bims-skolko Biomed News
on Scholarly communication
Issue of 2023‒02‒26
twenty-six papers selected by
Thomas Krichel
Open Library Society
  1. Tackling overpublishing by moving to open-ended papers.
  2. Improving the quality of publications in and advancing the paradigms of clinical and social pharmacy practice research: The Granada statements.
  3. Reporting quality of abstracts of systematic reviews/meta-analyses: An appraisal of Arab Journal of Urology across 12 years: the PRISMA-Abstracts checklist.
  4. An open automation system for predatory journal detection.
  5. AI writing tools could hand scientists the 'gift of time'.
  6. Artificial Hallucinations in ChatGPT: Implications in Scientific Writing.
  7. Artificial Intelligence and the Creation of Scientific Papers.
  8. AI did not write this manuscript, or did it? Can we trick the AI text detector into generated texts? The potential future of ChatGPT and AI in Sports & Exercise Medicine manuscript generation.
  9. What ails the NIH peer review study sections and how to fix the review process of the grant applications.
  10. Community-developed checklists for publishing images and image analysis.
  11. LHC physicists resolve stalemate over Russian authors.
  12. The problem of miscitation in psychological science: Righting the ship.
  13. Journals take up arms against AI-written text.
  14. Refine retraction notices to avoid damaging fallout.
  15. Authors, Reviewers and Nonfinancial Conflict of Interest: Can We Manage This Bond?
  16. Enhancing review criteria for dissemination and implementation science grants.
  17. Authorship in Academic Literature.
  18. The Use of Facial Recognition Software and Published Manuscripts to Examine Trends in Surgical Editorial Board Diversity.
  19. How to publish a 'perspective' or 'synthesis' article in Ecology Letters.
  20. Who publishes imaging articles in non-imaging journals? A large sample data-mining study.
  21. Medical advertisements and scientific journals: Time for editors and publishers to take a stance.
  22. [Fake paper factories: root cause solutions are needed.]
  23. The race for publication and after….
  24. Making the Case for Case-Based Learning.
  25. [Do journals need societies, and do societies need journals?]
  26. Mind your language.
  1. Nat Mater. 2023 Feb 23.
    Tackling overpublishing by moving to open-ended papers.
    Andrew R Akbashev, Sergei V Kalinin.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41563-023-01489-1
  2. Res Social Adm Pharm. 2023 Jan 24. pii: S1551-7411(23)00027-X. [Epub ahead of print]
    Improving the quality of publications in and advancing the paradigms of clinical and social pharmacy practice research: The Granada statements.
    Fernando Fernandez-Llimos, Shane Desselle, Derek Stewart, Victoria Garcia-Cardenas, Zaheer-Ud-Din Babar, Christine Bond, Ana Dago, Ramune Jacobsen, Lotte Stig Nørgaard, Carlo Polidori, Manuel Sanchez-Polo, Bernardo Santos-Ramos, Natalia Shcherbakova, Fernanda Tonin.
      Pharmacy and pharmaceutical sciences embrace a series of different disciplines. Pharmacy practice has been defined as "the scientific discipline that studies the different aspects of the practice of pharmacy and its impact on health care systems, medicine use, and patient care". Thus, pharmacy practice studies embrace both clinical pharmacy and social pharmacy elements. Like any other scientific discipline, clinical and social pharmacy practice disseminates research findings using scientific journals. Clinical pharmacy and social pharmacy journal editors have a role in promoting the discipline by enhancing the quality of the articles published. As has occurred in other health care areas (i.e., medicine and nursing), a group of clinical and social pharmacy practice journal editors gathered in Granada, Spain to discuss how journals could contribute to strengthening pharmacy practice as a discipline. The result of that meeting was compiled in these Granada Statements, which comprise 18 recommendations gathered into six topics: the appropriate use of terminology, impactful abstracts, the required peer reviews, journal scattering, more effective and wiser use of journal and article performance metrics, and authors' selection of the most appropriate pharmacy practice journal to submit their work.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sapharm.2023.01.007
  3. Arab J Urol. 2023 ;21(1): 52-65
    Reporting quality of abstracts of systematic reviews/meta-analyses: An appraisal of Arab Journal of Urology across 12 years: the PRISMA-Abstracts checklist.
    Walid El Ansari, Khalid AlRumaihi, Kareem El-Ansari, Mohamed Arafa, Haitham Elbardisi, Ahmad Majzoub, Ahmad Shamsodini, Abdulla Al Ansari.
      Objective: We appraised the reporting quality of abstracts of systematic reviews/meta-analyses (SR/MAs) published in one urology journal and explored associations between abstract characteristics and completeness of reporting.Methods: The Arab Journal of Urology (AJU) was searched for SR/MAs published between January 2011 and 31 May 2022. SR/MAs with structured abstract and quantitative synthesis were eligible. Two reviewers simultaneously together selected the SR/MAs by title, screened the abstracts, and included those based on inclusion/exclusion criteria. Data of a range of characteristics were extracted from each SR/MAs into a spreadsheet. To gauge completeness of reporting, the PRISMA-Abstract checklist (12 items) was used to appraise the extent to which abstracts adhered to the checklist. For each abstract, we computed item, section, and overall adherence. Chi-square and t-tests compared the adherence scores. Univariate and multivariate analyses identified the abstract characteristics associated with overall adherence.
    Results: In total, 66 SR/MAs published during the examined period; 62 were included. Partial reporting was not uncommon. In terms of adherence to the 12 PRISMA-A items were: two items exhibited 100% adherence (title, objectives); five items had 80% to <100% adherence (interpretation, included studies, synthesis of results, eligibility criteria, and information sources); two items displayed 40% to <80% adherence (description of the effect, strengths/limitations of evidence); and three items had adherence that fell between 0% and 1.6% (risk of bias, funding/conflict of interest, registration). Multivariable regression revealed two independent predictors of overall adherence: single-country authorship (i.e. no collaboration) was associated with higher overall adherence (P = 0.046); and abstracts from South America were associated with lower overall adherence (P = 0.04).
    Conclusion: This study is the first to appraise abstracts of SR/MAs in urology. For high-quality abstracts, improvements are needed in the quality of reporting. Adoption/better adherence to PRISMA-A checklist by editors/authors could improve the reporting quality and completeness of SR/MAs abstracts.
    Keywords:  Meta-analysis; PRISMA-abstract; Reporting quality; abstract; systematic review; urology
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1080/2090598X.2022.2113127
  4. Sci Rep. 2023 Feb 20. 13(1): 2976
    An open automation system for predatory journal detection.
    Li-Xian Chen, Shih-Wen Su, Chia-Hung Liao, Kai-Sin Wong, Shyan-Ming Yuan.
      The growing number of online open-access journals promotes academic exchanges, but the prevalence of predatory journals is undermining the scholarly reporting process. Data collection, feature extraction, and model prediction are common steps in tools designed to distinguish between legitimate and predatory academic journals and publisher websites. The authors include them in their proposed academic journal predatory checking (AJPC) system based on machine learning methods. The AJPC data collection process extracts 833 blacklists and 1213 whitelists information from websites to be used for identifying words and phrases that might indicate the presence of predatory journals. Feature extraction is used to identify words and terms that help detect predatory websites, and the system's prediction stage uses eight classification algorithms to distinguish between potentially predatory and legitimate journals. We found that enhancing the classification efficiency of the bag of words model and TF-IDF algorithm with diff scores (a measure of differences in specific word frequencies between journals) can assist in identifying predatory journal feature words. Results from performance tests suggest that our system works as well as or better than those currently being used to identify suspect publishers and publications. The open system only provides reference results rather than absolute opinions and accepts user inquiries and feedback to update the system and optimize performance.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-30176-z
  5. Nature. 2023 Feb 22.
    AI writing tools could hand scientists the 'gift of time'.
    John Tregoning.
      
    Keywords:  Careers; Computer science; Lab life
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-00528-w
  6. Cureus. 2023 Feb;15(2): e35179
    Artificial Hallucinations in ChatGPT: Implications in Scientific Writing.
    Hussam Alkaissi, Samy I McFarlane.
      While still in its infancy, ChatGPT (Generative Pretrained Transformer), introduced in November 2022, is bound to hugely impact many industries, including healthcare, medical education, biomedical research, and scientific writing. Implications of ChatGPT, that new chatbot introduced by OpenAI on academic writing, is largely unknown. In response to the Journal of Medical Science (Cureus) Turing Test - call for case reports written with the assistance of ChatGPT, we present two cases one of homocystinuria-associated osteoporosis, and the other is on late-onset Pompe disease (LOPD), a rare metabolic disorder. We tested ChatGPT to write about the pathogenesis of these conditions. We documented the positive, negative, and rather troubling aspects of our newly introduced chatbot's performance.
    Keywords:  artificial intelligence and education; artificial intelligence and writing; artificial intelligence in medicine; chatbot; chatgpt
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.35179
  7. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2023 Feb 17. pii: S1058-2746(23)00083-6. [Epub ahead of print]
    Artificial Intelligence and the Creation of Scientific Papers.
    Joaquín Sánchez-Sotelo, John E Jed Kuhn, William J Mallon.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2023.02.002
  8. BMJ Open Sport Exerc Med. 2023 ;9(1): e001568
    AI did not write this manuscript, or did it? Can we trick the AI text detector into generated texts? The potential future of ChatGPT and AI in Sports & Exercise Medicine manuscript generation.
    Nash Anderson, Daniel L Belavy, Stephen M Perle, Sharief Hendricks, Luiz Hespanhol, Evert Verhagen, Aamir R Memon.
      
    Keywords:  Medical Ethics; Position statement; Research; Sports; Sports & exercise medicine
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjsem-2023-001568
  9. J Cardiovasc Aging. 2023 Feb;pii: 11. [Epub ahead of print]3(1):
    What ails the NIH peer review study sections and how to fix the review process of the grant applications.
    Ali J Marian.
      
    Keywords:  Grant application; NIH; Peer review; Study section
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.20517/jca.2023.3
  10. ArXiv. 2023 Feb 14. pii: arXiv:2302.07005v1. [Epub ahead of print]
    Community-developed checklists for publishing images and image analysis.
    Christopher Schmied, Michael Nelson, Sergiy Avilov, Gert-Jan Bakker, Cristina Bertocchi, Johanna Bischof, Ulrike Boehm, Jan Brocher, Mariana Carvalho, Catalin Chiritescu, Jana Christopher, Beth Cimini, Eduardo Conde-Sousa, Michael Ebner, Rupert Ecker, Kevin Eliceiri, Julia Fernandez-Rodriguez, Nathalie Gaudreault, Laurent Gelman, David Grunwald, Tingting Gu, Nadia Halidi, Mathias Hammer, Matthew Hartley, Marie Held, Florian Jug, Varun Kapoor, Ayse Aslihan Koksoy, Judith Lacoste, Sylvia Le Dévédec, Sylvie Le Guyader, Penghuan Liu, Gabriel Martins, Aastha Mathur, Kota Miura, Paula Montero Llopis, Roland Nitschke, Alison North, Adam Parslow, Alex Payne-Dwyer, Laure Plantard, Ali Rizwan, Britta Schroth-Diez, Lucas Schütz, Ryan T Scott, Arne Seitz, Olaf Selchow, Ved Sharma, Martin Spitaler, Sathya Srinivasan, Caterina Strambio De Castillia, Douglas Taatjes, Christian Tischer, Helena Klara Jambor.
      Images document scientific discoveries and are prevalent in modern biomedical research. Microscopy imaging in particular is currently undergoing rapid technological advancements. However for scientists wishing to publish the obtained images and image analyses results, there are to date no unified guidelines. Consequently, microscopy images and image data in publications may be unclear or difficult to interpret. Here we present community-developed checklists for preparing light microscopy images and image analysis for publications. These checklists offer authors, readers, and publishers key recommendations for image formatting and annotation, color selection, data availability, and for reporting image analysis workflows. The goal of our guidelines is to increase the clarity and reproducibility of image figures and thereby heighten the quality of microscopy data is in publications.
  11. Nature. 2023 Feb 17.
    LHC physicists resolve stalemate over Russian authors.
    Richard Van Noorden.
      
    Keywords:  Particle physics; Physics; Publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-00503-5
  12. Am Psychol. 2023 Feb 23.
    The problem of miscitation in psychological science: Righting the ship.
    Cory L Cobb, Brianna Crumly, Pablo Montero-Zamora, Seth J Schwartz, Charles R Martínez.
      Scholarly citation represents one of the most common and essential elements of psychological science, from publishing research, to writing grant proposals, to presenting research at academic conferences. However, when authors mischaracterize prior research findings in their studies, such instances of miscitation call into question the reliability and credibility of scholarship within psychological science and can harm theory development, evidence-based practices, knowledge growth, and public trust in psychology as a legitimate science. Despite these implications, almost no research has considered the prevalence of miscitation in the psychological literature. In the largest study to date, we compared the accuracy of 3,347 citing claims to original findings across 89 articles in eight of top psychology journals. Results indicated that, although most (81.2%) citations were accurate, roughly 19% of citing claims either failed to include important nuances of results (9.3%) or completely mischaracterized findings from prior research altogether (9.5%). Moreover, the degree of miscitation did not depend on the number of authors on an article or the seniority of the first authors. Overall, results indicate that approximately one in every 10 citations completely mischaracterizes prior research in leading psychology journals. We offer five recommendations to help authors ensure that they cite prior research accurately. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0001138
  13. Science. 2023 Feb 24. 379(6634): 740-741
    Journals take up arms against AI-written text.
    Jeffrey Brainard.
      Many ask authors to disclose use of ChatGPT and other generative artificial intelligence.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adh2762
  14. Nature. 2023 Feb;614(7949): 624
    Refine retraction notices to avoid damaging fallout.
    Shaoxiong Brian Xu, Guangwei Hu.
      
    Keywords:  Careers; Ethics; Funding; Publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-00485-4
  15. Tomography. 2023 Feb 17. 9(1): 436-438
    Authors, Reviewers and Nonfinancial Conflict of Interest: Can We Manage This Bond?
    Emilio Quaia.
      Manuscript reviewers and the accuracy of the review process are fundamental to the quality of a scientific journal and authors place tremendous confidence in peer reviewers' impartiality [...].
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3390/tomography9010035
  16. Implement Sci Commun. 2023 Feb 21. 4(1): 17
    Enhancing review criteria for dissemination and implementation science grants.
    Nicole A Stadnick, Clare Viglione, Erika L Crable, Jessica L Montoya, Maryam Gholami, Irene Su, Borsika Rabin.
      BACKGROUND: The existing grant review criteria do not consider unique methods and priorities of Dissemination and Implementation Science (DIS). The ImplemeNtation and Improvement Science Proposals Evaluation CriTeria (INSPECT) scoring system includes 10 criteria based on Proctor et al.'s "ten key ingredients" and was developed to support the assessment of DIS research proposals. We describe how we adapted INSPECT and used it in combination with the NIH scoring system to evaluate pilot DIS study proposals through our DIS Center.METHODS: We adapted INSPECT to broaden considerations for diverse DIS settings and concepts (e.g., explicitly including dissemination and implementation methods). Five PhD-level researchers with intermediate to advanced DIS knowledge were trained to conduct reviews of seven grant applications using both the INSPECT and NIH criteria. The INSPECT overall scores range from 0 to 30 (higher scores are better), and the NIH overall scores range from 1 to 9 (lower scores are better). Each grant was independently reviewed by two reviewers, then discussed in a group meeting to compare the experiences using both criteria to evaluate the proposal and to finalize scoring decisions. A follow-up survey was sent to grant reviewers to solicit further reflections on each scoring criterion.
    RESULTS: Averaged across reviewers, the INSPECT overall scores ranged from 13 to 24, while the NIH overall scores ranged from 2 to 5. Reviewer reflections highlighted the unique value and utility for each scoring criterion. The NIH criteria had a broad scientific purview and were better suited to evaluate more effectiveness-focused and pre-implementation proposals not testing implementation strategies. The INSPECT criteria were easier to rate in terms of the quality of integrating DIS considerations into the proposal and to assess the potential for generalizability, real-world feasibility, and impact. Overall, reviewers noted that INSPECT was a helpful tool to guide DIS research proposal writing.
    CONCLUSIONS: We confirmed complementarity in using both scoring criteria in our pilot study grant proposal review and highlighted the utility of INSPECT as a potential DIS resource for training and capacity building. Possible refinements to INSPECT include more explicit reviewer guidance on assessing pre-implementation proposals, providing reviewers with the opportunity to submit written commentary with each numerical rating, and greater clarity on rating criteria with overlapping descriptions.
    Keywords:  Dissemination and implementation science; Grants; Research proposals; Review criteria
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1186/s43058-023-00399-2
  17. Clin Pharmacol Drug Dev. 2023 Feb 22.
    Authorship in Academic Literature.
    Jaime A Teixeira da Silva.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1002/cpdd.1234
  18. J Surg Res. 2023 Feb 16. pii: S0022-4804(22)00798-3. [Epub ahead of print]286 104-109
    The Use of Facial Recognition Software and Published Manuscripts to Examine Trends in Surgical Editorial Board Diversity.
    Christian Toney, Michelle Shroyer Mathis, Colin Martin.
      INTRODUCTION: Recent social justice movements have highlighted the need for improved diversity and inclusion. These movements have emphasized the need for inclusivity of all genders and races in all sectors including surgical editorial boards. There is currently not an established, standardized method to assess the gender, racial, and ethnic makeup of surgical editorial board rosters, yet artificial intelligence is a method that can be utilized to determine gender and race in an unbiased manner. The aim of the present study is to determine if recent social justice movements correlate with an increase in diversity-themed articles published and if there is an increase in the gender and racial makeup of surgical editorial boards determined by artificial intelligence software.METHODS: Impact factor was used to assess and rank highly regarded general surgery journals. The website of each of these journals was examined for pledges of diversity in their mission statements and core beliefs of conduct. To determine the number of diversity-themed articles that were published during 2016 and 2021, each surgical journal was analyzed for diversity-themed articles using 10 specific keywords in PubMed. To determine the racial and gender makeup of editorial boards in 2016 and 2021, we obtained the current and the 2016 editorial board roster. Roster member images were collected from academic institutional websites. Betaface facial recognition software was used to assess the images. The software assigned the gender, race and ethnicity of the image supplied. Betaface results were analyzed using a Chi Square Test of Independence.
    RESULTS: We analyzed 17 surgical journals. Only four of 17 journals were found to have diversity pledges on their website. For diversity themed publications, 1% of articles in 2016 and 2.7% in 2021 were published specifically about diversity. There was a significant increase in the amount of diversity articles/journal published per year in 2016 (6.59) compared to 2021 (25.94, P < 0.001). There was no correlation between impact factor and articles that publish diversity keywords. 1968 editorial board member images were analyzed using Betaface software to determine gender and race in both time periods. There was no significant increase in diversity of editorial board members regarding gender, race, and ethnicity temporally from 2016 to 2021.
    CONCLUSIONS: In the present study, we found that although the number of diversity-themed articles has increased over the last 5 y, however the gender and racial makeup of surgical editorial boards has not changed. Further initiatives are needed to better track and diversify the gender and racial composition of surgical editorial boards.
    Keywords:  Disparities; Diversity; Facial recognition; Gender; Race; Surgical quality
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2022.11.057
  19. Ecol Lett. 2023 Mar;26(3): 349-350
    How to publish a 'perspective' or 'synthesis' article in Ecology Letters.
    John M Drake, Jonathan M Chase.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.14165
  20. Eur Radiol. 2023 Feb 23.
    Who publishes imaging articles in non-imaging journals? A large sample data-mining study.
    Augustin Gaudemer, Adrien Haegel, Marco Dioguardi Burgio, Valérie Vilgrain, Jules Grégory, Maxime Ronot.
      OBJECTIVES: To assess the weight of imaging and imaging specialists (i.e., affiliated to a radiology/nuclear medicine department) in publications in non-imaging journals.METHODS: All articles indexed in English on the Embase database between 1989 and 2019 were extracted. The number and affiliation of authors were determined. A naive Bayesian classifier algorithm was trained to classify abstracts as "imaging" or "non-imaging." The main outcome was the number and position of imaging specialists in the authorship of imaging articles published in non-imaging journals. Analyses per medical specialties and per journal impact factor (IF) were performed.
    RESULTS: A total of 15,787,825 articles were included with 968,259 (6%) "imaging" articles. The proportion of imaging articles increased over time (+ 370%), quicker than the overall academic output. The proportion of imaging specialist among authors grew from 0.58% in 1989-1994 to 1.54% in 2015-2019. About 20% of imaging articles had ≥ 1 imaging specialist among authors. The proportion of imaging articles decreased with the IF (7.3% for IF 0-2.5 vs. 5.1% for IF > 10, p < 0.001), but the proportion of imaging specialist authors in imaging papers with ≥ 1 imaging specialist author increased with the IF (40% for IF 0-2.5, 53% for IF > 10, p < 0.001). There was significant variability across medical specialties.
    CONCLUSIONS: The weight of imaging articles and imaging specialist among authors in non-imaging journals has increased over time but remains limited. Most of the authors of imaging publications are not imaging specialists. Imaging specialists among authors in imaging papers are associated with a greater IF.
    KEY POINTS: • The proportion of imaging specialist authors in non-imaging journals, though small, has increased significantly. • Marked differences are observed according to medical specialties and the reputation/impact factor of the journal. • Collaboration between imaging specialists and non-specialists is associated with publication in higher impact journals.
    Keywords:  Bibliometrics; Data mining; Diagnostic imaging; Nuclear medicine
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-023-09495-2
  21. J Eval Clin Pract. 2023 Feb 19.
    Medical advertisements and scientific journals: Time for editors and publishers to take a stance.
    Kim Boesen, John P A Ioannidis.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1111/jep.13816
  22. Recenti Prog Med. 2023 Mar;114(3): 148-153
    [Fake paper factories: root cause solutions are needed.]
    Caterina Caminiti, Luca De Fiore.
      The pressure to publish academic papers for career advancement and technological innovations have fostered the growth of a new phenomenon, the serial fabrication of articles to be submitted to scientific journals. Papers with fake content are produced by specialised publishing agencies. Journal editors and publishers increased vigilance and control, tightening the peer review process and using anti-plagiarism software. But, being a systemic issue, it is not easy to find the solution and action must be taken on its causes: greater awareness of research ethics is needed, specific training for young doctors and - in the long run - an appropriate use of artificial intelligence, which should become a tool for protecting the integrity of knowledge.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1701/3981.39638
  23. J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod. 2023 Feb 17. pii: S2468-7847(23)00026-0. [Epub ahead of print] 102559
    The race for publication and after….
    Hervé Fernandez.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jogoh.2023.102559
  24. Am J Nurs. 2023 Mar 01. 123(3): 7
    Making the Case for Case-Based Learning.
    Carl A Kirton.
      Is it time for an academic-practice-publishing partnership?
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1097/01.NAJ.0000921732.18207.f2
  25. Recenti Prog Med. 2023 Mar;114(3): 154-156
    [Do journals need societies, and do societies need journals?]
    Aileen Fyfe.
      Starting in the mid-1600s, a number of scientific societies began to establish journals. The aim was to disseminate the knowledge developed by their fellows. The members of the societies were both the authors and reviewers of the articles as well as the main readers. Historically, there has been a tight link between journals, journal publications and a community of scholars working in specific fields of research who contribute to and manage them. In the second half of the 20th century, however, scientific societies began to consider the publication of their own journals primarily as a source of revenue, useful for the economic balance of the societies. The change was mainly due to the interest of libraries in acquiring periodicals to make available to readers. Gradually, the number of authors from outside the societies themselves increased and the link between members and the journals of the associations they belonged to decreased. Today, the national or regional connotations of many scientific societies make them unsuitable for managing a future of scholarly communication that should be open, diverse and fair, and operate on a global scale. As journal publishing has become a global undertaking and moreover, an undertaking that is increasingly mediated through online digital interactions, the author asks, do we need to rethink the structure of the learned societies that underpins them?
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1701/3981.39639
  26. Br Dent J. 2023 Feb;234(4): 195
    Mind your language.
    Stephen Hancocks Obe.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41415-023-5578-2
This page is being maintained by Thomas Krichel. It was last updated on 2023‒02‒26 at 05:03:33.