Search

Predatory publishing is a practice where businesses offer illegitimate and unethical publishing where an open access model is generally used with very little or no peer review at all. These publishers also charge high fees for article processing without the standard editorial or publishing standards for scientific disciplines. Predatory journals are an increasing phenomenon in dentistry, as in any healthcare academic publishing. This can mean poor-quality or false research is given false legitimacy and becomes available for dissemination and public consumption. They can be seen as an easy route to publish any work, particularly by junior colleagues who are trying to advance their academic careers. This article discusses the features and issues with predatory publishing while also highlighting the importance of ensuring healthcare literature remains credible, reputable and trustworthy., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to the British Dental Association.)

In this installment of the Methodology Corner , we briefly discuss how our peer-reviewers might foster optimal statistical practices among our community of researchers. Reviewers are encouraged to seek out training opportunities that enhance their own statistical expertise and to consider tools that might support and enhance the quality of their reviews. We also encourage reviewers with statistical expertise to further lend their time and efforts to reviewership. [ J Nurs Educ . 2024;63(11):785-786.] ., Competing Interests: Disclosure: The author has disclosed no potential conflicts of interest, financial or otherwise.

Fear of retaliation from the original authors and their allies has been proposed as one of the explanations for the paucity of replications. In the current paper the frequency of negative responses to replications in psychology, and the attention such responses attract, was measured in a series of three studies. Study 1 indicates that replications do not attract more negative mentions in literature than randomly selected non-replication papers unless they are independent and failed, in which case a small increase in negative mentions was noticed, although replications with open data were less likely to attract such mentions. Moreover, no difference in attracting comments on a post-publication peer-review site between replications and non-replication papers was found. Study 2 shows that independent failed and partially successful replications are more likely to attract stand-alone replies than non-replication papers, but the risk is still small and is reduced for replications with open data. Study 3 indicates that stand-alone replies to replications attract fewer citations and readers than the replications to which they respond. I conclude that scientists' unwillingness to criticize published research, cited as one of the reasons for the paucity of replications, also benefits replicators by largely shielding their research from questioning.

The Monsanto company - now acquired by Bayer - has been accused of ghostwriting articles within peer review literature, with the goal of using influential names to front its content in defence of the herbicide Roundup. Here, I conduct a detailed analysis of three Monsanto review articles and a five-article journal supplement for which detailed information from company emails is publicly available following litigation over Roundup. All the articles had external, but not Monsanto authors, and ghostly practices including ghost authorship, corporate ghost authorship and ghost management were evident in their development. There was clear evidence of ghostwriting - that is, drafting of the manuscript by non-authors - in only two cases. I found no evidence of undeserving authorship among the external authors. The articles complied with the disclosure requirements of their journals, save for the journal supplement. While crude ghostwriting did occur, much of the literature involved subtler practices through which Monsanto exercised control over content, while the attribution of the articles downplayed the company's role - and correspondingly aggrandized that of the external authors. Such practices are widespread within industry journal literature and are the responsibility of byline authors and journals as well as corporations. I discuss these cultural problems and consider remedies.

Much of the current attention on artificial intelligence (AI)-based natural language processing (NLP) systems has focused on research ethics and integrity but neglects their roles in the editorial and peer-reviewing process. We argue that the academic community needs to develop and apply a consistent end-to-end policy on the ethics and integrity of NLP in academic publishing: standards such as drafting requirements and disclosure criteria imposed on potential contributors should be consistently applied to the editorial and peer review process in academic publications.

Sharpe (2024) summarized the factors leading to editorial bias, lack of diversity, and lack of transparency and indicated what might improve matters. Here, I argue that the suggestions that were made would be improved if more thought were given to how these changes impact the incentives of editors. I give examples in the areas of control of bias, encouragement of diversity, and increase of transparency, showing what might be done to incentivize editors, along with other stakeholders, to work on these issues. Perhaps most notably, I suggest that we might change the publication model to allow more individuals to take part by retaining peer review but not organizing the reviews around journals that each have a single chief editor. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

The process of medical scientific journal publishing merits further explanation for authors and readers. Prospective authors need to understand the scope of the journal and the article types that are published. We give an overview of the editorial process, including selection of reviewers, peer review and decisions regarding revision, acceptance and rejection of papers for Australasian Psychiatry . We encourage authors and readers to submit papers, and volunteer as peer reviewers, working together with the journal editorial team., Competing Interests: DisclosureThis paper is not peer-reviewed as it is an expression of the views of the Editorial team co-authors.

Background: The process of preparing a scientific manuscript is intricate, encompassing several critical stages, including pre-writing, research development, drafting, peer review, editing, publication, dissemination, and access. Among these, the peer review process (PRP) stands out as a pivotal component requiring seamless collaboration among editors, reviewers, and authors. Reviewers play a crucial role in assessing the manuscript's quality and providing constructive feedback, which authors must adeptly navigate to enhance their work and meet journal standards. This process can often appear daunting and time-consuming, as authors are required to address numerous comments and requested changes. Authors are encouraged to perceive reviewers as consultants rather than adversaries, viewing their critiques as opportunities for improvement rather than personal attacks., Methods: Opinion article., Aim: To equip authors with practical strategies for engaging effectively in the PRP and improving their publication acceptance rates., Results: Key guidelines include thoroughly understanding and prioritizing feedback, maintaining professionalism, and systematically addressing each comment. In cases of significant disagreement or misunderstanding, authors have the option to refer the issue to the editor. Crafting a well-organized and scientific "response to reviews" along with the revised manuscript can substantially increase the likelihood of acceptance. Best practices for writing an effective response to reviews include expressing gratitude, addressing major revisions first, seeking opinions from co-authors and colleagues, and adhering strictly to journal guidelines. Emphasizing the importance of planning responses, highlighting changes in the revised manuscript, and conducting a final review ensures all corrections are properly documented., Conclusion: By following these guidelines, authors can enhance their manuscripts' quality, foster positive relationships with reviewers, and ultimately contribute to scholarly advancement., Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed., (Copyright: © 2024 Hidouri S et al.)

Objective: This position paper of the Committee on Methodology in Educational Research sets out the criteria for the acceptance, revision, or rejection of manuscripts of the article types project report and how to in the GMS Journal for Medical Education, as well as outlining the development of these criteria., Methods: In a workshop with writers, reviewers, and editors, we formulated and discussed common core elements for articles. We did this by consulting the journal's editorial board on the basis of guidelines for authors and reviewers from other journals and by using examples of articles considered less or more successful. From this, we derived specific aspects to be addressed and rejection criteria for the respective article types., Results: We have identified the target group, relevance, justification, and implication as the common core elements for both article types. We have also derived specific aspects to be addressed and rejection criteria from these core elements for each article type., Conclusion: A manuscript lacking core elements will be rejected. If aspects are not described sufficiently or are not clearly comprehensible, the manuscript must be revised., Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no competing interests., (Copyright © 2024 Schüttpelz-Brauns et al.)

The dissemination of discipline-focused educational scholarship advances theory and stimulates pedagogical application. The aim of Advances in Physiology Education is to publish manuscripts that advance knowledge and inform educators in the field. This primer is tailored for individuals new to manuscript reviewing, early in their careers, or experienced in reviewing research but not educational manuscripts. Peer reviewing for basic and applied science is akin to evaluating research questions and rigor in teaching and learning studies, with differences in approach and analysis similar to those between biophysics and molecular physiology or cell and integrated physiology. Our purpose is to provide an overview of the review process and expectations. The submission and peer review process involves several steps: authors submit a manuscript and the Editor assigns an Associate Editor, who then assigns peer Reviewers. Reviewers are contacted via email and can accept or decline the invitation. Reviewers evaluate the work's strengths and weaknesses and then independently submit comments and recommendations to the Associate Editor. After review, the Associate Editor collects and weighs Reviewers' comments, sometimes garners additional reviews and input, to make a recommendation to the Editor. The Editor reviews the process, comments, and recommendations to render a final decision. Both authors and Reviewers receive an email with the decision. The editorial staff assists with communication and helps track the overall process. Peer review is integral to scientific publishing, ensuring quality and rigor, and reviewing is both a privilege and a responsibility of all in the scientific community. NEW & NOTEWORTHY This mini-review offers a comprehensive and current overview of the peer review process and the qualifications required to serve as a journal reviewer for Advances in Physiology Education . The guidelines are specifically designed for early career professionals new to manuscript reviewing, as well as seasoned research manuscript reviewers who are new to educational manuscript evaluation. Peer review is a cornerstone of scientific publishing, ensuring both quality and rigor. It is both a privilege and a responsibility for all members of the scientific community.

Communicating with scientific journals is a central part of the publication process, yet sparsely covered in the medical literature. A cover letter to the editor(s) should always accompany new submissions, whereas response (or rebuttal) letters relate to revisions and replying to referees' comments following peer review. This review describes the two types of letters, focusing on content, style, and structure, and provides helpful tips for handling challenging reviewer scenarios., (Published under Open Access CC-BY-NC-BD 4.0. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.)

Peer review is an essential step in scientific progress and clinical improvement, providing opportunity for research to be critically evaluated and improved by one's colleagues. Pharmacists from all job settings are called to serve as peer reviewers in the ever-growing publication landscape of the profession. Despite challenges to engagement such as time and compensation, peer review provides considerable professional development for both authors and reviewers alike. This article will serve as a practical guide for peer reviewers, discussing best practices as well as the handling of different situations that may arise during the process., Competing Interests: Disclosure Jordan R. Covvey is an Associate Editor and the other authors are members of the Editorial Advisory Board of the Journal of the American Pharmacists Association (JAPhA). The authors declare no other relevant conflicts of interest or financial relationships., (Copyright © 2024 American Pharmacists Association®. All rights reserved.)

Peer review is essential to preserving the integrity of the scientific publication process. Peer reviewers must adhere to the norms of the peer review process, including confidentiality, avoiding actual or apparent conflicts of interest, timeliness, constructiveness, and thoroughness. This mini review will discuss some of the different formats in which peer review might occur, as well as advantages and disadvantages of each. The topics then shift to providing advice for prospective reviewers, as well as a suggested format for use in writing a review., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting InterestThe author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Background: Reviewers rarely comment on the same aspects of a manuscript, making it difficult to properly assess manuscripts' quality and the quality of the peer review process. The goal of this pilot study was to evaluate structured peer review implementation by: 1) exploring whether and how reviewers answered structured peer review questions, 2) analysing reviewer agreement, 3) comparing that agreement to agreement before implementation of structured peer review, and 4) further enhancing the piloted set of structured peer review questions., Methods: Structured peer review consisting of nine questions was piloted in August 2022 in 220 Elsevier journals. We randomly selected 10% of these journals across all fields and IF quartiles and included manuscripts that received two review reports in the first 2 months of the pilot, leaving us with 107 manuscripts belonging to 23 journals. Eight questions had open-ended fields, while the ninth question (on language editing) had only a yes/no option. The reviews could also leave Comments-to-Author and Comments-to-Editor . Answers were independently analysed by two raters, using qualitative methods., Results: Almost all the reviewers ( n = 196, 92%) provided answers to all questions even though these questions were not mandatory in the system. The longest answer (Md 27 words, IQR 11 to 68) was for reporting methods with sufficient details for replicability or reproducibility. The reviewers had the highest (partial) agreement (of 72%) for assessing the flow and structure of the manuscript, and the lowest (of 53%) for assessing whether interpretation of the results was supported by data, and for assessing whether the statistical analyses were appropriate and reported in sufficient detail (52%). Two thirds of the reviewers ( n = 145, 68%) filled out the Comments-to-Author section, of which 105 (49%) resembled traditional peer review reports. These reports contained a Md of 4 (IQR 3 to 5) topics covered by the structured questions. Absolute agreement regarding final recommendations (exact match of recommendation choice) was 41%, which was higher than what those journals had in the period from 2019 to 2021 (31% agreement, P = 0.0275)., Conclusions: Our preliminary results indicate that reviewers successfully adapted to the new review format, and that they covered more topics than in their traditional reports. Individual question analysis indicated the greatest disagreement regarding the interpretation of the results and the conducting and the reporting of statistical analyses. While structured peer review did lead to improvement in reviewer final recommendation agreements, this was not a randomized trial, and further studies should be performed to corroborate this. Further research is also needed to determine whether structured peer review leads to greater knowledge transfer or better improvement of manuscripts., Competing Interests: Mario Malički is Co-Editor-in-Chief of Research Integrity and Peer Review journal. Bahar Mehmani is an employee of Elsevier, the publisher of the journals studied in this article and the owner of the submission system used for piloting the structured peer review, and for collecting the data and reviewer responses that were analysed in this study. Elsevier is also the owner of the Scopus database which was used to select journals from different impact factor quartiles and subject areas., (© 2024 Malički and Mehmani.)

The peer review process is a fundamental aspect of modern scientific paper publishing, underpinning essential quality control. First conceptualised in the 1700s, it is an iterative process that aims to elevate scientific literature to the highest standards whilst preventing publication of scientifically unsound, potentially misleading, and even plagiarised information. It is widely accepted that the peer review of scientific papers is an irreplaceable and fundamental aspect of the research process. However, the rapid growth of research and technology has led to a huge increase in the number of publications. This has led to increased pressure on the peer review system. There are several established peer review methodologies, ranging from single and double blind to open and transparent review, but their implementation across journals and research fields varies greatly. Some journals are testing entirely novel approaches (such as collaborative reviews), whilst others are piloting changes to established methods. Given the unprecedented growth in publication numbers, and the ensuing burden on journals, editors, and reviewers, it is imperative to improve the quality and efficiency of the peer review process. Herein we evaluate the peer review process, from its historical origins to current practice and future directions., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2024 Drozdz and Ladomery.)

Objective: This paper aims to provide an introductory resource for beginner peer reviewers in psychiatry and the broader biomedical science field. It will provide a concise overview of the peer review process, alongside some reviewing tips and tricks., Conclusion: The peer review process is a fundamental aspect of biomedical science publishing. The model of peer review offered varies between journals and usually relies on a pool of volunteers with differing levels of expertise and scope. The aim of peer review is to collaboratively leverage reviewers' collective knowledge with the objective of increasing the quality and merit of published works. The limitations, methodology and need for transparency in the peer review process are often poorly understood. Although imperfect, the peer review process provides some degree of scientific rigour by emphasising the need for an ethical, comprehensive and systematic approach to reviewing articles. Contributions from junior reviewers can add significant value to manuscripts., Competing Interests: DisclosureThe author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Predatory journals offer the promise of prompt publication to those willing to pay the article submission or processing fee. However, these journals do not offer rigorous peer review. Studies have shown that a substantial share of corresponding authors in predatory journals come from South Asia, particularly India. This scoping review aims to assess what is known about the reasons why healthcare researchers working in South Asia publish in predatory journals. 66 reports (14 editorials, 20 letters, 5 research reports, 10 opinion articles, 14 reviews, 2 commentaries and 1 news report) were included in the data charting and analysis. The analysis of the reports identified three main reasons that made South Asian healthcare researchers publish in predatory journals: pressure to publish, lack of research support, and pseudo benefits. The review shows that predatory publishing in South Asia is a complex phenomenon. Combating predatory publications requires a holistic strategy that supersedes merely blacklisting these journals or listing criteria for journals that do meet academic standards., (© 2023 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Purpose: Open-access publishing expanded opportunities to give visibility to research results but was accompanied by the proliferation of predatory journals (PJos) that offer expedited publishing but potentially compromise the integrity of research and peer review. To our knowledge, to date, there is no comprehensive global study on the impact of PJos in the field of oncology., Materials and Methods: A 29 question-based cross-sectional survey was developed to explore knowledge and practices of predatory publishing and analyzed using descriptive statistics and binary logistic regression., Results: Four hundred and twenty-six complete responses to the survey were reported. Almost half of the responders reported feeling pressure to publish from supervisors, institutions, and funding and regulatory agencies. The majority of authors were contacted by PJos through email solicitations (67.8%), with fewer using social networks (31%). In total, 13.4% of the responders confirmed past publications on PJo, convinced by fast editorial decision time, low article-processing charges, limited peer review, and for the promise of academic boost in short time. Over half of the participants were not aware of PJo detection tools. We developed a multivariable model to understand the determinants to publish in PJos, showing a significant correlation of practicing oncology in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) and predatory publishing (odds ratio [OR], 2.02 [95% CI, 1.01 to 4.03]; P = .04). Having previous experience in academic publishing was not protective (OR, 3.81 [95% CI, 1.06 to 13.62]; P = .03). Suggestions for interventions included educational workshops, increasing awareness through social networks, enhanced research funding in LMICs, surveillance by supervisors, and implementation of institutional actions against responsible parties., Conclusion: The prevalence of predatory publishing poses an alarming problem in the field of oncology, globally. Our survey identified actionable risk factors that may contribute to vulnerability to PJos and inform guidance to enhance research capacity broadly.

Aim: To evaluate the quality of ChatGPT-generated case reports and assess the ability of ChatGPT to peer review medical articles., Methods: This study was conducted from February to April 2023. First, ChatGPT 3.0 was used to generate 15 case reports, which were then peer-reviewed by expert human reviewers. Second, ChatGPT 4.0 was employed to peer review 15 published short articles., Results: ChatGPT was capable of generating case reports, but these reports exhibited inaccuracies, particularly when it came to referencing. The case reports received mixed ratings from peer reviewers, with 33.3% of professionals recommending rejection. The reports' overall merit score was 4.9±1.8 out of 10. The review capabilities of ChatGPT were weaker than its text generation abilities. The AI as a peer reviewer did not recognize major inconsistencies in articles that had undergone significant content changes., Conclusion: While ChatGPT demonstrated proficiency in generating case reports, there were limitations in terms of consistency and accuracy, especially in referencing.

As the scientific community becomes aware of low replicability rates in the extant literature, peer-reviewed journals have begun implementing initiatives with the goal of improving replicability. Such initiatives center around various rules to which authors must adhere to demonstrate their engagement in best practices. Preliminary evidence in the psychological science literature demonstrates a degree of efficacy in these initiatives. With such efficacy in place, it would be advantageous for other fields of behavioral sciences to adopt similar measures. This letter provides a discussion on lessons learned from psychological science while similarly addressing the unique challenges of other sciences to adopt measures that would be most appropriate for their field. We offer broad considerations for peer-reviewed journals in their implementation of specific policies and recommend that governing bodies of science prioritize the funding of research that addresses these measures.

Journal editors depend on peer reviewers to make decisions about submitted manuscripts. These reviewers help evaluate the methods, the results, the discussion of the results, and the overall organization and presentation of the manuscript. In addition, reviewers can help identify important mistakes and possible misconduct. Editors frequently have difficulty obtaining enough peer reviews which are submitted in a timely manner. This increases the workload of editors and journal managers and potentially delays the publication of clinical and research studies. This commentary discusses of the importance of peer reviews and make suggestions which potentially can increase the participation of academic faculty and researchers in this important activity., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.