Search

Introduction: Despite the importance of peer review to publications, there is no generally accepted approach for editorial evaluation of a peer review’s value to a journal editor’s decision-making. The graduate medical education editors of the Western Journal of Emergency Medicine Special Issue in Educational Research & Practice (Special Issue) developed and studied the holistic editor’s scoring rubric (HESR) with the objective of assessing the quality of a review and an emphasis on the degree to which it informs a holistic appreciation for the submission under consideration.Methods: Using peer-review guidelines from several journals, the Special Issue’s editors formulated the rubric as descriptions of peer reviews of varying degree of quality from the ideal to the unacceptable. Once a review was assessed by each editor using the rubric, the score was submitted to a third party for blinding purposes. We compared the performance of the new rubric to a previously used semantic differential scale instrument. Kane’s validity framework guided the evaluation of the new scoring rubric around three basic assumptions: improved distribution of scores; relative consistency rather than absolute inter-rater reliability across editors; and statistical evidence that editors valued peer reviews that contributed most to their decision-making.Results: Ninety peer reviews were the subject of this study, all were assessed by two editors. Compared to the highly skewed distribution of the prior rating scale, the distribution of the new scoring rubric was bell shaped and demonstrated full use of the rubric scale. Absolute agreement between editors was low to moderate, while relative consistency between editor’s rubric ratings was high. Finally, we showed that recommendations of higher rated peer reviews were more likely to concur with the editor’s formal decision.Conclusion: Early evidence regarding the HESR supports the use of this instrument in determining the quality of peer reviews as well as its relative importance in informing editorial decision-making.

The potential of artificial intelligence (AI) in the field of medical research is unquestionable. Nevertheless, the scientific community has raised several concerns about a possible fraudulent use of these tools that might be used to generate inaccurate or, in extreme cases, erroneous messages that could find their way into the literature. In this experiment, we asked a generative AI program to write a technical report on a non-existing Magnetic Resonance Imaging technique called Magnetic Resonance Audiometry, receiving in return a full seemingly technically sound report, substantiated by equations and references. We have submitted this report to an international peer-reviewed indexed journal, passing the first round of review with only minor changes requested. With this experiment, we showed that the current peer-review system, already burdened by the overwhelming increase in number of publications, might be not ready to also handle the explosion of these techniques, showing the urgent need for the entire community to address both the issue of generative AI in scientific literature and probably a more profound discussion on the entire peer-review process. Clinical relevance statement: Generative AI models are shown to be able to create a full manuscript without any human intervention that can survive peer-review. Given the explosion of these techniques, a profound discussion on the entire peer-review process by the scientific community is mandatory. Key Points: • The scientific community has raised several concerns about a possible fraudulent use of AI in scientific literature. • We asked a generative AI program to write a technical report on a non-existing technique, receiving in return a full technically sound report, substantiated by equations and references, that passed peer-review. • This experiment showed that the current peer-review system might be not ready to handle the explosion of generative AI techniques, advising for a profound discussion on the entire peer-review process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As we enter a new era of mRNA‐based therapeutics, evidence on genetic or environmental factors that might predispose to unknown off‐target side effects, gains in importance. Among these factors, exercise appears likely to have influenced otherwise cryptic cases of early‐onset postvaccination myocarditis. And the existence of a distinct late‐onset myocarditis is now being recognized. Here, three case‐history reports suggest crypticity (the author's own case), unless provoked by a preexisting cardiac morbidity (one case), or by immune checkpoint blockade to enhance anticancer autoimmunity (several cases). These reports are supported by noninvasive fluorodeoxyglucose‐based cardiac scan comparisons of multiple vaccinated and unvaccinated subjects. In pre‐pandemic decades, applications for funds by the leading innovator in mRNA‐based therapeutics seldom gained peer‐review approval. Thus, at the start of the pandemic, the meager data on such side effects could justify only emergency approval. We must do better. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In Orwellian fashion, Wright and Cumming's (2005) described disturbing trends that detract from the credibility of psychological research. Writers of their time looked to an informed, ethical, and competent journal review process to balance these trends. A review of the current Rorschach/psychopathy literature makes one realize that a plethora of largely unchallenged biases, unsound methodology, and faulty conclusions pervade the literature (Cunliffe et al., 2021; Gacono, 2016; Smith et al., 2021). Have journal editors failed to ensure that only sound, ethical, unbiased, useful research is published? Sadly, they have. Practicing clinicians must be wary, rather than trusting that editors and reviewers are informed about key issues, that reviewers offer only opinions within their areas of expertise, and that researchers have an adequate experiential knowledge base for understanding the populations or assessment instruments they study (Cunliffe et al., 2021; Gacono, 2021). In this article, we review 5 articles that illustrate these issues. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: This study aimed to assess the relationship between immediate post-operative imaging and the risk of revision surgery for mechanical failure, as well as to determine the effect of routine peer review of post-operative imaging on the rate of unsatisfactory radiological outcomes and revision surgery. Methods: Two trauma fellowship-trained consultants reviewed all post-operative images prior to the department adopting a metalwork multidisciplinary team and judged whether the surgery was satisfactory or not. Trauma lists and imaging were reviewed for a 90-day follow-up period to determine if a patient had required revision surgery. Following analysis a daily review was introduced where a consensus decision was reached regarding the fixation. A further 90-day follow-up period was utilised to determine the subsequent rate of revision surgery. Results: In the first cohort 977 cases were identified with an overall revision rate of 2.5%, 875 cases having satisfactory imaging (89.6%) and 102 unsatisfactory (10.4%). Revision rates were 0.5% and 19.6%, respectively. Following introduction of the daily peer review process 709 cases were identified with an overall revision rate of 1.6%, 664 cases had satisfactory imaging (93.7%) and 45 unsatisfactory (6.3%). Revision rates were 0.5% and 17.8%, respectively. Patients with unsatisfactory imaging were significantly more likely to require a revision (p < 0.0001). There was a significant drop of 4% in the rate of unsatisfactory imaging between the two cohorts. Conclusion: Unsatisfactory post-trauma imaging can be predictive of the need for revision surgery and peer review of imaging should form part of continuous clinical governance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Peer review is the evaluation of scientific, academic, or professional work by experts in the field. This process starts when the editor of a peer-reviewed journal sends an article or a manuscript to two or more reviewers for review. They convey their suggestions to the editor. If the reviews are positive, the editor requests the authors to revise and resubmit the manuscript. The corresponding author provides a point-wise explanation of the various queries raised by the reviewers and resubmits the paper. The editor may send the paper for re-review, following which the editor makes the final decision. If accepted, the author is informed, and the paper is published. The peer review process has many variations such as blinded review (single or double blind), open review, and collaborative review. Each variant has its pros and cons. Peer review, when done before publication in a journal, has the advantage of producing papers that have undergone thorough scrutiny of their research question, methodology, and outcomes. Although this process may take more time compared to other methods, it has stood the test of time as a key quality control mechanism in scientific publishing. The reviewer should be unbiased and professional in his/her conduct and provide constructive feedback to improve the research paper. Several journals provide a checklist for peer reviewers, which facilitates a detailed review. Peer reviewing is a skill that improves the quality of publication at the level of an individual manuscript and benefits the scientific community at large.

This is a short essay in response to the editorial by Lubinski, Decker, and MacKenzie (this issue), in which the authors emphasise the need for scientific peer-review, but also scrutinise it for its potential necessity to be 'revised and resubmitted'. Finding much agreement with their engaging and insightful editorial, I elaborate a little on some of their arguments (especially on 'snarky reviewers'), but also add to their piece by highlighting that there are many external parties – from accreditation bodies and publishers to OpenAI et al. – that prompt the evolution of peer-review in ways that increasingly slips out of academic control. Therefore, when the question is asked 'whether peer review is ripe for a revise and resubmit?', my concern is that academics become less the party answering that question. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Peer‐review is the foundation and the safeguard of scientific research. Without the dedication of our reviewers, the journal would not have been successful. In 2023, 269 reviewers completed 434 reviews for the 174 manuscripts submitted to GeoHealth. Our reviewers are from all continents except Antarctica. Besides reviewers from North America, China, Europe, and China, we started to have reviewers from India, Latin America, and Africa. GeoHealth editorial board is committed to expanding the readership, authorship, and reviewership to other countries. If you have already reviewed for us, no matter where or who you are, we hope you and your colleagues will consider GeoHealth a home for your work. Below is the list of reviewers who completed more than two reviews or have outstanding quality reviews. Two of our reviewers are being nominated for AGU best reviewers awards. Plain Language Summary: List of reviewers who completed one or more reviews or have outstanding quality reviews. Individuals in italics provided two or more reviews for GeoHealth during the year. Key Points: The editors thank the 2023 peer reviewers [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The phenomenon of plagiarism in peer-review evaluation reports remained surprisingly unrecognized, despite a notable rise of such cases in recent years. This study reports multiple cases of peer-review plagiarism recently detected in 50 different scientific articles published in 19 journals. Their in-depth analysis reveals that such reviews tend to be nonsensical, vague and unrelated to the actual manuscript. The analysis is followed by a discussion of the roots of such plagiarism, its consequences and measures that could counteract its further spreading. In addition, we demonstrate how increased availability and access to AI technologies through recent emergence of chatbots may be misused to write or conceal plagiarized peer-reviews. Plagiarizing reviews is a severe misconduct that requires urgent attention and action from all affected parties. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Peer review is widely accepted as critical to legitimating scholarly publication, and yet, it runs the risk of reproducing inequities in publishing processes and products. Acknowledging at once the historical need to legitimize SoTL publications, the current danger of reproducing exclusive practices, and the aspirational goal to “practice what we preach” as SoTL practitioners regarding effective feedback to students, we argue for rethinking “rigor,” developing more inclusive practices, and engaging in greater transparency in relation to peer review. To situate our discussion, we revisit foundational work in the development of SoTL and then offer an analytical framework informed by recent scholarship on redefining rigor and the emotional experience of receiving feedback. Using this framework, we propose a relational model of peer review and present two examples of efforts in which we have been involved as founding co-editors of the International Journal for Students as Partners to move toward greater transparency and inclusion in manuscript review processes.

Abstract Background Preprints are increasingly used to disseminate research results, providing multiple sources of information for the same study. We assessed the consistency in effect estimates between preprint and subsequent journal article of COVID-19 randomized controlled trials. Methods The study utilized data from the COVID-NMA living systematic review of pharmacological treatments for COVID-19 (covid-nma.com) up to July 20, 2022. We identified randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating pharmacological treatments vs. standard of care/placebo for patients with COVID-19 that were originally posted as preprints and subsequently published as journal articles. Trials that did not report the same analysis in both documents were excluded. Data were extracted independently by pairs of researchers with consensus to resolve disagreements. Effect estimates extracted from the first preprint were compared to effect estimates from the journal article. Results The search identified 135 RCTs originally posted as a preprint and subsequently published as a journal article. We excluded 26 RCTs that did not meet the eligibility criteria, of which 13 RCTs reported an interim analysis in the preprint and a final analysis in the journal article. Overall, 109 preprint–article RCTs were included in the analysis. The median (interquartile range) delay between preprint and journal article was 121 (73–187) days, the median sample size was 150 (71–464) participants, 76% of RCTs had been prospectively registered, 60% received industry or mixed funding, 72% were multicentric trials. The overall risk of bias was rated as ‘some concern’ for 80% of RCTs. We found that 81 preprint–article pairs of RCTs were consistent for all outcomes reported. There were nine RCTs with at least one outcome with a discrepancy in the number of participants with outcome events or the number of participants analyzed, which yielded a minor change in the estimate of the effect. Furthermore, six RCTs had at least one outcome missing in the journal article and 14 RCTs had at least one outcome added in the journal article compared to the preprint. There was a change in the direction of effect in one RCT. No changes in statistical significance or conclusions were found. Conclusions Effect estimates were generally consistent between COVID-19 preprints and subsequent journal articles. The main results and interpretation did not change in any trial. Nevertheless, some outcomes were added and deleted in some journal articles.

ABSTRACTIn clinical clerkship (CC), medical students can practice evidence-based medicine (EBM) with their assigned patients. Although CC can be a valuable opportunity for EBM education, the impact of EBM training, including long-term behavioral changes, remains unclear. One hundred and nine fourth- and fifth-year medical students undergoing CC at a medical school in Japan attended a workplace-based learning program for EBM during CC (WB-EBM), which included the practice of the five steps of EBM. The program’s effect on the students’ attitudes toward EBM in CC was assessed through questionnaires. A total of 88 medical students participated in the program. Responses to the questionnaire indicated high satisfaction with the WB-EBM program. The most common theme in students’ clinical problems with their assigned patients was the choice of treatment, followed by its effect. Based on the responses in the post-survey for the long-term effects of the program, the frequency of problem formulation and article reading tended to increase in the ‘within six months’ group comprising 18 students who participated in the WB-EBM program, compared with the control group comprising 34 students who did not. Additionally, the ability to self-assess problem formulation was significantly higher, compared with the control group. However, among 52 students who participated in the WB-EBM program more than six months later, EBM-related behavioral habits in CC and self-assessments of the five steps of EBM were not significantly different from those in the control group. The WB-EBM program was acceptable for medical students in CC. It motivated them to formulate clinical questions and enhanced their critical thinking. Moreover, the WB-EBM program can improve habits and self-evaluations about EBM. However, as its effects may not last more than six months, it may need to be repeated across departments throughout CC to change behavior in EBM practice.

AbstractLanguage is a powerful tool that facilitates communication, knowledge acquisition, and negotiation of meaning, but it is a complex skill for English as foreign language (EFL) learners who often encounter various challenges and complexities. Among the critical language skills, pronunciation holds a significant place. As much as it is challenging, many EFL teachers find it necessary to teach it explicitly, so exploring innovative approaches to address this challenge is essential. This preliminary study investigated how Siri, a voice assistant tool, can be integrated with in-class instruction to improve the pronunciation of EFL learners. The study demonstrated that Siri could lead to better learning gains for students than using only in-class instructions and feedback when combined with teacher instructions. Forty EFL learners participated; twenty-five who did not have iPhones compatible with Siri were treated as the control group, whereas fifteen with iPhone devices compatible with Siri were treated as the experimental group. Each group was assigned an experienced English teacher to help give instructions and feedback. The primary data collection method involved students’ reading the assigned tasks, recording, and sending them to their respective teachers and peers for feedback and peer review, respectively. Cohen’s kappa coefficient and independent t-test were used to analyze the data. The results showed that Siri improved the students’ pronunciation skills more than in-class instruction.

Social media and new tools for engagement offer democratic platforms for enhancing constructive scientific criticism which had previously been limited. Constructive criticism can now be massive, timely and open. However, new options have also enhanced obsessive criticism. Obsessive criticism tends to focus on one or a handful of individuals and their work, often includes ad hominem aspects, and the critics often lack field-specific skills and technical expertise. Typical behaviours include: repetitive and persistent comments (including sealioning), lengthy commentaries/tweetorials/responses often longer than the original work, strong degree of moralizing, distortion of the underlying work, argumentum ad populum, calls to suspend/censor/retract the work or the author, guilt-by-association, reputational tarnishing, large gains in followers specifically through attacks, finding and positing sensitive personal information, anonymity or pseudonymity, social media campaigning, and unusual ratio of criticism to pursuit of one's research agenda. These behaviours may last months or years. Prevention and treatment options may include awareness, identifying and working around aggravating factors, placing limits on the volume by editors, constructive pairing of commissioned editorials, incorporation of some hot debates from unregulated locations such as social media or PubPeer to the pages of scientific journals, preserving decency and focusing on evidence and arguments and avoiding personal statements, or (in some cases) ignoring. We need more research on the role of social media and obsessive criticism on an evolving cancel culture, the social media credibility, the use/misuse of anonymity and pseudonymity, and whether potential interventions from universities may improve or further weaponize scientific criticism.

Bullying and misconduct in the realm of scientific and scholarly publishing have the potential to jeopardize the transparency and integrity of academic discourse. While misconduct issues among authors have been extensively discussed, the role of editors in perpetuating or mitigating such problems has garnered less attention. Scientific publishing serves as the gateway for disseminating innovative research findings globally, and the role of editors, especially Editor/s-in-chief, is pivotal in safeguarding the rigor and credibility of published research. Editor bullying and misconduct involve behaviors that undermine the scientific process, compromise research integrity, and harm the careers and wellbeing of individuals. These actions may manifest as biased decision-making, suppression of dissenting voices, or the exploitation of power dynamics in the peer review process. To address these issues, preventive and therapeutic approaches are suggested, including enhancing awareness, recognizing and mitigating exacerbating factors, and upholding professionalism. Moreover, the importance of a conflict-of-interest declaration for editors is highlighted to ensure transparency and integrity in the editorial process. The present mini-review aims to shed light on editor bullying, illuminating its gravity and the urgency to address these issues within the academic publishing domain/s. This review underscores the more subtle, yet equally significant, issue of professional misconduct in the editorial realm of scientific journals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We present a case study of corrupted discourses in medicine. Medicine is a fallible science. Therefore, it is not surprising that mistakes in the assessment of data and early closure of discourse have led to a highly biased view of the Covid-19 crisis. We present two examples of papers which were retracted following criticisms and republished after a lengthy re-reviewing process. One paper discussed the clinical benefits of COVID-19 vaccinations and the potential risk profile of these vaccinations using the Dutch Adverse Drug Reaction Register. The results of this study were not very favorable. The pressure mounted on the publisher of the journal Vaccines (MDPI, Basel) was huge, and the paper was retracted, although none of the classical reasons for retraction were present. The second paper was about carbon dioxide content in inhaled air under face masks in children, which revealed amounts of CO2 inhaled under masks that violate accepted security norms by a factor of six. This paper was also retracted after criticisms were raised online and after a very dubious re-review process. A closer analysis shows that both retractions were politically motivated. We analyze these case studies and conclude that in the era of COVID-19, politics and financial incentives are increasingly replacing scientific discourse. The profit motive in scientific discourse has opened the floodgates to political influences. This makes obvious what has long been a problem: Financial conflicts of interest continue to distort research and play a major role in evaluations of the COVID-19 pandemic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Feedback provided by peer reviewers plays a pivotal role in any journal peer-review model. Peer-review feedback helps authors reconsider their manuscripts in a new light and improve their work before it is published. While there is a wealth of knowledge and empirical evidence focusing on effective feedback practices in educational settings, there is a dearth of research on journal peer-review feedback, especially in some academic disciplines including the social sciences and education. To better understand 'good' and 'bad' peer-review feedback practices across academic disciplines, we conducted a systematic literature review, informed by grounded theory, that aimed to identify the feedback features and factors that exert an impact on quality of peer-review feedback. Findings from 20 publications indicate a list of good and bad features of peer-review feedback pertaining to content, language, tone, structure and timeliness. We also identified a number of internal and external factors that influence how peer reviewers provide feedback such as academics' expertise, language skills, motivation and seniority, as well as external influences such as anonymity in peer-review, and interactions between editors and peer reviewers. Implications for researching and practising peer-review are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Preprints are increasingly used to disseminate research results, providing multiple sources of information for the same study. We assessed the consistency in effect estimates between preprint and subsequent journal article of COVID-19 randomized controlled trials. Methods: The study utilized data from the COVID-NMA living systematic review of pharmacological treatments for COVID-19 (covid-nma.com) up to July 20, 2022. We identified randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating pharmacological treatments vs. standard of care/placebo for patients with COVID-19 that were originally posted as preprints and subsequently published as journal articles. Trials that did not report the same analysis in both documents were excluded. Data were extracted independently by pairs of researchers with consensus to resolve disagreements. Effect estimates extracted from the first preprint were compared to effect estimates from the journal article. Results: The search identified 135 RCTs originally posted as a preprint and subsequently published as a journal article. We excluded 26 RCTs that did not meet the eligibility criteria, of which 13 RCTs reported an interim analysis in the preprint and a final analysis in the journal article. Overall, 109 preprint–article RCTs were included in the analysis. The median (interquartile range) delay between preprint and journal article was 121 (73–187) days, the median sample size was 150 (71–464) participants, 76% of RCTs had been prospectively registered, 60% received industry or mixed funding, 72% were multicentric trials. The overall risk of bias was rated as 'some concern' for 80% of RCTs. We found that 81 preprint–article pairs of RCTs were consistent for all outcomes reported. There were nine RCTs with at least one outcome with a discrepancy in the number of participants with outcome events or the number of participants analyzed, which yielded a minor change in the estimate of the effect. Furthermore, six RCTs had at least one outcome missing in the journal article and 14 RCTs had at least one outcome added in the journal article compared to the preprint. There was a change in the direction of effect in one RCT. No changes in statistical significance or conclusions were found. Conclusions: Effect estimates were generally consistent between COVID-19 preprints and subsequent journal articles. The main results and interpretation did not change in any trial. Nevertheless, some outcomes were added and deleted in some journal articles. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Peer review is under pressure. Without fair, transparent and efficient peer review we cannot ensure the right proposals get funded and the correct manuscripts get published. In the era of Open Access, which is driving an exponential increase in the number of submitted publications, how we carry out peer review is becoming increasingly important and how we find reviewers is coming under scrutiny. The current methods are slow and produce bias pools of reviewers. As such we need an improved way. At Prophy we have developed a state-of-the-art referee finder that can find experts to review any manuscript from any scientific field in seconds. Then through post-processing filters we can find appropriate candidate referees who are most likely to review a paper, whilst highlighting important conflicts of interest through our complex citation networks. These methods can ensure fair and independent experts who can review interdisciplinary papers from any discipline. These methods are being delivered through APIs and the editorial workflow of editors ensure the right people get access to these tools. Finally, as large-language models improve, so does Prophy and as such we will be looking to drive real innovation in this area in years to come. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The document titled "Thank you to our reviewers 2023" is an editorial from the Veterinary Evidence journal. The editorial expresses gratitude to the reviewers, staff, and board members for their contributions to the journal. It also discusses various topics, including the global economic outlook, the impact of large language models on publishing, and the challenges posed by paper mills. The editorial highlights the growth and success of Veterinary Evidence, as well as ongoing efforts to improve the reviewing process and update knowledge summaries. The editor-in-chief expresses appreciation for the support received and announces their upcoming departure. The document concludes with information on how readers can contribute to the evidence base and a disclaimer regarding the content of knowledge summaries. [Extracted from the article]

Peer review is the evaluation of scientific, academic, or professional work by experts in the field. This process starts when the editor of a peer‑reviewed journal sends an article or a manuscript to two or more reviewers for review. They convey their suggestions to the editor. If the reviews are positive, the editor requests the authors to revise and resubmit the manuscript. The corresponding author provides a point‑wise explanation of the various queries raised by the reviewers and resubmits the paper. The editor may send the paper for re‑review, following which the editor makes the final decision. If accepted, the author is informed, and the paper is published. The peer review process has many variations such as blinded review (single or double blind), open review, and collaborative review. Each variant has its pros and cons. Peer review, when done before publication in a journal, has the advantage of producing papers that have undergone thorough scrutiny of their research question, methodology, and outcomes. Although this process may take more time compared to other methods, it has stood the test of time as a key quality control mechanism in scientific publishing. The reviewer should be unbiased and professional in his/her conduct and provide constructive feedback to improve the research paper. Several journals provide a checklist for peer reviewers, which facilitates a detailed review. Peer reviewing is a skill that improves the quality of publication at the level of an individual manuscript and benefits the scientific community at large. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Library guides can help librarians provide information to their patrons regarding their library resources, services, and tools. Despite their perceived usefulness, there is little discussion in designing library guides pedagogically by following a set of assessment standards for a quality-checked review.

Abstract Peer‐review is the foundation and the safeguard of scientific research. Without the dedication of our reviewers, the journal would not have been successful. In 2023, 269 reviewers completed 434 reviews for the 174 manuscripts submitted to GeoHealth. Our reviewers are from all continents except Antarctica. Besides reviewers from North America, China, Europe, and China, we started to have reviewers from India, Latin America, and Africa. GeoHealth editorial board is committed to expanding the readership, authorship, and reviewership to other countries. If you have already reviewed for us, no matter where or who you are, we hope you and your colleagues will consider GeoHealth a home for your work. Below is the list of reviewers who completed more than two reviews or have outstanding quality reviews. Two of our reviewers are being nominated for AGU best reviewers awards.

Navigating confusing peer-review structures in publishing can be daunting for librarians at all stages of their careers. In this paper, the authors will differentiate peer-review models and reflect on their experiences with these formats in the context of the September 2022 special issue of College & Research Libraries. Additional discussion will include the hidden curriculum of professional norms in academia; areas for growth in peer review related to diversity, equity, and inclusion; and peer review as an individual and collective form of professional development that shapes how we engage with scholarship in LIS. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Demonstrating how a study advances the field is an essential criterion for publication in Functional Ecology. However, it is not always clear what constitutes a 'significant advance' and many manuscripts are rejected because authors have not demonstrated how their study will advance the field. In this editorial, we explain what the editors of Functional Ecology regard as an advance, and we provide some tips about how to demonstrate the advance in the manuscript text. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In 2020 COVID-19 led to an unprecedented stream of papers being submitted to journals. Scientists and physicians all around the globe were in need for information about this new disease. In this climate, many articles were accepted after extremely fast peer-reviews to provide the scientific community with the latest discoveries and knowledge. Unfortunately, this also led to articles retraction due to authors' misconduct or errors in methodology and/or conclusions. The aim of this study is to investigate the number and characteristics of retracted papers, and to explore the main causes that led to retraction. We conducted a systematic review on retracted articles, using PubMed as data source. Our inclusion criteria were the following: English-language retracted articles that reported original data, results, opinions or hypotheses on COVID-19 and Sars-CoV-2. Twenty-seven retracted articles were identified, mainly reporting observational studies and opinion pieces. Many articles published during the first year of the pandemic have been retracted, mainly due to the authors' scientific misconduct. Duplications, plagiarism, frauds and absence of consent, were the main reasons for retractions. In modern medicine, researchers are required to publish frequently, and, especially during situations like the COVID-19 pandemic, when articles were rapidly published, gaps in peer-reviews system and in the path to scientific publication arose. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

2024 has started with a bang or perhaps more accurately floods, snow and ice. The world remains an uncertain place with the conflict in Ukraine and Gaza as well as tension around the Korean peninsula, Sea of Japan and Taiwan. Economically 2023 was a very hard year with inflation exceeding wage increases making it hard for animal carers, with food banks in the UK seeing an increasing demand for pet food. Thankfully inflation is falling and the economic outlook, although not rosy, is perhaps not as gloomy as originally forecast. The big stories in publishing for 2023 were the explosion of large language models (LLM) like ChatGPT and their impact on publishing (we now have a policy on the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in papers submitted to Veterinary Evidence) and the burgeoning challenge of paper mills (organisations that produce and sell authorship of fabricated or manipulated manuscripts which resemble genuine legitimate research) that has led to some journals losing their citation. Veterinary Evidence continues to grow and flourish with increased visits to our website and a regular stream of articles being published. Good governance and ethical publication remain a key focus of the Board that has been strengthened by a number of new members, bringing a broader range of expertise and experience. Our Student Awards continue to be a success and I would like to thank the whole team of staff and reviewers for turning round these submissions so quickly. I had the pleasure of talking to the prize-winning authors and it was great to hear their enthusiasm, but also how much they have valued the help and support from the journal. Our new submission system, Editorial Manager, has been installed and is working well providing better insight into how the publishing process is working for us. It has been a learning experience for all and like any new system there are a few areas where we can further improve the author and reviewer experience. Thanks to the hard work of staff, reviewers and Associate Editors, there are now no papers left in the old OJS system. The journal has strived to make the reviewing process as straightforward as possible with a prereview checklist to ensure papers are ready for review. A mentoring system is up and running for new reviewers open to all who may be interested in contributing to the publication of veterinary literature. Veterinary Evidence has been working hard on our next review date policy and processes so some of our early Knowledge Summaries can be updated as new literature becomes available. We are also preparing to make an application for citation in PubMed Central to increase the visibility of Veterinary Evidence’s content. None of this would be possible without the input from our volunteers and I would like to take this opportunity to say a huge thank you to all our reviewers, Associate Editors and everyone who has served on the Board this year for their tireless efforts on behalf of Veterinary Evidence without your support the journal could not exist. This year the Board has again had three online meetings, which have been essential in helping develop the strategy for Veterinary Evidence; such as our response to LLM, graphic content and further work on which types of evidence can be included in our Knowledge Summaries. On a personal note, my time as Editor-in-Chief is drawing to a close. It has been a great 3 years plus and I have had incredible support from everyone at Veterinary Evidence which has made my role so much easier and more enjoyable. Once again, a massive thank you to everyone who works for and supports Veterinary Evidence, wishing you all a safe and productive 2024. Kit Sturgess Editor-in-Chief

Bullying and misconduct in the realm of scientific and scholarly publishing have the potential to jeopardize the transparency and integrity of academic discourse. While misconduct issues among authors have been extensively discussed, the role of editors in perpetuating or mitigating such problems has garnered less attention. Scientific publishing serves as the gateway for disseminating innovative research findings globally, and the role of editors, especially Editor/s-in-chief, is pivotal in safeguarding the rigor and credibility of published research. Editor bullying and misconduct involve behaviors that undermine the scientific process, compromise research integrity, and harm the careers and wellbeing of individuals. These actions may manifest as biased decision-making, suppression of dissenting voices, or the exploitation of power dynamics in the peer review process. To address these issues, preventive and therapeutic approaches are suggested, including enhancing awareness, recognizing and mitigating exacerbating factors, and upholding professionalism. Moreover, the importance of a conflict-of-interest declaration for editors is highlighted to ensure transparency and integrity in the editorial process. The present mini-review aims to shed light on editor bullying, illuminating its gravity and the urgency to address these issues within the academic publishing domain/s. This review underscores the more subtle, yet equally significant, issue of professional misconduct in the editorial realm of scientific journals.

Abstract Background There are a variety of costs associated with publication of scientific findings. The purpose of this work was to estimate the cost of peer review in scientific publishing per reviewer, per year and for the entire scientific community. Methods Internet-based self-report, cross-sectional survey, live between June 28, 2021 and August 2, 2021 was used. Participants were recruited via snowball sampling. No restrictions were placed on geographic location or field of study. Respondents who were asked to act as a peer-reviewer for at least one manuscript submitted to a scientific journal in 2020 were eligible. The primary outcome measure was the cost of peer review per person, per year (calculated as wage-cost x number of initial reviews and number of re-reviews per year). The secondary outcome was the cost of peer review globally (calculated as the number of peer-reviewed papers in Scopus x median wage-cost of initial review and re-review). Results A total of 354 participants completed at least one question of the survey, and information necessary to calculate the cost of peer-review was available for 308 participants from 33 countries (44% from Canada). The cost of peer review was estimated at $US1,272 per person, per year ($US1,015 for initial review and $US256 for re-review), or US$1.1–1.7 billion for the scientific community per year. The global cost of peer-review was estimated at US$6 billion in 2020 when relying on the Dimensions database and taking into account reviewed-but-rejected manuscripts. Conclusions Peer review represents an important financial piece of scientific publishing. Our results may not represent all countries or fields of study, but are consistent with previous estimates and provide additional context from peer reviewers themselves. Researchers and scientists have long provided peer review as a contribution to the scientific community. Recognizing the importance of peer-review, institutions should acknowledge these costs in job descriptions, performance measurement, promotion packages, and funding applications. Journals should develop methods to compensate reviewers for their time and improve transparency while maintaining the integrity of the peer-review process.

As the COVID-19 pandemic prevails, research related to COVID-19 has spread beyond medicine, health science, and biology to almost all academic fields. Library and information science is one of the most active fields that publish COVID-19-related research papers. This study examined 696 research papers related to COVID-19 whose journal being categorized as "information science & library science" by Web of Science. The result of bibliometric analysis showed that the publications were active and on the rise. Most papers were published in English and produced in the United States. According to the keyword clustering map produced by semantic network analysis, two fields, bibliometrics and health communication, were publishing research papers related to COVID-19 most actively. Moreover, the most productive journal was a library and information science journal focusing on health informatics. Additionally, a tendency was found that researchers preferred to publish on journals with high impact factors. Compared with non-COVID-19-related research papers, there was a significant decrease of "time for acceptance" of COVID-19-related papers, and the proportion of open access was relatively high. Confronting the global crisis of COVID-19, the library and information science field also made efforts and challenges to resolve the slow peer-review, delayed publishing, and high paywalls, which have been recognized as a "chronic diseases" of the academic publishing ecosystem. It is expected that these endeavors can serve as a turning point to reconsider and innovate the traditional research-publishing lifecycle. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Commitment to a professional identity in the counseling profession includes enhancing the research and scholarly development of the next generation of counselor educators and supervisors. We investigated the rate of publication of CES doctoral dissertations in peer-reviewed journals sponsored by professional counseling organizations. Of the 721 dissertations completed in 52 CACREP-accredited programs from 2007–2011, 26.4% of dissertations were published up to 7 years later. We describe these publications, address ethical considerations, and discuss implications for professional identity in doctoral research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The use of bibliometric indicators, and in particular of the Impact Factor of journals in evaluating the scientific production of researchers, has recently been subjected to international review, highlighting the need to reconsider the peer-review activity as a procedure that allows to recognize the different activities connected to the research of scholars. The article discusses some reports published internationally – DORA, The Leiden Manifesto, Report of the European Commission of 2021 – and highlights the significant connection between good evaluation practices and the Hong Kong Manifesto, dedicated to research integrity and the ethics of research evaluation.

This paper critically discusses the use of publication status as a common inclusion criterion for systematic reviews, a method adopted from the field of medicine into education and media-related education studies. Two systematic reviews exploring the use of digital media in inclusive, integrative or segregated teaching settings are compared. By adding peer-reviewed grey and non-peer reviewed literature in a second review, the initial corpus of 15 studies (articles in journals with peer review) was increased by another 19 studies (without peer review). The advantages and disadvantages of including research articles with a different publication status in systematic reviews is discussed based on the comparison of both reviews. Overall, in both reviews, the focus was on individual support with digital media while teaching, especially within technology-based learning classes, mostly from a quantitative perspective. Both reviews revealed a didactic focus (learning with digital media) and hardly any study dealt with learning about digitalization.

Background: There are a variety of costs associated with publication of scientific findings. The purpose of this work was to estimate the cost of peer review in scientific publishing per reviewer, per year and for the entire scientific community. Methods: Internet-based self-report, cross-sectional survey, live between June 28, 2021 and August 2, 2021 was used. Participants were recruited via snowball sampling. No restrictions were placed on geographic location or field of study. Respondents who were asked to act as a peer-reviewer for at least one manuscript submitted to a scientific journal in 2020 were eligible. The primary outcome measure was the cost of peer review per person, per year (calculated as wage-cost x number of initial reviews and number of re-reviews per year). The secondary outcome was the cost of peer review globally (calculated as the number of peer-reviewed papers in Scopus x median wage-cost of initial review and re-review). Results: A total of 354 participants completed at least one question of the survey, and information necessary to calculate the cost of peer-review was available for 308 participants from 33 countries (44% from Canada). The cost of peer review was estimated at $US1,272 per person, per year ($US1,015 for initial review and $US256 for re-review), or US$1.1–1.7 billion for the scientific community per year. The global cost of peer-review was estimated at US$6 billion in 2020 when relying on the Dimensions database and taking into account reviewed-but-rejected manuscripts. Conclusions: Peer review represents an important financial piece of scientific publishing. Our results may not represent all countries or fields of study, but are consistent with previous estimates and provide additional context from peer reviewers themselves. Researchers and scientists have long provided peer review as a contribution to the scientific community. Recognizing the importance of peer-review, institutions should acknowledge these costs in job descriptions, performance measurement, promotion packages, and funding applications. Journals should develop methods to compensate reviewers for their time and improve transparency while maintaining the integrity of the peer-review process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Key Points: The editors thank the 2022 peer reviewers2022 was also not easy but improvingOptimistically 2023 will be even better. Fingers Crossed [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Scientific realists have suggested that changes in our scientific communities over the course of their history have rendered those communities progressively less vulnerable to the problem of unconcieved alternatives over time. I argue in response not only that the most fundamental historical transformations of the scientific enterprise have generated steadily mounting obstacles to revolutionary, transformative, or unorthodox scientific theorizing, but also that we have substantial independent evidence that the institutional apparatus of contemporary scientific inquiry fosters an exceedingly and increasingly theoretically conservative form of that inquiry. I conclude that contemporary scientific communities are actually more vulnerable to the problem of unconceived alternatives than their historical predecessors, and I briefly suggest how we might seek to pursue scientific inquiry in a less theoretically conservative way.

In this paper we present a model for formative assessment based on peer-review workshops on MOODLE, designed by researchers of the University of Salerno and the University of Torino. The model has been implemented in the Mathematics and Mathematics education courses in Primary Education at the University of Torino. The peer-review workshops are intended to pursue the following objectives: (1) strengthening the argumentative skills of prospective teachers to direct them towards a relational view of mathematics; (2) provide them with models of formative assessment rooted in peer-review feedback managed by the University lecturer. We present an example of peer-review that intertwines effective feed-back with a relational understanding of mathematical thinking. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

AMSTAR‐2 is a critical appraisal instrument for systematic reviews and may have a role in editorial processes. This study explored whether associations exist between AMSTAR‐2 assessments and editorial decisions. A retrospective, cross‐sectional study of manuscripts submitted to a single journal between 2015 and 2017 was undertaken. All submissions that reported an eligible systematic review were assessed using AMSTAR‐2 by two assessors. Inter‐rater agreement (IRR) was calculated for all AMSTAR‐2 items. Associations between AMSTAR‐2 assessments and the editorial decision, final publication status in any journal, and measures of impact were explored. One hundred and twenty‐two manuscripts were included. Across all AMSTAR‐2 items, the IRR varied from 0.03 (slight agreement) to 0.82 (substantial agreement). All submissions contained at least two critical methodological weaknesses. There was no difference in the number of weaknesses (median: 4; IQR: 3–5 vs. median: 4; IQR: 3.5–4.5; p = 0.482) between accepted and rejected submissions. Neither was there a difference between rejected submissions published elsewhere and those which remained unpublished (median: 4; IQR: 3.5–4.5 vs. median: 4; IQR: 4.5–5; p = 0.103). The number of weaknesses was not associated with academic impact. There was no association with AMSTAR‐2 assessments and editorial outcomes. Further work is required to explore whether the instrument can be prospectively operationalized for use during editorial processes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]