Search

An editorial is presented which expresses the views on peer review processes, emphasizing its importance in ensuring the quality and validity of academic manuscripts. Topics include the definition and types of peer review, its significance in critical care nursing for advancing clinical practice through high-quality evidence, debates on the necessity of peer review, and the future of peer reviewing with considerations of artificial intelligence (AI) integration.

The article highlights periodical's accomplishments in 2023, acknowledging and thanking the 295 reviewers and editorial board for their vital contributions; and also mentions periodical editors including Olorunfemi Adetona, Andrea Aegerter, and Miriam H. Alexander.

The article presents the discussion on research community increasingly partners with consumers and community in the design and conduct of research. Topics include Recent studies have explored the perceptions of Editor-in-Chiefs regarding the acceptability for consumer co-researchers to be authors on papers; and authorship were developed by the scientific community to ensure appropriate attribution for the work.

The author talks about the inevitability of plagiarism. He discusses the accusations of research misconduct against Stanford and Harvard universities' presidents which brought their tenures to early ends, three dynamics that work against peer review as a plagiarism safeguard, and an overview of the articles in the issue.

The authors describe the image of a silhouette of William Edward Burghardt Du Bois which was featured in the cover of the journal. They discuss the reasons that Du Bois's image is a meaningful choice, their deep appreciation for Du Bois's approach to social analysis, and information on a journal's paper and what happens when one submits a paper to the journal.

In 1995, Michael P. Johnson published work proposing there were multiple types of intimate partner violence, and types differed in their causes, characteristics, and outcomes. As more than a quarter century has passed, this special issue brings together reviews of and reflections on work related to the typology that has already been done and includes new empirical and theoretical works to open the next quarter century. This introduction details the purpose and process that led to this special issue, summarizes what we see as the contributions of this issue, and ends by looking ahead to what work still needs to be done. In doing so, we implore scholars to take care in their methodological and conceptual operationalizations of the typology and expand the work to previously understudied populations, as well as explore the implications of the typology for policy and practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article offers guidelines for enhancing scholarly discourse in academic publishing, focusing on effective feedback mechanisms. We present two structured frameworks: REVIEW for reviewers and REACT for authors. The REVIEW framework guides reviewers in providing constructive and insightful feedback, emphasizing thorough reading, theoretical and methodological evaluation, verification of claims and sources, identification of strengths and shortcomings, critical engagement, and clear, constructive writing. The REACT framework assists authors in systematically responding to feedback, covering review, evaluation, addressing feedback, clear communication of revisions, and thanking reviewers. These frameworks aim to improve the quality and impact of scholarly work by fostering productive interactions between authors and reviewers. This latest issue of Activities, Adaptation, and Aging also features eight studies that exemplify the successful application of these guidelines, highlighting their importance in advancing dignified and purposeful living for older adults. The frameworks and accompanying studies demonstrate the journal's commitment to promoting rigorous peer review and responsive manuscript development in academic publishing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An editorial emphasizes the incorporation of an ethic of care in the editorial process of scholarly publications, focusing on manuscript submission, peer review, and editing for publication. The topics include the importance of care for both authors and reviewers, the concept of care in professional work and strategies to enhance transparency and support for authors in the manuscript submission and publishing experience.

The peer‐review component of the editorial process is designed to facilitate quality control, legitimize scientific research, and self‐regulate scientific communities. Even though serving as a reviewer undoubtedly has direct and indirect benefits, the peer‐review system and the methods of teaching scholars to conduct reviews are nascent and relatively underdeveloped. This article describes the peer‐review process and provides recommendations for writing reviews for scientific journals. The recommendations were developed based on the expertise and preferences of editors in chief and associate editors for behavior‐analytic journals (Cengher & LeBlanc, 2024), and they include honoring your responsibility, knowing your audience, being constructive and kind, and carefully evaluating the merits of the study or review. These guidelines may serve as a primer for scholars who want to conduct reviews for scientific journals in behavior analysis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on shedding light on the process of scholarly publishing, particularly through the lens of the Journal of Community Practice (JCP), offering insights into the peer-reviewed publishing process and proposing recommendations for navigating the current challenges in the publishing industry. It mentions the editorial team shares their observations and experiences as editors of JCP, highlighting the lean organizational structure and volunteer-driven nature of their team.

Nurse practitioners who publish contribute to the profession's body of knowledge. Today's digitally inclined environment easily allows for the tracking of contributing to knowledge and impact. Four popular measures for tracking include Altmetric, Google Scholar, Scopus, and Web of Science. Authors should understand each tracking source's purpose, process, and value. The strengths and limitations of the tracking sources are reviewed. Awareness of the tracking sources and knowing how to influence the tools will bring additional attention to the authors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Journal of the Medical Library Association (JMLA) has made the decision to change our "revise-at-will" policy to instead adopt firmer deadlines for manuscript resubmissions. Beginning with this issue, manuscripts returned to authors with a "revise and resubmit" decision must be resubmitted within two months of the editorial decision. Likewise, manuscripts returned to authors with a "revisions required" decision must be resubmitted within one month of the editorial decision. This editorial discusses JMLA's experience using a "revise-at-will" policy and outlines some anticipated benefits of the new resubmission deadlines. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An editorial is presented on the performance and trends of the Annals of Work Exposures and Health in 2023, highlighting submission rates, hazard distribution in published articles, and authorship demographics. Topics include analysis of submission patterns and publication rates, journal impact factors and editorial board updates, and future considerations for the journal's publishing model.

Over the past 75 years, medical publications have included a growing number of authors. As a result, research teams face challenges in deciding who qualifies for authorship and in what order the authors should be listed. These challenges can lead to tension among research teams that is related to a large number of authors, a lack of knowledge about authorship guidelines, limited experience in research, power dynamics and work culture, and even unethical practices. To overcome these challenges, research teams may look to medical writers and editors for guidance. As a result, medical writers and editors need to be prepared to share best practices for deciding which authors qualify for authorship and which authors should be listed in the acknowledgments. Medical writers and editors also need to be aware of and advise against unethical authorship practices, including honorary authorship and ghost authorship. Medical writers and editors can also guide research teams in best practices for ordering authors, including understanding the meaning of author positions, determining author contributions, planning authorship from the start, establishing authorship responsibilities, agreeing on how to resolve disputes, keeping track of contributions, and documenting discussions about authorship. With this guidance, research teams can adopt best practices for ethically granting authorship and fairly ordering authors based on their contribution to the work. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This is an annual performance report of Malaysian Journal of Medical Sciences (MJMS) for the year 2022. This report presents data pertaining manuscript submissions to MJMS and its performances are presented in various form of views. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Few resources exist to support finding journals that accept case reports by specialty. In 2016, Katherine Akers compiled a list of 160 journals that accepted case reports, which many librarians continue to use 7 years later. Because journals' editorial policies and submission guidelines evolve, finding publication venues for case reports poses a dynamic problem, consisting of reviewing a journal's author guidelines to determine if the journal accepts case report manuscripts. This project aimed to create a more up to date and extensive list of journals that currently accept case reports. Case Presentation: 1,874 journal titles were downloaded from PubMed. The team reviewed each journal and identified journal titles that accept case reports. Additional inclusion factors included being indexed in MEDLINE, accessible on the internet, and accepting and publishing English language submissions. Discussion: The new journal list includes 1,028 journals covering 129 specialties and is available on the Open Science Framework public page. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The author offers perspectives on the paradoxical truths of social work practice. It points out the inadequacy of social safety net programs for low-income individuals and families, racial inequities, discriminatory policies and lower investment in public services. It also refers to food insecurity and delayed Supplemental Nutrition Assistant Program benefits as possible consequences of a government shutdown. Emphasis is given on the focus of social work on humanity and work toward peace.

An editorial is presented on the peer review process for various types of articles, including case reports, systematic reviews, narrative reviews and opinion pieces. It emphasizes the importance of evaluating the uniqueness and relevance of the submitted articles, checking for comprehensive literature searches, assessing the quality of evidence and ensuring clarity and professionalism in opinion pieces.

The article presents the discussion on significant increase in the submission and publication of research papers in nutrition and dietetics which was associated with the COVID‐19 pandemic. Topics include recruited to participate in a study which utilised an online food frequency questionnaire to look at nutrient intake and to self‐report for having diagnosis of type‐2 diabetes; and food frequency questionnaires having low validity while assessing intakes of micronutrients and trace elements.

An editorial is presented on the guidance on writing reviewer reports after analyzing manuscripts, covering purpose, format, structure, and recommendations. It emphasizes the importance of maintaining professionalism, objectivity, and specificity in reviewer comments. It discusses the format of reviewer reports, including confidentiality, structuring comments, providing detailed feedback, and making publication recommendations consistent with reviewer comments.

Prompt publication of clinical trial results in peer-reviewed journals is essential to advance clinical practice and improve patient outcomes. The involvement of professional medical writers (PMWs) in the preparation of these clinical research manuscripts can enhance their quality and shorten publication timelines. Research manuscript projects can be daunting, especially for early-career PMWs who could benefit from insights provided by experienced PMWs. In this guide, first I share my perspective on how PMWs contribute to such projects and the essential skills and competencies we should provide. Then, I describe my tactical approaches to initiating these projects, developing the first draft of a detailed outline or manuscript, and avoiding some common pitfalls that can undermine the quality of a manuscript. Finally, I share some tips for working with challenging personalities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Authorship in scientific manuscripts indicates intellectual contribution of individuals to a research project and authors play a key role in the research and dissemination of results of a research project. It is important for authors to follow guidelines on authorship and submission of manuscripts and to agree on the order of authorship before beginning the project. Criteria for authorship, roles and responsibilities of authors, author metrics and misconduct of authors and their consequences are discussed in this editorial. Properly assigning authorship ensures transparency, accountability, and fairness in the scientific community. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Survivor research refers to those people with lived experience of psycho-emotional distress undertaking a unique type of research that results in any societal change. Survivor research is an anathema to an academic community in that it is often biasedly seen as of a lesser integrity. There is a growing population of survivor researchers who form the Survivor Research Network to support those people to research and publish. However, gaining acceptance by peer reviewed journals remains problematic. This current issue article addresses the challenges of anonymous peer review by those who are not peers of survivor researchers. I present a case describing how reviewers from four journals chose to reject an article by a survivor researcher. The evidence is presented among views of notable survivor researchers who work in this field, also mentioning the wider challenges to all researchers seeking publication. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An editorial is presented on thinking and research emerging from the Asia-Pacific region and across the globe. Topics include capturing the essence of the journal and the potential having an enduring impact and be a significant influence on social work research; and promoting qualitative social work's moral and political purpose as well as exploring interdisciplinary methodological.

The author reflects on how clinical nurses can write articles for publication in journals like "Critical Care Nurse" (CCN). Other topics include the types of manuscripts published at CCN like evidence-based practice articles and structured review articles, how to select topics to write for publications, and her tips for the writing process.

An introduction is presented in which the editor discusses articles in the issue on topics including COVID-19 impact on ECMO patients, propofol-supplemented cardioplegia efficacy, and safety outcomes of anti-platelet therapy post-cardiac surgery.

The article emphasizes the importance of ethical, innovative, and globally significant nursing research, with manuscripts often rejected for lacking in these areas. It discusses ethical concerns such as proper authorship attribution, word-for-word duplication, and the ethical use of artificial intelligence in writing.

In weighing the question of whether AJE should accept preprints that have received press coverage, we need to keep in mind 3 sets of interests: the public interest, the publisher's interest, and the author's interest. During public health emergencies, such as a pandemic, the author's interests (rapid communication of scientific findings to the public) are aligned with the public interest (learning about life-saving information as early as possible). However, the interests of different parties are not always aligned. In most cases, preprinted articles do not concern matters of life or death. Widespread dissemination of studies via preprint services conflicts with the journal editor's interest in delivering fresh, original content. Dissemination of study results prior to peer review can occasionally backfire and cause unintended harm if the findings turn out to be false. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article, part of the Learning Disability Quarterly special series dedicated to single-case research design (SCRD), summarizes the review process and outlines how to provide high-quality SCRD study manuscript reviews. We offer recommendations for the entirety of the review process, including accepting the role of reviewer, evaluating quality of SCRD studies, and, finally, adhering to reporting standards with focused attention on the applied nature of the engaging work that encompasses research in learning disabilities. In addition, we discuss (a) participant and setting description, (b) implementation of particular designs, (c) measurement procedures for dependent variable(s), (d) providing evidence of reliability, (e) graphic display of time-series data, (f) descriptions of results, and (g) acknowledgment of design limitations. We describe the challenges facing SCRD researchers and reviewers engaging in learning disabilities research within applied settings, identify fatal flaws that authors cannot address, and point out omissions that researchers can address through the revision process. Implications for practice, resources, and future directions are shared. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

JASIST has in recent years received many submissions reporting data analytics based on "Big Data" of online reviews scraped from various platforms. By outlining major issues in this type of scape‐and‐report scholarship and providing a set of recommendations, this essay encourages online reviews researchers to look at Big Data with a critical eye and treat online reviews as a sociotechnical "thing" produced within the fabric of sociomaterial life. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Novel ideas often experience resistance from incumbent forces. While evidence of the bias against novelty has been widely identified in science, there is still a lack of large‐scale quantitative work to study this problem occurring in the prepublication process of manuscripts. This paper examines the association between manuscript novelty and handling time of publication based on 778,345 articles in 1,159 journals indexed by PubMed. Measuring the novelty as the extent to which manuscripts disrupt existing knowledge, we found systematic evidence that higher novelty is associated with longer handling time. Matching and fixed‐effect models were adopted to confirm the statistical significance of this pattern. Moreover, submissions from prestigious authors and institutions have the advantage of shorter handling time, but this advantage is diminishing as manuscript novelty increases. In addition, we found longer handling time is negatively related to the impact of manuscripts, while the relationships between novelty and 3‐ and 5‐year citations are U‐shape. This study expands the existing knowledge of the novelty bias by examining its existence in the prepublication process of manuscripts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In 2021, there were 136 articles published in the Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance (JCMR), including 122 original research papers, six reviews, four technical notes, one Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance (SCMR) guideline, one SCMR position paper, one study protocol, and one obituary (Nathaniel Reichek). The volume was up 53% from 2020 (n = 89) with a corresponding 21% decrease in manuscript submissions from 435 to 345. This led to an increase in the acceptance rate from 24 to 32%. The quality of the submissions continues to be high. The 2021 JCMR Impact Factor (which is released in June 2022) markedly increased from 5.41 to 6.90 placing us in the top quartile of Society and cardiac imaging journals. Our 5 year impact factor similarly increased from 6.52 to 7.25. Fifteen years ago, the JCMR was at the forefront of medical and medical society journal migration to the Open-Access format. The Open-Access system has dramatically increased the availability and JCMR citation. Full-text article requests in 2021 approached 1.5 M!. As I have mentioned, it takes a village to run a journal. JCMR is very fortunate to have a group of very dedicated Associate Editors, Guest Editors, Journal Club Editors, and Reviewers. I thank each of them for their efforts to ensure that the review process occurs in a timely and responsible manner. These efforts have allowed the JCMR to continue as the premier journal of our field. My role, and the entire editorial process would not be possible without the ongoing high dedication and efforts of our managing editor, Jennifer Rodriguez. Her premier organizational skills have allowed for streamlining of the review process and marked improvement in our time-to-decision (see later). As I conclude my 6th and final year as your editor-in-chief, I thank you for entrusting me with the JCMR editorship and appreciate the time I have had at the helm. I am very confident that our Journal will reach new heights under the stewardship of Dr. Tim Leiner, currently at the Mayo Clinic with a seamless transition occurring as I write this in late November. I hope that you will continue to send your very best, high quality CMR manuscripts to JCMR, and that our readers will continue to look to JCMR for the very best/state-of-the-art CMR publications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article offers a perspective on the impact of Covid-19 pandemic on publishing in nutrition and dietetics. The author discusses the importance of originality of research papers and their value in terms of formulating critical knowledge and evidence base. Factors influencing editor behavior and decision for accepting research for publication include novelty and timeliness of manuscripts, originality of findings, ethics and integrity, methodological quality and quality of abstracts and title.

Editors rely on peer reviewers' comments and insight as they make decisions about submitted manuscripts. This article describes what reviewers need to consider when accepting a peer review assignment and the essential elements they should include in their peer review. What reviewers need to consider when accepting a peer review assignment—and the essential elements they should include in their review. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article guides nurses through the journal publication process, specifically how to choose a topic, send a query email, establish authorship, avoid predatory journals, and successfully advance on the publication path. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In our commentary, we propose that the ORE can be viewed as a form of perceptual expertise. Like experts, we recognize own‐race faces at the subordinate level as individuals and novices when recognize other‐race faces at the basic level of race. Applying a perceptual expertise account, we explain the ORE in terms of its cognitive, neural, and motivational factors. We suggest that by creating a culture of "other‐race" expertise, improvements in other‐race face recognition can be achieved. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the evolving nature of education in the fields of gerontology and geriatrics, emphasizing the need to address ageism and prepare an effective workforce. It mentions that by introducing updated guidelines for authors and reviewers, Gerontology & Geriatrics Education incorporates a fresh category for pedagogical and practical innovations.

The article lists the literature contributions related to women diagnosed with cancer focusing on topics including breast cancer, gynecological cancer, and cervical cancer.

The author presents an invitation for readers to share ideas, innovations, research, and successful interventions to improve work environments.

An editorial is presented on the growth and achievements of the Journal of Pain and Palliative Care Pharmacotherapy (JPPCP) in 2023, highlighting an increase in manuscript submissions, article downloads and global readership. Topics include pain management, palliative care pharmacotherapy and the journal's upcoming special issue on integrative approaches to pain and palliative care.

An editorial is presented on peer reviewer is essential in the health of a journal. Topics include believed that understanding the process of publication can promote empathy and understanding of the author, who is our customer; and JTCN requires two external peer reviewers, meaning not on the Editorial Board or the Editor in Chief (EIC).