bims-skolko Biomed News
on Scholarly communication
Issue of 2026–06–14
38 papers selected by
Thomas Krichel, Open Library Society



  1. Account Res. 2026 Jun 12. 2683838
      Should the methodological tools and review protocols required of biomedical researchers become the default for social science meta-researchers? And should these reporoducibility standards then be used to gatekeep and police "methodological expertise?" This seems to be the judgmental sub-text of the Bakker et al commentary on our paper. In this response, we make the case for critical accountability research to cultivate forms of methodological rigor that are aligned with the research questions and design. Our paper, based on a systematic topographical review of research into retraction, sought to show the limits of the existing research base. Our survey highlighted how most existing work was quantitative, rarely interview-based, and often failed to explore why journals and publishers were so slow to retract. There is too little attention to the politics, economics, and sociology of research integrity.
    Keywords:  Retraction; accountability; research integrity
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2026.2683838
  2. J Nurs Scholarsh. 2026 Jul;58(4): e70103
       PROBLEM: Retractions in nursing are often framed as isolated instances of author misconduct or editorial failure. Drawing on recent longitudinal analysis of retracted nursing articles and the Journal Systems Framework (JSF), this Commentary argues that retractions are better understood as system-level signals reflecting differences in editorial capacity, governance, and infrastructure across journal systems.
    RESULTS: Between 1997 and 2022, 123 nursing articles were retracted, with persistent concerns related to ethical violations, variability in retraction notice quality, delayed corrective action, and continued post-retraction citation.
    DISCUSSION: Applying the JSF highlights how corrective capacity varies across journal systems, shaping the timeliness, transparency, visibility, and downstream amplification of retraction practices. High-profile retractions in flagship journals may reflect greater corrective capacity rather than uniquely severe ethical failure. Interpreting retractions as indicators of system stress, rather than moral anomalies, shifts attention from individual blame toward strengthening editorial infrastructure.
    CONCLUSION: A systems-aware approach positions nursing scholarship to improve transparency, resilience, and trust as publication volume and complexity continue to grow.
    CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Because nursing scholarship informs clinical care, education, and policy, failures in the scholarly record have implications beyond publishing itself. Greater understanding of retractions and corrective editorial processes can help strengthen trust in evidence used to guide nursing and health care practice.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1111/jnu.70103
  3. J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2026 Jun 10.
       INTRODUCTION: Podcasts are a popular educational tool for health professions, known for their availability and flexibility. Skeptics criticize podcasts for often absent editorial oversight, which can threaten quality. The purpose of this pilot project was to introduce and standardize prepublication peer review for a pediatric podcast.
    METHODS: The Peer Review Tool was adapted to incorporate reviewer clinical expertise and subjective feedback in a prepublication format. A standardized prepublication peer review process mirrored refereed journals. Volunteer nurse practitioner faculty wrote and reviewed a pediatric podcast series. The article authors and an external reviewer also independently scored episodes. Interrater reliability was evaluated using percent agreement and intraclass correlation coefficient (3,4). Numeric review scores were displayed publicly online in podcast show notes.
    RESULTS: An 11-episode podcast series was written and reviewed by 23 nurse practitioners. Each reviewer was matched with an episode based on their identified clinical expertise. Most episodes (n = 10; 90.9%) were published with the highest possible score. Percent agreement was very good between two peer reviewers and article authors (90.9%) when compared with the external reviewer (72.7% and 81.8%, respectively). Intraclass correlation coefficient (3,4) was 0.45, reflecting moderate reliability because of limited variability of scores and ceiling effect.
    DISCUSSION: A standardized approach to prepublication peer review consistently produced podcasts that met established high-quality standards. Any podcast producer can replicate this process to achieve guideline calls to meet quality standards. More research is needed to adapt prepublication tools to increase rigor and content integrity, train users on their use, and improve transparency for listeners.
    Keywords:  distance education; peer review; podcast; problem-based learning
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1097/CEH.0000000000000650
  4. Account Res. 2026 Jun 13. 2688179
       BACKGROUND: Dual-use research of concern (DURC) refers to legitimate scientific research that, if misapplied, could cause significant harm. Journal editors play an important role in ensuring that disseminated research does not pose unacceptable risks to society. We conducted a thematic analysis of DURC policies adopted by life science journals.
    METHODS: Top 10 journals listed in Google Scholar Metrics (February 2026) across 15 life science categories yielded 133 journals after de-duplication. Each journal's website was screened for a policy addressing DURC, biosafety, or biosecurity. Following de-duplication of policies, a set of unique DURC policies was established. Policies were coded using color-coded identifiers for key stakeholders and actions, and themes were identified through reviewer consensus.
    RESULTS: Fifty-nine journals (44.36%) had a clear policy addressing DURC, biosafety, or biosecurity. De-duplication yielded 11 distinct policy documents. Thematic analysis revealed five themes: (1) transparency and disclosure; (2) regulatory compliance; (3) editorial oversight and gatekeeping; (4) distributed responsibility; and (5) different definitions of DURC.
    CONCLUSION: Many life science journals continue to lack explicit DURC policies. Among those with policies, there is a shared expectation that authors, reviewers, and editors are adequately trained to recognize and manage DURC-related risks, an assumption that may be unwarranted.
    Keywords:  Publication ethics; research ethics; risk management
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2026.2688179
  5. Indian J Psychol Med. 2026 Jun 07. 02537176261453598
      Entitlement in biomedical publishing manifests through attempts to bypass peer review, requests for expedited handling, and non-compliance with submission requirements. These practices increase editorial burden, threaten fairness, and may compromise scientific standards. Accelerated editorial workflows may be associated with higher correction and retraction rates. Entitlement reflects structural weaknesses in biomedical publishing systems rather than merely isolated instances of individual misconduct. To address this, journals need clear standards, transparent fast-track rules, mandatory reporting checklists, regular audits, and incentives that reward rigor over speed.
    Keywords:  Bias; editorial policies; peer review; publication ethics; research integrity
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1177/02537176261453598
  6. Nature. 2026 Jun;654(8119): 828-829
      
    Keywords:  Cancer; Language; Peer review
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-026-01209-0
  7. BMC Med Educ. 2026 Jun 08.
       BACKGROUND: Postgraduate dissertations offer valuable sources of scientific output given their rigorous development and execution, yet unpublished results may be common. This gap is particularly concerning in sub-Saharan Africa. We sought to describe the frequency of publication, and perceptions of barriers and facilitators to publication of postgraduate dissertations results in peer-reviewed journals.
    METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional survey between 1st December, 2025 and 28th February 2026 among graduates of the Emergency Medicine (EM) residency program at Muhimbili University of Health and Allied Sciences in Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania. All eligible EM graduates from 2013 to 2024 were invited to participate. Data were collected using a structured web-based questionnaire administered through Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap) and distributed via email and a WhatsApp group that is professionally managed by the Emergency Medicine Association of Tanzania and includes all program graduates. Weekly reminders were sent to non-respondents to enhance response rates. The survey collected information on demographics, dissertation publication status, perceived barriers and facilitators to publication, and recommendations for improving dissertation publication. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the data.
    RESULTS: Out of 97 eligible graduates, 69 (71.1%) completed the survey. Respondents reported that most studies used a cohort (n = 31, 45%) or cross-sectional design (n = 25, 36%). 24 (34.8%) of the 69 respondents had published their dissertation in a peer-reviewed journal. Among 24 published dissertations, 17 (70.8%) had been presented in ≥ 1 scientific conference. Among 32 respondents who reported general barriers to publication, the most common barriers were limited time due to clinical duties (n = 19, 59.4%), high publication costs (n = 15, 46.9%), lack of institutional support (n = 15, 46.9%), insufficient research skills training (n = 13, 40.6%), lack of motivation (n = 13, 40.6%) and lack of mentorship (n = 11, 34.4%). Among the 69 respondents, research skills training (n = 61, 88.4%), supportive supervision and mentorship (n = 56, 81.2%), manuscript writing workshops (n = 48, 69.9%), and financial support for publication cost (n = 41, 54.4%) were reported as facilitators for successful publication.
    CONCLUSION: In the largest EM residency program in East Africa, approximately one in three postgraduate dissertations are not published in peer-reviewed journals. Addressing barriers to publication may improve the translation of postgraduate research into published evidence and bolster the regional data available in published medical literature.
    Keywords:  Barriers; Dissertation publication; Emergency medicine; Facilitators; Tanzania
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-026-09642-5
  8. Nature. 2026 Jun 11.
      
    Keywords:  Databases; Peer review; Publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-026-01707-1
  9. Ann Biomed Eng. 2026 Jun 09.
      Predatory journals are unethical publications that exploit researchers by charging fees without providing proper peer review or editorial oversight. They pose a serious threat to the integrity of scholarly communication, prioritizing profit over scholarship and disregarding ethical standards, which results in the dissemination of research that lacks quality and credibility. This guide offers researchers a practical framework to identify and avoid such deceptive publications, thereby protecting academic integrity and professional reputation. Key indicators of predatory journals include poor visual design, questionable content, and unethical business practices. Common red flags include unprofessional websites, grammatical errors, generic stock photos, and fabricated editorial credentials. Operational warnings include aggressive email solicitations promising rapid or guaranteed acceptance, vague or hidden article processing charges (APCs), and journal names that closely mimic reputable titles. Predatory journals also make false claims about indexing in databases like Scopus or PubMed and display fabricated impact factors. Researchers in biomedical engineering are particularly vulnerable to these risks because of the interdisciplinary nature of the field, intense publication pressure, and the increasing use of AI tools in manuscript preparation. The consequences of predatory publishing extend beyond individual careers; unvetted research compromises the evidence base for clinical translation and healthcare innovation. To mitigate these risks, researchers must verify journal claims through official sources and consult trusted colleagues or mentors. Although publishing in legitimate journals requires more time, it ensures the quality, integrity, and credibility of research. Institutions play a crucial role by providing training and encouraging stakeholders to prioritize publication quality over quantity.
    Keywords:  Academic integrity; Artificial intelligence; Deception; Editorial boards; Indexing verification; Open access; Peer review; Predatory journals; Publishing ethics; Research quality; Scholarly communication
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10439-026-04231-5
  10. Eur Heart J. 2026 Jun 12. pii: ehag494. [Epub ahead of print]
      Artificial intelligence is now embedded across the scientific research and publishing ecosystem, influencing discovery, analysis, knowledge translation, authorship, peer review, and editorial workflows. In cardiovascular and biomedical sciences, these developments offer substantial opportunities to accelerate knowledge generation, integrate complex datasets, and improve efficiency and consistency. At the same time, they introduce new risks related to bias, transparency, data integrity, and authorship responsibility, potentially endangering trust in the scientific record. This commentary examines the evolving role of AI in biomedical publishing, with particular attention to generative models and machine learning tools. We review both benefits and limitations, highlight risks such as fabricated content, biased outputs, and erosion of accountability, and discuss why traditional detection approaches are insufficient. Instead, we argue for a shift toward transparency, provenance, and enforceable human responsibility as the core principles guiding AI use, ensuring that AI strengthens rather than undermines scientific rigour and public trust. We outline practical expectations for authors, reviewers, editors, and publishers, with emphasis on reporting standards, reproducibility under rapidly evolving model versions, and the conflict-of-interest implications of AI tooling for the editorial process itself.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehag494
  11. J Am Coll Clin Pharm. 2026 Jul;9(7): e70236
      An infographic regarding the potential adverse effects of artificial intelligence use in scholarly writing and Journal's expectations for authors and reviewers.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1002/jac5.70236
  12. Korean J Radiol. 2026 May 28.
      
    Keywords:  Academic publishing; Artificial intelligence; Audio summary; Generative; Journal; Language barrier; Large language model; Podcast; Scientific publication
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2026.0474
  13. J Am Coll Radiol. 2026 Jun 06. pii: S1546-1440(26)00295-4. [Epub ahead of print]
      The rapid pace of AI progress outstrips our ability to regulate it effectively. Despite a trend toward disclosure and transparency in most journals, there is still no consistent language regarding what should be reported, where it should appear, or how detailed that reporting should be. We map the evolution of journals and editorial body policies, highlight the recent GAMER statement as a practical response, compare it to other recommendations, and argue that a universal disclosure log could serve as a common minimum standard while remaining compatible with more specialized frameworks.
    Keywords:  Artificial Intelligence; Authorship; Disclosure; Large Language Model; Scientific Misconduct
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2026.06.005
  14. Acad Med. 2026 Jun 12. pii: wvag176. [Epub ahead of print]
      
    Keywords:  accountability; artificial intelligence; ethics; peer review
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1093/acamed/wvag176
  15. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2026 Jun 08. pii: S0190-9622(26)02851-3. [Epub ahead of print]
      
    Keywords:  ChatGPT; artificial intelligence; dermatology; editor; ethics; journal; large language models; peer review
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaad.2026.05.125
  16. Res Integr Peer Rev. 2026 Jun 09. pii: 15. [Epub ahead of print]11(1):
       BACKGROUND: Peer review is often portrayed as a consensus-driven process in which reviewer recommendations largely determine editorial decisions. However, manuscript-level evidence describing how reviewer disagreement unfolds across review rounds-and how it is resolved in routine editorial practice-remains limited.
    METHODS: We conducted a meta-research analysis of anonymized editorial data from Healthcare (MDPI, Basel, Switzerland; ISSN 2227-9032) (2021-2025), including manuscripts that were ultimately published and manuscripts rejected after external peer review. Reviewer recommendations (accept, minor revision, major revision, reject) were examined at the manuscript level across review rounds. Alignment between reviewer recommendations and editorial outcomes was assessed primarily using the majority recommendation in the final review round, applying a conservative tie-breaking rule (reject > major > minor > accept). Reviewer discordance was defined as the presence of two or more distinct recommendation categories within a review round. Longitudinal trajectories from first to final round were analyzed, with sensitivity analyses using alternative definitions of unfavorable recommendations. The analysis was conducted using anonymized editorial records. The author did not access identifiable reviewer or author information, and the dataset was analyzed in aggregated form to minimize the risk of re-identification.
    RESULTS: The analysis included 12,187 published manuscripts and 3,819 rejected manuscripts, corresponding to 21,497 and 5,189 review-round records, respectively. Reviewer discordance was common in the first round for both published and rejected manuscripts (74.8% and 85.8%). Across rounds, discordance declined markedly among published manuscripts (to 29.3% in the final round) but remained high among rejected manuscripts (71.4%). Overall alignment between the majority recommendation in the final round and the editorial outcome was high (≈88%) but not absolute: 6.3% of published manuscripts had a majority recommendation of rejection in the final round, and 8.0% retained at least one rejection recommendation. Longitudinally, discordance was frequently resolved among published manuscripts (53.1% transitioned from discordant to concordant), whereas it often persisted among rejected manuscripts (61.4% remained discordant).
    CONCLUSIONS: In routine practice, peer review functions less as a voting mechanism and more as an adjudicative process in which editorial judgment integrates heterogeneous reviewer input. The asymmetric resolution of disagreement across outcomes underscores the central role of editorial decision-making when reviewer recommendations diverge.
    Keywords:  Editorial decision-making; Meta-research; Peer review; Research integrity; Reviewer disagreement; Scholarly publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-026-00200-7
  17. Nature. 2026 Jun 08.
      
    Keywords:  Databases; Research data; Scientific community
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-026-01689-0
  18. Sci Data. 2026 Jun 11.
      Data papers have emerged as a distinctive publication format in the open science era, yet their actual role in fostering scientific data reuse remains uncertain. Drawing on extensive citation-context datasets and large language models, this study investigates the specific contributions and citation purposes of data papers, complemented by a comparative analysis across diverse disciplinary domains. The findings show that while data papers significantly enhance dataset visibility and scholarly recognition, most citations emphasize descriptive or contextual information rather than facilitating direct computational, comparative, or synthetic reuse. Moreover, despite persistent advocacy for a "data-driven" research paradigm, the contribution of data papers to catalyzing novel scientific insights appears to be modest and often indirect. Notable disciplinary differences reveal that data-intensive fields, such as Earth and Life Sciences, embed datasets directly into research workflows, whereas more conceptual domains primarily treat data papers as methodological guides or contextual references. Additionally, publishing attributes-spanning journal practices to national data infrastructures-emerge as critical determinants of reuse patterns, with dissemination effectiveness shaped more by publication management and the thematic priorities of editors than by output volume alone.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-026-07559-8
  19. JMA J. 2026 May 15. 9(3): 703-704
      
    Keywords:  case; case report; concept; journal; original article
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.31662/jmaj.2025-0538
  20. Account Res. 2026 Jun 12. 2634744
      It is an unfortunate reality that metascience and metaresearch are not immune to methodological or reporting issues. Best practices for conducting and reporting evidence syntheses are well-established, and we expect them to be enforced by this journal. Thus, we were surprised to see a recent "systematic review" published in Accountability in Research state that the first article published about retractions was from 1998. As we know of several potentially relevant articles published prior to 1998, we looked deeper into the review and its methodology. Because of the methodological and reporting flaws throughout the review, which we describe in this commentary, the conclusions it presents overstate the certainty and completeness of the findings, and the review includes inaccuracies. That these issues were seemingly not addressed prior to publication highlights the importance of involving individuals with methodological expertise, including search expertise, in the review process, and the necessity of adhering to the appropriate reporting guidelines to ensure accuracy, credibility, and reproducibility. We call on Accountability in Research to ensure that evidence syntheses are peer reviewed by individuals with appropriate methodological expertise; to ensure that authors are adhering to appropriate reporting guidelines; and to consider requiring study preregistration and presubmission inquiries for evidence syntheses.
    Keywords:  PRISMA; Review methodology; reporting issues; research about retraction
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2026.2634744
  21. Nurse Educ. 2026 Jun 11.
       BACKGROUND: Early-career nurse practitioner faculty face significant barriers to scholarly productivity. Peer writing groups have emerged as an effective strategy to support scholarly development.
    PURPOSE: This article describes the formation and outcomes of collaborative faculty writing groups established within a national neonatal faculty Special Interest Group.
    METHODS: Writing groups were organized including faculty from multiple institutions. Members represented a range of experience levels and academic roles.
    RESULTS: Since 2021, the initiative has yielded 27 peer-reviewed publications and numerous conference presentations. Mentorship between novice and experienced faculty emerged as an unanticipated outcome.
    CONCLUSION: This model demonstrates that specialty-focused, cross-institutional writing groups can meaningfully increase scholarly productivity and support faculty development. Key success factors include open communication, equitable workload distribution, institutional recognition, and sustained peer accountability. The framework is practical and replicable, offering a scalable approach to advancing scholarship across nursing education specialties.
    Keywords:  academic writing; faculty; fellowships and scholarship; writing for publication
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1097/NNE.0000000000002211
  22. Res Integr Peer Rev. 2026 Jun 12. pii: 18. [Epub ahead of print]11(1):
      The paper examines structural distortions in contemporary scientific publishing and their implications for research quality, equity, ethics and environmental conservation. Despite being largely publicly funded, scientists continue to provide unpaid labour as reviewers and editors while facing increasing publication fees or subscription costs. The rapid proliferation of journals has intensified reviewer fatigue, reduced the availability of qualified referees, and contributed to declining peer-review quality. These conditions, combined with status biases and insufficient editorial oversight, seriously risk to undermine the reliability of published research. The expansion of predatory journals and exploitative open-access models further erodes trust in scientific communication. In a publish-or-perish environment driven by bibliometric evaluation, there is a proliferation of low-quality and fraudulent research, amplified by AI-generated content. This dynamic benefits commercial publishers, whose profit margins have grown sharply, while draining financial resources from academic institutions. The resulting "vampirization" of the research system exacerbates global inequities and contributes to an exponential increase in publications with limited scientific or societal impact. To counteract this trajectory, we propose that scientists prioritise journals governed by scientific societies or public institutions, and those that adopt ethical publishing practices, especially avoiding predatory publishers. Collective actions-such as mass resignations from editorial boards in response to unreasonable publication charges-are presented as effective strategies. Institutions are encouraged to shift evaluation criteria from quantity to quality, discourage unethical practices, and promote interdisciplinary collaboration, particularly in conservation science. We acknowledge the inherent imperfections of past systems but emphasise that the current drift poses significant risks, especially for fields informing environmental policy making. Declining primary research quality may cascade into misguided decision-making at all scales. We call for systemic reform, including an international accreditation system for journals and publishers based on transparent ethical standards and overseen by public research agencies. Ensuring access to reliable, high-quality scientific information is essential for supporting conservation, sustainability, and the broader societal role of science.
    Keywords:  Journals’ proliferation; Publishing ethics; Scientific quality; Societal consequences
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-026-00206-1
  23. Health Aff Sch. 2026 Jun;4(6): qxag125
      There have been many changes over the past 40 years in scientific publishing, including concerns about conflict of interest, the debut of the Internet, data-sharing, open-access publishing, mandated registration of randomized clinical trials, the challenges of reproducibility and replicability, preprints, and the use of generative AI to help create and review manuscripts. These issues and the future of scientific publishing are discussed.
    Keywords:  communication; data-sharing; open access; preprints; scientific publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1093/haschl/qxag125
  24. PLoS Biol. 2026 Jun;24(6): e3003817
      Investigating the integrity of published scientific papers is key to the scientific process, but the necessary knowledge is in short supply. We present COSIG, an open collection of meta-scientific guides enabling anyone to perform forensic peer review.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3003817
  25. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs. 2026 Jun 08. pii: S0884-2175(26)00147-4. [Epub ahead of print]
      The Editor in Chief examines the responsible use of citations and references, the influence of artificial intelligence and common errors, and strategies that authors and reviewers can use to maintain trust in the scholarly record.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jogn.2026.05.004