bims-skolko Biomed News
on Scholarly communication
Issue of 2025–05–25
27 papers selected by
Thomas Krichel, Open Library Society



  1. J Educ Health Promot. 2025 ;14 139
      In the vast expanse of academic publishing, researchers face a dual challenge of identifying legitimate avenues for dissemination while avoiding predatory journals. Predatory publishing, characterized by lax peer review, deceptive practices, and exorbitant fees, jeopardizes scholarly integrity and career progression. This paper explores the intricacies of predatory publishing, delineates its implications for researchers, and presents pragmatic strategies to navigate this landscape adeptly. Understanding the hallmarks of predatory journals, such as deficient peer review and misleading indexing claims, is paramount. Researchers risk reputational damage and hinder scientific progress by engaging with such venues. Moreover, the financial burden and ethical dilemmas associated with predatory publishing exacerbate the predicament. To combat this menace, researchers must employ vigilant vetting processes, consulting resources like Beall's List and DOAJ, while critically evaluating journal metrics and practices. Trusted mentors and disciplinary societies can offer invaluable guidance in identifying reputable outlets. Scrutinizing submission guidelines, peer-review procedures, and indexing status, alongside adherence to ethical standards, helps discern predatory from legitimate journals. By prioritizing transparency, integrity, and collaboration, researchers can navigate the complex publishing landscape, contributing to the advancement of knowledge while safeguarding scholarly integrity.
    Keywords:  Academic publishing; peer review; predatory journals; scholarly integrity
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.4103/jehp.jehp_944_24
  2. Colomb Med (Cali). 2024 Oct-Dec;55(4):55(4): e4006597
      Journals have experienced a significant rise in submissions of systematic reviews and other types of reviews that often fall short of acceptable quality standards. These shortcomings typically stem from insufficient rigor in their methodology, reporting, or critical appraisal. As a result, these submissions are frequently rejected raising concerns about the standards authors are following when preparing such work. This growing trend of low-quality reviews not only places a burden on editorial teams but also poses a risk to the scientific community by potentially disseminating flawed or unreliable conclusions. Ensuring that articles maintain high standards is crucial for preserving the integrity of the scientific literature and facilitating evidence-based decision-making. In an effort to address this problem, this viewpoint editorial aims to offer concepts and recommendations on available tools for future authors to improve the quality of their reviews, as well as to guide readers and potential journal reviewers on how to critically interpret these articles.
    Keywords:  Systematic reviews; critical appraisal; evidence-based tools; journal rejection rates; methodological rigor
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.25100/cm.v55i4.6597
  3. Nat Struct Mol Biol. 2025 May;32(5): 769
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41594-025-01567-9
  4. CRISPR J. 2025 May 21.
      Scientific journals develop and enforce editorial guidelines that are a component of governing science. In this essay, the former editor-in-chief of Nature reflects on several prominent examples of how scientific journals have been involved in setting and judging ethical norms in scientific research. Editors, in consultation with external experts, can balance transparency and public trust, stakeholder engagement, inclusive consultation, and access to research to address concerns surrounding dual-use research, societal harms, and research integrity.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1089/crispr.2025.0047
  5. Med Educ. 2025 May 20.
      Academic publishing is both incredibly rewarding for authors and fraught with frustration and challenges. One such challenge is navigating critical peer reviews that can seem demeaning, condescending, or outright cruel. Colloquially, such reviews have been personified as "reviewer 2" on social media and in the literature. While some reviewer 2s may belittle authors on purpose, we believe most unintentionally do so due to a paucity of reviewing experience, challenges with establishing a rapport-building tone in their review writing or a different understanding of what type of language is destructive and demeaning. Given the amount of time, effort and care that authors pour into their manuscripts, it can be easier to visualise reviewer 2s as Scrooge-like curmudgeons whose purpose in life is to bring misery to other scholars. In this manuscript, the authors use their experience in Medical Education's editorial internship as a framing to create a caricature of the miserly reviewer 2. The authors hope that by creating such an absurd lampoon, they encourage readers to consider that most reviewer 2s are simply in need of coaching rather than personality transplants.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.15679
  6. Arq Bras Oftalmol. 2025 ;pii: S0004-27492025000300902. [Epub ahead of print]88(3): e20250090
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.5935/0004-2749.2025-0090
  7. JAAD Int. 2025 Aug;21 5-6
      
    Keywords:  academic writing; artificial intelligence; equitable access; large language models; research; scientific writing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdin.2025.02.005
  8. Nature. 2025 May;641(8065): 1080-1081
      
    Keywords:  Databases; Machine learning; Medical research; Publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-025-01592-0
  9. J Clin Epidemiol. 2025 May 19. pii: S0895-4356(25)00168-4. [Epub ahead of print] 111835
       BACKGROUND: Clinicians rely on evidence-based research for clinical practice to ensure safe, efficacious patient care. Reporting guidelines and clinical trial registration improve the quality of this research by increasing transparency and reducing the risk of biases. The extent of which endocrinology journals adopt the use of these tools is unclear. Therefore, the primary outcome of this study is to assess the recommendation and requirement of reporting guidelines and the secondary outcome is to assess clinical trial registration in the top endocrinology journals.
    METHODS: The top 100 journals in the "Endocrinology, Obesity, and Metabolism" subcategory were identified using the 2021 Scopus CiteScore tool. The "instructions to authors" of each journal was analyzed for statements regarding select reporting guidelines outlined by the Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research (EQUATOR) Network as well as clinical trial registration. Statements were recorded as "Not Mentioned," "Recommended", "Does Not Require", or "Required". To prevent unfair assessment, each journal was contacted to confirm the article types that are accepted.
    RESULTS: Of 100 journals examined, CONSORT was the most commonly mentioned guideline with 46 journals recommending adherence and 36 journals requiring adherence. PRISMA was recommended by 61 journals and required by 19 journals. Finally, 77 journals required clinical trial registration.
    CONCLUSION: Our study reveals a lack of consistent endorsement of reporting guidelines in top endocrinology journals. This may undermine transparency and introduce bias. The main limitation of this study is the narrow scope of the study leading to a low generalizability. We suggest that journal editors in this field enforce validated reporting guidelines more strictly in order to improve the quality of published research.
    Keywords:  EQUATOR; Endocrinology; Reporting Guidelines
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2025.111835
  10. Med Educ. 2025 May 20.
      The peer review process supports authors by providing feedback on manuscripts from external, expert readers. However, not all reviews are supportive. Some reviews are just painful. But just how painful are they? In this study, we set out to validate a matrix describing the levels of pain authors experience in response to the sting of peer reviewer comments. The study was carried out in two phases. In Phase 1, we developed a matrix combining two scales-i.e. the Suffering Scale and the Grind Gauge. The first categorises review-induced pain across four levels, with Level 1 being the least pain and Level 4 the greatest pain. The second categorises the amount of work required by the author to respond to and address reviewer comments, with Level 1 being the least amount and Level 4 the greatest amount. In Phase 2, we tested the performance of the matrix by recruiting multiple, global study sites to provide performance data. This work resulted in the development and validation of the Reviewer-Imposed Pain (RIP) matrix. A statistician analysed our data and assures us that the RIP matrix is now a validated tool. Our study shows that the pain associated with academic peer review affects physiologic, affective, and cognitive dimensions. This tongue-in-cheek paper pokes fun at the peer review process; however, the response from survey participants suggests that the process is not necessarily funny. Peer review is essential for advancing science; however, for these advancements to occur, peer reviewer comments need to be constructive. The RIP matrix encourages both authors and reviewers to reflect on the impact of reviewer comments. This is essential because, as previous research has illustrated and as Voltaire succinctly stated, pain is real.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.15695
  11. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2025 May 21.
      
    Keywords:  Open access; Preprints; Publications
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-025-04978-7
  12. Genes Environ. 2025 May 21. 47(1): 10
      This article outlines the history and development of Genes and Environment, the official journal of the Japanese Environmental Mutagen and Genome Society (JEMS). In the 1970s, there was growing concern about the mutagenicity of chemical substances, leading to the establishment of JEMS. The society began publishing its journal, Environmental Mutagen Research, and renamed Genes and Environment in 2006 to focus on gene-environment interactions and promote international collaboration. The journal transitioned to free-access and started publishing in English to expand its reach globally.From 2012, the journal partnered with BioMed Central (BMC) to become an open-access publication, leading to its inclusion in Scopus, PubMed, and SCIE, and an improvement in its CiteScore and Impact Factor. JEMS also sought funding from Japan's Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research (KAKENHI) to support international dissemination of research.Despite progress, challenges remain, such as limited submissions from certain regions and a need for greater global recognition. To further internationalize JEMS, efforts are being made to elevate the quality of research and broaden membership diversity, with a focus on making JEMS' activities and publications more accessible to the global scientific community.
    Keywords:  Internationalization of JEMS and journal; JEMS official journal; Journal development; Research dissemination
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1186/s41021-025-00333-z
  13. HCA Healthc J Med. 2025 ;6(2): 193-203
      Description Writing a research manuscript is a meticulous process necessary for effective communication of scientific findings. In this article, we cover the key concepts and steps involved in crafting a well-structured manuscript. Research manuscripts use a formal structure with discrete sections that facilitate data review and interpretation. The opening section is a structured abstract, which summarizes the entire manuscript in about 300 words and highlights the research problem, using the headings Background, Methods, Results, and Conclusion. The introduction provides context, states the research question and justifies its significance. The methods section details the study design, data collection, and analysis procedures. The results section presents findings objectively, using tables, figures, and text, while also emphasizing key results and trends. In the discussion section, the authors interpret their results and relate them to the research question and findings from similar studies-some of which should be covered in the introduction-consider implications, address limitations, and suggest future research directions. The conclusion provides a summary of the main findings and their significance. Lastly, the reference section presents citations of all sources used in the article, formatted according to the chosen journal's citation style.
    Keywords:  manuscript structure; research publication; scholarly activity; scientific paper; writing process
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.36518/2689-0216.1715
  14. Psychiatry Res. 2025 May 14. pii: S0165-1781(25)00197-0. [Epub ahead of print]350 116549
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2025.116549
  15. BJOG. 2025 May 19.
      
    Keywords:  AI detector; ChatGPT; artificial intelligence; letter; manuscript
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.18227
  16. Clin Trials. 2025 Jun;22(3): 279-288
      Background/AimsThe reuse of clinical trial data available through data-sharing platforms has grown over the past decade. Several prominent clinical data-sharing platforms require researchers to submit formal research proposals before granting data access, providing an opportunity to evaluate how published analyses compare with initially proposed aims. We evaluated the concordance between the included trials, study objectives, endpoints, and statistical methods specified in researchers' clinical trial data use request proposals to four clinical data-sharing platforms and their corresponding publications.MethodsWe identified all unique data request proposals with at least one corresponding peer-reviewed publication as of 31 March 2023 on four prominent clinical trial data sharing request platforms (Vivli, ClinicalStudyDataRequest.com, the Yale Open Data Access Project, and Supporting Open Access to Researchers-Bristol Myers Squibb). When data requests had multiple publications, we treated each publication-request pair as a unit. For each pair, the trials requested and analyzed were classified as fully concordant, discordant, or unclear, whereas the study objectives, primary and secondary endpoints, and statistical methods were classified as fully concordant, partially concordant, discordant, or unclear. For Vivli, ClinicalStudyDataRequest.com, and Supporting Open Access to Researchers-Bristol Myers Squibb, endpoints of publication-request pairs were not compared because the data request proposals on these platforms do not consistently report this information.ResultsOf 117 Vivli publication-request pairs, 76 (65.0%) were fully concordant for the trials requested and analyzed, 61 (52.1%) for study objectives, and 57 (48.7%) for statistical methods; 35 (29.9%) pairs were fully concordant across the 3 characteristics reported by all platforms. Of 106 ClinicalStudyDataRequest.com publication-request pairs, 66 (62.3%) were fully concordant for the trials requested and analyzed, 41 (38.7%) for study objectives, and 35 (33.0%) for statistical methods; 20 (18.9%) pairs were fully concordant across the 3 characteristics. Of 65 Yale Open Data Access Project publication-request pairs, 35 (53.8%) were fully concordant for the trials requested and analyzed, 44 (67.7%) for primary study objectives, and 25 (38.5%) for statistical methods; 15 (23.1%) pairs were fully concordant across the 3 characteristics. In addition, 26 (40.0%) and 2 (3.1%) Yale Open Data Access Project publication-request pairs were concordant for primary and secondary endpoints, respectively, such that only one (1.5%) Yale Open Data Access Project publication-request pair was fully concordant across all five characteristics reported. Of three Supporting Open Access to Researchers-Bristol Myers Squibb publication-request pairs, one (33.3%) was fully concordant for the trials requested and analyzed, two (66.6%) for primary study objectives, and two (66.6%) for statistical methods; one (33.3%) pair was fully concordant across all three characteristics reported by all platforms.ConclusionAcross four clinical data sharing platforms, data request proposals were often discordant with their corresponding publications, with only 25% concordant across all three key proposal characteristics reported by each platform. Opportunities exist for investigators to describe any data-sharing request proposal deviations in their publications and for platforms to enhance the reporting of key study characteristic specifications.
    Keywords:  Clinical trials; data sharing; transparency
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1177/17407745241304355
  17. Curr Med Res Opin. 2025 May 21. 1-3
      
    Keywords:  ethics; research; sting operations
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1080/03007995.2025.2510401
  18. Clin Anat. 2025 May 19.
      Most discussions about discrimination and bias in anatomical research papers have been limited to terminology relating to race/ethnicity and gender/sex. However, as editors of anatomical journals, the authors of this article have frequently observed broader instances of potential discrimination and bias within anatomical research. These often stem from differences among authors' backgrounds, traditions, cultures, religions, provenance/origins, and workplace affiliations. In view of the limited discourse on this topic, we seek in this article to establish a consensus among editors of anatomical journals and to propose new Guidelines Against Discrimination and Bias in Anatomical Research Papers (GDBARP). We have identified multiple factors that can contribute to discrimination and bias, underscoring the need for greater awareness and proactive measures. It is imperative in anatomical research to respect authors, reviewers, and editors regardless of their background, culture, traditions, sex, ethnicity, language, religion, or ethical perspectives.
    Keywords:  anatomy; bias; cadavers; discrimination; dissection; medical ethics; prejudice; recommendation; research; terminology
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1002/ca.24293
  19. Science. 2025 May 22. 388(6749): 807-808
      Paper mills may drive "industrialization" of shoddy research.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adz1715