bims-evares Biomed News
on Evaluation of research
Issue of 2026–05–24
nineteen papers selected by
Thomas Krichel, Open Library Society



  1. Res Integr Peer Rev. 2026 May 20. pii: 13. [Epub ahead of print]11(1):
       BACKGROUND: Despite growing emphasis on equity and diversity, women remain underrepresented in academic leadership roles, especially on the editorial boards of scientific journals. The composition of editorial boards plays a major role in shaping the peer-review process, research dissemination, and academic advancement. While gender disparities have been documented in many specialties, the data from oncology journals remain scarce.
    METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of 310 oncology journals indexed in the InCites Journal Citation Reports. Data were manually extracted from journal websites between April and May 2025.Variables included the number and gender of editorial board members and editors-in-chief, Journal Impact Factor (JIF) quartile, SCIE/ESCI indexing, journal and publisher continent, professional society affiliation.
    RESULTS: Among 21,065 editorial board members, 5,592 (26.5%) were women, with representation among editors-in-chief even lower at 89 out of 378 (23.5%). Female representation was highest in Q1 journals (30.5%) and lowest in Q4 journals (17.9%) (p < 0.001). Geographical disparities were prominent: women represented 49.5% of editorial board members in U.S.-based journals, compared to 10.1% in Asia and 1.5% in Australia (p < 0.001). In multivariable analysis, absence of a female editor-in-chief (OR:2.77, 95%CI:1.61-4.75; p < 0.001) and lack of professional association affiliation (OR:1.78, 95%CI: 1.11-2.85; p = 0.017) were independently associated with gender disparity.
    CONCLUSION: Gender disparities remain prominent across oncology journal editorial boards, particularly in leadership roles and journals affiliated with Asia. Effective strategies are needed to increase efforts to promote equity in academic leadership, as well as improve transparency in the editorial selection process so inclusivity and diverse perspectives can be integrated into oncology research.
    Keywords:  Disparity; Editorial board; Gender; Journal; Oncology
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-026-00199-x
  2. Curr J Neurol. 2025 Jan 04. 24(1): 87-96
      Background: Undoubtedly, medical science has been born since the beginning of human creation. One of its important branches is neurology. Neurosciences in Iran, with a little delay from the first world, with the efforts of researchers, opened the way for the diagnosis and treatment of neurological diseases, and we reached the place where we are. Methods: In this bibliometric and scientometric study, we have evaluated the process of neurological science in Iran. By referring to the reliable indexes, we checked Web of Science (WoS), PubMed, and Scopus from 1963 onwards. We showed the published activities of Iranians in the form of charts and tables. Results: This study indicates the increasing growth of scientific studies in the field of neurology. In the field of neuroscience, the researchers are mostly aimed at the education and training of specialists and PhD students, and depending on the research facilities, as well as acquaintances and connections for the publication of articles. Diseases that have afflicted a large number of people causing them to suffer and limiting their activities, such as multiple sclerosis (MS), Alzheimer's, epilepsy, Parkinson's, and brain strokes have been the focus of researchers. Conclusion: Neurological studies have an increasing trend and can be divided into two basic sections, which are mainly done by neuroscientists and are based on the educational needs and training of specialists, but neurology studies and scientific publications are mainly done by neurologists and based on feeling the need and diseases in this field have been done.
    Keywords:  Bibliometric; Iran; Neurology; Neuroscience; Scientometric
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.18502/cjn.v24i1.20306
  3. Nurs Outlook. 2026 May 20. pii: S0029-6554(26)00124-7. [Epub ahead of print]74(3): 102801
       BACKGROUND: Self-citation plays a dual role in scientific communication: it may reflect legitimate scholarly continuity, but excessive self-referencing can distort citation-based metrics used in research evaluation. As citation indicators increasingly influence faculty promotion, institutional benchmarking, and the global visibility of nursing schools, understanding typical self-citation patterns within nursing has become important.
    PURPOSE: To examine the distribution of self-citation among highly cited nursing researchers and to establish empirical thresholds for identifying unusually high self-citation patterns.
    METHODS: This bibliometric analysis used the publicly available Scopus-based standardized author-level citation database developed by Ioannidis (2024). The sample included 1,375 career-long (1996-2024) and 1,403 single-year (2024) highly cited nursing researchers. Self-citation rates were computed following Scopus definitions, encompassing citations from both authors and coauthors. Thresholds for excessive self-citation were identified using an interquartile range (IQR)-based outlier approach (strict = Q3 + 1.5 × IQR; liberal = Q3 + 3 × IQR).
    DISCUSSION: The mean self-citation rate was 9.27% (median = 8.65%) in the career-long dataset and 7.88% (median = 6.41%) in the 2024 dataset, with both distributions showing right-skewed patterns. Using strict and liberal IQR-based thresholds, 2.1% and 0.2% of career-long nursing researchers, respectively, and 3.2% and 0.4% of single-year researchers exceeded the thresholds for unusually high self-citation.
    CONCLUSION: Self-citation among highly cited nursing researchers is generally concentrated at relatively low levels, with higher values confined to a small minority of authors. The empirical benchmarks derived in this study provide a discipline-specific reference for interpreting self-citation patterns in nursing research. These thresholds should be viewed as analytical reference points that may help contextualize citation-based evaluation rather than as indicators of unethical citation behavior.
    Keywords:  Bibliometrics; Citation metrics; Nursing research; Research evaluation; Scholarly impact; Self-citation
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.outlook.2026.102801
  4. Biomed Res Int. 2026 ;2026(1): e1855456
       BACKGROUND: This study is aimed at conducting a bibliometric analysis of avoidable mortality from 2000 to 2024 to identify collaboration networks, research trends, and scientific impact in this field.
    METHODS: A bibliometric, descriptive, and retrospective study was conducted using the Scopus Advanced Search interface, controlled vocabulary related to avoidable mortality, and Boolean operators ("AND" and "OR"). Analyses were performed in R (v4.3.1) using the bibliometrix/biblioshiny package and included indicators of publication volume, fractional authorship, total normalized citations, citation counts, and the h-, g-, and m-indexes. International collaboration was assessed using coauthorship indicators and collaboration networks. Bradford's law was applied to identify core journals. In addition, keyword co-occurrence networks and thematic temporal evolution were examined to characterize research fronts and shifts over time.
    RESULTS: A total of 3031 documents from 1450 journals were retrieved, with an annual growth rate of 9%. On average, articles received 27.8 citations, totaling approximately 84,000 citations overall. Authors had an average of 5.2 coauthors per article, and 244 single-authored papers were identified. International coauthorship accounted for 23.8% of publications. The United States and the United Kingdom published most frequently in PLOS ONE and BMJ Open. Coauthorship networks revealed weak intergroup connections, with international collaboration concentrated along the US-Western Europe axis. Brazil and South Africa emerged as key regional nodes in the Global South. The thematic focus evolved from prevention- and health-service-related topics to population profiles and injury, and more recently to COVID-19-related terminology and pregnancy.
    CONCLUSION: This bibliometric analysis demonstrates a rising interest in avoidable mortality, reflected in increased scientific output and limited intergroup connectivity within international collaboration networks. Only a limited number of authors consistently contribute impactful research in both general and specialized journals. These findings highlight the importance of fostering collaborative, high-quality translational research to inform public policy and address the regional determinants of avoidable mortality, particularly in the Global South.
    Keywords:  amenable mortality; avoidable mortality; bibliometrics; preventable mortality; treatable mortality
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1155/bmri/1855456
  5. Omega (Westport). 2026 May 20. 302228261449331
      This study presents a comprehensive bibliometric analysis of perinatal grief literature, drawing on 964 articles published between 1981 and 2025 in the Web of Science Core Collection database. Using R-bibliometrix and VOSviewer, it explores conceptual evolution and structural dynamics, identifying leading authors, countries, journals, keywords, and co-citation networks. Findings reveal a marked increase in publications since 2018, with the United States leading in research output and international collaboration. Despite this growth, the field lacks author-level specialization. Recent studies have increasingly focused on the psychological well-being of families affected by perinatal loss. This analysis contributes to understanding global research patterns and highlights emerging directions for future interdisciplinary inquiry in the field of perinatal grief.
    Keywords:  bibliometrix; perinatal grief; research trends; science mapping; web of science
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1177/00302228261449331
  6. Front Res Metr Anal. 2026 ;11 1793664
      Traditional bibliometric indicators such as the h-index emphasize cumulative citation impact but provide limited insight into the efficiency and concentration of that impact across a researcher's publication portfolio. This study introduces the he-index as an interpretable indicator of the proportion of publications represented by the h-index core, relative to the researcher's total publication output. Using publicly accessible Scopus data from 54 researchers across engineering, medicine, and social sciences in the United States, China, and Australia, we examine the behavior of the he-index in relation to publication volume, career stage, and disciplinary context. As expected for a ratio-based indicator, the he-index exhibits a strong negative association with total publications (Spearman ρ = -0.77, p < 0.001), which may reflect structural sensitivity to publication volume. To improve cross-volume interpretability, we further propose a volume-normalized efficiency metric (he * = h/ĥ), where the expected h-index is estimated using a power-law scaling model (ĥ = 1.02N 0.7, R 2 ≈ 0.87). The normalized metric shows no significant dependence on publication volume (ρ = 0.064, p = 0.645) and exhibits weaker career-stage sensitivity, while discipline-level differences remain non-significant. External validation using field-weighted citation impact (FWCI) available for a subset of researchers provides additional support for the normalized metric, with he * positively associated with FWCI (ρ = 0.419, p = 0.003), whereas the raw he-index shows no significant association. Overall, the findings indicate that impact concentration and volume-normalized citation efficiency offer complementary perspectives to cumulative impact metrics, supporting more nuanced and multidimensional research evaluation.
    Keywords:  bibliometrics; field-weighted citation impact (FWCI); h-index; impact concentration; scientometrics
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3389/frma.2026.1793664
  7. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2026 May 02. pii: S1048-891X(26)00275-6. [Epub ahead of print]36(7): 104744
       OBJECTIVE: Impact factor bias, in which positive results are preferentially published in higher-impact journals, may influence evidence visibility and interpretation. Whether such an impact factor bias exists in gynecologic oncology trials remains unclear. We evaluated the association between study outcome and journal impact factor in phase III gynecologic oncology randomized controlled trials.
    METHODS: A meta-epidemiologic analysis was conducted of phase III gynecologic oncology randomized controlled trials identified through ClinicalTrials.gov up to May 2024. Only completed, two-arm, superiority-design trials (as this allows for a clear and unambiguous interpretation of trial results) with published primary endpoint data were included. Data extracted for each publication included impact factor at the year of publication, number of enrolled patients, duration of follow-up, disease site, number of authors, country of first and senior author based on primary institutional affiliation, and primary outcome (classified as positive if the intervention arm demonstrated statistically significant superiority over the control arm). The primary outcome was the journal impact factor stratified by study results. Univariate and exploratory multivariable analyses were performed to identify factors associated with higher journal impact factors.
    RESULTS: A total of 36 eligible trials were identified, published between 2009 and 2024; 47.2% reported positive primary outcomes. The median journal impact factor across all studies was 35.1 (interquartile range; 18.3-51.6) (range; 3.7-158.5). Trials with positive outcomes were published in journals with significantly higher impact factors than those with negative outcomes (44.5 [interquartile range; 18.7-71.5] vs 24.0 [interquartile range; 5.3-44.5], p =.034). The number of authors was also greater in positive studies (median 21 vs 16, p =.032). In multivariable linear regression, a positive primary outcome was the only independently associated factor with a higher journal impact factor. Positive outcomes were published in journals with, on average, 32.6 (95% confidence interval 6.4-58.8) point higher impact factors, respectively. Follow-up duration and sample size were not significant predictors.
    CONCLUSIONS: Positive phase III gynecologic oncology trials were published in higher-impact journals, with outcome positivity independently associated with impact factor. This pattern may affect evidence visibility and highlights the need to support dissemination of high-quality negative studies.
    Keywords:  Gynecologic Oncology; Impact Factor Bias; Journal Metrics; Publication Bias; Research Quality
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgc.2026.104744
  8. Cureus. 2026 Apr;18(4): e107366
      Background The transition to pass/fail scoring for the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step one has shifted residency selection toward alternative metrics, including research productivity. While scholarship expectations are well-characterized in competitive surgical specialties, less is known about research output among pediatrics applicants. Objective To characterize research productivity of applicants successfully matching into the Doximity-ranked top 10 pediatric residency programs and examine differences by institutional National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding rank and gender. Methods All 450 students matching into the Doximity-ranked top 10 pediatric programs in 2024 were identified using Doximity rankings and program rosters. Publications through September 27, 2024, were catalogued using Google Scholar and classified by type, authorship position, pediatrics relevance, and journal h-5 index. Applicants were stratified by medical school NIH funding rank (Top 40 vs 41-150) and gender. Welch's t-tests and Chi-square analyses compared publication metrics between groups. Results Mean publications were 2.3 ± 4.7 (median=1.0); 180/450 (40.0%) of matched applicants had zero publications. Clinical research was most common (449/1029, 43.6%), followed by basic science (269/1029, 26.1%). Students from NIH Top-40 institutions were more likely to have publications (113/159, 71.1% vs 157/291, 54.0%, p<0.001), though publication quantity and authorship metrics did not differ by institutional rank or gender among those with research experience. Research output increased progressively through medical school, particularly for pediatrics-related and first-author publications. Conclusions Successful applicants to elite pediatrics programs demonstrate heterogeneous research backgrounds, with substantial proportions matching without publications. While institutional funding influences research access, productivity metrics remain comparable across institutions and genders once students engage in scholarship, supporting holistic residency evaluation practices.
    Keywords:  nrmp match; pass/fail usmle; pediatric residents; research productivity; residency program selection; united states medical licensing examination; united states medical licensing examination scoring
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.107366
  9. J Arthroplasty. 2026 May 19. pii: S0883-5403(26)00383-9. [Epub ahead of print]
       BACKGROUND: Experts from all over the world came together at the 2018 International Consensus Meeting (ICM) on Musculoskeletal Infection to discuss important issues in the identification, management, and avoidance of periprosthetic joint infections (PJI) and associated musculoskeletal infections. With the goal of harmonizing global approaches, guiding clinical practice, and standardizing definitions, the proceedings produced 71 manuscripts published in various orthopaedic subspecialties. Despite the widespread dissemination of the ICM 2018 proceedings, their scholarly influence has not been systematically quantified.
    METHODS: This bibliometric study evaluates the academic impact of these publications over the past seven years through an analysis of citation patterns. Each of the 71 manuscripts was categorized into six subspecialties: Hip and Knee, General Assembly, Shoulder, Trauma/Sports/Oncology/Pediatric, Spine, and Foot and Ankle. Citation counts were used as a proxy for academic influence. We went a step further than counting citations. We used bibliometric mapping to see which ICM 2018 recommendation areas resonated most with the global community.
    RESULTS: Our analysis of 2,881 total citations revealed marked heterogeneity across subspecialties. Hip and Knee articles generated 50.2% of all citations, followed by General Assembly (39.3%), Shoulder (5.2%), Trauma/Sports/Oncology/Pediatric (4.0%), Spine (1.3%), and Foot and Ankle (0.2%). The five most influential articles-all from Hip and Knee or General Assembly subgroups-accounted for a substantial portion of total citations.
    CONCLUSION: These findings may support more targeted knowledge translation into everyday musculoskeletal infection practice while also highlighting gaps and future opportunities for investigation and clinical implementation.
    Keywords:  Bibliometric analysis; Citation analysis; International Consensus Meeting; Musculoskeletal infection; Prosthetic joint infection
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2026.04.048
  10. J Healthc Manag. 2026 May-Jun 01;71(3):71(3): 212-222
       GOAL: Journal rankings play a critical role in guiding academic publishing decisions, assessing the productivity of health administration (HA) faculty, and informing their tenure and promotion evaluations. Healthcare executives and practitioners rely on rankings to help them assess the quality of empirical analyses and the underlying peer-review process of published articles. Despite periodic assessments in the HA field, journal prestige-an important metric for faculty success-has not been evaluated in more than a decade, leaving a gap in understanding current perceptions amid the rapidly evolving landscape of scholarly publishing. The objective of this current study is to update perceptions of journal prestige among HA faculty and examine changes over the past decade.
    METHODS: As part of a larger, periodic, anonymous online survey distributed to a nationally representative group of HA faculty members in 2024, respondents were asked to list three journals they considered most prestigious in the HA field. Data were coded and analyzed to identify top journals, assess changes in rankings since 2012, and examine variations by faculty characteristics and areas of expertise using logistic regression models.
    PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: The top-ranked journal was Health Affairs (35.1%), followed by Health Services Research (20.7%), Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) (15.9%), and Journal of Healthcare Management (10.9%). Rankings largely aligned with previous findings, though JAMA experienced a notable rise in prestige (+5 positions since 2012), partially driven by the emergence of its open access subjournal, JAMA Health Forum. Journal prestige was not correlated with journal impact factors (Spearman's Rho [ρ] = 0.053; p = .41). Variations in journal selection were observed among faculty with expertise in informatics and outcomes research, who ranked discipline-specific journals higher.
    PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS: This study's findings provide faculty with a current reference for selecting publication outlets and for documenting scholarly impact in promotion and tenure reviews. For department chairs and program directors, the findings offer a field-specific benchmark that can inform evaluation standards. For healthcare executives and practitioners, the top-ranked journals highlight priority sources for evidence-based decision-making and practice-oriented dissemination. The growing prominence of newer and open access journals further underscores the need for periodic reassessment of preferred outlets to ensure continued relevance in the HA field.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1097/JHM-D-24-00280
  11. Front Dent. 2025 ;22 52
      Due to the global burden of oral diseases, knowledge production and transfer are essential for clinical practice and policy. This descriptive study assessed 28 Iranian Oral Health Research Centers (OHRCs) from 13 medical universities (2019-2021), using indicators like research output, high-quality publications, international collaboration, citations, and H-index for production, and Altmetrics for transfer. Over three years, these centers published 4,428 articles in indexed databases, with approximately 20% (883 articles) appearing in first-quartile (Q1) journals. More than 16% of publications involved international co-authorship. In knowledge production, the Dental Research Center of Tehran University of Medical Sciences ranked first, followed by the Dental and Periodontal Research Center of Tabriz and the Dental Research Center of Shahid Beheshti University. For knowledge transfer, the Dental Materials Research Center of Babol ranked first, followed by Mashhad's center. The findings demonstrate substantial scientific productivity among Iranian OHRCs, with notable variation in research performance across institutions.
    Keywords:  Iran; Knowledge; Oral Health; Translational Research* Biomedical
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.18502/fid.v22i52.20712
  12. J Clin Epidemiol. 2026 May 17. pii: S0895-4356(26)00211-8. [Epub ahead of print] 112336
       BACKGROUND: Trials increasingly include participants from low- and middle- income countries (LMICs), but representation of investigators from these countries among trial authors may not be proportional. We determined recent trends in LMIC-affiliated authorship representation among trials recruiting participants from LMICs across four high-impact medical journals.
    METHODS: Using PubMed, we extracted trials published during alternating months (6 months per year) in the years 2008, 2013, 2018 and 2023 from 4 high impact medical journals: New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), Lancet, Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), and British Medical Journal (BMJ). We manually identified trials that recruited participants from at least one LMIC, as defined by the Wellcome Trust. We designed and calculated 3 metrics for each trial: (1) An "enrolling country ratio" defined as the number of recruiting-LMICs divided by the total number of recruiting-countries per trial; (2) An "author ratio" defined as the number of LMIC-affiliated-authors divided by the total number of authors per trial, and (3) A "representation index" (RI) defined as the author ratio divided by the enrolling country ratio per trial.
    FINDINGS: The PubMed search yielded 865 trials and of those, 302 (34.9%) recruited participants from at least one LMIC. The proportion of trials recruiting from LMICs increased from 2008 (52/174, 29.9%) to 2023 (117/262, 44.7%). The mean number of total recruiting countries per trial increased from 9.7 in 2008 to 15.6 in 2023, demonstrating that trials are becoming increasingly multinational. The mean enrolling country ratio (the number of recruiting LMICs divided by the total number of recruiting countries, per trial) decreased over time - from 0.62 in 2008 to 0.41 in 2023. From 2008 to 2023, the Representation Index (RI) increased modestly from 0.49 to 0.53.
    CONCLUSION: In this study, the number of trials recruiting participants from LMICs increased amongst 4 high-impact general medical journals during the 15 years examined. While LMIC author representation on trials recruiting from LMICs has shown modest increases over time, there is continued room for improvement.
    Keywords:  Clinical Trials; Global Health; Publication Bias; Recruitment; Representation; Trial Design
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2026.112336
  13. J Burn Care Res. 2026 May 21. pii: irag076. [Epub ahead of print]
      Low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) bear a disproportionate burden of burn injuries compared to high-income countries (HICs), making LMIC representation and leadership in burn-related literature critical. This study analyzed authorship patterns and temporal trends in LMIC participation across burn-specific journals. We analyzed 18,275 burn journal publications from 1982 to 2025 using the PubMed Entrez API, with metadata enriched using OpenAlex country affiliations. Country income classification followed World Bank 2025 definitions. LMIC involvement was defined as the presence of at least one LMIC-affiliated author on a publication. We assessed LMIC representation overall, by authorship position, collaboration type, and temporal period. Chi-square tests were used for temporal comparisons. Country affiliation data were identifiable for 8,348 publications (45.7%) representing 75 countries. Among publications, 26.2% (n=2,185; 95% CI: 25.2-27.1%) included at least one LMIC-affiliated author. LMIC researchers held first authorship in 25.7% and last authorship in 25.3% of publications, with identifiable country affiliation. However, this likely reflects LMIC-only publications rather than parity in HIC-LMIC collaborations. Notably, mixed HIC-LMIC collaborations comprised 3.5% of publications, with the majority being either HIC-only (73.8%) or LMIC-only (22.7%). LMIC representation increased significantly over time, from 13.5% pre-2000 to 31.7% between 2020-2025 (p<0.001). China (n=527), Iran (n=370), and India (n=247) were the leading LMIC contributors, representing 54% of LMIC publications. Representation from the African continent remained low at 3%. LMIC participation in burns research has increased over four decades, though HIC-LMIC collaboration remains limited. Initiatives to foster HIC-LMIC partnerships and empower LMIC authors to lead burns research may maximize collaborative efforts.
    Keywords:  Authorship; Burn injury; Burns; Collaboration; Equity; High-income country; Low- and middle-income country; Research
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1093/jbcr/irag076
  14. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2026 May;14(5): e7590
       Background: Microsurgery fellowships provide advanced training in reconstructive procedures; career trajectories and practice patterns postfellowship are not well studied. Understanding these outcomes may be helpful for residents and training programs.
    Methods: Microsurgery fellowship graduates were identified from 1990 to 2023. First position, current position, and practice types after fellowship were determined. Fellow characteristics included sex, fellowship region, advanced degrees, additional training, bibliometric indices, and time to practice changes. Residency characteristics (residency type, association with a fellowship program, top-ranked program, affiliation with top-ranked research institution) were also analyzed. Fellows were compared based on initial job setting (academic versus private practice [PP]), transitions between practice types, and practice of microsurgery.
    Results: Over 33 years, 416 fellows were analyzed. Of the graduates, 55% began in academia. Fellows in the Southwest were more likely to accept academic positions, whereas those in the Northeast, Midwest, and West were more likely to accept PP positions (P < 0.001). Fellows who entered academia had greater h-indices at fellowship completion (x̄ =10.5 versus 7.9, P = 0.004) and overall (14.4 versus 10.2, P < 0.001). Of fellows who began in academic positions, 20% transitioned to PP at a mean time of 7.3 years. Nearly 90% of surgeons in the study continue to practice microsurgery in their current position, regardless of employment type. Those who completed training internationally were less likely to practice microsurgery (P = 0.019).
    Conclusions: Approximately half of former fellows hold academic positions. Fellowship location and h-index were associated with employment setting. About one-fifth of those in academic jobs transitioned into PP. Despite this attrition, most surgeons continue to perform microsurgical procedures.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1097/GOX.0000000000007590
  15. Photodiagnosis Photodyn Ther. 2026 May 15. pii: S1572-1000(26)00181-X. [Epub ahead of print] 105514
      Post-publication retractions have become an increasingly visible and contentious feature of contemporary academic publishing. Despite the rigorous expectations of peer review and editorial oversight, recent bibliometric analyses show that retractions have increased over the past two decades, with misconduct accounting for most cases. Yet authors are disproportionately held accountable for rejections, while institutional failures, inadequate research governance, and compromised or superficial peer review often remain unaddressed. This commentary critically examines the multifactorial reasons for article retractions, including honest or unintentional mistakes, scientific misconduct, compromised image or data integrity, authorship violations, editorial lapses, and political influence. The commentary also highlights the extent to which such events expose systemic weaknesses across journals, institutions, and regulatory frameworks. To address these challenges, future recommendations, including enhanced editorial accountability, stronger institutional integrity frameworks, standardized retraction procedures, article processing fee reform policies, and global guidelines outlining shared responsibility for research integrity have been proposed. Although post-publication retractions serve as an essential corrective mechanism in scholarly publishing, the multifactorial nature of retractions underscores the need for a shared-responsibility framework rather than an author-centric attribution of blame.
    Keywords:  Academia; Bioethics; Ethics; Publishing; Retraction
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pdpdt.2026.105514
  16. Acad Med. 2026 May 19. pii: wvag144. [Epub ahead of print]
      In academic medicine, publication has often been treated as the endpoint of scholarship. In today's crowded digital environment, however, publication alone does not ensure that important work will be seen, discussed, or used. This commentary argues that dissemination is an essential part of scholarship and that social media, when used thoughtfully, can play an important role in extending the reach and visibility of scholarly work. The authors make three central arguments. First, increasing the visibility of scholarship is a legitimate scholarly aim, not merely a marketing exercise, because greater visibility can help scholarship reach relevant audiences, stimulate engagement, and generate evidence of dissemination that complements traditional markers of impact. Second, concerns about self-promotion are understandable but should be reframed. Sharing one's work is more appropriately viewed as an act of scholarly dissemination and knowledge translation than as self-congratulatory or performative. Third, the authors offer practical, evidence-informed strategies for promoting scholarship on social media, including identifying target audiences, making scholarship easy to find and share, choosing platforms strategically, translating papers into accessible take-home messages, using visuals, posting more than once, involving coauthors and institutions in dissemination, using hashtags and at-mentions strategically, and documenting evidence of reach and engagement. The authors also note that the social media landscape has changed substantially in recent years, suggesting the need for updated research on newer and evolving platforms. Overall, they contend that helping scholarship reach the audiences who may benefit from it is not peripheral to academic work, but an important component of scholarly dissemination in contemporary academic medicine.
    Keywords:  information dissemination; publications; scholarship; social media
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1093/acamed/wvag144
  17. Nature. 2026 May;653(8115): S55
      
    Keywords:  Chemistry; Publishing; Research data
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-026-00431-0