potential - yet constrained - role of AI, from the perspective of the Editorial Board of Neurosurgical Review.
    Keywords:  Artificial intelligence; Ethics; Neurosurgery; Peer review; Research methodology; Systematic review
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10143-026-04462-z
  20. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2026 Aug 28. pii: 193. [Epub ahead of print]26(1):
    Is there a limit to limitations? A proposal for structured limitations reporting in scientific manuscripts.
    Christos G Tsagkaris, Irem Sevik.
      Reporting studies limitations is essential for transparent interpretation. While reporting guidelines such as CONSORT, STROBE, PRISMA mandate disclosure of limitations, no widely adopted framework standardizes how these are reported in a structured and comparable format. In practice, limitations sections often extend over several paragraphs reiterating predictable design-related constraints. This limits comparability, contributes to inefficiency and may overshadow genuine study-specific considerations. We propose a semi-structured checklist combining standardized limitation domains with a concise narrative component. This approach aims to ensure minimum systematic disclosure while preserving critical interpretation. Structured reporting may improve clarity, comparability, and enable meta-research on limitations across studies. Consensus-based refinement and pilot implementation are warranted to evaluate feasibility and impact.
    Keywords:  Evidence-based medicine; Integrity; Limitations; Scientific writing; Tools; Transparency
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-026-02992-0
  21. Phys Med. 2026 Aug 27. pii: S1120-1797(26)00202-4. [Epub ahead of print] 105915
    Generative artificial intelligence and scientific integrity in medical physics: opportunities, risks, and responsibilities in AI-assisted scientific writing and peer review.
    Iuliana Toma-Dasu, Claudio Fiorino.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejmp.2026.105915
  22. J Clin Lipidol. 2026 Aug;pii: S1933-2874(26)00468-X. [Epub ahead of print]20(8): 1549-1551
    Tips for Writing a Successful Research Article.
    P Barton Duell, Anne C Goldberg.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacl.2026.07.039
  23. J Med Humanit. 2026 Aug 26.
    PubMed or Pushcart?: A Comparative Analysis of Publication Options for Medical Poetry and Prose.
    Ellie Rose Mattoon, Margaret S Chisolm.
      Short prose and poetry with medical themes can either be published in literary magazines or in the creative sections of academic medical journals, but little has been done to outline the differences between these two outlets. In this preliminary study, we examine the submission, editorial, and distribution processes of 10 popular literary magazines and 10 medical journals with creative sections. While literary magazines unanimously encourage authors to submit manuscripts simultaneously to multiple journals due to long response times and low acceptance rates, medical journals require authors to submit their pieces to a single journal at a time. In turn, medical journals advertise shorter response times and higher acceptance rates compared to their literary counterparts. In addition, literary magazines are more likely to identify the editors or readers who contribute to acceptance decisions, while medical journals operate under peer review and oftentimes keep reviewers anonymous. Little clarity exists about how medical journals tailor peer-review guidelines to evaluate creative submissions in contrast to original research. Given the calls for greater integration of the arts and humanities into medicine, understanding the differences between literary and academic medical publishing is crucial to authors whose work rests at the intersection of these two fields.
    Keywords:  Academic publishing; Editorial practices; Literary magazines; Literary publishing; Medical humanities; Medical journals; Narrative medicine; Peer review; Scholarly communication
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10912-026-10056-z
  24. J Conserv Dent Endod. 2026 Aug;29(8): 798-812
    Getting your publication right - Part 2 - Structuring a research manuscript: A guide to writing a case report.
    Aditya Mitra, R S Mohan Kumar, Shishir Singh, Velmurugan Natanasabapathy, Col Sonali Sharma, Geeta Asthana, Sonali Taneja, Suparna Ganguly Saha.
       Background: Case reports serve as a crucial medium for documenting rare presentations, novel diagnostic approaches, innovative treatment protocols, and unexpected outcomes encountered in routine practice. Due to a lack of structure and guidelines, published case reports suffered from variability and reliability. With the evolution of CARE (CAse REport) guidelines, medical reporting became more structured.
    Objective: This paper aims to present a systematic and well-defined roadmap to facilitate the preparation of clinical dental case reports, structured on the framework of the CARE guidelines.
    Methods: A comprehensive literature review of case report methodology, the evolution of clinical documentation, and the CARE reporting guidelines was conducted in peer-reviewed sources and reporting guideline repositories. The information was then presented in a narrative form to provide the reader with information on how reporting guidance can be utilized.
    Results: The CARE checklist is a simple framework with reporting features that, in addition to being straightforward, enhance transparency, clinical interpretability, and relevance. This writing approach chronologically chronicles from the title, abstract, to patient perspective and consent, allows the authors to present diagnostic reasoning, interventions, and outcomes in an ethical, educational manner that reviewers can appraise.
    Conclusion: When systematically constructed while adhering to ethical standards, dental case reports can be a valuable form of clinical evidence. Case reports can rationalize need-based and individual case-specific decision-making, when evidence is limited and can draw attention to observations that merit scope for future research. The guidelines outlined here are aimed at assisting authors to prepare comprehensive and publication-ready dental case reports in accordance with the CARE guidelines.
    Keywords:  CARE guidelines; case report; clinical documentation; dental publication; evidence-based dentistry
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.4103/JCDE.JCDE_635_26
  25. Women Health. 2026 Apr-Jun;66(4-5):66(4-5): 259-261
    Dealing with article rejection: Listen to the editor.
    Márcia Mendonça Carneiro.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1080/03630242.2026.2722450
  26. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2026 Sep 01. 264(9): 1102
    Building the reviewer community: a Peer Review Week reflection.
    Sarah E Wright.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.2460/javma.264.9.1102
  27. PLoS Med. 2026 Aug;23(8): e1005207
    Enabling equitable open access to commercially funded research publications.
    Anja Schmidt, Christopher C Winchester, Catherine Skobe, Diane R Stothard, Eric Topol.
      Pharmaceutical companies fund much biomedical research, yet many journals restrict open access publishing options for peer-reviewed articles reporting commercially funded research. Expanded publishing options, such as funder-neutral publishing policies, will help address this inequity.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1005207
  28. Libyan J Med. 2026 Dec 31. 21(1): 2698880
    Adherence to ethics reporting standards in locally accredited medical journals: a case study from a developing country.
    Amin Bredan.
      To contribute to local government efforts to regulate scholarly journals in Libya, this study was undertaken to evaluate the reporting of ethics approval and participant consent in Libyan medical journals accredited for faculty promotion. A total of 752 articles involving human research, published between 2021 and 2025 in eleven accredited Libyan medical journals, were examined for the presence of documented ethics approval and participant consent. Four of eleven journals had clear policies requiring reporting of both criteria. Overall, 18.1% of articles reported ethics approval together with consent, 12.4% reported only approval, 20.5% reported only consent, and 49.1% reported neither. Chi-square analysis showed a significant difference in reporting patterns across the journal quartiles (χ2(9) = 31.9, p < 0.001). Journals in lower locally-assigned quartiles were significantly less likely to report ethics approval, while consent reporting did not differ by quartile. Prospective studies had the highest full compliance rate (23.8%) and case reports the lowest (2.5%), and in the most compliant journal, 65.4% of prospective studies were fully compliant. In one journal, no articles were fully compliant. In conclusion, a large fraction of articles in Libyan accredited journals lacks documentation of ethics approval and participant consent, in contradiction to the journals' stated policies. The Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research is called on to enforce reporting standards in the journals it has accredited for faculty promotion.
    Keywords:  Ethics approval; Libya; informed consent; journal accreditation; medical journals; publication ethics
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1080/19932820.2026.2698880
  29. Headache. 2026 Aug 25.
    The 2026 Headache Editorial Board conflict of interest declarations.
    Jenn Vallimont.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1111/head.70204
  30. JTO Clin Res Rep. 2026 Aug;7(8): 101035
    Artificial Intelligence in Scientific Writing - Our Editorial Position.
    Emily Stone, Alex A Adjei.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtocrr.2026.101035
  31. Eur J Emerg Med. 2026 Oct 01. 33(5): 295-296
    A review issue - in a journal for all of emergency medicine, and only emergency medicine.
    Yonathan Freund.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1097/MEJ.0000000000001368
  32. Turk J Anaesthesiol Reanim. 2026 Aug 28. 54(4): 233-235
    From Publication to Scientific Communication: The Expanding Role of Social Media in the Future of TJAR.
    Burhan Dost, Ceyda Özhan Çaparlar, Zekeriyya Alanoğlu.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.4274/TJAR.2026.262806
This page is being maintained by Thomas Krichel. It was last updated on 2026‒09‒01 at 8:12.