bims-skolko Biomed News
on Scholarly communication
Issue of 2026–08–09
27 papers selected by
Thomas Krichel, Open Library Society
  1. From idea to publication: A practical guide for writing and publishing in the field of rehabilitation psychology.
  2. Manuscript Writing: An Editorial Perspective.
  3. Getting your publication right - Part 1 structuring a research manuscript: A guide to writing original research.
  4. From Evidence to Impact: A New Chapter for IJID.
  5. Is the scientific paper still a fraud?
  6. Beijing Roundtable Addresses Research Integrity's Role in Advancing Open Science.
  7. James Bond, not Bond James: why scientific publishing must respect name order.
  8. Tips for writing a paper for publication.
  9. 'A waste of time for all of us': caught in the crossfire of the peer-review wars.
  10. TOP 2025: An update to the Transparency and Openness Promotion Guidelines.
  11. The declaration of Adelaide white paper: guidelines for author responsibility in peer review.
  12. Welcome to the Relaunched Journal of Cellular Physiology.
  13. The declaration of Adelaide: White paper: Guidelines for author responsibility in peer review.
  14. Artificial Intelligence and our journal, "Einstein São Paulo".
  15. Corrigendum to "Journal Instructions Are Not Optional: Yet Authors Still Ignore Them".
  16. The magic of publishing educational research and innovations in Academic Medicine.
  17. [From Consolidation to Recognition: Acta Médica Portuguesa in the Second Quartile of the Journal Citation Reports].
  18. CHEST Pulmonary Journal in 2026.
  19. Researchers' Perspectives and Guidelines on the Reporting of Lived Experience Involvement in Eating Disorder Research.
  20. Scholarly Publications in an Era of Artificial Intelligence.
  21. The Journals We Build: On the Arrival of 2 Journals, and the Strength of a Family.
  22. Artificial intelligence is here to stay: the role of scientific etiquette.
  23. AI can write the paper-but whose paper is it?
  24. Exclusive: the science papers that patents cite the most.
  25. Cambridge Prisms: Extinction, after 4 years.
  26. A rubric to assess generative AI-based feedback on student writing assignments.
  27. Reproducibility and robustness of research conducted with administrative data: lessons learnt from the CBS Replication Games.
  1. Rehabil Psychol. 2026 Aug;71(3): 459-468
    From idea to publication: A practical guide for writing and publishing in the field of rehabilitation psychology.
    Paul B Perrin.
       PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE: Publishing in peer-reviewed journals is an important part of professional life in rehabilitation psychology, yet early-career scholars and trainees often receive limited direct instruction in how to transform research ideas into publishable manuscripts. This article offers a practical, field-specific guide to support authors in developing, writing, and submitting their work.
    RESEARCH METHOD/DESIGN: Drawing on the author's experience as a researcher, mentor, and journal editor, the article integrates best practices from multiple sources including reporting standards and open science principles while tailoring advice to the unique values of rehabilitation psychology.
    RESULTS: The article provides step-by-step guidance on structuring each section of a scientific article, from the introduction through the discussion, and includes metaorganizational tools. It also addresses important preparatory steps such as clarifying authorship, engaging mentors and collaborators, and adopting effective writing strategies. Practical recommendations are provided for selecting an appropriate journal; tailoring a manuscript to word and style requirements; and navigating peer review, revision, and rejection. Special attention is devoted to issues central to rehabilitation psychology, such as using respectful and inclusive language, precisely reporting demographic characteristics, describing stakeholder engagement, and considering positionality.
    CONCLUSIONS/IMPLICATIONS: Together, these strategies provide a roadmap for trainees and early-career professionals, helping them publish work that is not only scientifically rigorous but also aligned with rehabilitation psychology's mission of advancing equity, inclusion, and meaningful clinical impact. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2026 APA, all rights reserved).
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1037/rep0000652
  2. J Hum Reprod Sci. 2026 Apr-Jun;19(2):19(2): 86-94
    Manuscript Writing: An Editorial Perspective.
    Sumana Gurunath, Sandeep Karunakaran, Manish Banker, Mohan S Kamath.
      Scientific writing is an essential skill for clinicians and researchers to disseminate their research findings effectively. This narrative review discusses key aspects, including the formulation of an appropriate research question, the selection of suitable study designs, the identification of the right journal for submission and the structuring of manuscripts according to the IMRAD (Introduction, Methods, Results And Discussion) format. It highlights the importance of reporting guidelines, precise and compelling scientific writing, appropriate sample size calculation, selection of meaningful outcome measures in reproductive medicine and drafting balanced conclusions. This review also provides a concise overview of international recommendations and best practices for manuscript preparation to ensure clarity, transparency, reproducibility and completeness in scientific reporting. Ethical research practices, including avoidance of plagiarism, fabrication, falsification, inappropriate use of artificial intelligence and issues related to authorship and disclosure of competing interests, are also addressed. In addition, common reasons for manuscript rejection are outlined to help researchers improve the quality and impact of their submissions.
    Keywords:  Manuscript writing; publication ethics; reporting guidelines; research methodology
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.4103/jhrs.jhrs_147_26
  3. J Conserv Dent Endod. 2026 Jul;29(7): 686-695
    Getting your publication right - Part 1 structuring a research manuscript: A guide to writing original research.
    Aditya Mitra, R S Mohan Kumar, Shishir Singh, Suparna Ganguly Saha, Sonali Sharma, Geeta Asthana, Sonali Taneja, Velmurugan Natanasabapathy.
      Scientific literature forms the foundation of evidence-based medicine, enabling the dissemination, validation, and advancement of scientific knowledge. Original research articles represent the most structured form of scholarly communication through which scientific observations are translated into clinically relevant and reproducible evidence. Effective scientific writing requires the integration of rigorous methodology, ethical research conduct, critical analysis, and clear scientific presentation to ensure accuracy, transparency, and academic integrity. The organization of original research manuscripts commonly follows the standardized Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion (IMRAD) structure, encompassing IMRAD, thereby ensuring logical flow and uniformity in scientific reporting. Essential components, including formulation of research questions and hypotheses, literature search strategies, study design selection, sampling methods, statistical analysis, interpretation of findings, referencing systems, and journal selection, collectively determine the quality and impact of publication. Adherence to international reporting guidelines such as CONSORT, STROBE, PRISMA, and CARE further enhances methodological consistency, transparency, and reproducibility in biomedical research. Structured and precise scientific writing not only strengthens the credibility of research but also facilitates evidence-based clinical decision-making, academic communication, and future scientific advancement. Therefore, the present article emphasizes the fundamental principles involved in designing, structuring, writing, and publishing an original research article, with the aim of promoting high-quality scientific communication and responsible research dissemination in biomedical sciences.
    Keywords:  Introduction; and discussion; journal selection; literature search; manuscript preparation; methods; original research; publication ethics; research design; research methodology; results; scientific writing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.4103/JCDE.JCDE_563_26
  4. Int J Infect Dis. 2026 Aug 05. pii: S1201-9712(26)00669-7. [Epub ahead of print] 109034
    From Evidence to Impact: A New Chapter for IJID.
    Seif Salem Al-Abri, Zeliha Kocak TufanMD.
      
    Keywords:  editorial leadership; health equity; implementation science; infectious disease; open access; scholarly publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijid.2026.109034
  5. PLoS Biol. 2026 Aug;24(8): e3003912
    Is the scientific paper still a fraud?
    John S Tregoning.
      How we write scientific papers does not reflect how we do science. Their formal structure infers a pre-ordained linear process rather than reflecting the messy creativity of research. This matters in the AI age because it masks the human in the process.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3003912
  6. Health Care Sci. 2026 Aug 03.
    Beijing Roundtable Addresses Research Integrity's Role in Advancing Open Science.
    Wenqiong Lai, You Wu, Yu Sun.
      
    Keywords:  artificial intelligence; medical publishing; open science; research integrity
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1002/hcs2.70089
  7. Nature. 2026 Aug 05.
    James Bond, not Bond James: why scientific publishing must respect name order.
    Rachakonda Sreekar.
      
    Keywords:  Culture; Databases; Publishing; Technology
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-026-01772-6
  8. Ultrasound. 2026 Aug 06. 1742271X261466360
    Tips for writing a paper for publication.
    Michelle Fenech.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1177/1742271X261466360
  9. Nature. 2026 Aug 03.
    'A waste of time for all of us': caught in the crossfire of the peer-review wars.
    Katarina Zimmer.
      
    Keywords:  Authorship; Careers; Ethics; Funding; Peer review
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-026-01360-8
  10. Res Integr Peer Rev. 2026 Aug 05. pii: 40. [Epub ahead of print]11(1):
    TOP 2025: An update to the Transparency and Openness Promotion Guidelines.
    TOP Advisory Board
       BACKGROUND: Transparency and openness are core scientific values that enable independent verification of reported research results. The Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP) Guidelines, first published in 2015 (TOP 2015), provided a flexible framework for journals to design and implement publication standards promoting these values. Over the past decade, widespread use of TOP 2015 contributed to valuable evidence and feedback for refinement.
    MAIN TEXT: The TOP Advisory Board undertook a comprehensive update of TOP 2015 that went into effect in 2025 (TOP 2025). The update introduces an explicit conceptual framework clarifying its primary objective: improving the verifiability of empirical research claims. Standards are reorganized into three categories (Research Practices, Verification Practices, and Verification Studies) that resolve conceptual and structural limitations of TOP 2015. Research Practices include seven discrete practices implemented in three ways: Disclosed, Shared and Cited, and Certified. Verification Practices introduce standards for computational reproducibility and results transparency, while Verification Studies enumerate empirical research designs and publication formats that support verification of results. Language now centers on researchers and studies (rather than journals) to facilitate adoption by funders, research organizations, preprint servers, evidence curators, and other interest-holders. These changes promote flexible implementation and contextual tailoring.
    CONCLUSIONS: TOP 2025 retains the core strengths of TOP 2015 while addressing feedback from a decade of implementation and advances in open science. Rather than a universal mandate, it provides a shared, adaptable framework to coordinate the design, implementation, and communication of open policies across interest-holders.
    Keywords:  Open science; Replication; Reproducibility; Research transparency; TOP Guidelines; Verification
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-026-00223-0
  11. Radiat Environ Biophys. 2026 Aug 01.
    The declaration of Adelaide white paper: guidelines for author responsibility in peer review.
    Loredana G Marcu, Chris Clement, Anna Friedl, Richard Harbron, Werner Rühm, Magdalena Stoeva, Michael Thorne, Iuliana Toma-Dasu, Jamie Trapp, Andrzej Wojcik, Gayle Woloschak.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00411-026-01227-6
  12. J Cell Physiol. 2026 Aug;241(8): e70218
    Welcome to the Relaunched Journal of Cellular Physiology.
    Paul Trevorrow, Robert J W Heath.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1002/jcp.70218
  13. Phys Med. 2026 Aug;pii: S1120-1797(26)00121-3. [Epub ahead of print]148 105834
    The declaration of Adelaide: White paper: Guidelines for author responsibility in peer review.
    Loredana G Marcu, Chris Clement, Anna Friedl, Richard Harbron, Werner Rühm, Magdalena Stoeva, Michael Thorne, Iuliana Toma-Dasu, Jamie Trapp, Andrzej Wojcik, Gayle Woloschak.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejmp.2026.105834
  14. Einstein (Sao Paulo). 2026 Aug 03. pii: S1679-45082026000100202. [Epub ahead of print]24 eED2690
    Artificial Intelligence and our journal, "Einstein São Paulo".
    Jacyr Pasternak.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.31744/einstein_journal/2026ED2690
  15. Indian J Psychol Med. 2026 Aug 02. 02537176261474906
    Corrigendum to "Journal Instructions Are Not Optional: Yet Authors Still Ignore Them".
      [This corrects the article DOI: 10.1177/02537176261455515.].
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1177/02537176261474906
  16. Acad Med. 2026 Aug 04. pii: wvag245. [Epub ahead of print]
    The magic of publishing educational research and innovations in Academic Medicine.
    Patricia A Carney.
      
    Keywords:  academic scholarship; educational research
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1093/acamed/wvag245
  17. Acta Med Port. 2026 Aug 03. 39(8): 433-434
    [From Consolidation to Recognition: Acta Médica Portuguesa in the Second Quartile of the Journal Citation Reports].
    Helena Donato, Tiago Villanueva.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.20344/amp.25302
  18. CHEST Pulm. 2026 Mar;4(1): 100236
    CHEST Pulmonary Journal in 2026.
    Matthew C Miles.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chpulm.2026.100236
  19. Int J Eat Disord. 2026 Aug 05.
    Researchers' Perspectives and Guidelines on the Reporting of Lived Experience Involvement in Eating Disorder Research.
    Tracey D Wade, Marcela Radunz, Jake Linardon, Scott J Crow, Ata Ghaderi, Anja Hilbert, Kelly L Klump, B Timothy Walsh, Ruth Weissman.
       OBJECTIVES: There is an increasing trend towards embedding consumer and community involvement in all health and medical research. The Executive Committee of the International Journal of Eating Disorders (IJED) disseminated a survey for eating disorder researchers investigating their practices and perspectives regarding Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) in research, with the goal of informing our procedures in future.
    METHOD: A survey was distributed globally via eating disorder organizations, professional networks, and individual researchers. Researchers (N = 119) of various career stages completed the survey.
    RESULTS: Three quarters of the researchers had consulted people with lived experience to inform their research; 45% said that they employed lived experience and/or peer researchers across all stages of their research, and 75% viewed PPI as improving the quality, relevance, feasibility, adoption, or implementation of research. Concerns were expressed about the challenges associated with PPI, including cost, time, expertise, disclosure of lived experience status, the need to maintain robust scientific principles, concern about the validity of results, and potential harm to the person with lived experience. Most did not want disclosure of PPI to be mandatory or to impact the review process.
    CONCLUSION: These insights informed the development of an approach to recognizing the involvement of PPI in our publishing. Rather than an obligatory statement, IJED encourages use of PPI and disclosures, with inclusion of a description and implications for the interpretation of the research detailed in manuscripts.
    Keywords:  Patient and Public Involvement; editorial board; feeding and eating disorder; guidance; lived experience; survey
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1002/eat.70186
  20. HERD. 2026 Aug 03. 19375867261471760
    Scholarly Publications in an Era of Artificial Intelligence.
    Ellen Taylor.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1177/19375867261471760
  21. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2026 Aug 04. pii: S0735-1097(26)06975-5. [Epub ahead of print]88(5): 549-550
    The Journals We Build: On the Arrival of 2 Journals, and the Strength of a Family.
    Harlan M Krumholz.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2026.06.030
  22. Eye (Lond). 2026 Aug 05.
    Artificial intelligence is here to stay: the role of scientific etiquette.
    Shigeki Matsubara.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41433-026-04801-w
  23. Indian J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2026 Sep;42(9): 1021-1022
    AI can write the paper-but whose paper is it?
    Pradeep Narayan.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12055-026-02262-0
  24. Nature. 2026 Aug;656(8126): 19-23
    Exclusive: the science papers that patents cite the most.
    Richard Van Noorden, Heidi Ledford, Edward Chen.
      
    Keywords:  Diseases; Drug discovery; Immunology; Industry; Publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-026-02386-8
  25. Camb Prism Extinct. 2026 ;4 e10
    Cambridge Prisms: Extinction, after 4 years.
    Barry W Brook, John Alroy.
      Cambridge Prisms: Extinction was launched to provide an open, synthetic forum for research on the patterns, processes and consequences of extinction. Four years on, the release of the journal's first impact factor offers a useful moment to look back at what has begun to take shape and to look ahead to what it should now become. The early content shows a young journal whose first visible scholarly impact has been driven largely by synthesis. That was deliberate: a review-led beginning helped define the journal's intellectual map, draw together conservation biology, palaeontology, modelling, policy, social science and the humanities, and create pathways for more primary and data-driven work. The next stage should build on that foundation through more empirical research and through Extinction Accounts, a new article format designed to analyse individual extinctions.
    Keywords:  biodiversity loss; extinction; extinction accounts; impact factor; open access
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1017/ext.2026.10016
  26. J Microbiol Biol Educ. 2026 Aug 03. e0035025
    A rubric to assess generative AI-based feedback on student writing assignments.
    Daniel R Rankins, Erick N Tran, Valerie T La, Dorothy M Huang, Rachael M Barry.
      Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) tools are an increasingly common resource used in the classroom and writing process. The landscape of available GenAI tools is rapidly evolving, so having a systematic and straightforward way to evaluate new tools for incorporation into the classroom is key. For example, in science writing education, GenAI tools can be used as a supplement to instructor feedback on student writing, allowing an additional opportunity for critique and revision by the student. Here, we describe a rubric we developed to enable instructors to assess differences between feedback provided by GenAI models based on five key areas: (i) accuracy, (ii) constructiveness, (iii) clarity and readability, (iv) recognition of strengths, and (v) original text. We show data comparing the feedback provided by multiple GenAI models on student work based on course guidelines. This rubric can serve as a resource for other instructors interested in evaluating various GenAI models for use as scientific writing feedback supplements in their own classrooms.
    Keywords:  STEM; generative artificial intelligence; science writing; undergraduate; writing feedback
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1128/jmbe.00350-25
  27. Int J Popul Data Sci. 2026 ;11(5): 3650
    Reproducibility and robustness of research conducted with administrative data: lessons learnt from the CBS Replication Games.
    Lenka Fiala, Jack Fitzgerald, Kasia Karpinska, Angelica Maria Maineri.
      The social sciences are experiencing a renaissance in open science, with mass replication initiatives and transparency policies becoming widespread in many institutions and academic journals. However, the rising use of restricted data is a key barrier to replication in the social sciences. In a sample of 158 articles published in Top 5 economics journals from 2020-2023, over 48% required restricted-use data to produce some main findings (Fitzgerald 2025). The proportions of papers that use restricted data have tripled or quadrupled in economic subdisciplines since 2000 (Garg & Fetzer 2024). The time and costs associated with re-accessing restricted-access data tend to be a significant barrier to preclude reproducibility in practice. In February 2026, ODISSEI and the Institute for Replication will host a Replication Games hackathon where teams of replicators will attempt to reproduce and run robustness checks on six papers published since 2020 in top economics journals with robust transparency policies that are produced entirely from Statistic Netherlands administrative microdata and other public-use data, and have made code available. The results of our reproducibility and robustness analyses can help improve the trustworthiness of scientific analyses using restricted-access data. Difficulties in reproducing findings in these papers can help highlight necessary infrastructural adjustments (e.g., improvements in version control) to help ensure that findings using CBS microdata are reproducible. Conversely, if results in these papers are reasonably reproducible and robust, this can help boost trust in research using restricted-access data. The presentation will outline the preliminary results and lessons learnt from the three-day event.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.23889/ijpds.v11i5.3650
This page is being maintained by Thomas Krichel. It was last updated on 2026‒08‒13 at 11:48.