bims-skolko Biomed News
on Scholarly communication
Issue of 2026–02–08
47 papers selected by
Thomas Krichel, Open Library Society
  1. On the determinants of journal rejection rates: evidence from the Journal of Financial Economics.
  2. Pioneering medical journals of Japan.
  3. Madras Journal of Medical Science: A valiant but short-lived intellectual effort of the subordinate medical servants of Madras Presidency in the 1850s.
  4. "Further studies are needed": Scientific convention or editorial evasion? A critical appraisal of an overused phrase in medical publishing.
  5. Attendance drops at some U.S. conferences, but others hold steady.
  6. What might a satisfactory response by journals and publishers to publication integrity concerns look like?
  7. Evolving target: A 16-year progressive framework for shifting the rubric of scientific publishing toward transparency, artificial intelligence, and the Economic Impact Factor for impact that matters.
  8. Characteristics, Citation Analysis, and Altmetrics Impact of Retracted Papers in Dentistry (2001-2024).
  9. Guest Editorial: Preprint and Publish-Ahead-of-Print.
  10. An exploratory study on the effectiveness of AI detection tools in identifying AI-generated articles.
  11. On the potential value conflict between scientific knowledge production and fair recognition of authorship.
  12. A framework for assessing the trustworthiness of scientific research findings.
  13. Closing the paper mines.
  14. Does ChatGPT enhance equity for global health publications? Copyediting by ChatGPT compared to Grammarly and a human editor.
  15. Methodological Considerations on AI Detection in Scientific Publishing.
  16. AI could transform research assessment - and some academics are worried.
  17. Responsibility and transparency of artificial intelligence use in scientific writing: Is unfavorable use already invading?
  18. A mirror journal without AI use: A hypothetical experiment.
  19. The challenges of dealing with A.I. in academic publishing.
  20. Artificial intelligence in the retraction spotlight: trends, causes and consequences of withdrawn AI literature through a systematic bibliometric review.
  21. AI research deluge: why one conference is asking authors to rank their own papers.
  22. The machine can write the note, but only we can write the story.
  23. A Mixed Methods Analysis of the Outcomes of a Peer Review Mentoring Program.
  24. Peer-review ownership in the AI era.
  25. Double anonymous peer review in JVSCIT-lessons from our pilot trial and next steps.
  26. Editorial: Policy on editing peer-review reports for the Journal of Dairy Research.
  27. Community Authorship in Peer Reviewed Scientific Manuscripts to advance Equity and Credibility: 5-L Writing Benefit Model.
  28. Tackling the problem of quality in peer review.
  29. Out-of-office, into manuscripts: how writing retreats fuel emergency medicine scholarship.
  30. Building a Learning Community for Inclusive Authorship in Scholarly Writing and Publishing.
  31. What Makes an Early-Phase Study Worth Publishing? A View from the Editor's Desk.
  32. Navigating the crossroads: Embracing and regulating large language model in academic writing.
  33. Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in Biomedical Research and Publishing.
  34. What happens to qualitative studies initially presented as conference abstracts: A survey among study authors.
  35. On the receiving end: feedback literacy for mentees.
  36. A key strategy for accelerating your academic career in scientific research: become an 'early adopter'.
  37. Exploring open science in applied ethology: practice and attitudes among researchers.
  38. Is the journal legitimate? Aletheia-Probe can help you decide.
  39. How Reporting Guidelines Can Improve Your Manuscript.
  40. We must publish material from our sessions, so how do we do it safely?
  41. The International Journal: A Psychoanalytic Anchor in Chaotic Times.
  42. Integrating AI with Integrity at Blockchain in Healthcare Today: Introducing BHTY's AI Policy for Authors, Reviewers, and Editors.
  43. Editors at the frontier: from the editorial desk to the research lab.
  44. Should AI have a position on the JSCC editorial board?
  45. The Editor's Desk: AI in Nurse Anesthesiology: A Mandate for Rigor, Reproducibility, and Transparency.
  46. Standards for Publishing in JAMA Otolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery.
  47. Scientific transparency at Cortex: Guidelines for authors.
  1. Financ Innov. 2026 ;12(1): 52
    On the determinants of journal rejection rates: evidence from the Journal of Financial Economics.
    Karel Hrazdil, Pavel Král, Jiri Novak, Nattavut Suwanyangyuan.
      We examine how academic journal reviewers' experience with the peer-review process influences their propensity to recommend manuscript acceptance or rejection. We use data on the total recommended rejections and acceptances for all referees who reviewed at least one paper for the Journal of Financial Economics (JFE) between 1994 and 2020. We show that reviewers who write more reports are more likely to recommend the acceptance of manuscripts. We also find that older reviewers, those who graduated from or are affiliated with prestigious universities, and those with more and highly cited publications are more likely to recommend acceptance. There is also some evidence that reviewers with doctoral training in economics, mathematics, physics, and engineering are more likely to recommend acceptance than those with a PhD in finance. We find no consistent evidence of significant differences between genders or among reviewer demographic characteristics. We also document that reviewers who themselves publish more successfully in JFE and publish highly cited articles are, ceteris paribus, more likely to recommend rejection of reviewed manuscripts. Our study utilizes a unique research setting to gain new insights into the determinants of the peer-review process in scientific journals.
    Keywords:  Journal of Financial Economics; Rejection rates; Review process
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1186/s40854-026-00908-x
  2. Natl Med J India. 2026 Jan-Feb;39(1):pii: 10.25259/NMJI_362_2024. [Epub ahead of print]39(1): 46-53
    Pioneering medical journals of Japan.
    Sanjay A Pai, Sachi Sri Kantha.
      Japan's modern history begins with the Meiji Restoration in 1868. Prior to that, Japan was largely a secluded society (Sakoku). The first medical journal in Japan was in the pre- Meiji era and was the Taisei-mei-i-ikô (A Compendium of Articles by Renowned Western Doctors), published from 1836 to 1842. Its editor was Mituskuri Genpo; the journal comprised translations of Dutch journals to Japanese (for the first six issues) and Chinese script (for the last two issues). In 1869, William Willis, a British doctor, established the Nikko Kibun (Records of Daily Lectures). From December 1869 to 1870, a Dutch physician, Antonius F. Bauduin, published 11 monthly issues of a journal, which he also titled Nikko Kibun. In 1872, Stuart Eldridge, an American native, published Kin- Sei-I-Setsu (Journal of Modern Medicine), the first Japanese medical journal to publish articles by researchers based in Japan. June 1873 saw the first journal edited by a Japanese physician; Bun-en-Zasshi (Journal of Literary Bower), edited by Motonori Tashiro. We propose that the Journal of Literary Bower happens to be an erroneous translation, and the term should mean Journal of Culture and Thought. Among the 69 medical journals established in Japan between 1873 and 1889, 23 ceased to exist within 1 year.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.25259/NMJI_362_2024
  3. Natl Med J India. 2025 Nov-Dec;38(6):pii: 10.25259/NMJI_206_2025. [Epub ahead of print]38(6): 371-374
    Madras Journal of Medical Science: A valiant but short-lived intellectual effort of the subordinate medical servants of Madras Presidency in the 1850s.
    Ramya Raman, Anantanarayanan Raman.
      This article sheds light on a medical bimonthly, the Madras Journal of Medical Science (MJMS), which was active between 1850 and 1854. A unique aspect of MJMS was that it was published by the apothecaries and dressers of the Madras Subordinate Medical Service for their professional development. Similar to any professional journal of the mid-19th century, this journal included a few original case reports (referred to as literary contributions) by the apothecaries and dressers working with the Madras Medical Establishment (MME). This journal also included a few paraphrased articles from contemporary British medical journals, as well as featuring some locally relevant information related to the medical profession. This effort, aimed at academic growth, made by the subordinate medical staff of MME and not by the mainstream, higher-qualified medical personnel, impresses as valiant and daring.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.25259/NMJI_206_2025
  4. J Clin Anesth. 2026 Feb 05. pii: S0952-8180(26)00019-X. [Epub ahead of print] 112141
    "Further studies are needed": Scientific convention or editorial evasion? A critical appraisal of an overused phrase in medical publishing.
    Zeynep Kayhan, Elvin Kesimci.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinane.2026.112141
  5. Science. 2026 Feb 05. 391(6785): 538-539
    Attendance drops at some U.S. conferences, but others hold steady.
    Katie Langin.
      As the political landscape continues to shift, scientific societies worry about future annual meetings.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aeg1218
  6. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2026 Feb 04.
    What might a satisfactory response by journals and publishers to publication integrity concerns look like?
    Andrew Grey, Alison Avenell, Mark J Bolland.
      
    Keywords:  Communication; Journal; Publisher; Research integrity; Retraction
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12958-026-01526-z
  7. World J Stem Cells. 2025 Dec 26. 17(12): 111748
    Evolving target: A 16-year progressive framework for shifting the rubric of scientific publishing toward transparency, artificial intelligence, and the Economic Impact Factor for impact that matters.
    Shengwen Calvin Li.
      Reflecting on 16 years of continuous evolution at the World Journal of Stem Cells, this editorial offers a forward-looking vision for redefining the framework of scientific publishing. With the emergence of artificial intelligence, open science, and the growing need for translational value, we propose shifting from traditional citation-based assessments toward an impact and progress framework, anchored by the Economic Impact Factor. The World Journal of Stem Cells experience, grounded in metrics and milestones, supports this evolution: Among the more than 1200 published articles since inception, our top 10 cited works have collectively accrued over 2475 citations, led by Kyurkchiev et al (398 citations) and Casteilla et al (392 citations). Emerging scholars such as Ann De Becker and Nipha Chaicharoenaudomrung have shaped the next generation of research, as seen in our top 10 junior authors table. Clinically, World Journal of Stem Cells has supported critical translational work, such as Tsang et al's mesenchymal stem cell stroke trial (27 citations), illustrating real-world impact. Thematic breadth remains a cornerstone, with 22 focus areas including artificial intelligence-integrated programming, spatial single-cell biology, CRISPR-based gene editing, and bench-to-bedside translation. As Nature and other leading publishers move toward transparent peer review, World Journal of Stem Cells embraces editorial co-creation, recognizing peer reviewers and editors as contributors with "10000-foot eagle views" by publishing peer-review reports side-by-side with the related manuscripts since its inception. Together, these shifts signify a call to recalibrate what we value in science - not just what is cited, but what truly counts.
    Keywords:  AGI; Artificial intelligence impact; Bench to business; Citation count; Economic Impact Factor; Impact factor; Innovation economy; OpenAI; Research metrics; Science policy
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.4252/wjsc.v17.i12.111748
  8. Int Dent J. 2026 Feb 05. pii: S0020-6539(26)00002-X. [Epub ahead of print]76(2): 109406
    Characteristics, Citation Analysis, and Altmetrics Impact of Retracted Papers in Dentistry (2001-2024).
    Alireza Jafari, Shohreh SeyyedHosseini, Reza BasirianJahromi.
       BACKGROUND: Retraction is a mechanism for correcting published scholarly literature and alerting readers to seriously flawed or erroneous content, or ethical issues, in the literature they are reading. The objectives of this study were to identify the reasons for retraction, analyse citations, and describe the scientific and Altmetrics impacts of retracted papers in dentistry, oral health, and medicine.
    METHODS: The present study was an applied, descriptive-analytical investigation conducted using Scientometric methods and the Altmetrics index. The research population consisted of 231 retracted scientific articles in the subject areas of Dentistry, Oral Surgery, and Medicine, which were indexed in the Web of Science database between 2001 and 2024. Statistical methods, including frequency, mean, and Spearman's correlation, were employed for data analysis using R software.
    RESULTS: The findings showed that out of the 231 retracted articles, 156 articles collectively received 2271 citations. Q1 journals have hosted the most retracted articles. Spain has the highest number of retracted articles in the field of dentistry worldwide. Falsification/fabrication of data is the most important reason for the retraction of articles. Mendeley had the highest share of retracted papers in dentistry among the reference management tools. The correlation coefficient between Altmetrics impact and scientific impact was significant (P < .05).
    CONCLUSION: As dentistry and oral health are a pivotal field within the biomedical sciences, they exert a substantial influence on the health of the population. For the preceding decades, it has remained imperative for dentistry researchers to dedicate greater attention to all phases of their research process, encompassing the study design, review process, and publication stage.
    Keywords:  Dentistry; Publication ethics; Retraction; Scientific fraud; Social media
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.identj.2026.109406
  9. Adv Emerg Nurs J. 2026 Jan-Mar 01;48(1):48(1): 1-2
    Guest Editorial: Preprint and Publish-Ahead-of-Print.
    Wesley D Davis.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1097/TME.0000000000000604
  10. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2026 Jan 31. pii: S0901-5027(26)00025-1. [Epub ahead of print]
    An exploratory study on the effectiveness of AI detection tools in identifying AI-generated articles.
    R Grillo, L S C Neto, L Bottura, A H Llanos, S Samieirad, F Melhem-Elias.
      Accurate identification of AI-generated content is critical for preserving scientific credibility. This exploratory study was performed to assess the effectiveness of eight AI detection tools (free versions) in differentiating human-written from AI-generated articles within the oral and maxillofacial surgery field. The analysis included 24 human-written articles and 12 AI-generated articles produced using ChatGPT, DeepSeek, Gemini, and Copilot. The primary outcome was the detection effectiveness of each tool, expressed as a mean percentage score, for human-written and AI-generated text. Secondary outcomes were usability and processing limitations. The statistical analysis was performed in RStudio (P < 0.05). For published human-written text, QuillBot showed perfect detection (none detected as AI-written), and was fast and easy to use. For the AI texts, Copyleaks performed best (mean score 99.6/100), followed by Sapling (mean score 95.6/100). A weak, non-significant correlation was found between manuscript length and detection effectiveness for published human-written (ρ = -0.15, P = 0.44) and AI-generated texts (ρ = -0.08, P = 0.70). QuillBot appears to be an accessible and effective tool for distinguishing human- from AI-generated text. Its effectiveness could be enhanced when used alongside other detection tools like Sapling or Copyleaks, allowing articles produced with excessive reliance on AI to be detected.
    Keywords:  Artificial intelligence; Maxillofacial injuries; Medical writing; Orthognathic surgery; Writing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2026.01.021
  11. Account Res. 2026 Feb 02. 2623480
    On the potential value conflict between scientific knowledge production and fair recognition of authorship.
    Gert Helgesson, William Bülow.
      The value of scientific knowledge and fairness in distribution of academic credit are core values in research publication. However, it is little discussed in the literature that these values may come into conflict, particularly in interdisciplinary research. The point of this paper is to acknowledge and describe the conflict and discuss potential solutions. We use collaborations between pre-clinical (laboratory) researchers and clinicians at hospitals as an exemplifying case. We conclude that, without changing the preconditions for the value conflict, there is no general solution involving systematically prioritizing one value over the other. However, a potential way out of the conflict would be a general shift from authorship to contributorship regarding evaluation of contributions, but required routines are presently not in place with most journals.
    Keywords:  Authorship criteria; contributorship; ethics; fairness; responsibility
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2026.2623480
  12. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2026 Feb 10. 123(6): e2536736123
    A framework for assessing the trustworthiness of scientific research findings.
    Brian A Nosek, David B Allison, Kathleen Hall Jamieson, Marcia McNutt, A Beau Nielsen, Susan M Wolf.
      Vigorous debate has erupted over the trustworthiness of scientific research findings in a number of domains. The question "what makes research findings trustworthy?" elicits different answers depending on whether the emphasis is on research integrity and ethics, research methods, transparency, inclusion, assessment and peer review, or scholarly communication. Each provides partial insight. We offer a systems approach that focuses on whether the research is accountable, evaluable, well-formulated, has been evaluated, controls for bias, reduces error, and whether the claims are warranted by the evidence. We tie each of these components to measurable indicators of trustworthiness for evaluating the research itself, the researchers conducting the research, and the organizations supporting the research. Our goals are to offer a framework that can be applied across methods, approaches, and disciplines and to foster innovation in development of trustworthiness indicators. Developing valid indicators will improve the conduct and assessment of research and, ultimately, public understanding and trust.
    Keywords:  assessment; metascience; open science; research ethics; research integrity
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2536736123
  13. Account Res. 2026 Feb 04. 2626740
    Closing the paper mines.
    Adrian Barnett, Jennifer Byrne.
      Scientific fakery is a centuries old problem. Twinned with the long history of hard-working scientists earning fame for genuine discoveries, runs a tawdry history of those who were willing fabricate results to falsely gain prestige. Fraud in the past relied on bespoke fakery, but today's fraudsters can exploit the online scientific world to quickly create realistic looking papers on an industrial scale. Fraudsters are using open data sets to create meaningless analyses and combining these results with text from large language models. There has been an explosion of these low value papers using openly available and highly regarded data sets, such as the US National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). The paper miners will likely exploit whatever open data resources they can find until data custodians put more stringent controls in place, or journals and publishers push back. Some scientific data may be too open, even though making research data openly available is a recommended policy for increasing research integrity. Journals and researchers need to be aware of this new threat to research integrity.
    Keywords:  Paper mills; artificial intelligence; fast-churn research; open data; research fraud
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2026.2626740
  14. PLoS One. 2026 ;21(2): e0342170
    Does ChatGPT enhance equity for global health publications? Copyediting by ChatGPT compared to Grammarly and a human editor.
    Ella August, Rachel Gray, Zaria Griffin, Matilda Klein, Julie M Buser, Kirby Morris, Tamrat Endale, Hana Teklu, Pebalo Francis Pebolo, Elizabeth Anderson, Frederique Laubepin, Yolanda R Smith.
      English language copyediting poses significant barriers to global health authors in academic publishing. Editing is too expensive for most researchers in low-income countries, and large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT may offer a cost-effective alternative. The technology, however, has been criticized for its biases and inaccuracies. In a preliminary, in-depth case comparison, we compared the number and quality of corrections made by U-M GPT, a secure, University of Michigan-hosted generative AI tool, to those from Grammarly and a human editor to text from two draft papers written by Ugandan sexual and reproductive health researchers. Overall, U-M GPT made about three times as many corrections compared to the human editor and about ten times more than Grammarly. U-M GPT was the least discriminating in terms of quality: only 61% (51/83) of its corrections were judged as improvements. Despite this, U-M GPT has advantages, such as a broad scope of correction types, fast turnaround, and no cost. Its disadvantages, which reflect shortcomings of LLMs more broadly, include the need for prompt engineering skill, careful review of corrections, and high environmental costs due to energy consumption. Additional concerns involve data privacy and content moderation policies that restrict discussions on topics deemed as sensitive; these included words related to sexual and reproductive health. Although LLMs could improve equity, efficiency, and productivity, several important issues should be considered when using the technology. Larger follow-up investigations are needed to confirm our findings. Authors using LLMs should consult journal guidelines and disclose their use.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0342170
  15. J Craniofac Surg. 2026 Feb 06.
    Methodological Considerations on AI Detection in Scientific Publishing.
    Burak Erkmen, Yaşar Kemal Duymaz, İlhan Bahşi.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0000000000012536
  16. Nature. 2026 Feb 04.
    AI could transform research assessment - and some academics are worried.
    Rodolfo Benites, Lawrie Phipps, Richard Watermeyer, Tom Crick.
      
    Keywords:  Careers; Funding; Institutions; Peer review
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-026-00124-8
  17. J Family Med Prim Care. 2025 Dec;14(12): 5233-5234
    Responsibility and transparency of artificial intelligence use in scientific writing: Is unfavorable use already invading?
    Shigeki Matsubara.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.4103/jfmpc.jfmpc_1603_25
  18. J Neuroradiol. 2026 Jan 30. pii: S0150-9861(26)00113-6. [Epub ahead of print]53(2): 101526
    A mirror journal without AI use: A hypothetical experiment.
    Shigeki Matsubara.
      
    Keywords:  Artificial intelligence; Experiment; Publication; Real-world
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neurad.2026.101526
  19. Can J Rural Med. 2026 Jan 01. 31(1): 3
    The challenges of dealing with A.I. in academic publishing.
    Peter Hutten-Czapski.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.4103/cjrm.cjrm_82_25
  20. Front Res Metr Anal. 2025 ;10 1737168
    Artificial intelligence in the retraction spotlight: trends, causes and consequences of withdrawn AI literature through a systematic bibliometric review.
    Kannan Sridharan, Gowri Sivaramakrishnan.
       Introduction: The rapid integration of artificial intelligence (AI) in scientific research has introduced new challenges to academic integrity, with increasing concerns about AI-related article retractions. This study conducts a comprehensive bibliometric analysis of retracted AI-related articles to characterize their prevalence, causes, and impact on scholarly communication.
    Methods: A systematic search was performed in Scopus using the terms "Artificial Intelligence" OR "AI" AND "retract*" without restrictions on publication year or language. Bibliometric parameters including publication timelines, journal metrics, citation counts, and retraction characteristics were analyzed using VOS Viewer, Bibliometrix, and SPSS. Statistical tests assessed correlations between key variables.
    Results: From an initial yield of 1,152 articles, 335 retracted publications met inclusion criteria after duplicate removal and screening. The analysis revealed that 46.3% (155/335) of retractions occurred in 2023, with a median retraction time of 550 days post-publication. Engineering accounted for 30.4% (102/335) of retractions, while 72.2% (243/335) originated from China. Compromised peer review was the most common retraction reason, though 37.9% (127/335) lacked specific justification. Strikingly, 51.1% (172/335) of retracted articles-maintained field citation ratios >1, indicating persistent scholarly influence. Articles in special issues showed significantly faster submission-to-acceptance timelines (p = 0.016). Journal editors initiated 98.5% (330/335) of retractions, while author responses revealed disagreement in 35.4% (34/96) of cases where feedback was available.
    Discussion: This study highlights systemic vulnerabilities in AI-related research publication, particularly concerning peer review integrity and prolonged retraction timelines. The continued citation of retracted articles underscores the need for improved retraction alert systems. These findings call for stronger ethical guidelines and technological safeguards to maintain trust in AI-driven scholarly outputs.
    Keywords:  AI; artificial intelligence; publication ethics; retractions; scientific misconduct
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3389/frma.2025.1737168
  21. Nature. 2026 Feb 04.
    AI research deluge: why one conference is asking authors to rank their own papers.
    Dalmeet Singh Chawla.
      
    Keywords:  Authorship; Conferences and meetings; Peer review
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-026-00059-0
  22. CMAJ. 2026 Feb 01. 198(4): E136-E135
    The machine can write the note, but only we can write the story.
    Sonal Kumar.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.251232
  23. Am J Pharm Educ. 2026 Jan 29. pii: S0002-9459(26)00010-0. [Epub ahead of print] 101936
    A Mixed Methods Analysis of the Outcomes of a Peer Review Mentoring Program.
    Aleda M H Chen, Jonathan Thigpen, Kevin N Astle, Michelle L Blakely, Radhika Devraj, Surajit Dey, Abby A Kahaleh.
       OBJECTIVE: Given the importance of peer reviewing manuscripts in pharmacy education, effective peer reviewers should be developed. Thus, the objective of this project was to (1) determine the impact of the AJPE Reviewer Mentorship Program (RMP) on Mentees' quality and quantity of reviews and (2) describe the Mentees' perceptions of the design and implementation of the AJPE RMP.
    METHODS: Using a mixed-methods approach, quantitative data were retrospectively pulled from three cohorts of RMP Mentees from the AJPE editorial system regarding the number of reviews completed for one year pre- and post-program as well as the editor's rating of their review. Data were descriptively analyzed and also compared using Wilcoxon signed rank test. For the qualitative arm, three semi-structured focus groups were held with Mentees from three cohorts. Data were transcribed and then thematically analyzed.
    RESULTS: Of the 71 Mentees that completed the RMP, the number and percentage of invitations to review by the editorial team, reviews completed, and average reviewer rating increased but were not significant. Themes from the three focus groups (n=25 participants) included: increased confidence and skill development due to the structure and mentoring offered, the critical importance of mentor engagement, and suggestions for increased opportunities for engagement.
    CONCLUSION: The qualitative findings suggest that the RMP enhances reviewing capabilities, as well as confidence among peer-reviewers despite no statistically significant findings in the quantitative analysis. Moreover, the Mentees' feedback will be helpful to further enhance the RMP for future cohorts.
    Keywords:  mentoring; peer review; pharmacy education; professional development; training
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajpe.2026.101936
  24. EMBO Rep. 2026 Feb 03.
    Peer-review ownership in the AI era.
    Christos A Ouzounis.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/s44319-026-00706-7
  25. J Vasc Surg Cases Innov Tech. 2026 Apr;12(2): 102028
    Double anonymous peer review in JVSCIT-lessons from our pilot trial and next steps.
    Matthew R Smeds, Tyler Cosgrove, Ronald L Dalman.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvscit.2025.102028
  26. J Dairy Res. 2026 Feb 06. 1
    Editorial: Policy on editing peer-review reports for the Journal of Dairy Research.
    Nicholas N Jonsson.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022029926102052
  27. Prog Community Health Partnersh. 2025 ;19(4): 401-404
    Community Authorship in Peer Reviewed Scientific Manuscripts to advance Equity and Credibility: 5-L Writing Benefit Model.
    Kent D Key, Tabia Henry Akintobi, LaShawn Hoffman, Rev Sarah B Bailey, Jennifer Carrera.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1353/cpr.2025.a979198
  28. Br J Gen Pract. 2026 Feb 01. 76(763): 74-75
    Tackling the problem of quality in peer review.
    Mohammad Sharif Razai.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp26X744165
  29. CJEM. 2026 Feb 02.
    Out-of-office, into manuscripts: how writing retreats fuel emergency medicine scholarship.
    Jeffrey J Perry, Christian Vaillancourt, Krishan Yadav, Debra Eagles, Ian Stiell.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s43678-026-01106-5
  30. Prog Community Health Partnersh. 2025 ;19(4): 393-399
    Building a Learning Community for Inclusive Authorship in Scholarly Writing and Publishing.
    Karen D Calhoun, Chioma Nnaji, Suzanne M Dolwick Grieb, Kent D Key, Tabia Henry Akintobi, Nancy R Glassman, Karen Mancera Cuevas, LaShawn M Hoffman, Guillermo Wippold, Charles Senteio, Karen D'Alonzo, Claudia Lechuga, Al Richmond, Hal Strelnick.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1353/cpr.2025.a979197
  31. Clin Pharmacol Drug Dev. 2026 Feb;15(2): e70026
    What Makes an Early-Phase Study Worth Publishing? A View from the Editor's Desk.
    Amalia M Issa.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1002/cpdd.70026
  32. Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol. 2026 Jan;pii: S1028-4559(25)00337-7. [Epub ahead of print]65(1): 170-171
    Navigating the crossroads: Embracing and regulating large language model in academic writing.
    Himel Mondal.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tjog.2025.07.030
  33. Indian J Psychol Med. 2026 Jan;48(1): 1-5
    Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in Biomedical Research and Publishing.
    Rajshekhar Bipeta.
      Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) are essential for ethical biomedical research, yet gaps remain in the editorial board, peer review, authorship, and research participation. This editorial examines ways to integrate DEI into global biomedical publishing and highlights the initiatives undertaken by various organizations. It addresses challenges such as underrepresentation and exclusionary practices affecting individuals from low- and middle-income countries and marginalized communities. The piece suggests strategies for incorporating DEI into research and publishing while promoting accountability and meaningful change. To develop a biomedical research landscape that is fair and inclusive, it is essential to advance DEI from mere discussion to genuine structural transformation.
    Keywords:  Bias; Ethics; Health Equity; Publishing; Research; Social Discrimination
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1177/02537176251405481
  34. Res Synth Methods. 2025 Nov;16(6): 1025-1034
    What happens to qualitative studies initially presented as conference abstracts: A survey among study authors.
    Marwin Weber, Simon Lewin, Joerg J Meerpohl, Heather Menzies Munthe-Kaas, Rigmor Berg, Andrew Booth, Claire Glenton, Jane Noyes, Ingrid Toews.
      Qualitative research addresses important healthcare questions, including patients' experiences with interventions. Qualitative evidence syntheses combine findings from individual studies and are increasingly used to inform health guidelines. However, dissemination bias-selective non-dissemination of studies or findings-may distort the body of evidence. This study examined reasons for the non-dissemination of qualitative studies. We identified conference abstracts reporting qualitative, health-related studies. We invited authors to answer a survey containing quantitative and qualitative questions. We performed descriptive analyses on the quantitative data and inductive thematic analysis on the qualitative data. Most of the 142 respondents were female, established researchers. About a third reported that their study had not been published in full after their conference presentation. The main reasons were time constraints, career changes, and a lack of interest. Few indicated non-publication due to the nature of the study findings. Decisions not to publish were largely made by author teams. Half of the 72% who published their study reported that all findings were included in the publication. This study highlights researchers' reasons for non-dissemination of qualitative research. One-third of studies presented as conference abstracts remained unpublished, but non-dissemination was rarely linked to the study findings. Further research is needed to understand the systematic non-dissemination of qualitative studies.
    Keywords:  GRADE; GRADE-CERQual; dissemination bias; publication bias; qualitative research; survey
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1017/rsm.2025.10033
  35. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2026 Feb 03.
    On the receiving end: feedback literacy for mentees.
    Susan van Schalkwyk, Ayelet Kuper, Patricia O'Sullivan.
      This is the fourth and final article in a mini-series exploring the research supervision relationship. In the first two articles, the authors presented an introduction to the mentor-mentee relationship and explored some of the tricky issues involved in supporting academic writing. In the third article, the authors turned to the practical question of concrete ways in which mentors can effectively provide useful feedback to mentees about their written work. In this final paper, the focus shifts to the mentee who is on the receiving end of such feedback and offers some guidance on how to make this feedback work for them.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-026-10506-2
  36. Clin Exp Optom. 2026 Feb 01. 1-4
    A key strategy for accelerating your academic career in scientific research: become an 'early adopter'.
    Nathan Efron.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1080/08164622.2026.2622570
  37. BMC Res Notes. 2026 Feb 06.
    Exploring open science in applied ethology: practice and attitudes among researchers.
    Christian Nawroth, Helen Gray, I Anna S Olsson.
      
    Keywords:  Open data; Preprint; Preregistration; Survey
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1186/s13104-026-07685-x
  38. Nature. 2026 Feb 02.
    Is the journal legitimate? Aletheia-Probe can help you decide.
    Matthew Hutson.
      
    Keywords:  Authorship; Careers; Conferences and meetings; Publishing; Technology
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-026-00223-6
  39. Rehabil Nurs. 2026 Feb 01. 51(1): 1-3
    How Reporting Guidelines Can Improve Your Manuscript.
    Anne Deutsch.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1097/RNJ.0000000000000531
  40. Int J Psychoanal. 2025 Dec;106(6): 1188-1195
    We must publish material from our sessions, so how do we do it safely?
    David Tuckett.
      This paper discusses whether the Internet and related technologies that we can imagine in future may have made it unsafe for psychoanalysts to publish clinical material in an anonymised form. The author notes, first, that algorithms work with identifiers of various sorts to tie information subjects together across space and time. It means that what is an anonymised clinical report today might, in future, potentially be joined with other documents to allow a patient to be re-identified. Discussing the current literature from computer science, the case is made that while there will be risks, if anonymisation is done less than rigorously, they can be removed by a variety of measures, most important of which are both the generalisation and falsification of potential identifiers. Exploring the merits and ethics of this approach, the author argues that psychoanalytic data are not externally valid data but internally consistent subjective data. It means that ensuring external identifiers are absent or distorted in clinical reports to convey the analyst's understanding but to safeguard against jigsaw puzzle re-identification does not de-authenticate them. Indeed, the process of anonymisation, focusing on the status of psychoanalytic data as inherently subjective, should deepen and strengthen rather than reduce their evidential values.
    Keywords:  Anonymisation; clinical material; publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1080/00207578.2025.2585390
  41. Int J Psychoanal. 2025 Dec;106(6): 1256-1258
    The International Journal: A Psychoanalytic Anchor in Chaotic Times.
    Catherine Humble.
      
    Keywords:  Roger Money-Kyrle; ideology; omnipotence; publishing; social; splitting
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1080/00207578.2025.2595825
  42. Blockchain Healthc Today. 2025 ;8
    Integrating AI with Integrity at Blockchain in Healthcare Today: Introducing BHTY's AI Policy for Authors, Reviewers, and Editors.
    Jennifer Hinkel, Umit Cali.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.30953/bhty.v8.440
  43. Light Sci Appl. 2026 Feb 06. 15(1): 108
    Editors at the frontier: from the editorial desk to the research lab.
    Siqiu Guo, Fei Ding.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41377-026-02191-y
  44. Support Care Cancer. 2026 Feb 06. 34(3): 171
    Should AI have a position on the JSCC editorial board?
    Stephen Sonis, Fredrick D Asbury.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-026-10404-8
  45. AANA J. 2026 Feb 01. 94(1): 7-8
    The Editor's Desk: AI in Nurse Anesthesiology: A Mandate for Rigor, Reproducibility, and Transparency.
    Edwin N Aroke.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.70278/AANAJ/.0000001082
  46. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2026 Feb 05.
    Standards for Publishing in JAMA Otolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery.
    Jay F Piccirillo.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoto.2025.5346
  47. Cortex. 2026 Feb;pii: S0010-9452(26)00020-1. [Epub ahead of print]195 A1-A5
    Scientific transparency at Cortex: Guidelines for authors.
    Melissa Thye, Robert D McIntosh.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2026.01.006
This page is being maintained by Thomas Krichel. It was last updated on 2026‒02‒08 at 8:56.