bims-skolko Biomed News
on Scholarly communication
Issue of 2026–10–18
37 papers selected by
Thomas Krichel, Open Library Society
  1. ArXiv versus AI slop: will capping preprint submissions work?
  2.  Open Science in Spain: Influence of Personal and Contextual Factors on Deposit Patterns.
  3. The Open Access Paradox of Unfunded Authorship in Dermatology.
  4. Suspected distortion of citations in high-impact cancer journals.
  5. When promotion becomes a bounty on publications: how academic reward systems shape publication behavior, with lessons from Nepal.
  6. Inundated AI conferences impose submissions caps.
  7. Manuscript peer review lacks an empirically derived definition: a scoping review of 139 sources identifies 37 characteristics.
  8. An ethical analysis of student-faculty co‑authorships in manuscripts derived from PhD dissertations.
  9. Reply to Gorelick and Kunst: Paying reviewers will increase publication costs and could exacerbate inequities.
  10. Compensate peer reviewers; do not conscript them.
  11. Twelve voices from China: On publishing, community, and how the field of genomics is developing.
  12. Petition style changes with AI writing support but outcomes do not improve.
  13. Confidence without consensus? Human versus AI abstracts in urology.
  14. Generative AI and Scientific Publishing: Preserving Accountability, Trust, and Governance.
  15. Walking the Middle Path : Problem, Policy, and Adaptation to Generative-AI in Academic Publishing.
  16. Comparison of DeepSeek AI and Human Reviewers in Structured Evaluation of Neurosurgical Manuscripts: A Pilot Study.
  17. Organizing ourselves for a conscious use of artificial intelligence in scientific publications: human responsibility as guiding principle.
  18. Assuring Data Authenticity in the Age of Generative AI.
  19. Preserve research data for tomorrow's AI-enabled integrity checks.
  20. Ten simple rules for developing a reporting appraisal tool.
  21. Guidelines to writing a review paper for the journal of environmental radioactivity.
  22. Fatal Flaw or Fixable? Common Methodological Issues in Manuscript Preparation and Review.
  23. How to Prepare an Effective Scholarly Abstract.
  24. Informed Consent for the Publication of Case Reports of Deceased Subjects in Medicolegal Journals: A Comparative Review of Editorial Policies and a Proposal.
  25. Not all prolific letter writers are alike.
  26. Publishing with Anti-Cancer Drugs: what authors should know.
  27. How to write (and review) a Genome Report.
  28. From paper to practice: What AJPC owes its readers.
  29. A changing of the guard, continuity of purpose: the enduring importance of case reports at the Journal of Medical Case Reports.
  30. Business model, pricing, and transparency in neurosurgery and neurology journals.
  31. Imaging Neuroscience: The First Three Years-Editorial.
  32. Reflections on AI use declarations in JME manuscripts.
  33. Raising the bar: updated study design and statistics guidelines for the Journal of Veterinary Internal Medicine.
  34. Public Science and Interpersonal Violence.
  35. No journal is an island.
  36. Supplement to the International Journal of Paleopathology. Abstracts for contributions presented at the Paleopathology Association meetings in 2024 and 2025.
  37. 25th EPJE anniversary: vision piece on EPJE role today and tomorrow.
  1. Nature. 2026 Oct 15.
    ArXiv versus AI slop: will capping preprint submissions work?
    Dalmeet Singh Chawla.
      
    Keywords:  Ethics; Machine learning; Publishing; Scientific community
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-026-03194-w
  2. F1000Res. 2025 ;14 212
     Open Science in Spain: Influence of Personal and Contextual Factors on Deposit Patterns.
    Daniel de Gracia Palomera.
       Background: This study investigates factors influencing the deposit of academic publications and research data in open access repositories by Spanish researchers.
    Methods: Using survey data from a sample of Spanish academics, the research examines the impact of personal attributes (e.g., gender, age, knowledge of open science) and contextual variables (e.g., academic discipline, institutional type) on deposit behaviours. Quantitative methods, including chi-square tests and regression analysis, reveal significant associations between knowledge of open science and deposit practices.
    Results: Researchers familiar with open science principles were more likely to deposit multiple versions of articles and datasets, albeit with varying intensity. Key findings highlight disciplinary and institutional differences: researchers in Life Sciences and Experimental Sciences showed higher engagement with both article and data deposits, whereas Health Sciences lagged. Gender differences were also observed, with male researchers depositing articles and datasets more frequently than their female counterparts, though age showed limited impact. Public institutions exhibited lower data deposit rates despite mandates supporting open access.
    Conclusions: The study underscores the need for tailored policies, including awareness campaigns, infrastructure investment, and discipline-specific strategies, to promote equitable and widespread adoption of open science practices. Findings contribute to understanding open science implementation, emphasizing the interplay of individual, institutional, and systemic factors.
    Keywords:  Academic Repositories; Data Sharing; Deposit Practices; Institutional Policies. ; Open Science
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.160207.2
  3. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2026 Oct 10. pii: S0190-9622(26)03731-X. [Epub ahead of print]
    The Open Access Paradox of Unfunded Authorship in Dermatology.
    İsmail Hakkı Ünal, Jane M Grant-Kels.
      
    Keywords:  article processing charges; authorship; dermatology; ethics; medical ethics; open access publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaad.2026.10.016
  4. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2026 Oct 20. 123(42): e2618402123
    Suspected distortion of citations in high-impact cancer journals.
    Baptiste Scancar, Jennifer A Byrne, David Causeur, Adrian G Barnett.
      Research and scholarship are shaped by article citations, which underpin the communication of ideas, assignment of credit, journal impact factors, and author career progression. Given their key influence on author and journal metrics, citations can be intentionally manipulated to inflate the reputation of journals and researchers. Paper mills, unethical organizations that produce and sell manuscripts and publishing services, may also be manipulating citations, but the extent of this manipulation is unknown. Here, we show that molecular cancer articles sharing features with retracted papers from paper mills display citation patterns that suggest systematic inflation. These articles were published in journals in the top decile of journal rankings. Suspected paper mill articles received 50 to 100% more citations than other papers 1 to 3 y after publication, while paradoxically attracting fewer readers and online accesses. Suspected paper mill articles also cited-and were cited by-other suspected paper mill articles, which frequently appeared in journals previously reported as paper mill targets. Citations from suspected paper mill articles measurably inflated journal citation metrics. These findings suggest that paper mills inflate the citation metrics of supported publications and affected journals at scale. This widespread manipulation of citation metrics may amplify unreliable findings, slowing scientific progress and spurring unreasonable citation benchmarks for research articles, journals, and authors. Our findings point to measurable signatures of citation manipulation that could support article- and journal-level screening.
    Keywords:  citation manipulation; journal metrics; molecular oncology; paper mills
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2618402123
  5. Ann Med Surg (Lond). 2026 Oct;88(10): 6380-6383
    When promotion becomes a bounty on publications: how academic reward systems shape publication behavior, with lessons from Nepal.
    Naveen Gautam.
      The criteria institutions use to appoint and promote academics shape how science is produced. Where advancement is tied tightly to publication counts, researchers respond rationally to the incentive, and publication behavior shifts toward volume. This article uses the faculty-promotion regulations of Tribhuvan University, Nepal's largest higher education institution, as a worked example of how publication-weighted criteria may reward output over scientific merit. The framework allocates the majority of open-competition marks to research publications, sets minimum article counts for promotion, fractionates credit by authorship position, and scores articles by journal tier. Such a structure illustrates a problem common across many low- and middle-income academic systems: it can encourage fragmented, lower-quality output, penalize collaborative authorship, and use journal-based metrics as surrogates for individual article quality, contrary to the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment. The institution's existing anti-plagiarism and anti-predatory safeguards show that meaningful reform is achievable. Drawing on DORA, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors authorship criteria, and Committee on Publication Ethics guidance, the article argues for a phased shift toward portfolio-based assessment that rewards the quality, integrity, and relevance of scholarship rather than the counting of papers.
    Keywords:  DORA; academic reward systems; bibliometrics; low- and middle-income countries; publication ethics; research assessment
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1097/MS9.0000000000005602
  6. Nature. 2026 Oct 13.
    Inundated AI conferences impose submissions caps.
    Dalmeet Singh Chawla.
      
    Keywords:  Authorship; Peer review; Publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-026-03153-5
  7. J Clin Epidemiol. 2026 Oct 12. pii: S0895-4356(26)00426-9. [Epub ahead of print] 112550
    Manuscript peer review lacks an empirically derived definition: a scoping review of 139 sources identifies 37 characteristics.
    Mehvish Masood, Ka Hin Tai, Julia Soto Rizzato, Janice Tufte, Michael Mittelman, Christine Von Raesfeld, Jessie McGowan, Alexandra Bodnaruc, Isabelle Boutron, Jocalyn Clark, Martin Offringa, Ludo Waltman, David Moher.
       OBJECTIVE: To summarize empirical definitions and characteristics of manuscript peer review in the literature.
    STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Scoping review conducted according to JBI methodology. We searched eight bibliographic databases and 76 grey-literature sources for English-language publications from 1986 onward addressing manuscript peer review in biomedical and health sciences, social sciences, economics, and healthcare-aligned industries. Title/abstract and full-text screening, empirical-source identification, and study-characteristic extraction were supported by an artificial intelligence-enabled workflow with human verification. Extracted empirically derived definitions and characteristics were coded, deduplicated, and thematically synthesized..
    RESULTS: Of 4,181 eligible sources, 139 reported findings informed by empirical studies. All 139 sources described one or more characteristics of manuscript peer review, but only one provided an empirically derived definition. We identified 37 unique characteristics, organized into six themes: function, motivation, process, assessment, characteristics, and shortcomings. The findings show that manuscript peer review is commonly described in terms of evaluating research quality and reporting, supporting editorial decision-making and manuscript improvement, and involving expectations of constructive, timely, professional, critical, principled, and confidential review. Empirical sources also identified substantial limitations, including inconsistent standards, unregulated discretion, limited impact on reporting quality, delays, reviewer shortages and workload, weak incentives, power imbalances, ethical concerns, and bias.
    CONCLUSIONS: This analysis identified a set of potential characteristics of manuscript peer review from empirical sources. These characteristics will be presented to Delphi study participants to support the development of a consensus definition of peer review. Achieving consensus in this area is expected to improve conceptual clarity, facilitate more consistent evaluation and comparison of peer review across fields, and inform future efforts to strengthen transparency and reform in scholarly publishing.
    PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: Peer review is the process in which people with relevant expertise assess a scholarly manuscript before, or sometimes after, it is published. It is intended to help editors decide whether a manuscript is suitable for publication and to help authors improve their work. Peer review is widely used across scholarly publishing, including research relevant to health care, but there is no single internationally accepted definition of what manuscript peer review is. We conducted a scoping review to identify how manuscript peer review has been defined and described in published research. A scoping review maps the available evidence on a topic rather than assessing whether one approach is better than another. We searched eight research databases and 76 grey-literature sources, such as websites and preprint platforms. We included English-language sources published from 1986 onwards that described manuscript peer review in biomedical and health sciences, social sciences, economics, and healthcare-related industries. We identified 4,181 sources that described peer review. Of these, 139 contained information based on empirical research, meaning that the information came from a study, review, or other formal investigation. Only one empirical study provided a formal definition of peer review. However, the studies identified 37 characteristics of the process. These were grouped into six areas: the purpose of peer review; reasons people participate; how the process is organized; what reviewers assess; features that characterize peer review; and problems or limitations of current peer-review practices. Our findings show that peer review is commonly described as a way to assess aspects of a manuscript such as its methods, reporting, relevance, and overall quality. At the same time, the literature describes important challenges, including inconsistent processes, potential bias, limited transparency, reviewer workload, and uncertainty about how well peer review achieves its intended goals. These findings will inform a future international consensus process involving people with different perspectives, including researchers, journal editors, statisticians, funders, policymakers, and patients and members of the public. The goal is to develop a clearer and more widely accepted definition of manuscript peer review. Such a definition could make peer review easier to study, compare, evaluate, and improve across scholarly publishing.
    Keywords:  peer review; research; scholarly publishing; scoping review
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2026.112550
  8. Account Res. 2026 Oct 13. 2747675
    An ethical analysis of student-faculty co‑authorships in manuscripts derived from PhD dissertations.
    Hamed Bikaraan-Behesht, Keyvan Alasti, Mohammad Hosseini.
      A key ethical concern in PhD student-faculty (supervisee-supervisor) relationships is whether supervisors should be listed as co-authors on publications derived from dissertations. Some supervisors who engage in the research/revision of the dissertation and actively provide feedback might consider co-authorship as a fair recognition of their contributions. However, others might be less hands-on and yet, expect to be listed as co-authors. This issue is not directly addressed in authorship guidelines and codes of conduct. In this paper, we draw on the tasks that PhD supervisors should take on in dissertation work to explore the question: Under what circumstances can PhD supervisors be co-authors of manuscripts derived from dissertations? We argue that, although no universal criterion applies to all disciplines/contexts, from an ethical perspective, PhD supervisors can be co-authors only if they have made a meaningful contribution to dissertation work without undermining a supervisee's scholarly independence. Meaningful contribution could be based on active participation in conducting research or revising the dissertation text, but cannot be solely offered for guidance, commentary or general supervision. Independence could be defined differently depending on the dissertation type or context. Given the power imbalance between supervisors and supervisees, departments should provide guidance about these co-authorships.
    Keywords:  PhD dissertation; authorship; mentorship; publication ethics; research integrity
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2026.2747675
  9. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2026 Oct 27. 123(43): e2628160123
    Reply to Gorelick and Kunst: Paying reviewers will increase publication costs and could exacerbate inequities.
    Angela Moles, Stephen Bonser, Nigel Andrew, Daniel Falster, Russell Bonduriansky.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2628160123
  10. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2026 Oct 27. 123(43): e2619714123
    Compensate peer reviewers; do not conscript them.
    Daniel A Gorelick, Jonas Kunst.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2619714123
  11. Cell Genom. 2026 Oct 14. pii: S2666-979X(26)00255-7. [Epub ahead of print]6(10): 101393
    Twelve voices from China: On publishing, community, and how the field of genomics is developing.
    Jian Yang, Yong Zhang, Siyang Liu, Yan Zheng, Gangqiao Zhou, Shu-Jin Luo, Hongxia Ma, Chaoyang Sun, Kai Ye, Y M Dennis Lo, Xiaoyue Wang, Lei Wang.
      To mark 5 years of Cell Genomics, we asked authors across China to reflect on their research and the field of genomics. Together, these voices reflect on their findings, publishing, belonging to a community, and what shape the field's next 5 years should take.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.xgen.2026.101393
  12. Nat Hum Behav. 2026 Oct 14.
    Petition style changes with AI writing support but outcomes do not improve.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-026-02579-1
  13. World J Urol. 2026 Oct 16. pii: 751. [Epub ahead of print]44(1):
    Confidence without consensus? Human versus AI abstracts in urology.
    Sholem Hack, Shlomo Resnik, Yoram Dekel, Shlomi Moshe, Daniel Noy, Mohammad Shalabi, Ari Frajewicki, Omri Zonenfeld, Sobhi Khoury, Israel Benzekry, Yazeed Barghouthy, Maharan Kabha.
       OBJECTIVE: This study asked whether urologists can tell human-written abstracts apart from artificial intelligence (AI)-written abstracts when both describe the same study, and whether the answer depends on which AI model did the writing.
    METHODS: Fifteen published urology studies were selected. For each study, the original human-written abstract was paired with three AI-written abstracts covering the same material, produced by Claude Sonnet 4.6, GPT-5.5, and Gemini 3 Flash using identical instructions and each model's ordinary consumer settings. Because all four versions described the same study, the underlying data were held constant, and the versions differed in how that material was written and presented. The resulting 60 abstracts were stripped of identifying information, and eight urologists read all of them without knowing which was which (480 judgments in total). For each abstract, reviewers stated whether they believed it was written by a human or by AI, rated how confident they were in that judgment, and rated the abstract's quality and credibility on 5-point scales.
    RESULTS: Reviewers correctly identified AI-written abstracts 49.3% of the time, approximately 50%, compared with 62.4% for human-written abstracts (p = .011). Results depended heavily on which model wrote the text (p = .003). Abstracts written by Claude were recognized as AI only 40.0% of the time, significantly less often than human abstracts were correctly identified (p = .003) and less often than GPT abstracts (56.8%, p = .038); Gemini fell between the two at 50.9%. Quality ratings differed only for GPT, which scored lower than human abstracts (p = .046; omnibus p = .030); credibility ratings did not differ between sources at all (p = .577). Reviewers who felt confident were no more likely to be correct (p = .749), and reviewers seldom agreed with one another about which abstracts were AI-written (Fleiss' κ = -0.009).
    CONCLUSION: Urologists could not reliably recognize AI-written urology abstracts, and the difficulty came mainly from one model rather than from AI writing in general. How good an abstract appeared had little to do with whether its authorship was correctly identified, and neither reviewer confidence nor agreement between reviewers gave any warning. Reading alone is therefore not a dependable way to detect undisclosed AI authorship.
    Keywords:  Abstract quality; Authorship detection; Large language models; Peer review; Scientific publishing; Urology
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-026-06872-6
  14. Anesthesiology. 2026 Nov 01. 145(5): 1090-1092
    Generative AI and Scientific Publishing: Preserving Accountability, Trust, and Governance.
    Yandong Jiang, James P Rathmell.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1097/ALN.0000000000006268
  15. J Bioeth Inq. 2026 Oct 12.
    Walking the Middle Path : Problem, Policy, and Adaptation to Generative-AI in Academic Publishing.
    Liam C Kelly, Anna Istratoaie, Lachlan J Dowling, Sarah A Ward.
      The arrival of publicly-accessible generative-AI tools, such as OpenAI's ChatGPT, has significantly disrupted standard practice in education, research, and publishing. Academic publishers and journals, in particular, have responded by adopting policies which reflect both how they perceive the problems that generative-AI tools pose, and what kinds of solutions address these issues while remaining consistent with key scholarly values: integrity, transparency, and the primacy of human authorship. This article surveys the current state of generative-AI in academic publishing-including relevant policies at the publisher and journal-level-in anticipation of the JBI's forthcoming policies concerning generative-AI disclosure in manuscript submission and peer-review. Mirroring the emerging policy consensus concerning generative-AI use in academic publishing, this paper proposes that 'AI-disclosure statements' constitute an adaptive 'middle path' between prohibition and unrestricted permissiveness. Beyond this, though, we argue that AI-disclosure statements are valuable for their potential to codify desirable norms governing generative-AI use in publishing, and so to subtly influence the underlying 'academic form of life' for the better. We conclude by discussing one possible outcome of this influence, suggesting that it may represent a solution to problems raised by recent criticism of AI-disclosure statements.
    Keywords:  Artificial intelligence; Bioethics; Disclosure; Higher education; Publishing; Transparency
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-025-10530-8
  16. J Neurol Surg Rep. 2026 Oct;87(4): e192-e201
    Comparison of DeepSeek AI and Human Reviewers in Structured Evaluation of Neurosurgical Manuscripts: A Pilot Study.
    Kishore Balasubramanian, Daniel O'Connor, Beste Gülsuna, Visish M Srinivasan, Daniel A Donoho, Nicholas Sader, Christopher S Graffeo.
      Objectives Increasing manuscript volume has strained peer review, prompting interest in artificial intelligence (AI) as a supportive tool. We evaluated DeepSeek R1 as a structured peer reviewer of neurosurgical case-based manuscripts and compared its scoring patterns with those of an experienced editor and student reviewers. Design Exploratory, cross-sectional comparative study using a convenience sample of consecutively submitted manuscripts. Setting Single skull-base neurosurgical journal during a 6-month submission window (January-June 2025). Participants Three reviewer groups independently assessed 11 de-identified, unpublished neurosurgical manuscripts: first-year medical students ( n = 154; each randomly assigned one manuscript after a course in biostatistics, epidemiology, and critical appraisal), the journal's Editor-in-Chief (Experienced Reviewer), and DeepSeek R1. Main Outcome Measures Each manuscript was rated on a 3-point Likert scale (1 = low, 2 = intermediate, 3 = high) across five domains: Study Objective, Novelty, Study Design, Thoroughness, and Clarity. Results Significant between-group differences were found in four of five domains: Study Objective ( H = 8.31, p = 0.02), Novelty ( H = 9.74, p = 0.008), Thoroughness ( H = 10.49, p = 0.005), and Clarity ( H = 8.13, p = 0.02); Study Design did not differ ( H = 1.45, p = 0.483). DeepSeek scored significantly higher than the Experienced Reviewer for Study Objective ( p = 0.015) and higher than both human groups for Novelty. Conclusions DeepSeek showed consistency in structured domains but systematically inflated subjective ratings, particularly Novelty. A human-in-the-loop model integrating AI efficiency with expert judgment may optimize peer review.
    Keywords:  DeepSeek; artificial intelligence; large language model; neurosurgery; peer review
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2964-9336
  17. Rev Peru Med Exp Salud Publica. 2026 Aug 31. 43(3): 296-297
    Organizing ourselves for a conscious use of artificial intelligence in scientific publications: human responsibility as guiding principle.
    Lely Solari.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.17843/rpmesp.2026.433.17075
  18. J Law Med Ethics. 2026 ;54(3): 420-422
    Assuring Data Authenticity in the Age of Generative AI.
    Jeff J H Kim, Mohammad Hosseini, Haavi Morreim, C K Gunsalus, David B Resnik.
      This commentary examines the challenges that generative artificial intelligence poses to the authenticity and integrity of scientific data. It proposes data-attestation requirements to strengthen accountability, preserve access to original research records, and help journals and institutions distinguish authentic evidence from synthetic or fabricated data.
    Keywords:  Data Authenticity; Data Provenance; Generative AI; Research Integrity; Research Misconduct
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1017/jme.2026.10268
  19. Nature. 2026 Oct;658(8136): 834
    Preserve research data for tomorrow's AI-enabled integrity checks.
    Qingde Shi, Jinlei Nie, Zhaowei Kong.
      
    Keywords:  Machine learning; Publishing; Research data; Research management
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-026-03244-3
  20. PLoS Comput Biol. 2026 Oct;22(10): e1014841
    Ten simple rules for developing a reporting appraisal tool.
    Kyle Morrison, Malgorzata Lagisz.
      In an ideal world, authors would report clearly and transparently exactly what they conducted. In reality, reporting is often incomplete, and key elements of research conduct are frequently missing from manuscripts. Reporting guidelines were developed to address this problem by helping authors identify what should be reported. These guidelines have been highly valuable for authors, but they are not well suited for appraising reporting during peer review or editorial assessment despite common use. This is because authors and appraisers have different needs: authors require a comprehensive guide for writing, whereas appraisers need a tool that is concise, repeatable, and easy to use. We therefore propose the development of reporting appraisal tools: operationalised tools designed specifically to assess whether a paper has reported the minimum essential elements of a study. To support their development, we present 10 simple rules.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1014841
  21. J Environ Radioact. 2026 Oct 13. pii: S0265-931X(26)00308-5. [Epub ahead of print]300 108193
    Guidelines to writing a review paper for the journal of environmental radioactivity.
    Sheldon Landsberger.
      The art of writing a good, meaningful and well-appreciated review paper for respective audiences is not an easy task to undertake. Often review papers have no hypothesis and are just a rehash of references, data, figures and tables with little inference to what future scientific directions need to be undertaken. On the other hand, some review manuscripts lack figures and tables and make reading cumbersome. There is a plethora of review styles in science, engineering technology, social sciences, business, etc. which can differ depending on the subject matter and journal expectations. This paper is a modest effort to outline guidelines to enhance the review contributions to the Journal of Environmental Radioactivity, (JENVR) while achieving a high standard of submission.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvrad.2026.108193
  22. Res Nurs Health. 2026 Oct 12.
    Fatal Flaw or Fixable? Common Methodological Issues in Manuscript Preparation and Review.
    Alla Sikorskii, Jennifer Henderson, Eileen T Lake.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.70136
  23. MCN Am J Matern Child Nurs. 2026 Nov-Dec 01;51(6):51(6): 359
    How to Prepare an Effective Scholarly Abstract.
    Laura L Hayman.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1097/NMC.0000000000001239
  24. Acad Forensic Pathol. 2026 Oct 08. 19253621261494427
    Informed Consent for the Publication of Case Reports of Deceased Subjects in Medicolegal Journals: A Comparative Review of Editorial Policies and a Proposal.
    Alberto Chighine, Matteo Nioi, Ernesto d'Aloja.
       Introduction: Case reports and case series are central to forensic pathology, yet they almost invariably concern a deceased subject and often contain potentially identifying material. International publication ethics standards on consent (ICMJE, COPE) were designed for the living clinical patient, leaving unsettled how journals should treat consent when the subject is dead, and death has been investigated by a judicial, rather than consensual, autopsy.
    Methods: Narrative comparative review of the author instructions ("Guide for Authors") of 22 forensic and medicolegal journals across eleven publishers, consulted directly and complemented by publisher-level patient-consent policies and the ICMJE and COPE meta-standards. For each journal, whether the deceased subject is addressed, who may consent, the anonymization requirement, and handling of the consent form were recorded.
    Results: No journal stated a consent rule calibrated to the forensic setting; none addressed the investigating authority, judicial secrecy, or an autopsy ordered by law. The deceased subject is handled almost everywhere through generic clinical provisions inherited from the publisher (next of kin or legal representative). Three approaches emerged: inherited generic consent (the majority), anonymization only, and scope exclusion. One wholly forensic journal omits the deceased subject entirely. Journals also differed in whether the signed consent form is merely retained, confirmed, or submitted.
    Conclusions: Medicolegal journals do not adapt the inherited clinical consent standard to forensic practice. A tiered decision framework and a model deceased-subject clause-distinguishing judicial from consensual autopsy and integrating anonymization and scope discipline-are proposed for editors and authors.
    Keywords:  case report; case series; deceased; forensic pathology; informed consent; postmortem privacy; publication ethics
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1177/19253621261494427
  25. World J Surg Oncol. 2026 10 15. pii: 399. [Epub ahead of print]24(1):
    Not all prolific letter writers are alike.
    Shigeki Matsubara.
      Concerns have recently been raised that AI-assisted "letter-bombing" may distort medical publishing. Although I share these concerns, prolific Letter writing can arise for legitimate reasons. Using my own publication history as an example, I illustrate how retirement, loss of access to primary data, and broader academic interests naturally shifted my publications from original articles toward Letters. The problem lies not in writing many Letters, but in inappropriate motivations and misuse of AI.
    Keywords:  Artificial intelligence; Letter; Research integrity
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12957-026-04584-0
  26. Anticancer Drugs. 2026 Nov 01. 37(10): 583-585
    Publishing with Anti-Cancer Drugs: what authors should know.
    Sergio Huerta.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1097/CAD.0000000000001849
  27. Genome Biol Evol. 2026 Oct 12. pii: evag258. [Epub ahead of print]
    How to write (and review) a Genome Report.
    Marc S Halfon, Gregor Bucher, Anna K Childers, David C Molik, David Luecke, Monica F Poelchau, Terrence Sylvester, Eric S Tvedte.
      As eukaryotic genomes continue to be sequenced, assembled, and annotated at decreasing cost and increasing rate, it is important that basic notification of the availability of these genomes, along with essential information about them, be made available to the community. One way of doing this is through publication of a "genome report", a short article format that several journals have established. Here, we provide a brief guide to the genome report and its main components, with recommendations for authors, reviewers, and publishers of such reports.
    Keywords:  genome assembly; genome note; genome resources; genome sequencing; i5k initiative
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1093/gbe/evag258
  28. Am J Prev Cardiol. 2026 Oct;29 101834
    From paper to practice: What AJPC owes its readers.
    Khurram Nasir.
      
    Keywords:  Academia; Medical journal; Scientific
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajpc.2026.101834
  29. J Med Case Rep. 2026 Oct 12. pii: 615. [Epub ahead of print]20(1):
    A changing of the guard, continuity of purpose: the enduring importance of case reports at the Journal of Medical Case Reports.
    Richard A Rison.
      As I take on the role of Editor-in-Chief of Journal of Medical Case Reports (JMCR), I do so with gratitude and with no wish to reinvent a journal whose founding purpose remains sound: publishing peer-reviewed case reports that add clinically meaningful knowledge while protecting the people whose experiences make those reports possible. In this editorial, I look back at JMCR's origins under Michael Kidd and place the former Cases Journal and CasesDatabase initiatives in their historical context. I also reaffirm the journal's commitments to written consent for publication, CARE-compliant reporting, scientific rigor, clinical education, and accountable human editorial judgment. The current Springer Nature/BMC environment offers new ways to extend the educational life of published reports through the updated website, selected Cases of the Month, Springer Nature Research Communities, JMCR Clinical Minute, JMCR: Clinical Reasoning From Case Reports, Correspondence, and responsible social dissemination. Programs already active are distinguished from those still being developed or planned. The principle is straightforward: new formats should serve the carefully reviewed case report, never displace it.
    Keywords:  CARE guidelines; Case reports; Clinical education; Editorial responsibility; Informed consent; Medical publishing; Peer review
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1186/s13256-026-06718-0
  30. J Clin Neurosci. 2026 Oct 15. pii: S0967-5868(26)00490-X. [Epub ahead of print]155 112339
    Business model, pricing, and transparency in neurosurgery and neurology journals.
    Keyvan Mostofi, Kamran Shirbache, Gianluca Caragliano, Morad Peyravi.
      The business model of scientific journals - gold open access (OA), hybrid, or subscription - creates different financial incentives for publishers, since in the author-pays OA model publication fees (Article Processing Charges, APCs) are collected upon acceptance. This descriptive audit surveys 109 neurosurgery and neurology journals from six major publishing groups (Elsevier, Springer Nature/Wolters Kluwer, Wiley, SAGE, Taylor & Francis, Thieme) and verifies, journal by journal, business model, notoriety indicator (Journal Impact Factor or Scimago SJR), publication fee, and, where publicly available, acceptance rate. Every data point was individually re-verified against official publisher pages and Scimago Journal Rank, correcting a JIF/SJR confusion, several unrecorded transitions to full OA, and one misclassified business model present in the initial collection. After verification, 83 journals (76.1%) are hybrid and 26 (23.9%) are full OA, including 5 diamond (no-APC) journals; no journal is subscription-only. Mean notoriety was similar between hybrid and full-OA journals on both indicators tested separately (JIF: 3.51 vs 3.61; SJR: 0.87 vs 0.89), but full-OA journals excluding the five diamond titles showed higher and more dispersed SJR values (mean 1.24, SD 0.93) than the diamond subset (mean 0.20, SD 0.09). Publication fees were, on average, higher for the OA option of hybrid journals ($4,279, SD $755) than for full-OA journals ($3,415, SD $845). Acceptance rate was the least transparent variable: only 6 of 109 journals (5.5%) publish an identifiable rate, all hybrid; no full-OA or diamond journal discloses this figure. This sample is too small, and too skewed toward hybrid disclosure, to support any inference about whether business model influences acceptance decisions; it instead documents a broad lack of acceptance-rate transparency across neurosurgery and neurology journals and identifies pricing, not acceptance behavior, as the dimension on which a verified between-model difference could be established.
    Keywords:  Article processing charges; Diamond open access; Hybrid journals; Journal transparency; Neurology; Neurosurgery; Open access; Scholarly publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocn.2026.112339
  31. Imaging Neurosci (Camb). 2026 ;pii: IMAG.a.1392. [Epub ahead of print]4
    Imaging Neuroscience: The First Three Years-Editorial.
    Stephen M Smith.
      In April 2023, the editors of NeuroImage and NeuroImage:Reports resigned, and a month later launched Imaging Neuroscience. NeuroImage had been the leading journal in our field, but its publication fee had reached a level that many considered unethical and unsustainable. We therefore launched Imaging Neuroscience with MIT Press, with the goal of replacing NeuroImage as our field's leading journal, and with greater control by the academic community over publication fees and adoption of modern and ethical publishing practices. Three-and-a-half years later, as I step down as Editor-in-Chief, this editorial gives a brief summary of how things are going. The bottom line is: very well indeed!
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1162/IMAG.a.1392
  32. J Med Ethics. 2026 Oct 12. pii: jme-2026-112675. [Epub ahead of print]
    Reflections on AI use declarations in JME manuscripts.
    Joshua Parker.
      
    Keywords:  Ethics
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1136/jme-2026-112675
  33. J Vet Intern Med. 2026 Sep 01. pii: aalag251. [Epub ahead of print]40(5):
    Raising the bar: updated study design and statistics guidelines for the Journal of Veterinary Internal Medicine.
    Erin Lashnits, Andrew P Woodward, James C Meyer.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1093/jvimsj/aalag251
  34. J Interpers Violence. 2026 Oct 12. 8862605261493563
    Public Science and Interpersonal Violence.
    Claire M Renzetti.
      On the occasion of Jon Conte's retirement as editor of the Journal of Interpersonal Violence, this article reflects on the future direction of the field of interpersonal violence. The author argues that in the current reactionary political climate, interpersonal violence researchers should adopt a public science framework that is interdisciplinary, collaborative, and inclusive in order for the field to continue to grow and develop effective prevention and intervention strategies to address all forms of interpersonal violence.
    Keywords:  collaboration; interpersonal violence research; public science
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1177/08862605261493563
  35. Diabetologia. 2026 Oct 14.
    No journal is an island.
    Hindrik Mulder.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00125-026-06889-x
  36. Int J Paleopathol. 2026 Sep;pii: S1879-9817(26)00029-X. [Epub ahead of print]54S 1-5
    Supplement to the International Journal of Paleopathology. Abstracts for contributions presented at the Paleopathology Association meetings in 2024 and 2025.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpp.2026.04.004
  37. Eur Phys J E Soft Matter. 2026 Oct 15. pii: 99. [Epub ahead of print]49(10):
    25th EPJE anniversary: vision piece on EPJE role today and tomorrow.
    Fabrizio Croccolo, Giovanna Fragneto, Holger Stark.
      On the occasion of the 25th anniversary of The European Physical Journal E-Soft Matter and Biological Physics, we reflect on the journal's origins, rooted in Pierre-Gilles de Gennes' vision of soft matter as a unifying field of physics, and trace its evolution to encompass biological and active systems. We review EPJE's current position as a journal combining strong European roots with global reach, publishing original research, topical issues, reviews, and experimentally focused Tips and Tricks papers. Looking ahead, we outline our vision: deepening coverage of non-equilibrium and active matter, expanding into functional soft materials, reinforcing our strength in rheology, prioritizing experimental innovation, and embracing sustainability-related research, while remaining committed to Open Access and to bridging generations of scientists in the field.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1140/epje/s10189-026-00630-7
This page is being maintained by Thomas Krichel. It was last updated on 2026‒10‒18 at 4:24.