bims-skolko Biomed News
on Scholarly communication
Issue of 2026–11–01
forty-two papers selected by
Thomas Krichel, Open Library Society



  1. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2026 Nov 03. 123(44): e2623869123
      References to nonexistent studies are well documented in biomedical research, but evidence outside biomedicine is limited. We analyzed a stratified random sample of 500,000 peer-reviewed journal papers in chemistry, physics, materials science, engineering, and computer science published from January 2023 through March 31, 2026, using OpenAlex, a large open index of scholarly works and citations. Our automated pipeline classified 1,135 references across 619 papers as fabricated, with 85.8% precision on masked expert review; fabricated is an operational label for a claimed title that could not be located in any of seven bibliographic and open-web sources. Affected-paper prevalence rose from 1 in 1,600 (6.3 per 10,000) in 2023 to 1 in 435 (23.0 per 10,000) in the first quarter of 2026, and full-period rates differed roughly sixfold across fields, from 25.6 per 10,000 papers in physics to 4.3 in chemistry. Most affected papers contained one or two fabricated references, but the 27 papers containing five or more accounted for more than a third of all fabricated references identified. Applying each field's rate to the approximately 7 million OpenAlex papers indexed in these fields gives an estimated 8,500 papers carrying at least one fabricated reference. Routine automated reference verification at submission, together with retrospective screening of the published literature, can detect fabricated references before and after they enter the scientific record.
    Keywords:  citation errors; citation verification; fabricated references; research integrity; scientific publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2623869123
  2. Nature. 2026 Oct 28.
      
    Keywords:  Publishing; Scientific community
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-026-03445-w
  3. J Eval Clin Pract. 2026 Oct;pii: e70713. [Epub ahead of print]32(7):
       RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: The editorial gatekeeping of scientific publication is a chain of decisions: the editor's desk rejection, the recommendations of external reviewers, and the editor's adjudication of those recommendations, all shaped by journal metrics. The subjectivity of this process is well documented. This paper asks how discretion and accountability are distributed across the chain.
    METHOD: Conceptual and normative analysis organised around checkability, the standard science applies to its own claims: that a judgement's basis be recorded, its reliability measurable, and the judgement answerable beyond the say-so of whoever made it. Each stage of the chain is assessed against this standard, using published evidence on editorial and reviewer agreement.
    RESULTS: The editorial gate is exempt from checkability, and exempt by the greatest margin where it exercises the most discretion. The desk rejection, which disposes of most submissions at many journals, is a single editor's rapid decision on criteria acknowledged to be subjective, usually without a stated basis, external check or appeal. Reviewer recommendations whose agreement barely exceeds chance are aggregated into a single outcome. The adjudication of discordant reviews is again individual discretion, lightly checked. Existing codes govern editors' conduct, not the epistemic basis of their decisions.
    CONCLUSION: The wrong is not subjectivity, which is unavoidable, but an inversion: a system that demands checkability of the science it admits exempts from checkability the judging that admits it. The remedy is neither eliminating editorial judgement nor reviewing every submission, but holding the gate to the standard of checkability science demands of itself.
    Keywords:  accountability; desk rejection; editorial decision‐making; journal impact factor; peer review; publication ethics; research integrity
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1111/jep.70713
  4. Linacre Q. 2026 Oct 26. 00243639261496957
      Publication ethics in medicine has developed extensive procedural guidance concerning authorship, peer review, conflicts of interest, editorial independence, and correction of the scientific record. Less attention has been devoted to the moral goods that these norms are intended to protect. This article examines whether selected categories drawn from Catholic moral thought and Catholic social teaching can illuminate the ethical foundations of biomedical editorial practice without replacing established international standards. Using a conceptual and interpretive approach, the article examines the responsibilities of authors, reviewers, editors, publishers, and research institutions through the lenses of truthfulness, justice, prudence, non-maleficence, and the common good. The discussion focuses especially on plagiarism, retraction, and editorial independence as areas in which contemporary publication ethics and Catholic moral reflection converge. The analysis suggests that biomedical editorial ethics and Catholic moral thought address the same questions from distinct yet complementary perspectives. Procedural standards identify duties and corrective mechanisms, whereas moral reflection clarifies the human goods that these practices are intended to protect. Under this interpretation, editorial integrity emerges not merely as regulatory compliance but as an institutional responsibility directed toward the reliability of biomedical knowledge, the protection of patients and readers, and the preservation of public trust. Read as a conceptual contribution rather than a confessional proposal, this framework offers operational criteria for evaluating editorial conduct and clarifies why the integrity of the scientific record matters for clinical care, public health, and social trust.
    Keywords:  Publication ethics; bioethics; editorial ethics; medical journals; narrative review; research integrity
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1177/00243639261496957
  5. Front Res Metr Anal. 2026 ;11 2004958
      [This corrects the article DOI: 10.3389/frma.2026.1807122.].
    Keywords:  academic freedom; academic suppression; child custody; domestic violence; family court; parental alienation; retraction ethics; scientific suppression
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3389/frma.2026.2004958
  6. Nature. 2026 Oct 28.
      
    Keywords:  Databases; Publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-026-03325-3
  7. Nature. 2026 Oct;658(8138): 1356
      
    Keywords:  Ethics; Machine learning; Publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-026-03407-2
  8. Science. 2026 Oct 29. 394(6823): 476-477
      AI experts offer tips for keeping sensitive research private.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aen6355
  9. NEJM AI. 2026 Jan;3(1): AIe2501273
      AbstractGenerative AI is making it astonishingly easy to create scientific fakery that looks real: convincing data, tidy plots, even entire studies that slip past automated checks and human reviewers. In this editorial, I describe a deliberately fabricated dataset and analysis, built with help from an AI model that fooled standard anomaly detectors. The episode highlights a growing problem: technical fixes like blockchain may offer reassurance, but they can't solve the deeper cultural pressures in science that reward speed and novelty over care and verification. What might help is the harder work of valuing replication, transparency, and rigor, as AI can amplify whatever incentives we set.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1056/AIe2501273
  10. Br J Surg. 2026 Oct 05. pii: znag138. [Epub ahead of print]113(10):
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1093/bjs/znag138
  11. Prim Health Care Res Dev. 2026 Oct 27. 27 e136
       BACKGROUND: The rapid adoption of AI tools in academic research has created uncertainty about appropriate use in manuscript preparation, particularly in primary health care where clear guidance is essential for maintaining research integrity across diverse settings.
    OBJECTIVES: This review aimed to assess the availability and content of AI policies across primary health care journals and their publishers.
    METHODS: We identified primary health care journals through searches of SCImago Journal & Country Rank, Google Scholar, and a Google search. After screening for English language, functioning webpages, recent publications, and exclusion of predatory journals, 41 journals were included. Two reviewers independently reviewed journal homepages, author guidelines, submission policies, and editorial policies for AI-related statements at both journal and publisher levels between 18 and 21 July 2025.
    RESULTS: Of 41 journals assessed, 33 (80.5%) had publicly available AI policies - 21 (51.2%) at journal level and 12 (29.3%) at publisher level. Eight journals (19.5%) had no identifiable public AI policy. All identified policies were permissive toward AI use but varied in requirements across five key areas: disclosure of AI use, acceptable AI tasks, AI authorship considerations, author responsibility, and peer review guidelines.
    CONCLUSION: While most primary health care journals have established AI policies, significant gaps remain in accessibility and standardization. The fragmented governance landscape, characterized by inconsistent policy locations and requirements, creates confusion for authors and might compromise research integrity. Standardized, easily accessible AI policies are needed to enable researchers to harness AI's potential while maintaining transparency and scientific rigour essential to primary health care research.
    Keywords:  Academia publishingAcademia publishing; artificial intelligence; primary care; research
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1017/S1463423626101649
  12. Ophthalmol Sci. 2026 Nov;6(11): 101418
       Objective: To characterize discussion-section language in ophthalmology research articles with disclosed generative artificial intelligence (AI) writing assistance and to examine temporal lexical patterns among articles without disclosure.
    Design: Cross-sectional observational study.
    Subjects: Original research articles published in Ophthalmology Science from January 2024 through May 2026.
    Methods: Articles were classified according to disclosure of generative AI writing assistance. Discussion-section text was analyzed for Flesch Reading Ease (FRE), Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL), Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG), predefined generative AI-associated terms, control academic terms, and their ratio. Articles with disclosed AI writing assistance were compared with nondisclosing articles using repeated stratified 1:5 resampling by publication year and first-author English-language-dominant affiliation status across 1000 iterations. Temporal trends were evaluated among nondisclosing articles.
    Main Outcome Measures: Flesch Reading Ease, FKGL, SMOG, term densities, and AI-associated-to-control term ratio.
    Results: Among 633 articles, 28 (4.4%) disclosed generative AI writing assistance. English-language-dominant affiliation fractions were lower among AI-disclosed articles for first and corresponding authors (P = 0.008 and 0.012, respectively). Artificial intelligence-disclosed articles had lower FRE (11.97 vs. 21.59), higher FKGL (17.15 vs. 16.00), and higher SMOG scores (17.82 vs. 17.12; P values < 0.001, 0.013, and 0.027, respectively). Resampling produced mean Hodges-Lehmann shifts of -7.35 for FRE (95% resampling interval, -8.90 to -5.83), 1.06 for FKGL (0.80-1.32), and 0.66 for SMOG (0.47-0.86). Artificial intelligence-associated term density and the AI-associated-to-control term ratio were higher in AI-disclosed articles (22.38 vs. 15.71 terms per 1000 words and 0.91 vs. 0.63; P = 0.003 and 0.004, respectively), whereas control-term density did not differ (P = 0.844); resampling confirmed these lexical findings. Among nondisclosing articles, AI-associated term density and the ratio increased over publication years (all, P < 0.001), whereas control-term density did not (all, P > 0.05).
    Conclusions: Disclosed generative AI writing assistance was uncommon but was associated with lower formula-based readability, higher estimated reading grade levels, and a higher density of predefined generative AI-associated vocabulary in discussion sections. The temporal pattern among nondisclosing articles also suggests possible corpus-level diffusion of AI-associated lexical patterns, although disclosure status does not verify actual AI use.
    Financial Disclosures: Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.
    Keywords:  Generative artificial intelligence; Large language models; Ophthalmology; Scientific writing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.xops.2026.101418
  13. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 2026 Oct 28.
      
    Keywords:  bibliometrics; editorial policy; evidence synthesis; generative artificial intelligence; scholarly publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1002/jpn3.70634
  14. Res Integr Peer Rev. 2026 Oct 26. pii: 60. [Epub ahead of print]11(1):
       BACKGROUND: Artificial intelligence chatbots (AICs) are increasingly being considered for use in scholarly peer review to assist with tasks such as identifying methodological issues, verifying references, and improving language clarity. However, concerns remain regarding their reliability, ethical implications, and transparency. Evidence on how medical journal peer reviewers perceive the role and impact of AICs is limited. This study explored reviewers' familiarity with AICs, perceived benefits and challenges, ethical concerns, and anticipated future roles in peer review.
    METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional online survey of medical journal peer reviewers. Corresponding author information was extracted from MEDLINE-indexed articles added to PubMed within a six-week period. A total of 72,851 authors were invited via email to participate; those who self-identified as peer reviewers were eligible. The 29-item survey assessed familiarity with AICs and perceptions of their benefits and limitations in peer review. The survey was administered via SurveyMonkey from April 28 to June 16, 2025, with two reminder emails sent during the data collection period.
    RESULTS: Of 66,679 email invitations, a total of 1260 respondents provided survey responses (response rate: 1.9%), of whom 1157 met the eligibility criteria, and 1077 answered the main survey questions. Most participants were familiar with AICs (86.2%) and had used them for general purposes (87.7%), though most report not using AICs for peer review purposes (70.3%). Most respondents reported that their institutions do not provide training on AIC use in peer review (69.5%), although many expressed interest in such training (60.7%). Perceptions of AIC benefits were mixed, while concerns were widely shared, particularly regarding potential algorithmic bias (80.3%) and issues related to trust and user acceptance (73.3%).
    CONCLUSIONS: While familiarity with AICs is high among medical journal peer reviewers, their reported use in peer review remains limited. There is clear interest in training and guidance, however, concerns related to ethics, data privacy, and research integrity persist and should be addressed before broader implementation.
    Keywords:  Artificial intelligence; Attitudes; Chatbots; Peer review; Perceptions; Reviewers; Survey
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-026-00256-5
  15. medRxiv. 2026 Oct 11. pii: 2026.10.07.26363237. [Epub ahead of print]
       Significance: There is potential for generative artificial intelligence (AI) to perform "full stack" academic publishing, including comprehensive manuscript fabrication, "peer"-review, and editorial decision making. This study evaluated the benefits and cautions in using AI for full stack academic publishing in clinical research about seizures.
    Methods: Three epileptologists each selected 1 published manuscript in Epilepsia and produced an AI-fabricated manuscript about seizures. AI tools were then used to perform "peer"-review and make editorial decisions with minimal human supervision. The rates of identifying AI-fabricated manuscripts and editorial decisions among the epileptologists was analyzed, and epileptologists' observations on how AI differed from typical human "peer"-review and editorial decisions was collected.
    Results: Four of 6 (67%) pairs of AI-fabricated and human-generated manuscripts were correctly identified. Only 1 AI-fabricated manuscript was editorially rejected, whereas another had a subtle indicator of fabrication. When compared to human content, AI generated content was comprehensive, detailed, and based on the highest standard of academic publication. However, generated content was more verbose, used more structured responses, and more critical feedback.
    Conclusions: These results demonstrate that the quality of AI-fabricated manuscripts about clinical research in seizures was sufficiently high that the current methods of peer and editorial review could not easily distinguish fabricated content compared to human-written content. Moreover, AI review and editorial decisions were high quality and appeared reasonable in many cases. AI tools have matured to the point that there should be thoughtful policies that permit AI assistance but prohibit insufficiently supervised autonomous scientific submissions, reviews, and editorial decisions.
    Highlights: The maturity of AI tools to assist in manuscript generation, peer-review, and editorial decisions comes with cautions.Only 1 of 3 artificial intelligence (AI) fabricated manuscripts about seizures were reliably identified and rejected.This study describes characteristics of AI-generated peer-review and editorial comments that had insufficient human oversight.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.10.07.26363237
  16. Entropy (Basel). 2026 Sep 22. pii: 1044. [Epub ahead of print]28(10):
      Although academic peer review offers many important benefits, it can also impede scientific exploration. For instance, when reviewers share restrictive working assumptions, researchers may be incentivized to conform to them, even when alternative conjectures could better advance scientific understanding. We suggest mitigating this problem by complementing peer review with open prediction competitions. We illustrate the feasibility of this approach with two competitions on predicting decisions under risk. For more than 70 years, influential research on choice behavior has focused on models assuming that decision makers trust descriptions of payoff distributions, evaluate each option in isolation, and assign subjective values and weights to outcomes and probabilities. In contrast, the best-performing models in two recent prediction competitions relied on markedly different assumptions. They assume that decision makers question the accuracy of stated descriptions, use them as cues to retrieve similar past experiences, and select the strategy that proved most successful in analogous situations. We propose that, when evaluating papers that refine existing models, journal editors consider the decision "acceptance conditional on organizing an appropriate prediction competition." Such competitions would test whether alternative assumptions achieve superior predictive performance, encouraging creativity and theoretical innovation while grounding scientific evaluation in predictive success.
    Keywords:  conformity; insufficient exploration; paradigm shift; reliance on small samples; sequential convention game
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3390/e28101044
  17. BMC Med. 2026 Oct 22. pii: 588. [Epub ahead of print]24(1):
       BACKGROUND: Clinical trial data sharing is increasingly endorsed by journals, funders, regulators, and research organisations. Nevertheless, access to individual participant data (IPD) remains inconsistent and may not be available when trial results are published. Access timelines can reflect several distinct components, including scientific and governance review, contractual and legal procedures, data preparation, de-identification, transfer, and subsequent harmonisation. When original data are unavailable, researchers may reconstruct approximate participant-level event-time data from published Kaplan-Meier curves. Trinquart and Stockler recently proposed that trialists instead release minimal analysable time-to-event data at publication. Their proposal raises a broader question: what kinds of data and documentation are required for different forms of reproducibility and scientific reuse?
    MAIN TEXT: We argue that clinical trial data transparency should be considered in relation to the scientific claims and research activities that a particular data object can support. We propose a three-tier framework for data intentionally released or made accessible by trialists or data custodians. Tier 1 comprises original publication-time reduced datasets and supports endpoint-level numerical reproducibility and analyses that are functions of the released observations. Tier 2 comprises reproducibility packages containing analysis-ready data, code, derivation logic, and documentation sufficient to reproduce the reported analytic process. Tier 3 provides governed access to broader de-identified IPD for substantively new analyses and reassessment of operational and analytic decisions. Reconstructed pseudo-IPD are considered separately because they are generated externally from publications rather than shared from the trial database. Privacy protection, governance, and processing environment are cross-cutting dimensions and do not map uniquely to a particular tier. They also apply differently to each tier.
    CONCLUSIONS: Publication-time reduced datasets can provide meaningful and timely transparency when broader IPD are not yet accessible. Their value should be recognised without confusing endpoint-level numerical reproducibility with reproduction of the complete analytic process or broader scientific reuse. We propose that publication-time reduced datasets should form a practical floor for timely transparency, while reproducibility packages and governed access to broader IPD provide progressively richer opportunities for reproducing, interrogating, and extending clinical trial analyses.
    Keywords:  Clinical trial data sharing; Controlled access; Data reuse; Data transparency; Publication-time reduced datasets; Reproducibility
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-026-05349-y
  18. J Clin Epidemiol. 2026 Oct 30. pii: S0895-4356(26)00453-1. [Epub ahead of print] 112577
       BACKGROUND: The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) Statement was developed to improve the transparency and completeness of reporting randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Since its first publication in 1996, CONSORT has become the international standard for reporting RCTs and has influenced the development of reporting guidelines across health research.
    METHODS: This article describes the history, evolution, and impact of CONSORT from its beginnings in the early 1990s to the publication of CONSORT 2025. It draws on published reports, historical records and contributions from original developers and current members of the CONSORT and SPIRIT Executive group.
    RESULTS: Concerns regarding the poor reporting of RCTs, and the limitations this imposed for critical appraisal, systematic reviews and their ability to inform clinical practice guidelines, motivated the development of structured reporting guidance. Independent initiatives by the SORT Group in Ottawa and the Asilomar Working Group led to the production of the original CONSORT Statement in 1996, which introduced a checklist and participant flow diagram for reporting RCTs. Subsequent updates in 2001, 2010, and 2025 refined and expanded the guidance in response to emerging methodological evidence and user feedback. CONSORT also stimulated the creation of extensions addressing specific trial designs, interventions, and reporting issues, as well as related initiatives including SPIRIT, QUOROM, STARD, and the EQUATOR Network.
    CONCLUSION: Over three decades, CONSORT has become the international standard for reporting RCTs, endorsed by leading journals and editorial organizations worldwide. Evidence suggests that journal endorsement of CONSORT improves reporting completeness, although adherence remains inconsistent. Continued innovation, harmonization with related initiatives, and improved implementation strategies are still required to ensure transparent, reproducible, and trustworthy reporting of RCTs in the future.
    PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: Randomized controlled trials are important studies that help determine whether health treatments and other interventions work. However, if trial reports leave out key details about what researchers did and what they found, clinicians, patients, policy-makers, and other researchers cannot judge the results properly or use them confidently. This article describes the 30-year history of the CONSORT Statement, an international guideline designed to help researchers report randomized trials clearly and completely. CONSORT began in the mid-1990s, when two groups of researchers and journal editors independently developed proposals to improve poor reporting of trials. They combined their work, publishing the first CONSORT Statement in 1996. It included a checklist and a participant flow diagram to show how people moved through a trial. CONSORT has been updated several times as research methods and reporting needs have changed, most recently in 2025. The newest version gives greater attention to issues such as open science, data sharing, trial registration, and involving patients and the public. CONSORT has also led to related guidance for types of trials and has influenced reporting guidance for many other kinds of health research. Evidence indicates that trials published in journals that endorse CONSORT tend to report more essential information. Nevertheless, use of the guideline remains inconsistent. Researchers, journal editors, peer reviewers, and funders all have a role in making complete and transparent reporting routine. Better reporting makes trial findings easier to assess, reproduce, combine in systematic reviews, and use to improve health care.
    Keywords:  CONSORT; Randomized Controlled trial; Reporting Guidelines
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2026.112577
  19. Epidemiol Serv Saude. 2026 ;35 e20263000
       Objective: To assess the frequency and factors associated with data sharing in articles published in Epidemiologia e Serviços de Saúde.
    Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted based on articles published in 2025 in the journal. Data were considered available when the statement reported deposit in a repository with persistent identifiers. Descriptive statistics for the variables and the odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (95%CI) for data availability, according to variables with statistical significance, were calculated.
    Results: Of 124 articles published, data sharing occurred in 35 (28.2%; 95%CI 21.1; 36.7%). Most articles were submitted in 2024 (87.1%) and accepted in 2025 (76.6%), the year with greater data availability (p-value 0.017). The duration of peer review was longer in articles that shared data (median: 168 days; interquartile range: 130; 221 days) than in those without sharing (median: 135 days; interquartile range: 103; 172 days; p-value 0.025). Articles accepted in 2025 were more likely to share data (OR 4.40; 95%CI 1.41; 19.44; p-value 0.022), as were those with longer peer-review duration, in days (OR 1.01; 95%CI 1.00; 1.01; p-value 0.043). No factor remained associated with the outcome in the adjusted analysis.
    Conclusion: Over a quarter of the articles published in the journal shared their data, which was influenced by editorial factors. The requirement for a statement showed a limited effect on data sharing. Other strategies should be considered to increase adherence to open science in the journal.
    Keywords:  Cross-Sectional Studies.; Datasets as Topic; Peer Review; Periodicals as Topic; Scientific Integrity Review
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1590/S2237-96222026v35e20263000.en
  20. Perspect Clin Res. 2026 Oct-Dec;17(4):17(4): 235-238
      Clinical research professionals, skilled in medical writing, verbal communication, and presentations, are keen to become authors of a review article. They are not aware of the challenging prewriting process of meticulous planning, critical appraisal of the literature, brainstorming to select a topic, and structuring the article. Prewriting journey of acquiring knowledge and skills is discussed here briefly.
    Keywords:  Author; prewriting; review article
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.4103/picr.picr_261_26
  21. Saudi J Gastroenterol. 2026 Oct 26.
       ABSTRACT: Peer review is the process by which scholarly work, research findings, or scientific ideas are critically evaluated by independent experts within the same field. Peer review acts as a fundamental quality assurance mechanism that helps safeguard the scientific literature by identifying methodological weaknesses, ensuring the relevance and rigor of research questions, and verifying that conclusions are supported by appropriately conducted studies and valid analyses. This article provides an overview of the editorial workflow, examines the essential components of a high-quality peer review, and discusses the advantages and limitations of various peer-review models. It further presents a structured framework for systematic manuscript appraisal and outlines the ethical principles that underpin responsible reviewing. Finally, the article proposes a strategic roadmap for the Saudi Gastroenterology Association to establish sustainable reviewer-training pathways, with the goal of cultivating a new generation of Saudi researchers and reviewers capable of contributing to and leading the global scientific discourse.
    Keywords:  Critical appraisal; editor; editorial process; peer review; publication ethics; reviewer
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.4103/sjg.sjg_247_26
  22. J Conserv Dent Endod. 2026 Oct;29(10): 1075-1083
      Plagiarism is one of the most persistent ethical problems in academic and scientific publishing. Once limited to copying sentences from books, it has grown into a far more complicated challenge, driven by the internet, intense research competition, and the rapid spread of generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools. This article provides a thorough overview of plagiarism - definition, historical roots, types, contributing factors, detection tools, and regulatory frameworks with particular focus on recent developments through 2025/2026. The article pays special attention to India's regulatory approach under the University Grants Commission 2018 Regulations, the global role of the Committee on Publication Ethics, and the newly published Generative AI Transparency 2024 guidelines. The central argument is that addressing plagiarism today demands a combination of good ethical education, clear institutional policies, honest AI disclosure, and a genuine commitment to original thinking.
    Keywords:  Academic integrity; Generative Artificial Intelligence Transparency guidelines; Turnitin; University Grants Commission Regulations 2018; citation styles; generative artificial intelligence; iThenticate; large language models; plagiarism; research ethics
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.4103/JCDE.JCDE_931_26
  23. Child Health Nurs Res. 2026 Oct;32(4): 355-359
      Child Health Nursing Research (CHNR), the official journal of the Korean Academy of Child Health Nursing, has published continuously since 1995. This editorial reviews its history, current standing, and strategy for international indexing. CHNR adopted its present title in 2013, moved to English-only publication in 2020, and is indexed in CINAHL, Scopus, DOAJ, and PubMed Central. Its Scopus CiteScore rose every year, from 0.9 in 2021 to 2.5 in 2025, and SCImago placed it in the second quartile in both of its subject categories in 2025. Volume 32 (2026) comprises 42 articles, up from 28 in 2025; 24% involved authors from outside Korea. Building on these gains, CHNR aims for inclusion in the Web of Science Core Collection and, ultimately, MEDLINE. Four strategies will guide this effort: broadening author diversity, strengthening the international editorial board, publishing work that is read and cited, and upholding publication ethics. The 2026 revision of the Instructions for Authors supports these goals. Editors, reviewers, and authors share responsibility for the journal's next leap.
    Keywords:  Bibliometrics; Editorial policies; Internationality; Pediatric nursing; Periodicals as topic
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.4094/chnr.2026.063
  24. Biophys Rep (N Y). 2026 Jun 10. pii: S2667-0747(26)00017-0. [Epub ahead of print]6(2): 100264
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpr.2026.100264
  25. An Acad Bras Cienc. 2026 ;pii: S0001-37652026001107401. [Epub ahead of print]98(suppl 2): e20260079
      National flagship journals play a strategic yet often undervalued role in scientific systems outside the core centers of global knowledge production. This study analyzes the Annals of the Brazilian Academy of Sciences, Brazil's oldest continuously published scientific journal, to examine how long-standing multidisciplinary journals in emerging research systems navigate internationalization, evaluation regimes, and societal relevance. Using bibliometric and network analysis of Scopus and Web of Science data (1945-2025) we assess publication trends, thematic evolution, collaboration patterns, citation performance, and non-academic impact through policy and patent citations. Publication volume expanded sharply after 2000, alongside a complete transition to English and growing international collaboration, but citation impact remained modest relative to global multidisciplinary journals. Yet a substantial share of AABC Papers are cited in policy documents and patents across multiple countries, indicating relevance at the science-policy and science-technology interfaces. This discrepancy reflects structural limitations of conventional bibliometric indicators in capturing the contributions of nationally anchored, multidisciplinary journals. AABC occupies a hybrid position, supporting domestic scientific agendas while participating in global scholarly communication. The findings call for context-sensitive evaluation frameworks that recognize bibliodiversity, policy relevance, and the infrastructural role of national journals in emerging research systems.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1590/0001-3765202620260079
  26. Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol. 2026 Oct 30.
      
    Keywords:  OPEN SCIENCE; PHYSICAL ACTIVITY; WHEEL RUNNING
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1152/ajpheart.90208.2026
  27. Biol Cell. 2026 Nov;pii: e70087. [Epub ahead of print]118(11):
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1111/boc.70087
  28. Mol Cells. 2026 Oct 28. pii: S1016-8478(26)00100-7. [Epub ahead of print] 100409
      This editorial closes a three-year editorial term at Molecules and Cells and reviews what changed during that period, including more selective editorial standards, the transition to publication by Elsevier, the introduction of new article formats, and a broadening of the journal's international authorship and readership. The journal enters its next chapter with stronger visibility and a clear editorial direction.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mocell.2026.100409