Search

The rapid adoption of artificial intelligence (AI) tools in academic research raises pressing ethical concerns. I examine major publishing policies in science and medicine, uncovering inconsistencies and limitations in guiding AI usage. To encourage responsible AI integration while upholding transparency, I propose an enabling framework with author and reviewer policy templates. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Health care clinicians, educators, and students who plan and implement quality improvement (QI) projects must know reporting guidelines for successful project planning and publication. We aimed to identify QI guidelines, which authors can locate, and highlight how best to use them for manuscript preparation. We also address guidelines for educational QI projects. Because of the increasing number of Doctor of Nursing Practice projects generated, these students and their mentors must be familiar with commonly used guidelines for reporting QI projects to facilitate peer review, demonstrate quality and rigor of work, reduce revisions, and potentially accelerate a paper's acceptance for publication. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Journal of Medical Imaging & Radiation Sciences is the property of Elsevier B.V. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Authors submitting a paper often receive an opportunity to revise and resubmit the paper. Authors may find addressing reviewers' comments challenging. We posit authors should welcome expert suggestions for revisions that strengthen the paper and develop a persuasive response if they disagree with the reviewer. A thoughtful, detailed response allows authors to dialogue with reviewers. Our paper uses exemplars of responses to reviewers to illustrate the effectiveness of clear and compelling author responses. Addressing reviewers' comments ultimately results in a better paper—more likely to be accepted. Developing skills in resubmitting research and clinical scholarship reports is essential to the dissemination process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The British Journal of Anaesthesia (BJA) celebrates its centenary in 2023, and with it 100 yr of continuous anaesthesia research publication. As an editorially and financially independent journal, the BJA faced a rapidly changing anaesthesia profession, health system, and publishing world without the security of institutional support. In its early days, the Journal was vocal about the challenging conditions faced by anaesthetists before the National Health System was established, and was essential in advocating for the specialty. Although the years after World War II brought improving fortunes for the specialty, the BJA found itself struggling to publish. As the Journal's fortunes began to improve, a new research and healthcare context emerged, radically changing the face of anaesthesia research and practice, to which the Journal needed to adapt. In spite of a range of challenges throughout the years, the BJA has developed into an international, future-focused, well-respected publication. This could not have been achieved without continual transformation, and the willingness to take risks and meet the changing times head on. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

– This paper sought to explore the value of case reports in diagnostic radiography with regards to current usage, relevance to evidence-based radiography, and educational benefits. Case reports are short accounts of novel pathologies, trauma or treatment with a critical review of relevant literature. Examples within diagnostic radiography include the appearances of COVID-19 alongside examination-level scenarios involving image artefacts, equipment failure and patient incidents in radiology. With greatest risk of bias and lowest generalisability, they are considered as low-quality evidence with generally poor citation rates. Despite this, there are examples of significant discoveries or developments initiated with case reports with important patient care implications. Furthermore, they offer educational development for both reader and author alike. Whereas the former learns about an unusual clinical scenario, the latter develops scholarly writing skills, reflective practice and may generate further, more complex, research. Radiography-specific case reports could capture the diverse imaging skills and technological expertise currently under-represented in traditional case reports. Potential avenues for cases are broad and may include any imaging modality where patient care or safety of other persons may illicit a teaching point. This encapsulates all stages of the imaging process, before, during and after patient interaction. Despite being low-quality evidence, case reports contribute to evidence-based radiography, add to the knowledge base, and foster a research culture. However, this is contingent upon rigorous peer-review and adherence to ethical treatment of patient data. With the drive to increase research engagement and output at all levels in radiography (student to consultant), case reports may act as a realistic grass–root activity for a burdened workforce with limited time and resources. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Shaw and colleagues, who are medical historians, have published a detailed review of the social history of the British Journal of Anaesthesia (BJA) to celebrate its first 100 years. In this editorial, we note some additional contributions and financial details that are relevant to the development of the BJA into the international high-impact journal it is today. [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]

Copyright of Journal of Medical Imaging & Radiation Sciences is the property of Elsevier B.V. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Purpose: To describe and evaluate a pilot project to provide reviewer comments to authors who submitted abstracts to the Hospital-based medicine topic area for the Pediatric Academic Societies (PAS) 2021 annual meeting Methods: Abstract reviewers were encouraged via email to include reviewer comments for authors in their abstract reviews. Unedited comments were emailed to authors shortly after the abstract decision notifications were sent. We quantified the number of reviewers who commented per abstract. Additionally, we surveyed authors and reviewers to evaluate the perceived impact of the pilot project. Results: For 123 abstracts submitted to the Hospital-based medicine topic area, every abstract received comments from at least one reviewer, and a median (IQR) of 4 (3-5) reviewers commented per abstract. The response rates for the author and reviewer surveys were 61/114 (54%) and 54/84 (64%), respectively, and both groups of respondents generally favored the pilot program. The majority of authors (59%) made changes to their project based on the feedback provided and 96% reported that they would like to continue to receive reviewer feedback for future PAS abstract submissions. Reviewers reported spending a mean of 11 minutes reviewing each abstract. Most (85%) felt that they spent the same or slightly more (1%-25%) time reviewing than in prior years. Multiple open-ended comments were provided, largely positive. CONCLUSION: A pilot program to incorporate reviewer feedback into abstract decision notification for a large national research meeting was successful. This approach should be considered for future meetings to enhance this integral component of academic development. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Gender, racial, and ethnic disparities persist in the scientific community despite increasing attention to research-related equity. Men publish in biomedical, scientific journals more frequently than women researchers and have more leadership roles (e.g., first authorship) in these submissions. Similar differences in scientific publishing appear among under-represented minority (URM) authors compared to White counterparts. These findings of authorship disparities are not consistent across all journals and may relate to mentorship variables. This survey study aimed to investigate gender and racial patterns of publishing and research mentorship within the Association for Contextual Behavioral Science (ACBS) community, including in the Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science (JCBS). Two hundred and eighty-two ACT for Professionals listserv members responded to the anonymous 31-item survey. Men reported significantly more publications and more first author manuscripts than women, both in scientific journals generally and in JCBS specifically. White versus URM respondents more frequently reported publishing in JCBS, but not in other scientific journals. There were no differences in the total number of barriers noted between men and women or between White respondents and URM respondents. The top barriers to publishing among all respondents were lack of time, institutional support, and funding. Women more frequently reported lack of adequate research mentorship or collaboration as a barrier to publishing in scientific journals, as well as in JCBS specifically; men more frequently reported experiencing publishing barriers related to embargos and not having research that was appropriate for JCBS. Identifying as the same gender as one's primary research mentor did not relate to any areas of training. However, participants whose race differed from their mentor were significantly more likely to report training in running a study and receiving positive encouragement. Being matched in terms of gender or race with one's mentor did not relate to publishing variables. Findings highlight the continued gender and racial disparities in publishing within the ACBS community and in JCBS. Recommendations for decreasing these differences through research mentorship and structured training efforts are provided. • This study investigated gender and racial patterns of publishing and research mentorship. • 282 professionals responded to an anonymous survey about publishing and mentorship. • Men reported more publications and first-author publications than women. • Whites published more than underrepresented minorities in JCBS but not other journals. • Gender/race match with mentors was unrelated to publishing variables. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Sydney Declaration is an initiative led by an informal group of forensic scientists with diverse backgrounds. It offers a vision of forensic science based on the trace, as a vestige of a past event related to security or a possible law violation. An article published in Forensic Science International (FSI) introduces to this view [1]. Our investigation delves into how the forensic science literature has received this article (the SD article), nearly two years after its publication. One of the main challenges of this exploratory study was to define the appropriate scope of forensic scientific literature, within which the SD article must be located. In general, the publishing domain is quickly evolving, with many competing players, while still being structured around standard academic disciplines. The forensic literature, meanwhile, is scattered and poorly connected. This reflects the fragmentation of practice and research in forensic science, and the difficulty of situating a scientific activity in such a way as to bring out its forensic substance. Nonetheless, the SD article fills a gap. By deciphering the critical concept of trace, it highlights how pivotal forensic science is in addressing societal challenges. Scholarly literature expresses clear quantitative interest in the SD article. It has received significant qualitative citations on multiple levels and dimensions, in a highly relevant manner and in accordance with its aim of providing a forensic foundation for various debates that have been conducted separately, notably over the last fifteen years. [Display omitted] • The forensic literature is very fragmented, reflecting the diversity of conceptions of the discipline. • This situation makes it difficult to value research and practice in terms of their forensic substance. • The article on the Sydney Declaration helps to rectify the situation by providing a scientific tenet for forensic science. • An analysis of the way the Sydney Declaration is cited tends to confirm this potential. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Journal of Medical Imaging & Radiation Sciences is the property of Elsevier B.V. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The publisher regrets that this article has been temporarily removed. A replacement will appear as soon as possible in which the reason for the removal of the article will be specified, or the article will be reinstated. The full Elsevier Policy on Article Withdrawal can be found at http://www.elsevier.com/locate/withdrawalpolicy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

University libraries are questioning the added value of open shelves with books. As scientific publications are increasingly available in electronic format, which role do bookshelves have in the future library space? The Utrecht University Library case study invites librarians to fundamentally rethink how they could strengthen the function of open shelves in their library. Based on acquisition and user data, and on interviews with publishers and users, this article suggests that in 2025 bookshelves could play an important role in providing access to those publications which are preferred by users in paper format. However, bookshelves should no longer focus solely on paper publications, but on digital publications too, as most library collections increasingly become hybrid. Moreover, libraries should also think of ways to enhance the inspiring role of bookshelves. Then, the open shelves could have added value within the library space of the future, providing access to a hybrid collection and an inspiring place to study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The ecosystem services (ES) approach has been widely applied for assessing nature's values and human-nature links. Over the past two decades, this research approach has experienced remarkable growth, exerting global influence on the sustainability policy agenda. Recent literature indicates that North America, Europe, East Asia, and Australia are major contributors to ES research, while other regions are progressing at a slower pace. Many countries in these regions remain under-represented due to various factors, including but not limited to knowledge transfer gaps, disparities in research capacities, as well as distinct needs and challenges among researchers in the Global North and South. Although the ES literature in Asia is growing in topics, methodologies, quality and quantity, many Asian researchers, especially Early Career Researchers (ECRs), still face problems typical of the Global South while conducting ES research. In this paper, we outline four major challenges from the perspective of ECRs. They include: 1) Inequality in career prospects and capacity-building, 2) Inequality and challenges in data access & knowledge transfer, 3) Circulation of research findings in global scientific publishing, 4) Challenges in funding. This perspective paper draws special attention to the challenges faced by ECRs in ES research in Asia. By presenting recommendations, we strongly advocate that the research community work together to make ES research a level playing field for ECRs like ourselves working in Asia and elsewhere. • We provide an overview of the inequalities in scientific production on Ecosystem Services in Asia. • From an early career perspective we highlight four key categories young researchers face difficulties in. • These include: career prospects & capacity-building, data access & knowledge transfer, access to publishing, and funding. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Over the last decade, Educational Data Mining (EDM) and Learning Analytics (LA) have evolved enormously as interrelated research areas and disciplines. Many researchers interested in these areas may wonder why there are two different communities, whether they are the same concept or not, and the differences between them, which is key information for designing their research and publication strategies. To address this, we conducted a systematic review of academic papers about the differences between LA and EDM following the Preferred Reporting Method for Systematic Reviews (PRISMA) guidelines. We selected 10 research works and identified 11 differences. Our conclusions are that, although both use the same data and share similar goals and interests, EDM and LA are different research communities with different origins and focuses, with their respective conferences and journals. However, there is active collaboration between the two communities and their members often tend to publish in both fields' conferences and journals. Additionally, none of the differences are apparently large enough to conclude that LA and EDM follow different paths for improving the teaching-learning process, but rather the opposite. Following a common future line, it seems that the two "sister" communities are working together with the same perspective, along with some "cousin" communities such as AIED (Artificial Intelligence in Education), L@S (Learning at Scale), Learning Science (LS), etc. in the same area that could be called Educational Data Science (EDS). We propose using the term EDS to integrate both LA and EDM with all these related communities. [Display omitted] • Educational Data Mining (EDM) and Learning Analytics (LA) are interrelated and sometimes interchanged terms. • Five original differences between EDM and LA have been identified. • Other six new differences have emerged since these initial five differences. • The term Educational Data Science (EDS) is proposed to integrate EDM and LA. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Data from healthcare scholarly journals show that there is a significant and persistent gender gap in academic publishing. There has been little research into potential gender disparities in publication productivity in the medical radiation sciences (MRS). The aim of this study, therefore, was to analyse and explain potential gender differences in article authorship and acceptance for publication in the Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Sciences (JMIRS) for 5 years (2017-2021). The annual submissions to the JMIRS were assessed with respect to the gender in the categories of first, last and corresponding authors. The proportions of male and female authors in each year were reported, as well as the proportions of rejections and acceptances by gender. Radiation therapy (RT) was also disaggregated from the other MRS disciplines (diagnostic imaging including ultrasound) due to a known significantly higher publication rate. There were 1116 submissions to JMIRS in all MRS disciplines over the period 2017-2021. The number of female first authors (n=501), last authors (n=430) and corresponding authors (n=456) constituted 44.9%, 38.5% and 40.9% of total first, last and corresponding authors. Overall, female authorship in all categories of authorship placement increased over the timeframe reviewed, and the percentage gain in the increase was higher than that for male authorship. However, male authorship started from a higher baseline in 2017, and it has also increased year on year and overall, as well as in each placement category examined. The three largest contributing countries to JMIRS publication were Canada, the UK and Australia, have 72.3%, 76.1% and 68.3% female MRS populations, respectively. The proportion of female authors, therefore, does not reflect the proportions of females in the profession in each country. There were 138 RT submissions. Female RTs have a statistically higher percentage of being the first and last authors of articles published in the journal in this field than for the other specialist areas in MRS. There were no significant differences in rejection rate by gender. Rejection ratios were 54:46 (Female: Male) for the first authors and 46:54 for the last author. Male author citation rates were significantly higher (1.69 Female, 2.16 Male). Despite the rising trend in female authorship over the 5 years overall and in each of the first, last, and corresponding authors places the overall number of male authors as well as the number in each category, consistently exceeds that of female authors showing that the gender publication gap in the journal exists. First and senior authorship rates do not reflect the gender proportions in the profession. Positive trends in female authorship suggest progress, but efforts are needed to address underlying barriers. The higher representation of female authors in RT compared to other MRS disciplines is possibly influenced by various factors, such as the nature of the research or the culture within the RT subfield. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The results of research projects have been disseminated more as abstracts at conferences than as articles in scientific journals. However, conference abstracts are aimed at scientific dissemination and peer feedback so that the manuscript can be refined and published in qualified scientific journals. To evaluate the publication rate of scientific abstracts presented within the scope of pulmonary rehabilitation at the European Respiratory Society International Congress (ERSc) and American Thoracic Society International Conference (ATSc). Abstract searches were carried out in the electronic annals of these 2016 to 2018 conferences. The identified abstracts were categorized by type of presentation. The number of authors and country of origin of the corresponding author were recorded. The publication rate after three to five years of abstract submission was analyzed. After sorting the abstracts, the articles were searched in the Google Scholar and Medline databases. When the article was not found, three e-mails were sent to the authors to identify the publication status. When the article was not found and no response was obtained from the author, it was classified as "uncertain publication". Abstracts published as articles had the following data extracted: journal name, impact factor (IF), study design, affiliation, and whether the result was statistically significant or in a positive direction from their primary outcome analysis. Descriptive analyzes were performed, with categorical data presented as frequency and/or percentage and continuous data as median (interqualitical range). A total of 964 potentially eligible abstracts were identified, of which 20.7% were excluded. 764 abstracts were analyzed, most of which were thematic posters (54.8%), followed by poster discussions (36.1%) and oral presentations (9.0%). The average number of authors was 6, and most were from the USA (18.7%). At the ERSc, the UK had the highest number of submissions (16.4%) while the US had the highest number at the ATSc. The authors responded to e-mails about the publication in 41.9% of the contacts. In 322 (42%) abstracts, no journal article related to the study was found and no response from the author was obtained. A total of 323 published articles related to pulmonary rehabilitation abstracts were found, resulting in a publication rate of 42.3%. Categorization by proportional mode of presentation showed that 66.7% of oral presentations, 46.4% of poster discussions and 35.5% of thematic posters were published as articles. The median IF of the journals was 3.4(2.6–6.4). Significant and positive results were reported in 78.4% of the identified articles. Over half of the abstracts on pulmonary rehabilitation presented at the ERSc and ATSc between 2016 and 2018 remain unpublished. This observation supports the idea of potential publication bias in the wider literature. The low publication rate may be due to the difficulty in obtaining funding for research, the lack of resources for authors to develop their research and the difficulty for authors to find a suitable journal to publish their work. Incentive strategies are needed to improve the conversion of submitted abstracts into journal articles. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There were 89 articles published in the Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance (JCMR) in 2020, including 71 original research papers, 5 technical notes, 6 reviews, 4 Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance (SCMR) position papers/guidelines/protocols and 3 corrections. The volume was up 12.7% from 2019 (n = 79) with a corresponding 17.9% increase in manuscript submissions from 369 to 435. This led to a slight increase in the acceptance rate from 22 to 23%. The quality of the submissions continues to be high. The 2020 JCMR Impact Factor (which is published in June 2020) slightly increased from 5.361 to 5.364 placing us in the top quartile of Society and cardiac imaging journals. Our 5 year impact factor increased from 5.18 to 6.52. Fourteen 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 citation of JCMR publications with accesses now exceeding 1.2 M! It takes a village to run a journal. JCMR is blessed 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 process would not be possible without the dedication and efforts of our new managing editor, Jennifer Rodriguez, whose premier organizational efforts have allowed for streamlining of the review process and marked improvement in our time-to-decision (see later). As I begin my 6th and final year as your editor-in-chief, I thank you for entrusting me with the JCMR editorship. I hope that you will continue to send us your very best, high quality manuscripts for JCMR consideration and that our readers will continue to look to JCMR for the very best/state-of-the-art CMR publications. The editorial process continues to be a tremendously fulfilling experience and the opportunity to review manuscripts that reflect the best in our field remains a great joy and true highlight of my week! [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There is, in the content of the Journal, an embarrassment of riches, and picking a "best" seems to demand a certain qualification: is the "best" the most interesting, most surprising, most educational, most important, most provocative, most enjoyable? How to choose? We are hardly unbiased and can admit to a special affection for the ones that we and the authors worked hardest on, hammering version after version into shape. Acknowledging these biases, here are the 2021 articles that we think deserve your attention or at least a second read. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To determine the impact of industry payments to authors of opinion articles on the Urolift and Rezum devices. We also examined the extent to which authors omitted acknowledgements of financial conflicts-of-interest.Methods: We searched Google Scholar for all articles that cite either of the respective pivotal trials for these devices. 2 blinded urologists coded the articles as favorable or neutral. A separate blinded researcher recorded industry payments from the manufacturers using the Open Payments Program database.Results: We identified 29 articles written by 27 unique authors from an initial screening list of 235 articles. Of these articles, 15 (52%) were coded as positive and 14 (48%) were coded as neutral. 20 (74%) authors have accepted payments from the manufacturer of the device. Since 2014, these authors have collectively received $270,000 from NeoTract and $314,000 from Boston Scientific. Of the 20 authors with payments, 9 (45%) received more than $10,000 from either manufacturer. Of authors with payments, 65% (13/20) contributed to only positive articles. Authors who received payments had more than 4 times the number of article contributions than did authors without payments (42 vs 10). Authors of at least one favorable article were more likely to have received payments from the device manufacturers than authors of neutral articles (P = .014, Chi-squared test). Most (80%, 16/20) authors with payments did not report a relevant conflict-of-interest within any of their articles.Conclusion: These data suggest a relationship between payments from a manufacturer and positive published position on that company's device. There may be a critical lack of published editorial pieces by authors without financial conflicts of interest. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Health economic evaluations are comparative analyses of alternative courses of action in terms of their costs and consequences. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement, published in 2013, was created to ensure health economic evaluations are identifiable, interpretable, and useful for decision making. It was intended as guidance to help authors report accurately which health interventions were being compared and in what context, how the evaluation was undertaken, what the findings were, and other details that may aid readers and reviewers in interpretation and use of the study. The new CHEERS 2022 statement replaces previous CHEERS reporting guidance. It reflects the need for guidance that can be more easily applied to all types of health economic evaluation, new methods and developments in the field, as well as the increased role of stakeholder involvement including patients and the public. It is also broadly applicable to any form of intervention intended to improve the health of individuals or the population, whether simple or complex, and without regard to context (such as health care, public health, education, social care, etc). This summary article presents the new CHEERS 2022 28-item checklist and recommendations for each item. The CHEERS 2022 statement is primarily intended for researchers reporting economic evaluations for peer reviewed journals as well as the peer reviewers and editors assessing them for publication. However, we anticipate familiarity with reporting requirements will be useful for analysts when planning studies. It may also be useful for health technology assessment bodies seeking guidance on reporting, as there is an increasing emphasis on transparency in decision making. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Most randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in oncology are now funded by the pharmaceutical industry. We explore the extent to which RCT design, results and interpretation differ between industry-funded and non-industry-funded RCTs. In this cross-sectional analysis, a structured literature search was used to identify all oncology RCTs published globally during 2014–2017. Industry funding was identified based on explicit statements in the publication. Descriptive statistics were used to compare elements of trial methodology and output between industry- and non-industry-funded RCTs. The study sample included 694 RCTs; 71% were funded by industry. Industry-funded trials were more likely to test systemic therapy (97% versus 62%; P < 0.001), palliative-intent therapy (71% versus 41%; P < 0.001) and study breast cancer (20% versus 12%; P < 0.001). Industry-funded trials were larger (median sample size 474 versus 375; P < 0.001) and more likely to meet their primary end point (49% versus 41%; P < 0.001). Among positive trials, there were no differences in the magnitude of benefit between industry- and non-industry-funded RCTs. Trials funded by industry were published in journals that had a significantly higher median impact factor (21, interquartile range 7, 28) than non-industry-funded trials (impact factor 12, interquartile range 5, 24; P = 0.005); this persisted when adjusted for whether a trial was positive or negative. The vast majority of oncology RCTs are now funded by industry. Industry-funded trials are larger, more likely to be positive, predominantly test systemic therapies in the palliative setting and are published in higher impact journals than trials without industry support. • Industry funded trials tested systemic therapy more than Non-Industry funded trials. • Industry-funded trials were more likely to study palliative treatment. • Industry-funded trials were more likely to meet their primary endpoint. • Industry funded trials studied breast cancer more often. • No difference in clinical benefit between industry and non industry funded trials [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Privacy Preserving Data Publishing (PPDP) is an important aspect of real world scenarios. PPDP moves the researcher in the right direction by maintaining privacy and utility trade-off while publishing the data. This paper presents a concept on dynamic data publishing for multiple sensitive attributes by enhancing KC slice model. Our proposed KC i -slice method completes the data publishing process in two phases. First phase assigns the records into buckets based on the sensitiveness of the attributes, which considers different privacy thresholds on various sensitive attributes. It uses a semantic l-diversity approach to assign the records to the buckets to prevent similarity attacks. The privacy thresholds of all the sensitive attribute values in a bucket are verified. It splits the sensitive attributes into multiple sensitive tables according to the correlation among them. The later phase finds the correlation among quasi attributes. It groups the correlated quasi attributes and also concatenates the SIDs of sensitive attribute values with quasi attribute values. Finally it performs random permutations on the published quasi table. The proposed KC i -slice model enhances the utility and reduces the suppression of multiple sensitive attributes when compared to KC -slice approach. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents a report of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance (SCMR) Publications Committee on the writing of standards of best practice and dissemination of clinically relevant developments in cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR). Topics include the other responsibilities of the committee like collaborating with professional societies and joint task forces, and the types of documents that could be facilitated by the committee like position statements.

Objective: To examine female author representation within publications in the field of urology from the United States from 2000-2019.Methods: All 25,787 articles with a U.S. correspondence address published in the two largest U.S. headquartered general urology journals, Urology and Journal of Urology, were analyzed from 2000-2019. Gender was assigned to each first and last author based on the author's first name. First names were matched to a database of U.S. Social Security Administration data to determine gender.Results: Overall female authorship, female senior authorship, and female first authorship exhibited a significant upward trend from 2000 to 2019 (P <0.001, P <0.001, P = 0.002). As the number of female last authors increased, female last authors were significantly more likely to publish with female first authors, and significantly less likely publish with male first authors (P <0.001, P <0.001). Furthermore, we found a significant difference for female authors being less likely to get cited than male authors (p = 0.02), despite the greater proportion of females that authored research articles with higher citation counts compared to males (P <0.05).Conclusion: Despite the significant progress in female representation within urological publications, female-authored publications continue to constitute a smaller proportion of the urological literature and are less likely to be cited. Our study provides the first evidence on the current status of female underrepresentation within academic urology and literature productivity at this watershed moment. As the number of female urologists evolves, these findings will be of significant impact in the advancement of female investigators in urology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Collaborative educational research and scholarship is a powerful tool to help schools/colleges of pharmacy learn from and with each other to continuously improve by sharing best practices. There are significant advantages including developing projects with more generalizability and impact, leveraging different and complementary expertise, informal mentorship of junior faculty researchers, task sharing, and group accountability. There are also challenges such as managing multiple participants, sticking to productivity goals and timelines, and scheduling virtual meetings across multiple time zones. For a number of years, the American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy's Assessment Special Interest Group has intentionally created opportunities for new connections with the purpose of fostering scholarship projects to pursue interesting questions and engage in educational research with other like-minded colleagues. The purpose of this commentary is to share with members of the academy several practical tips for leading and engaging in group projects of educational scholarship. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To evaluate reviewers' timeliness and review quality for the International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics (IJROBP) by sex and seniority.Methods and Materials: The IJROBP editorial office provided data on 3962 individuals invited to review manuscripts from 2011 through 2014. We identified 1657 reviewers who had been invited to provide a review on at least 3 occasions during the study period and compared review timeliness and scoring between male and female reviewers. We confirmed the reviewers' sex after having unblinded their names based on our personal acquaintance with them and via an Internet search on their department websites. We then did a subset analysis of 124 US-based reviewers who had returned a "major revision" decision. We used the Review Quality Instrument (RQI) to rate their reviews. We used odds ratios and t tests to look for differences in mean RQI scores and factors that might be associated with quality-in particular, Hirsch indices (h indices) and year of first certification.Results: Of the 1657 reviewers of interest, 1245 (75.1%) were men and 412 (24.9%) were women. We found no statistically significant differences between men and women in the time to respond to invitations. There were no statistically significant differences in timeliness or review reminders based on sex. Our subset analysis showed no difference in quality (RQI scores) based on the reviewers' sex, h index, or year of first certification.Conclusions: Women and men render reviews of equal quality regardless of seniority and h index, yet women have been invited less frequently to review. This is likely because of the underrepresentation of women in radiation oncology. A more balanced academic population is needed to address this continuing disparity of women's representation in academic publishing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Over half of top journals have over two thirds of their editorial power located in the USA. • Editorial teams of journals with regional identifiers in the title tend to be less diverse. • Most editorial teams are less geographically diverse than the authors they publish. • Geographic diversity is positively correlated with the number of editors in a journal. Is the representation of editors at prestigious economics journals geographically diverse? Using data on the affiliations of academics working in an editorial capacity at such journals, we map the locations of editorial power within the economics profession. This allows us to rank institutions according to this measure of power. Further, by considering the average distance of a journal's editorial affiliations from a geographic mean, we rank journals by geographic diversity. We find that power is concentrated in five geographical hubs and that most editorial teams are less geographically diverse and more North American than the authors they publish. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the navigating manuscript rejection. Topics include the study demonstrating how common manuscript rejection is among faculty of all academic ranks in hopes to normalize rejection and open conversations about rejection in mentorship; approach, innovations related to the study design, and reason for the rejection of the study to quantify on the fate of manuscripts.

Objective: To determine whether the academic achievement of Department Chairperson (DC) and Research Director (RD), when present, is associated with increased scholarly productivity and National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding of faculty members in academic urology departments.Materials and Methods: We identified the DC, RD and faculty members of 145 academic urology departments. The scholarly productivity and NIH funding for each individual faculty member was assessed from 2018 to 2019 using an h-index extrapolated from the Scopus database and the NIH RePORTER tool, respectively. The Spearman correlation coefficient was employed to define the correlation of these parameters. Hypothesis testing was conducted using the Mann-Whitney U test.Results: After excluding 13 departments due to missing faculty listing, our final sample included 132 departments and 2227 faculty members. In 2018, the NIH provided $55,243,658 in urology research grants to 24.2% of departments and 4.0% of faculty members. Of departments with NIH funding, 68.8% employed a RD. DC and RD h-index were positively correlated with departmental h-index. DC h-index positively correlated with department NIH funding. Moreover, NIH funding was significantly higher for departments with a RD vs those without a RD ($1,268,028 vs $62,941, P < .001); interestingly, NIH funding was higher for departments employing unfunded RDs vs those without a RD ($2,079,948 vs $579,055, P < .001).Conclusion: Academic success of a DC and RD was associated with urology departmental scholarly productivity and NIH funding. The presence of a RD, funded or unfunded, was associated with increased departmental NIH funding. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Blogs are being used increasingly to disseminate nutrition information to consumers, including by registered dietitians (RDs). Guidelines in authoring blogs are important for dietetics professionals so that they effectively communicate evidence-based nutrition information in this format. The aim of this study was to obtain consensus from experts comprising RDs with active blog-writing experience on a set of guidelines for use by RDs when authoring a healthy eating or nutrition information blog. A modified e-Delphi technique with a consensus-based approach was used in this study undertaken between June and October 2019. The purpose-built, pilot-tested e-Delphi survey was informed by a literature review and included statements from 3 domains comprising blog readers and communication; purpose and healthy eating messages; and structure, voice, and tone. Expert participants were identified purposively and via snowballing. In each survey round, statements that achieved 80% consensus were accepted. A total of 19 experts consented to participate. Experts resided in the United States, Australia, and United Kingdom. Experts were mainly women aged between 30 and 49 years and working in private practice and/or research or teaching areas of nutrition and dietetics. Across 3 domains, a total of 33 statements were accepted, comprising a final set of guidelines named the P.O.S.T (purpose, community, structure, and tone) Guidelines for Nutrition Blogs. Consensus from a panel of dietetics experts resulted in the P.O.S.T Guidelines for Nutrition Blogs, which can support RDs in authoring healthy eating blogs. This will ensure that evidence-based nutrition messages provided to consumers are engaging and effective. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]