bims-skolko Biomed News
on Scholarly communication
Issue of 2026–11–08
twenty-six papers selected by
Thomas Krichel, Open Library Society
  1. Academic Jargonitis: the epidemic in scholarly communication.
  2. Should NIH restrict the use of grant funds for publication costs? An analysis of public comments.
  3. Structural racism in sport and exercise medicine publishing: whose knowledge is deemed universal?
  4. The barrier is purely financial: analysis of the acceptance rate and peer review practice of predatory journals using AI generated papers.
  5. Record-breaking retraction: scholarly publisher pulls 1,400 conference papers on one day.
  6. [Fake references in academic publications].
  7. An analysis of 20 years of retracted articles in psychiatry.
  8. Policy consensus, disagreements, and gaps regarding the use of artificial intelligence in authors, reviewers, publishers, editors, readers, and scholarship dissemination: a narrative review focus on medical scholarly publishing, analyzing attitudes of 6 institutions, 8 publishers, 139 journals and hundreds of articles.
  9. AI-Assisted Writing Across Medical Journals: Heterogeneity in Prevalence and Trends.
  10. ATTEST 2027: A Framework for AI Transparency Tiered by Evidentiary Stakes.
  11. The role of governance and policy in the rapidly evolving, increasingly AI-driven world of scientific research and publication.
  12. Scientific Integrity in an AI World.
  13. Scientific Writing, Peer Review, and Artificial Intelligence: Navigating a New Era.
  14. Beyond policy consensus: evidence reliability and editorial accountability in the age of artificial intelligence.
  15. Artificial Intelligence Cannot Replace Peer Reviewers But May Help Editors Triage: Response.
  16. Artificial Intelligence and Human Editor Concordance in Dermatology Desk-Rejection Decisions: A Cross-Sectional Study.
  17. Decreasing Reviewer Engagement Trends at Two STFM Journals.
  18. Misclassification of text in AI detection: A serious limitation of AI detectors and Its threats to human-based scholarly writing.
  19. Open access route and citation impact in orthopaedic research: A comparison of Gold/hybrid, Green, and Bronze open access within ten high-impact subscription-based journals.
  20. How to make microscopy images that are color blind friendly.
  21. Guidelines for sharing individual level patient data.
  22. Publishing the History of Radical Science in a Time of Digital Capitalism.
  23. Quo Vadis? Crisis and Reinvention in Nursing Scholarly Publishing, 1978-1979.
  24. 2026 Arthroscopy in Review: Collaboration Drives Impact in Orthopaedic Surgery and Sports Medicine.
  25. Embracing the Dragon-Horse Spirit: Gratitude and forward momentum.
  26. Renewing Our Scope: Reinforcing What It Means to be a Gerontological Nursing Journal.
  1. Postgrad Med J. 2026 Nov 05. pii: qgag153. [Epub ahead of print]
    Academic Jargonitis: the epidemic in scholarly communication.
    Dhananjaya Sharma.
      Academic jargon is ubiquitous in scholarly communication and can obscure rather than enhance meaning. This satire examines "Academic Jargonitis" as a hypothetical, highly transmissible condition affecting academics, manuscripts, and reviewers. Its origin, epidemiology, pathogenesis, clinical manifestations, diagnosis, treatment, prevention, and prognosis are described using a deliberately medical framework. Particular attention is given to the progressive transformation of simple language into unnecessarily complex terminology and to the potential use of jargon to camouflage uncertainty, failure, and disagreement. The satire concludes that academic writing should prioritize precision, clarity, and structure over linguistic complexity.
    Keywords:  education and training; general medicine; surgery
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1093/postmj/qgag153
  2. Health Aff Sch. 2026 Nov;4(11): qxag163
    Should NIH restrict the use of grant funds for publication costs? An analysis of public comments.
    Robert M Kaplan.
      Rapid growth in open-access publishing has reshaped the economics of scientific communication. In response to concerns about the cost and process of commercial publishing, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) issued a request for information (RFI) in 2025. This study presents an independent analysis of the responses of all 914 responses from individuals and organizations, comprising more than 1300 pages. Narrative comments were categorized into themes and examined in relation to policy options. Response patterns varied by topic. Critical comments were most frequent regarding article processing charges (APCs) (445/914, 48.7%), followed by concerns about commercial publishing (210/914, 23.0%), unpaid academic labor (96/914, 10.5%), and peer review (50/914, 5.5%). Supportive comments were most common for peer review (84/914, 9.2%) and rare for APCs (0.2%), unpaid labor (1.2%), and commercial publishing (2.1%). The public comments highlight tensions in the current publishing system. Respondents endorsed the central role of peer review while expressing concern about APCs, market concentration, and reliance on unpaid labor. Differences between individual and organizational responses suggest competing stakeholder incentives. Policies focused narrowly on cost containment, such as APC caps, may fail to address structural issues and risk unintended consequences.
    Keywords:  academic publishing; conflicts of interest; equity; scholarship
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1093/haschl/qxag163
  3. Br J Sports Med. 2026 Nov 05. pii: bjsports-2026-112266. [Epub ahead of print]
    Structural racism in sport and exercise medicine publishing: whose knowledge is deemed universal?
    Yuka Tsukahara, Margo Mountjoy, Nonhlanhla Sharon Mkumbuzi.
      
    Keywords:  Athletes; Research; Sports; Sports medicine
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2026-112266
  4. Res Integr Peer Rev. 2026 Aug 04. pii: 63. [Epub ahead of print]11(1):
    The barrier is purely financial: analysis of the acceptance rate and peer review practice of predatory journals using AI generated papers.
    Kieran Poland, Patrick Davies.
       INTRODUCTION: Unsolicited emails from predatory journals offer a quick opportunity to produce a first author publication for a fee. With increasing emphasis on first author publications for applications, interviews and jobs, the opportunity associated with such journals may encourage some to produce work that can be both easily published and damaging to the medical field. Predatory journals therefore have an opportunity to publish low quality literature quickly for a profit.
    AIM: To analyse the quality of peer review, cost and acceptance rate of AI generated papers submitted to predatory journals contacting by unsolicited emails.
    METHODS: Chat GPT3 along with an AI image generator were used to produce scientific manuscripts that were submitted to 50 consecutive unsolicited emails from predatory journals. Data on response time and outcome were collected. Generation and submission times, along with article processing charges (APC) were analysed. All papers were formally withdrawn.
    RESULTS: From 50 submitted papers 15 (30%) journals did not exist. 12/35 (34%) were accepted with no changes, 4 (11%) were accepted with minor revisions, 4 (11%) were accepted with major revisions and 2 (6%) were rejected. Papers can be generated in under 200 s. Mean APC was $1298.
    DISCUSSION: We demonstrate a critical need for the maintenance of quality of the peer review system, which can be exploited by both authors and journals. The potential future impact of AI for scientific literature is significant, and researchers need to be vigilant when submitting or referencing papers.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-026-00238-7
  5. Nature. 2026 Oct 30.
    Record-breaking retraction: scholarly publisher pulls 1,400 conference papers on one day.
    Miryam Naddaf.
      
    Keywords:  Institutions; Peer review; Publishing; Scientific community
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-026-03455-8
  6. Praxis (Bern 1994). 2026 10;115(10): 275
    [Fake references in academic publications].
    Thomas Rosemann.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.23785/PRAXIS.2026.10.001
  7. BJPsych Bull. 2026 Nov 03. 1-8
    An analysis of 20 years of retracted articles in psychiatry.
    Aileen A O'Brien, Alexander C Tsai, Jared G Smith, Darren Bell, Kamaldeep Bhui.
       AIMS AND METHOD: To characterise recent trends in retractions of publications in the psychiatric literature. We examined the Retraction Watch Database for publications with the subject term 'psychiatry' between 2003 and 2023. We then characterised publication type, subject, country of origin, reason for retraction and time between publication and retraction.
    RESULTS: A total of 315 psychiatry publications were retracted; the annual number and rate (relative to publications) rose steadily across the study period. The median number of days from publication to retraction was 643 (interquartile range 223.0-2966.0). Reasons for retraction were unclear in 20 (6.3%) cases only; most commonly they were attributed to data error (42.5%) or problems relating to peer review (11.4%) - the period between publication and retraction was particularly long for the latter studies (median 3082 days, interquartile range 575-3364). A total of 4.4% were retracted because of falsification, and 6.32% because of plagiarism. Retracted items frequently focused on mood disorders (24.4%), psychosis (14.9%) and neurodevelopmental disorders (13.7%).
    CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Clinicians and policy makers rely on academic literature, but should be aware of the ethical, legal, business and professional dilemmas often encountered, yet not reported, in the process of considering retractions of unreliable data. Contested and unreliable findings may persist in the scientific record, with potential negative consequences for evidence based-care and policy, including the erosion of public trust.
    Keywords:  Education and training; ethics; evidence-based mental health; qualitative research
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1192/bjb.2026.10311
  8. Ann Transl Med. 2026 Oct 30. 14(5): 71
    Policy consensus, disagreements, and gaps regarding the use of artificial intelligence in authors, reviewers, publishers, editors, readers, and scholarship dissemination: a narrative review focus on medical scholarly publishing, analyzing attitudes of 6 institutions, 8 publishers, 139 journals and hundreds of articles.
    Shaoxia Xie, Binghan Shang, Yue Hu, Fangyuan Jiang, Yijie Chen, Kaiping Zhang.
       Background and Objective: Artificial intelligence (AI) integration in medical publishing has improved efficiency but raised ethical controversies. Lacking systematic comparisons on AI-use polices across roles, this narrative review aims to summarize existing consensus, major disagreements, and policy gaps to guide future AI policy updates.
    Methods: We comprehensively searched English and Chinese literature from 2016 to Jan 12, 2026 in Web of Science, PubMed, Scopus, EMBASE, and CNKI, and analyzed AI polices from 6 major organizations up to Jun 15, 2026, 8 top publishers up to Mar 1, 2026, and 139 stratified randomly sampled journals up to Apr 10, 2026, covering 25 publishing sub-scenarios.
    Key Content and Findings: (I) Core consensus: clear agreement exists on confidentiality, disclosure of AI use, human verification and accountability, and the ineligibility of AI authorship. (II) Authors: AI is permitted for language polishing, translation, formatting, structural layout, literature searching, methodology, and study design. However, substantial disagreements remain regarding data collection, extraction, analysis and statistics, figure/table preparation, and manuscript writing among institutions, publishers, and scholars. Idea generation and downstream activities like revision and response letter drafting remain policy gaps. (III) Reviewers: AI is strictly prohibited from independent decision-making. However, disagreements persist regarding using AI to generate or optimize review comments. Checking revisions and response letters remains a policy gap. (IV) Editors/publishers: large policy gaps exist. Limited polices tend to prohibit AI from independent decisions while permit to select reviewers and draft/refine editorial comments. However, substantial disagreements remain over using AI for technical/compliance checks and content/substantive review. (V) Readers/dissemination: policies are largely absent. Available rules show a positive attitude toward readers using AI to translate and exact key points, and disseminators using AI to generate social media content and visualizations.
    Conclusions: While current AI policies have reached consensus in many scenarios, substantial gaps and disagreements for editors, publishers, and readers must be prioritized in future updates. Future revisions should enhance specificity, scenario-based design, clarity, and accessibility.
    Keywords:  Artificial intelligence (AI); policy; publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.21037/atm-2026-0169
  9. medRxiv. 2026 Oct 26. pii: 2026.10.24.26366055. [Epub ahead of print]
    AI-Assisted Writing Across Medical Journals: Heterogeneity in Prevalence and Trends.
    Michael D Flanders, Michelle Caunca, Ateev Mehrotra, Sarah F Ackley.
       Background: Estimates of generative artificial intelligence (AI) use in the medical literature vary widely, potentially reflecting differences across journals. We estimated changes in the prevalence of AI-generated writing over time using abstracts from 12 general medical journals.
    Methods: We randomly sampled up to 200 abstracts per journal-year from publications dated January 1, 2020, through August 8, 2026. Abstracts were scored using GPTZero, with journal-specific thresholds calibrated to fix a 1% false-positive rate (FPR) in the pre-AI baseline period (2020-2021). We estimated annual detector-positive proportions and calculated a publication-volume-weighted estimate across sampled journals. Associations with journal impact factor, publication model, and publication volume were examined descriptively.
    Results: Among 15,268 abstracts, estimated prevalence of AI-generated text increased after 2022, with substantial variation in timing and magnitude across journals. In 2026 through August 8, prevalence estimates ranged from 5.7% (95% CI, 2.1%-10.0%) in the New England Journal of Medicine to 83.5% (95% CI, 77.1%-87.5%) in Frontiers in Medicine. The publication-volume-weighted estimate across sampled journals was 66.7% (95% CI, 64.0%-69.2%), and trends were insensitive to specification of false-positive rate in baseline data. The proportion of abstracts showing signs of AI-generated text was lower in journals with higher impact factors and higher in fully open-access journals.
    Conclusions: Estimated prevalence of AI-generated text increased substantially across all sampled medical journals, with marked between-journal differences associated with journal impact factor and publication model. These findings support development of standardized, transparent AI reporting in medical publishing.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.10.24.26366055
  10. Hepatology. 2026 Nov 05.
    ATTEST 2027: A Framework for AI Transparency Tiered by Evidentiary Stakes.
    Wanzhu Tu, Jun Li, Michael Charlton, Naga Chalasani, Laura E Nagy.
      Artificial intelligence (AI) is now being used across scientific research workflows, from data extraction and code generation to literature synthesis and manuscript drafting. Scientific journals and professional organizations agree that authors should disclose AI assistance. But disclosure that treats all AI use equally with a single generic declaration reveals little about the nature of AI's influence on evidence generation. Polishing grammar carries a different risk than extracting outcomes from clinical notes, classifying pathology, or making causal inference. We propose ATTEST (AI Transparency Tiered by Evidentiary Stakes), a framework that evaluates AI assistance by its consequences. ATTEST classifies AI use into eight broad categories of functions, each scored at one of four risk tiers (Low, Medium, High, Very High). The framework is operationalized by a declaration checklist that authors complete at submission. Within this tiered system, we propose minimum reporting standards by function, cross-cutting requirements, and obligations for reviewers and editors. The goal is to make AI's role in evidence generation transparent to readers, reviewers, and editors so they can evaluate the integrity of scientific findings.
    Keywords:  ATTEST; Artificial intelligence (AI); disclosure; reproducibility; research integrity; transparency
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1097/HEP.0000000000001912
  11. Ann Transl Med. 2026 Oct 30. 14(5): 64
    The role of governance and policy in the rapidly evolving, increasingly AI-driven world of scientific research and publication.
    Steven P Rowe, Wonkyu P Choi, Martin G Pomper, Md Zobaer Islam.
      
    Keywords:  Artificial intelligence (AI); agentic AI; generative AI; machine learning
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.21037/atm-2026-0246
  12. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2026 Nov;pii: S0278-2391(26)00322-8. [Epub ahead of print]84(11): 1703-1704
    Scientific Integrity in an AI World.
    Thomas B Dodson.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2026.04.014
  13. Sleep Med Clin. 2026 Dec;pii: S1556-407X(26)00051-2. [Epub ahead of print]21(4): 469-482
    Scientific Writing, Peer Review, and Artificial Intelligence: Navigating a New Era.
    Ahmed S BaHammam.
      The article examines the evolving intersection of generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools and scientific publishing, emphasizing opportunities and emerging risks for research integrity. It covers challenges such as reference fabrication, bias amplification, and reviewer overreliance, while highlighting the importance of diverse datasets, transparent disclosure, and robust human oversight. Practical strategies and policy recommendations illustrate how careful stewardship can ensure that technological advances support ethical, reliable, and globally relevant scholarship. The synthesis encourages ongoing dialogue about responsible AI integration across academia.
    Keywords:  Dataset diversity; Editorial policy; Generative artificial intelligence; Large language models; Peer review; Reference integrity; Research ethics; Scientific publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsmc.2026.08.004
  14. Ann Transl Med. 2026 Oct 30. 14(5): 65
    Beyond policy consensus: evidence reliability and editorial accountability in the age of artificial intelligence.
    Wei Liu, Calvin S H Ng.
      
    Keywords:  Artificial intelligence (AI); editorial accountability; evidence reliability; medical publishing; peer review
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.21037/atm-2026-0248
  15. Am J Sports Med. 2026 Nov;54(13): NP95-NP96
    Artificial Intelligence Cannot Replace Peer Reviewers But May Help Editors Triage: Response.
    Romir Patel, Christopher Shultz, Matthieu Ollivier, Daniel C Wascher.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1177/03635465261485210
  16. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2026 Oct 31. pii: S0190-9622(26)03859-4. [Epub ahead of print]
    Artificial Intelligence and Human Editor Concordance in Dermatology Desk-Rejection Decisions: A Cross-Sectional Study.
    Grace Z Armstrong, Thanvi Gullapalli, Samantha R Chang, Kelli A Vogt, Devina Lohani Mbs, Nina Zhu, Elizabeth Zhang, Murad Alam.
      
    Keywords:  artificial intelligence; desk-rejection; editor; journal; peer review
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaad.2026.10.094
  17. Fam Med. 2026 Nov 02.
    Decreasing Reviewer Engagement Trends at Two STFM Journals.
    Christopher P Morley, José E Rodríguez, Joel J Heidelbaugh, Sam Grammer.
       BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Securing peer reviewers for scholarly manuscripts is essential to journal operations but has become increasingly challenging. We sought to describe trends in acceptance of reviewer invitations and review completion at two journals sponsored by the Society of Teachers of Family Medicine: PRiMER and Family Medicine.
    METHODS: We conducted retrospective quality assurance of reviewer invitation outcomes for research manuscripts submitted to either journal from January 2010 to April 2026. Data were extracted from ScholarOne. We calculated odds ratios (ORs) for agreement to review and for review completion for each year via binary logistic regression, employing the generalized estimating equation to control for individual reviewer behavior, journal, and article type.
    RESULTS: We included 16,905 discrete invitations to review 2,574 manuscripts. Agreement rates at Family Medicine ranged from 70.99% in 2010, to a low of 41.80% in 2025, and 37.99% through April 2026; PRiMER agreement ranged from 74.36% in 2016, to 42.79% in 2025, and 20.23% in partial 2026. Combined completion rates dropped from 89.90% in 2010, to 82.20% in 2025, and to 73.90% in partial 2026. Using 2010 as the reference year, ORs for agreement to review dropped markedly, with the odds of accepting a review invitation in 2026 only 15.9% of the 2010 (2026: OR = 0.159, P<0.001) and the odds of review completion in 2026 falling to 32.9% of 2010 (OR = 0.329, P<0.001).
    CONCLUSIONS: Reviewer engagement is declining across both journals. New, innovative strategies to recruit, engage, and incentivize reviewers will be necessary to sustain peer review.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.22454/FamMed.2026.0268
  18. J Pak Med Assoc. 2026 Sep;76(9): 1593-1594
    Misclassification of text in AI detection: A serious limitation of AI detectors and Its threats to human-based scholarly writing.
    Noureen Durrani, Yusra Nasir, Sobia Ali.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.47391/JPMA.40793
  19. PLoS One. 2026 ;21(11): e0360532
    Open access route and citation impact in orthopaedic research: A comparison of Gold/hybrid, Green, and Bronze open access within ten high-impact subscription-based journals.
    William J Daniels, Michelle Cruickshank, Taylor Dejong, Michelle Ghert.
      Open access (OA) publishing has expanded access to research, but citation patterns may differ across OA routes. We examined the association between OA route and citation rate within ten high-impact, predominantly subscription-based orthopaedic journals, analysing 24,115 articles published from 2014 to 2019. Journals in which more than 95% of articles were OA were excluded by design; fully OA journals were therefore not represented, and every Gold OA article in this corpus was published as hybrid OA within a subscription journal (hereafter Gold/hybrid OA). Articles were classified as Gold/hybrid OA, Green OA, Bronze OA, or Closed Access using Web of Science OA indicators. Results are reported in three layers: unadjusted descriptive comparisons, a primary adjusted analysis, andsensitivity analyses. The primary analysis used an entropy-balanced negative binomial generalized linear mixed model adjusting for publication year, document type, author count, and journal influence, with journal-level random effects. Most articles were Closed Access (78.5%), followed by Green OA (9.1%), Bronze OA (8.7%), and Gold/hybrid OA (3.8%). In the primary analysis, Gold/hybrid OA and Green OA had higher citation rates than Closed Access (rate ratio 1.41, 95% CI 1.30-1.54; and 1.35, 95% CI 1.28-1.43), and did not differ from each other (1.04, 95% CI 0.95-1.15). Citation rates varied by publication year: Gold/hybrid OA had the highest predicted rate in recent cohorts and Green OA in older cohorts with longer follow-up. Bronze OA had the lowest unadjusted citation counts, largely because it was enriched for lower-cited document types. The higher citation rates for Gold/hybrid and Green OA persisted across all sensitivity analyses. Within subscription-based orthopaedic journals, OA routes are not interchangeable; these findings do not extend to fully OA journals.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0360532
  20. J Cell Sci. 2026 Nov 01. pii: jcs265371. [Epub ahead of print]139(21):
    How to make microscopy images that are color blind friendly.
    Stephen J Royle.
      These days, there is increased awareness about color blindness (also known as color vision deficiency) and figure accessibility. During peer review, referees are now more likely to request changes to color palettes in papers to assist color blind readers. This is a positive change, and of course it is best to check that our images are accessible. However, it is less useful when referees reflexively request changes because they believe that certain color combinations should be 'outlawed' for reasons of accessibility. What I mean is: some scientists believe that all red-green-blue overlays are fundamentally bad for accessibility. In this short Essay, I try to set out why that view is misguided and to provide some practical solutions to the problem.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1242/jcs.265371
  21. EXCLI J. 2026 ;25 1555-1566
    Guidelines for sharing individual level patient data.
    Agapios Sachinidis, Wiebke Albrecht, Jan G Hengstler.
      EXCLI Journal has long encouraged authors to make anonymized individual-level data available as supplementary material whenever this can be done responsibly. Recent discussions, however, have raised concerns about whether even anonymized laboratory data from individual patients may create unacceptable privacy risks. We examine this question from both a scientific and a practical perspective. We first consider why underlying data should be preserved and shared: they can support verification of published results, allow alternative analyses, and preserve information for future research. We then stress-test the privacy argument by constructing hypothetical scenarios in which a published table of individual laboratory values could lead to identification of a participant, disclosure of previously unknown health information, and concrete harm. These scenarios show that such a chain of events is possible, but that its likelihood depends strongly on the characteristics of the dataset and on information already available to a potential attacker. Small datasets containing rare, distinctive, or potentially stigmatizing findings require particular caution. Based on this analysis and the existing literature, we propose the following principles for EXCLI Journal: appropriately anonymized individual-level clinical measurements and data derived from biological samples should generally be shared when the residual risk is low and the scientific value is substantial. More sensitive or distinctive datasets may require aggregation, removal of potentially identifying variables, or controlled access. Authors invoking institutional restrictions on public data sharing should provide the relevant policy to the editors, and such restrictions should not prevent editors and reviewer from accessing the underlying data for verification. Our aim is not to eliminate every conceivable risk, but to establish a proportionate approach that protects participants while preserving valuable data for future science.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.17179/excli2026-9817
  22. Ber Wiss. 2026 Nov 01. pii: e70045. [Epub ahead of print]
    Publishing the History of Radical Science in a Time of Digital Capitalism.
    Niki Rhyner.
      This paper investigates publishing as a practice in the history of science. It firstly provides an experiential account of building a DIY-inspired publishing venue for collective, source-based narration. The venue used the possibilities of digital publishing to apply, rather than simply refer to, a very striking aspect of radical science in the 1970s and 1980s: its media techniques. Secondly, the paper shows how source material itself is now embedded in digital capitalism by way of digital rights licensing agencies. Critiques of digitalization in academic publishing have primarily and importantly focused on the adoption of Open Access as a profitable business model by publishing conglomerates selling access and aggregating user data. But conglomerates also capitalize on historical material created by other, bygone publishers by assetizing their backlists. Furthermore, these backlists are now part of a new ownership regime. The paper brings these experiential and infrastructural inquiries together as a way to explore processes of digitalization in humanities publishing, concluding that the manner in which publishing is organized has not only financial consequences for scholarship, but epistemic ones.
    Keywords:  academic publishing; assetization; digital capitalism; history of science; image licensing; radical science; social movements
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1002/bewi.70045
  23. Nurs Res. 2026 Nov 04.
    Quo Vadis? Crisis and Reinvention in Nursing Scholarly Publishing, 1978-1979.
    Leslie H Nicoll.
       BACKGROUND: The late 1970s represented a period of rapid growth and organizational transition within nursing research and scholarly publishing. During this period, Nursing Research, the first refereed nursing research journal in the United States, underwent substantial editorial and administrative reorganization amid broader changes in nursing science, research infrastructure, and scholarly communication.
    OBJECTIVE: To examine how editorials published in Nursing Research during 1978-1979 reflected and shaped emerging ideas about nursing scholarly publishing, research infrastructure, editorial governance, and scientific communication during a pivotal period in the development of nursing science.
    METHODS: This qualitative document analysis examined editorials, guest editorials, and publisher statements published in Nursing Research between January 1978 and December 1979. Archival documents were converted to searchable text using optical character recognition software and reviewed against original page images for accuracy. Structured editorial summaries were created using generative artificial intelligence with investigator review and revision. Documents were analyzed iteratively to identify recurring themes related to research development, scholarly communication, peer review, ethics, methodological rigor, journal governance, and scientific infrastructure.
    RESULTS: Four interrelated themes were identified: 1) a discipline in expansion; 2) infrastructure under strain; 3) reorganization and the university model; and 4) the journal as scientific infrastructure. The editorials documented rapid growth in doctoral education, research centers, clinical inquiry, and nurse-led investigation while simultaneously revealing mounting concern regarding journal finances, editorial labor, peer review, and publication sustainability. Following organizational restructuring in 1978-1979, Florence Downs reconceptualized Nursing Research as an active component of scientific infrastructure supporting communication, methodological rigor, ethical oversight, and cumulative inquiry. The editorials also demonstrated early engagement with computerized information retrieval systems, statistical reporting standards, and formalized peer review processes.
    DISCUSSION: The editorials published in Nursing Research during 1978-1979 reveal nursing scholarship at a formative moment in the development of modern scientific publishing. The findings suggest that many concerns associated with contemporary scholarly publishing, including sustainability, editorial labor, peer review, methodological transparency, and information management, were already evident in nursing publishing nearly 50 years ago.
    Keywords:  Document analysis; History of nursing; Publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1097/NNR.0000000000000961
  24. Arthroscopy. 2026 Nov 03.
    2026 Arthroscopy in Review: Collaboration Drives Impact in Orthopaedic Surgery and Sports Medicine.
    Michael J Rossi, Erik Hohmann, Matthew Salzler.
      Congratulations and commendations to the readers, authors, researchers, reviewers, and editors who intentionally made 2026 a year to remember for Arthroscopy and its Family of Journals. Our year in review highlights outstanding articles, editorial commentaries, editorials, and special issues in our journals that have resulted in high impact. International collaboration and effort have culminated in another increase in Arthroscopy's Clarivate Impact Factor. We thank all our contributors for their intention, dedication, innovation, and ingenuity in making 2026 another successful year.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1002/arj.70861
  25. Imeta. 2026 Feb;5(1): e70110
    Embracing the Dragon-Horse Spirit: Gratitude and forward momentum.
    Yong-Xin Liu, Yunyun Gao, Tong Chen, Danyi Li, Canhui Lan, Chun-Lin Shi, Jingyuan Fu, Shuang-Jiang Liu.
      Dragon-Horse Spirit: A metaphor for a person's vigorous and enterprising spirit and demeanor. Inspired by this spirit, iMeta and its sister journals have achieved a series of groundbreaking advancements in submission and impact over the past 4 years. As the Chinese Year of the Horse is coming, we extend our gratitude to all the editorial board members, associate editors, youth editors, and reviewers who have contributed to the development of iMeta series.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1002/imt2.70110
  26. Int J Older People Nurs. 2026 Nov;pii: e70103. [Epub ahead of print]21(6):
    Renewing Our Scope: Reinforcing What It Means to be a Gerontological Nursing Journal.
    Jennifer Baumbusch, Sarah H Kagan, G J Melendez-Torres, Ellen Munsterman.
      
    Keywords:  gerontological nursing; nursing research; scientific publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1111/opn.70103
This page is being maintained by Thomas Krichel. It was last updated on 2026‒11‒11 at 12:22.