bims-skolko Biomed News
on Scholarly communication
Issue of 2025–08–03
34 papers selected by
Thomas Krichel, Open Library Society
  1. Balanced examination of positive publication bias impact.
  2. A digital companion for musicological scholarship: the Lohengrin TimeMachine.
  3. Variability in article processing charges of open-access publishing across medical specialties.
  4. Practical measures for achieving greater alignment between scientific practice and meaningful research output.
  5. When I use a word . . . "Publish or perish": adverse effects.
  6. When I use a word . . . "Publish or perish": problems and solutions.
  7. How to tackle research misconduct: survey finds stark disagreement.
  8. Controversial 'arsenic life' paper retracted after 15 years - but authors fight back.
  9. Frontiers retracts over 100 articles after uncovering "peer review manipulation network".
  10. India to penalize universities with too many retractions.
  11. Sleuths and scientific institutions are not rivals.
  12. Risk of publishing guidelines.
  13. "I just very much love the journal":  Understanding the community-led publishing landscape at the University of Cambridge.
  14. The Growing Demand for Peer Review: Current Challenges and Potential Reforms.
  15. 'Why was my paper rejected?': Understanding editorial decisions in a high-impact cardiovascular nursing journal.
  16. High-Quality Peer Review for Scientific Manuscripts.
  17. Revisiting the quality criteria for qualitative research.
  18. Can Artificial Intelligence Replace Human Peer Review in Cardiovascular Journals?
  19. Talking the talk-or signing the sign: Sharing our data as open access.
  20. A sharing practices review of the visual search and eye movements literature reveals recommendations for our field and others.
  21. Compliance with Ethical Clearance Certifications among Medical Journals in Nigeria - A Mixed Method Study.
  22. Conformity with Publication Ethics Guidelines among Nigerian Medical Journals.
  23. Mixed methods, mixed feelings: a review of hurdles faced and vaulting poles to apply when wanting to do and publish mixed methods research.
  24. Ten guidelines for contributors to medical artificial intelligence research.
  25. Authorship Equity in Academic Surgery: Barriers and Pathways to Parity.
  26. Correction: Evaluating psychiatry journals' adherence to informed consent guidelines for case reports.
  27. Charting the future of PLOS Medicine: Priorities for evidence, impact, and equity.
  28. Introducing the Tutorial Manuscript Type at the ACS Au Community Journals.
  29. Global Cost of Silencing Science: Editors and Publishers Have a Duty to Resist.
  30. Best Publishing Practices and Open Access Options at The American Naturalist.
  31. The American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics and American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics Clinical Companion review process.
  32. Writing for the AORN Journal: Sharing Your Voice.
  33. Transformative Agreements-An Invitation to Publish Open Access in the IUJ.
  34. Scientific bedlam at the world's weirdest and wildest research conference.
  1. Account Res. 2025 Jul 31. 1-21
    Balanced examination of positive publication bias impact.
    Mark Louie F Ramos.
       BACKGROUND: Positive publication bias is the tendency to favor studies that reject null hypotheses for publication and is widely regarded as detrimental to research enterprise quality. However, this view oversimplifies the interplay between selection biases and the statistical properties of hypothesis testing.
    METHODS: Using theoretical models under varying assumptions about the research landscape in terms of the truth values of hypotheses investigated, we examine how increasing bias towards publishing studies with statistically significant results over those without inflates false positive rate while improving true positive rate of studies found in published literature.
    RESULTS: We demonstrate that even when most null hypotheses being investigated in a research field are true, a preference for publishing studies with statistically significant results when choosing among many articles that are each investigating different topics substantially increases the proportion of published true positives while only modestly inflating the proportion of published false positives. This is true so long as individual research studies are being conducted at reasonable significance level and power relative to the research landscape.
    CONCLUSION: Observed positive publication bias based on the proportion of published studies with positive results compared to unpublished studies is not inherently harmful to the research enterprise when publishers and researchers are acting competently and in good faith.
    Keywords:  Publication bias; file drawer problem; statistical significance
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2025.2538066
  2. J New Music Res. 2024 ;53(3-4): 297-311
    A digital companion for musicological scholarship: the Lohengrin TimeMachine.
    Laurence Dreyfus, David Lewis, Kevin Page.
      Musicology has long suffered from the difficulties of making its work accessible, or even comprehensible to a wider audience. We introduce a digital companion to music scholarship - in this case, an exploration of Wagner's early use of leading motifs in the opera Lohengrin - providing different ways to explore, see and hear the materials that are discussed in musicological research. That research is described in text and a video, each of which is incorporated into the companion as a springboard for further discovery. Novel visualisations include a 'TimeMachine' view, in which a user can flick through motif occurrences, quickly navigating through the musical transformations across the opera. Having introduced the scholarship and the companion, we discuss the collaborative process by which the application was conceived and built, including the practicalities of timing and incorporating external design expertise. We conclude by discussing the future of such 'companions' in musicological publication.
    Keywords:  Digital musicology; Wagner; digital publishing; hypermedia; interdisciplinary collaboration; multimedia
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1080/09298215.2025.2487100
  3. PLoS One. 2025 ;20(7): e0320684
    Variability in article processing charges of open-access publishing across medical specialties.
    Emily G Tocco, Mackenzie M Mayhew, Margaret G Mercante, Nidhi Kuchimanchi, Mohamad El Moheb, Chengli Shen, Allan Tsung, Russell G Witt.
       BACKGROUND: Open-access (OA) journals provide public access to research but often impose a financial burden on researchers through article processing charges (APCs). The connection between APCs and indicators of journal prestige, such as journal impact factor (JIF), and their variation across medical specialties remains unclear. This study investigates how publication costs relate to journal prestige across diverse medical fields.
    METHODS: Data from 1,117 hybrid and OA journals across 29 medical specialties were compiled from Journal Citation Reports and journal websites. Pearson correlation coefficients between APCs and journal characteristics (JIF, journal citation indicator, citation counts, and percentage of OA publications) were calculated. Linear regression was used to assess the impact of these journal characteristics on APC variance. Bartlett's test for homogeneity of variances was performed to evaluate differences in APC variance across specialties and publishing models. Journal counts by country of origin and corresponding median APCs were also analyzed.
    RESULTS: Significant variation in APCs was observed across specialties, with hematology/oncology journals having the highest median APC ($4,690) and primary care journals the lowest ($2,690). Hybrid journals had higher median APCs than OA journals ($4,248 vs. $2,909, p < 0.001). JIF and the proportion of OA publications accounted for only 14.1% of the APC variance in Q1 journals. Weak positive correlations were found between APC and both JIF (r = 0.38) and citation counts (r = 0.38), and a weak negative correlation between APC and the proportion of OA publications (r = -0.28).
    CONCLUSIONS: Across all medical specialties, hybrid journals have higher APCs than fully open-access journals. Although APCs vary within specialties, differences across fields are less pronounced. The weak correlations between APC and journal prestige metrics suggest that factors such as JIF, citation counts, and the proportion of OA publications account for only a small fraction of APC variability.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0320684
  4. Biophys Rev. 2025 Jun;17(3): 731-736
    Practical measures for achieving greater alignment between scientific practice and meaningful research output.
    Damien Hall.
      With the rise of generative artificial intelligence, previous barriers to producing written content in the form of papers and grants are decreasing, resulting in a rapid rise in the level of submitted material. This opinion piece first describes a number of already existing structural problems within current scientific research practice that relate to publication output, managerial science styles, and the operation of national granting systems that are especially susceptible to further exploitation with the use of an artificial intelligence-based writing assistant. It then proceeds to offer a number of recommendations that may help to fix these problems, thereby creating better working environments and higher quality research output.
    Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12551-025-01324-8.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12551-025-01324-8
  5. BMJ. 2025 Jul 25. 390 r1577
    When I use a word . . . "Publish or perish": adverse effects.
    Jeffrey K Aronson.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.r1577
  6. BMJ. 2025 Aug 01. 390 r1629
    When I use a word . . . "Publish or perish": problems and solutions.
    Jeffrey K Aronson.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.r1629
  7. Nature. 2025 Jul 25.
    How to tackle research misconduct: survey finds stark disagreement.
    Miryam Naddaf.
      
    Keywords:  Publishing; Research management; Scientific community
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-025-02365-5
  8. Nature. 2025 Jul;643(8074): 1163-1164
    Controversial 'arsenic life' paper retracted after 15 years - but authors fight back.
    Lauren Wolf.
      
    Keywords:  Chemistry; Microbiology; Publishing; Scientific community
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-025-02325-z
  9. BMJ. 2025 Jul 31. 390 r1604
    Frontiers retracts over 100 articles after uncovering "peer review manipulation network".
    Kate Bowie.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.r1604
  10. Nature. 2025 Aug 01.
    India to penalize universities with too many retractions.
    Smriti Mallapaty.
      
    Keywords:  Databases; Peer review; Publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-025-02364-6
  11. Nature. 2025 Jul;643(8074): 1158
    Sleuths and scientific institutions are not rivals.
      
    Keywords:  Publishing; Research management; Scientific community
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-025-02347-7
  12. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2025 Sep 01. 42(9): 861-862
    Risk of publishing guidelines.
    Sibylle Langenecker, Juan V Llau, Daniela C Filipescu, Charles M Samama.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1097/EJA.0000000000002215
  13. F1000Res. 2025 ;14 266
    "I just very much love the journal":  Understanding the community-led publishing landscape at the University of Cambridge.
    Samuel Moore, Mandy Wigdorowitz.
       Background: A growing movement of researcher-driven publishing projects has emerged in response to several challenges and shifts within the academic publishing landscape. One publishing initiative in this area are what we term community-led publishing projects (CPPs), which are produced entirely by academics, librarians and students without any involvement of the commercial publishing industry. CPPs are part of a growing global movement but their values and practices remain underexplored. This article presents findings on the landscape of CPPs at the University of Cambridge.
    Methods: A landscape analysis was undertaken to identify and describe the various CPPs at Cambridge. A subset of 10 journal editors were subsequently interviewed to explore the practices, motivations and needs of these initiatives.
    Results: Thirty-four CPPs were identified across a range of disciplines with a variety of publishing practices, open access status and professionalisation. From the interviews, CPPs were driven by an array of motivations including volunteers who are dedicated to their disciplines, who care for publishing, have a responsibility to disseminate their own research and who acknowledge the value these projects bring. They have complicated relationships with open access, being encouraged by public access to knowledge while maintaining a desire for print and being critical of some cultures of publishing brought on by the turn to openness. Practically, they employ a "DIY" approach due to the availability of resources but in doing so adhere to professional standards. Their success relies on collaboration and support, leveraging networks, technical and financial backing, and ensuring sustainability through careful handover.
    Conclusions: This study helps us better understand the scope and practices of community-led publishing at a research-intensive university in the UK. It shows that CPPs are valuable for a variety of reasons and that universities, funders and governments should support such projects to ensure the preservation of unique scholarly content.
    Keywords:  Cambridge; community-led publishing projects; open access; open research; publishing; scholarly communication
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.161163.1
  14. Br J Biomed Sci. 2025 ;82 14930
    The Growing Demand for Peer Review: Current Challenges and Potential Reforms.
    Pierpaolo Pellicori, Jonathan Douxfils, Robert J Mentz, John G F Cleland, Charlotte Beaudart.
      
    Keywords:  academic publishing; ecosystem; peer review; reviewers; system reform
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3389/bjbs.2025.14930
  15. Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs. 2025 Jul 31. pii: zvaf151. [Epub ahead of print]
    'Why was my paper rejected?': Understanding editorial decisions in a high-impact cardiovascular nursing journal.
    Philip Moons, Jeroen M Hendriks, Catriona Jennings, Sandra Lauck.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1093/eurjcn/zvaf151
  16. J Transcult Nurs. 2025 Jul 29. 10436596251363884
    High-Quality Peer Review for Scientific Manuscripts.
    Mei Rosemary Fu, Steven R Chesnut, Anita Skarbek, Sarah E Patel.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1177/10436596251363884
  17. Nordisk Alkohol Nark. 2025 Jul 22. 14550725251358087
    Revisiting the quality criteria for qualitative research.
    Matilda Hellman.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1177/14550725251358087
  18. Turk Kardiyol Dern Ars. 2025 Jul 30.
    Can Artificial Intelligence Replace Human Peer Review in Cardiovascular Journals?
    Sefa Tatar.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.5543/tkda.2025.67002
  19. J Deaf Stud Deaf Educ. 2025 Jun 11. pii: enaf046. [Epub ahead of print]30(SI):
    Talking the talk-or signing the sign: Sharing our data as open access.
    Julie A Hochgesang.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1093/jdsade/enaf046
  20. Behav Res Methods. 2025 Jul 25. 57(9): 235
    A sharing practices review of the visual search and eye movements literature reveals recommendations for our field and others.
    Hayward J Godwin, Haden Dewis, Peter T Darch, Michael C Hout, Daniel Ernst, Philippa Broadbent, Megan Papesh, Jeremy M Wolfe.
      The sharing of research outputs is an important endeavor, one that is increasingly required by funders and publishers alike. Here, we catalogued and examined data sharing practices, using our own field of visual search and eye movement behavior as an example. To find outputs from scientific research, we conducted two searches: a Literature Search and a repository search. Overall, we found that researchers in our field generally shared outputs that enabled others to analytically reproduce published results. It was rare for researchers to share outputs that enabled direct replications of their work, and it was also rare for researchers to share raw data that would enable secondary data analyses. Comparing the results of our two searches of the literature, we found that a lack of metadata substantially reduced the rates at which outputs could be found and used. Based on our findings, we present a set of recommendations summarized in our 'Find It - Access It - Reuse It' scorecard. The scorecard is intended to assist researchers in sharing outputs in a manner that will enable others to better find, access, and understand them - and this includes researchers in other fields beyond our own.
    Keywords:  Data sharing; Eye tracking; Open science; Secondary data analyses; Sharing practices review; Visual search
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-025-02759-3
  21. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2025 Jul 31. 15562646251356725
    Compliance with Ethical Clearance Certifications among Medical Journals in Nigeria - A Mixed Method Study.
    Ijeoma A Meka, Ngozi Idemili Aronu, Felix N Chukwuneke, Emmanuel R Ezeome.
      BackgroundEthical conduct of research is of global significance. Research findings are disseminated via journal publications. Hence, journal editors should serve as gatekeepers by ensuring that authors report ethical review of their work before publication. This study aimed at determining the compliance of Nigerian Medical Journals to ethical clearance certification.MethodsA cross-sectional design was employed using a mixed-methods approach. Nigerian Medical Journals were evaluated, and journal editors interviewed. Key informant interview (KII) guide was used for the qualitative aspect.ResultsA total of 24 journals and 400 publications were included. Of the 400 original articles, 302(75.5%) reported having obtained ethical approval, while 236(70.9%) of those eligible reported having obtained informed consent. Six themes emerged from the KIIs.ConclusionReporting of ethics approval and informed consent was high. This is commendable and calls for more effort on medical research stakeholders to maintain the current rate and improve on it in upholding standards of ethical conduct in research.
    Keywords:  Ethical clearance; Nigeria; ethics review; informed consent; medical journals
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1177/15562646251356725
  22. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2025 Jul 31. 15562646251363203
    Conformity with Publication Ethics Guidelines among Nigerian Medical Journals.
    Adaora A Onyiaorah, Euzebus C Ezugwu.
      Conformity with publication ethics guidelines by medical journals is vital, especially with increasing pressure to publish and potential for unethical practices that could undermine scientific research integrity and public trust. This study assessed Nigerian medical journals' status concerning conformity with publication ethics guidelines. Cross-sectional survey of Nigerian medical journals using a checklist to obtain information from the journals' websites on journal characteristics and presence of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) 16 principles of 'Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing. Forty journals were studied: 57.5% general medical and 42.5% specialty journals. Mean conformity score, 21.8 ± 5.6 (66.1%). All journals conformed to name uniqueness; 2.5% had data sharing policy. More general medical journals, (43.5%) specified readership than specialty journals, (11.8%). Conformity to COPE principles by Nigerian Medical journals was adequate. However, some deficient areas including data sharing and post-publication discussion policies could negatively impact research integrity. Improved adherence is recommended.
    Keywords:  COPE guidelines; Nigeria; Principles of Transparency; Publication ethics conformity; medical journals
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1177/15562646251363203
  23. J Ethn Migr Stud. 2025 ;51(12): 3170-3191
    Mixed methods, mixed feelings: a review of hurdles faced and vaulting poles to apply when wanting to do and publish mixed methods research.
    Niels Spierings, Nella Geurts.
      Sometimes 'mixed methods designs' are considered a winner for obtaining research grants, but a close-to-certain reject when publishing. Evidently, reality is more complex. At the same time, these considerations are grounded in actual experiences, observations and the structure of our epistemic community. In this contribution, we will reflect on this structure, particularly in ethnic and migration studies, as such reflection is particularly interesting for a case that is strongly interdisciplinary, which might pave the way as well as lead to double jeopardy (running into reviewers disliking the method and the disciplinary perspective). First, we will sketch a (quantitative) background of the definition and prevalence of mixed methods research in ethnic and migration journals. Next, and based on migration scholars' experiences with mixed methods research and often heard ideas, we will chart and discuss the structural barriers that hamper mixed methods research (from journal word counts to unqualified reviewers). Third, based on these barriers or hurdles as we will label them, both structural and practical solutions are discussed, leading to a wish list for facilitating high-quality mixed methods research.
    Keywords:  Mixedmethods research; ethnic and migration studies; publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2025.2487748
  24. Ewha Med J. 2025 Jul;48(3): e39
    Ten guidelines for contributors to medical artificial intelligence research.
    Dohyoung Rim.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.12771/emj.2025.00717
  25. J Surg Res. 2025 Jul 25. pii: S0022-4804(25)00428-7. [Epub ahead of print]
    Authorship Equity in Academic Surgery: Barriers and Pathways to Parity.
    Alice Umutoni, Alexandra C Istl, Jaclyn A Gellings, Olamide Alabi, Margaret J Tarpley, Juliet Emamaullee, Chris Dodgion, Barnabas Tobi Alayande.
       INTRODUCTION: Authorship equity refers to the fair and transparent assignment of credit and responsibility for intellectual contributions within a publication. The career impact of missed authorship recognition leads to significant career trajectory divergence. This paper aims to review key inequities in scientific authorship in academic surgery, explore possible solutions, and propose a set of ethical recommendations to address authorship equity in academic surgery across intersecting dimensions of gender, academic hierarchy, and geography.
    METHODS: We describe a multi-level strategy framework at the individual, institutional, and scientific journal levels to promote authorship equity.
    RESULTS: Disparities in female authorship within the field of surgery due to the "glass ceiling," "sticky floors," and the "leaky pipeline" lead to systematic exclusion of women from first, middle, or senior author and editorial board positions. Honorary authorship and ghost authorship disproportionately burden junior researchers, because of unequal power dynamics. Authors from low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) experience a paradox: while international collaborations provide resources, they often diminish the roles of LMIC authors. Innovative strategies that enhance transparency, foster early communication, and standardize contribution reporting are essential to promote equitable authorship.
    CONCLUSIONS: Addressing gender-based authorship inequity requires predefining inclusive authorship goals with a gender-lens from the outset, ensuring dedicated mentorship for female surgeons, and improving female representation on editorial boards. Addressing hierarchical challenges requires the implementation of integrated strategies on personal, departmental, and institutional levels. Inclusive utilization and effective application of authorship equity guidelines and mutually respectful partnerships that reflect and addresses barriers for LMIC partners is essential.
    Keywords:  Academic surgery; Authorship equity; Gender; Global surgery; Low- and middle-income countries; Publishing; Research
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2025.06.087
  26. Res Integr Peer Rev. 2025 Jul 30. 10(1): 16
    Correction: Evaluating psychiatry journals' adherence to informed consent guidelines for case reports.
    Ashley J Tsang, John Z Sadler, E Sherwood Brown, Elizabeth Heitman.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-025-00175-x
  27. PLoS Med. 2025 Jul;22(7): e1004691
    Charting the future of PLOS Medicine: Priorities for evidence, impact, and equity.
    Helen Lumbard, Till Baernighausen.
      As PLOS Medicine enters a new chapter, its leadership sets out a bold editorial vision grounded in evidence, impact and equity. In a rapidly evolving global health landscape, the journal reaffirms its commitment to diversity, openness, and actionable science, ensuring research not only reflects the world's needs, but drives meaningful change.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1004691
  28. ACS Phys Chem Au. 2025 Jul 23. 5(4): 316-317
    Introducing the Tutorial Manuscript Type at the ACS Au Community Journals.
    Squire J Booker, Stephanie L Brock, Xiangdong Li, Géraldine Masson, Sébastien Perrier, Vivek V Ranade, Raymond E Schaak, Gemma C Solomon, Shelley D Minteer.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1021/acsphyschemau.5c00050
  29. J Korean Med Sci. 2025 Jul 28. 40(29): e216
    Global Cost of Silencing Science: Editors and Publishers Have a Duty to Resist.
    Frank Frizelle, Kamran Abbasi, Vivienne Bachelet, Christopher Baethge, Sabine Kleinbert, Jin-Hong Yoo, Lilia Zakhama.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2025.40.e216
  30. Am Nat. 2025 Aug;206(2): 87-88
    Best Publishing Practices and Open Access Options at The American Naturalist.
    Volker H W Rudolf, Jill T Anderson, Sébastien Lion.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1086/736548
  31. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2025 Aug;pii: S0889-5406(25)00216-1. [Epub ahead of print]168(2): 121-122
    The American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics and American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics Clinical Companion review process.
    Jae Hyun Park.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2025.05.006
  32. AORN J. 2025 Aug;122(2): 123-127
    Writing for the AORN Journal: Sharing Your Voice.
    Rodney W Hicks.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1002/aorn.14390
  33. Int Urogynecol J. 2025 Jul 30.
    Transformative Agreements-An Invitation to Publish Open Access in the IUJ.
    Maria A T Bortolini, Kaven Baessler.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-025-06258-z
  34. Nature. 2025 Jul 30.
    Scientific bedlam at the world's weirdest and wildest research conference.
    Josie Glausiusz.
      
    Keywords:  Conferences and meetings; Media; Peer review
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-025-02169-7
This page is being maintained by Thomas Krichel. It was last updated on 2025‒08‒06 at 20:28.