bims-skolko Biomed News
on Scholarly communication
Issue of 2023‒08‒06
thirty papers selected by
Thomas Krichel
Open Library Society
  1. Inventing the language of Things: the emergence of scientific reporting in seventeenth-century England.
  2. Reimagining scientific conferences-a Keystone Symposia report.
  3. When words leap off the page: conversational manuscripts as a novel interface for scientific publishing.
  4. The why, what, and how of publishing a manuscript: A blend of art and science.
  5. Principles for good scholarship in systematic reviews.
  6. Is the journal a place for debates?
  7. The changing landscape of scientific communication: open access, predatory journals and the near future.
  8. Blinding Models for Scientific Peer-Review of Biomedical Research Proposals: A Systematic Review.
  9. Enter Preprint Servers: Is Peer Review Obsolete?
  10. Recognizing and marshalling the pre-publication error correction potential of open data for more reproducible science.
  11. Reply to: Recognizing and marshalling the pre-publication error correction potential of open data for more reproducible science.
  12. The difficulty in finding good reviewers.
  13. Ponderings on Peer Review: Part 2. Manuscript Critiques.
  14. Is there a place for chatbots in scholarly publishing?
  15. Editorial. Using an AI interface to enhance reader experience: a test case.
  16. On the transparency of large AI models.
  17. Letters to the editor: Questionable publishing practices in the ChatGPT era.
  18. Risk and potential of ChatGPT in scientific publishing.
  19. Leveraging large language models: transforming scholarly publishing for the better.
  20. Accuracy of Financial Disclosures in US-Based Rheumatology Journals.
  21. Raising concerns on questionable ethics approvals - a case study of 456 trials from the Institut Hospitalo-Universitaire Méditerranée Infection.
  22. Spanish Society of Medical Radiology Journal Club: History, analysis and perspectives after ten years of experience.
  23. Academicians' awareness, attitude, and use of open access during the COVID-19 pandemic.
  24. [Who reads the Revista Médica del IMSS? Altmetrics answer it].
  25. Realms of publication ethics.
  26. Rise of the multi-authored paper & introduction of CRediT to the Journal of Fish Diseases submission process.
  27. Statistical guidance provided to authors by clinical neurology and neuroscience journals.
  28. Orthopaedic Surgeons Should Consider Online and E-publication Resources for the Most Current Evidence-Based Medicine Following the COVID-19 Pandemic.
  29. Beyond the numbers: United European Gastroenterology journal's mission to build a community and connect.
  30. JAD: A Forum for Philosophy in Science.
  1. Ann Sci. 2023 Aug 02. 1-36
    Inventing the language of Things: the emergence of scientific reporting in seventeenth-century England.
    Plamena Panayotova.
      As a style of writing and a form of communication, the modern scientific report enables the creation, sharing and continuous updating of natural knowledge in such a manner that the idiosyncrasies of ordinary language are reduced to a minimum. This article examines how the standards for scientific reporting were 'born' in the seventeenth century and their legacy. The first part of the article reviews the existing literature on this topic. The second part outlines the key features of the scientific report and the common standards for scientific reporting. The third part presents detailed historical evidence to trace the emergence of these standards in seventeenth-century England. The final part discusses why the scientific report means so much for the progress of science, for understanding the history of science and science popularization, and even for the development of academia more generally.
    Keywords:  Royal Society; Scientific report; language; science popularization
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1080/00033790.2023.2235364
  2. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2023 Aug 03.
    Reimagining scientific conferences-a Keystone Symposia report.
    Shannon Weiman, Jennifer Cable, Walter Greenleaf, Felix Rundel, Kate E Whitfield, Lory Wingate, Richard Gallagher, Jennifer Pesanelli, Dereck Orr, Thale C Jarvis, Raluca Cadar, Matthew D' Uva, Dylan Ruediger, Robert Vaez, Adam Frisby, Sami Ahmed, Dorit Donoviel, Judith Klinman, Debbie Johnson.
      Scientific conferences play an important role in advancing research, scholarship, and the careers of emerging scientists. The COVID-19 pandemic offered meeting organizers and researchers alike an opportunity to reimagine what scientific conferences could look like. Virtual conferences can increase inclusivity and accessibility while decreasing costs and carbon emissions. However, it is generally perceived that the digital world fails to adequately recapitulate many of the benefits of in-person face-to-face interactions; these include socializing, and collaborative environments that can forge new research directions and provide critical career development opportunities. On November 15 and 16, 2022, researchers, representatives from diverse scientific conference organizations, leaders in virtual platform technologies, and innovators in conference design gathered online for the Open Access Keystone eSymposium "Reimagining Scientific Conferences." The meeting focused on how conference organizers can leverage lessons from the pandemic and emerging virtual platforms to engage new audiences, rethink strategies for scientific exchange, and decrease the carbon footprint of in-person events.
    Keywords:  academic travel; accessibility; carbon footprint; equitable academia; inclusivity; networking; scientific conference; virtual conference
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.15037
  3. J Neurosurg. 2023 Aug 01. 1-3
    When words leap off the page: conversational manuscripts as a novel interface for scientific publishing.
    Alexander Winkler-Schwartz.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3171/2023.7.JNS231617
  4. Indian J Ophthalmol. 2023 Aug;71(8): 2930-2931
    The why, what, and how of publishing a manuscript: A blend of art and science.
    Maria S Cortina.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.4103/IJO.IJO_1930_23
  5. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2023 Aug 01.
    Principles for good scholarship in systematic reviews.
    Kat Kolaski, Lynne Romeiser Logan, John P A Ioannidis.
      Many sources document problems that jeopardize the trustworthiness of systematic reviews. This is a major concern given their potential to influence patient care and impact people's lives. Responsibility for producing trustworthy conclusions on the evidence in systematic reviews is borne primarily by authors who need the necessary training and resources to correctly report on the current knowledge base. Peer reviewers and editors are also accountable; they must ensure that systematic reviews are accurate by demonstrating proper methods. To support all these stakeholders, we attempt to distill the sprawling guidance that is currently available in our recent co-publication about best tools and practices for systematic reviews. We specifically address how to meet methodological conduct standards applicable to key components of systematic reviews. In this complementary invited review, we place these standards in the context of good scholarship principles for systematic review development. Our intention is to reach a broad audience and potentially improve the trustworthiness of evidence syntheses published in the developmental medicine literature and beyond.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1111/dmcn.15719
  6. J Can Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2023 Aug;32(3): 144-145
    Is the journal a place for debates?
    John D McLennan.
      
  7. J Nephrol. 2023 Aug 03.
    The changing landscape of scientific communication: open access, predatory journals and the near future.
    Carmine Zoccali, Francesca Mallamaci.
      
    Keywords:  Future; Impact Factor; Medical journals; Predatory journals; Publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40620-023-01702-z
  8. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2023 Aug 01. 15562646231191424
    Blinding Models for Scientific Peer-Review of Biomedical Research Proposals: A Systematic Review.
    Seba Qussini, Ross S MacDonald, Saad Shahbal, Kris Dierickx.
      Objective: The aim of this systematic review is to estimate: (i) the overall effect of blinding models on bias; (ii) the effect of each blinding model; and (iii) the effect of un-blinding on reviewer's accountability in biomedical research proposals. Methods: Systematic review of prospective or retrospective comparative studies that evaluated two or more peer review blinding models for biomedical research proposals/funding applications and reported outcomes related to peer review efficiency. Results: Three studies that met the inclusion criteria were included in this review and assessed using the QualSyst tool by two authors. Conclusion: Our systematic review is the first to assess peer review blinding models in the context of funding. While only three studies were included, this highlighted the dire need for further RCTs that generate validated evidence. We also discussed multiple aspects of peer review, such as peer review in manuscripts vs proposals and peer review in other fields.
    Keywords:  biomedical sciences; blinding; grants; manuscripts; peer review; proposals
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1177/15562646231191424
  9. Struct Heart. 2023 Jul;7(4): 100207
    Enter Preprint Servers: Is Peer Review Obsolete?
    Anthony DeMaria.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shj.2023.100207
  10. Nat Ecol Evol. 2023 Jul 31.
    Recognizing and marshalling the pre-publication error correction potential of open data for more reproducible science.
    Rebecca Shuhua Chen, Ane Liv Berthelsen, Etienne Brejon Lamartinière, Matthias Christian Spangenberg, Tim Schmoll.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-023-02152-3
  11. Nat Ecol Evol. 2023 Jul 31.
    Reply to: Recognizing and marshalling the pre-publication error correction potential of open data for more reproducible science.
    Ilias Berberi, Dominique G Roche.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-023-02142-5
  12. J Food Sci. 2023 Aug;88(8): 3137-3138
    The difficulty in finding good reviewers.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1111/1750-3841.16725
  13. Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol. 2023 Jul 31.
    Ponderings on Peer Review: Part 2. Manuscript Critiques.
    Douglas R Seals.
      In Part 1 of this Perspective, I discussed general principles of scientific peer review in the biomedical sciences aimed at early-stage investigators (i.e., graduate students, postdoctoral fellows, and junior faculty). Here in Part 2, I share my thoughts specifically on the topic of peer review of manuscripts. I begin by defining manuscript peer review and discuss the goals and importance of the concept. I then describe the organizational structure of the process, including the 2 distinct stages involved. Next, I emphasize several important considerations for manuscript reviewers, both general points and key considerations when evaluating specific types of papers, including original research manuscripts, reviews, methods articles, and opinion pieces. I then advance some practical suggestions for developing the written critique document, offer advice for making an overall recommendation to the editor (i.e., accept, revise, reject), and describe the unique issues involved when assessing a revised manuscript. Finally, I comment on how best to gain experience in the essential academic research skill of manuscript peer review. In Part 3 of the series, I will discuss the topic of reviewing grant applications submitted to research funding agencies.
    Keywords:  Peer review; career development; manuscript review; professional skills
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1152/ajpregu.00112.2023
  14. J Dent Educ. 2023 Aug;87(8): 1077-1079
    Is there a place for chatbots in scholarly publishing?
    Michael S Reddy, Romesh P Nalliah.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1002/jdd.13341
  15. J Neurosurg. 2023 Aug 01. 1-2
    Editorial. Using an AI interface to enhance reader experience: a test case.
    Gillian Shasby.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3171/2023.7.JNS231621
  16. Patterns (N Y). 2023 Jul 14. 4(7): 100797
    On the transparency of large AI models.
    Wanying Wang, Ge Wang, Vukosi Marivate, Andrew L Hufton.
      Scientists using or developing large AI models face special challenges when trying to publish their work in an open and reproducible manner. In this editorial, our journal shares some tips to help researchers in this field understand our current policies and prepare submissions that are as transparent as possible.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.patter.2023.100797
  17. Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs. 2023 Aug 02. pii: zvad073. [Epub ahead of print]
    Letters to the editor: Questionable publishing practices in the ChatGPT era.
    Philip Moons, Alexander Van De Bruaene, Liesbet Van Bulck.
      
    Keywords:  Scientific integrity; artificial intelligence; language models; natural language; processing; scientific misconduct
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1093/eurjcn/zvad073
  18. J Inherit Metab Dis. 2023 Aug 03.
    Risk and potential of ChatGPT in scientific publishing.
    Verena Peters, Matthias Baumgartner, Sean Froese, Eva Morava, Marc Patterson, Johannes Zschocke, Shamima Rahman.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1002/jimd.12666
  19. Am J Vet Res. 2023 06 30. pii: ajvr.23.08.editorial. [Epub ahead of print]84(8):
    Leveraging large language models: transforming scholarly publishing for the better.
    Lisa A Fortier.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.2460/ajvr.23.08.editorial
  20. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2023 Jul 31.
    Accuracy of Financial Disclosures in US-Based Rheumatology Journals.
    Mary L Guan, Michael H Pillinger, Aryeh M Abeles.
      OBJECTIVE: Transparency of disclosure in publication is necessary for readers to be aware of any potential conflicts of interest (PCOIs). Past studies of accuracy of disclosure in rheumatology journals have focused exclusively on clinical practice guidelines and not research papers. We assessed discrepancy in reporting PCOI in clinically oriented manuscripts published in the three top-ranked (by impact factor) US-based general rheumatology journals.METHODS: We reviewed disclosures provided by first, second and last authors of 50 published clinically-oriented manuscripts in each of the three top-ranked general US rheumatology journals. For each author, we extracted payment reports from the Open Payments Database (OPD) related to consulting fees, honoraria and speaker or faculty compensation. We defined a PCOI as a payment received from a company with an ongoing clinical trial, or a medication on the market, related to the manuscript's subject matter within the 36 months prior to the online publication date. We additionally analyzed each author individually to determine if their reported disclosures matched PCOI from OPD.
    RESULTS: Of 150 papers analyzed, 101 included authors with PCOI. Ninety-two of these 101 publications (92%) contained inaccurate (non-or under-) disclosures. Among 135 authors with PCOI, 118 reported inaccurately (87%). All fourteen papers that published clinical trial results (and all 23 of their qualifying authors) had disclosure inaccuracies.
    CONCLUSION: Inaccurate financial disclosure by authors remains an issue in clinically-oriented research studies reported in top rheumatology journals. Improved community education and firmer expectations would permit readers to better assess any possible impact of PCOI on publications. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1002/acr.25211
  21. Res Integr Peer Rev. 2023 Aug 03. 8(1): 9
    Raising concerns on questionable ethics approvals - a case study of 456 trials from the Institut Hospitalo-Universitaire Méditerranée Infection.
    Fabrice Frank, Nans Florens, Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz, Jérôme Barriere, Éric Billy, Véronique Saada, Alexander Samuel, Jacques Robert, Lonni Besançon.
      BACKGROUND: The practice of clinical research is strictly regulated by law. During submission and review processes, compliance of such research with the laws enforced in the country where it was conducted is not always correctly filled in by the authors or verified by the editors. Here, we report a case of a single institution for which one may find hundreds of publications with seemingly relevant ethical concerns, along with 10 months of follow-up through contacts with the editors of these articles. We thus argue for a stricter control of ethical authorization by scientific editors and we call on publishers to cooperate to this end.METHODS: We present an investigation of the ethics and legal aspects of 456 studies published by the IHU-MI (Institut Hospitalo-Universitaire Méditerranée Infection) in Marseille, France.
    RESULTS: We identified a wide range of issues with the stated research authorization and ethics of the published studies with respect to the Institutional Review Board and the approval presented. Among the studies investigated, 248 were conducted with the same ethics approval number, even though the subjects, samples, and countries of investigation were different. Thirty-nine (39) did not even contain a reference to the ethics approval number while they present research on human beings. We thus contacted the journals that published these articles and provide their responses to our concerns. It should be noted that, since our investigation and reporting to journals, PLOS has issued expressions of concerns for several publications we analyze here.
    CONCLUSION: This case presents an investigation of the veracity of ethical approval, and more than 10 months of follow-up by independent researchers. We call for stricter control and cooperation in handling of these cases, including editorial requirement to upload ethical approval documents, guidelines from COPE to address such ethical concerns, and transparent editorial policies and timelines to answer such concerns. All supplementary materials are available.
    Keywords:  Clinical research; Ethics; IRB (Institutional Review Board); Scientific publications; Scientific publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-023-00134-4
  22. Radiologia (Engl Ed). 2023 Jul-Aug;65(4):pii: S2173-5107(23)00089-7. [Epub ahead of print]65(4): 376-384
    Spanish Society of Medical Radiology Journal Club: History, analysis and perspectives after ten years of experience.
    D Herrán de la Gala, C Biosca Calabuig, J Miranda Bautista.
      We define a journal club as a group of people who meet to critically read and discuss scientific articles. In medicine, journal clubs are a very important part of training during residency programs. In 2013, the Spanish Society of Medical Radiology's (SERAM) journal club was established with the aim of promoting the acquisition of non-interpretative skills and training in scientific journalism during residency. After nearly 10 years, more than 137 reviewers at 54 hospitals have formed part of the SERAM's journal club. In this time period, the number of reviewers, publications, and visits to our website have increased progressively. The SERAM's journal club currently employs a structured workflow that is organized into quarterly groups and supported by a peer-review system. In the future, the SERAM's journal club aims to internationalize its content beyond the Spanish-speaking community, increase its presence in social networks, and incorporate audiovisual content.
    Keywords:  Artículo de revista; Journal article; Organización; Organization; Residencia; Residency
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rxeng.2022.12.007
  23. J Librariansh Inf Sci. 2022 Sep;54(3): 350-362
    Academicians' awareness, attitude, and use of open access during the COVID-19 pandemic.
    Yigit Emrah Turgut, Alper Aslan, Nuran Varlı Denizalp.
      The aim of this research is to reveal academics' awareness, attitude, and use of open access. In line with the research purpose, the survey research design is adopted. This research consists 151 academics from 12 basic research areas; eight of them being Professor Dr, 17 being Associate Professor Dr, 49 being Doctor Lecturer, and 77 being Research Assistant or Lecturer. A questionnaire consisting of 19 open access and five demographic information questions was used for the data collection tool. The research results show that 75% of the academics have open access awareness and that their awareness is generally created by information that they obtain through the Internet and their friends. In addition, most of the academics indicate that their awareness of open access has increased during the pandemic period. When considering the level of academics' use of open access, it is found that 75% of the academics use articles in open access journals for their own research and 51% of the academics do not publish any articles in open access journals.
    Keywords:  Academicians; attitude; awareness; open access; use
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1177/09610006211016509
  24. Rev Med Inst Mex Seguro Soc. 2023 07 31. 61(4): 399-402
    [Who reads the Revista Médica del IMSS? Altmetrics answer it].
    Omar Chávez-Martínez.
      The Revisa Médica del IMSS is considered a track of national and international scientific dissemination that presents the results of clinical research carried out within the Institute. Altmetrics, or alternative metrics, emerged as an alternative to citation-based metrics and allow authors to visualize the impact of their works that have not received citations to identify the characteristics of the readers who consult their published article. It is important that scientific journals have accurate information from their readers, as it will provide them with an overview of the use of the information produced in their area of expertise or in their institution. This editorial explores the characteristics of the readers of the Revista Médica del IMSS through the analysis of alternative metrics available in the Dimensions database.
    Keywords:  Bibliometrics; Databases, Bibliographic; Open Access Publishing; Scientific Communication and Diffusion
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8200025
  25. Indian J Ophthalmol. 2023 Aug;71(8): 2929
    Realms of publication ethics.
    M Vanathi.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.4103/IJO.IJO_1901_23
  26. J Fish Dis. 2023 Aug 03.
    Rise of the multi-authored paper & introduction of CRediT to the Journal of Fish Diseases submission process.
    David J Speare, Barbara Nowak, Heike Schmidt-Posthaus, Saengchan Senapin, Emily Chappell.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1111/jfd.13843
  27. Eur J Neurol. 2023 Jul 31.
    Statistical guidance provided to authors by clinical neurology and neuroscience journals.
    Sanjana Tumma, Claire Sonneborn, Aishwarya Padate, Olivia Hogue.
      BACKGROUND: Transparent reporting and appropriate interpretation of statistical methods and results is important to facilitate scientific evaluation and enable future replication. The goal of this study was to describe statistical reporting guidance provided to authors by Clinical Neurology and Neuroscience journals.METHODS: For first-quartile journals in each discipline (per Clarivate InCites), information collected from Instructions to Authors website sections included: whether journals required presentation of sample size justification, estimates of precision, and method of checking assumptions; and guidance for interpretation of p-values and appropriate presentation of descriptive statistics and graphs. Journal endorsement of common but statistically non-specific published transparent reporting guidelines for human and animal research was also collected, to capture the select statistical reporting items included in each guideline.
    RESULTS: Journals (n=85) frequently did not require/recommend: sample size justifications (15% not required; 62% only required per external transparent reporting guideline), estimates of precision (15% not required; 41% only required per external guidelines), or disclosure of method of checking assumptions (46%); nor provide guidance for reporting/interpretation of p-values (71%), reporting of descriptive statistics (75%), nor use of appropriate graphs (92%). Endorsement of statistically non-specific standalone reporting guidelines ranged between 52% and 68%, depending on guideline.
    CONCLUSION: There is opportunity for journals to facilitate improvement in transparency of statistical methods and results for Clinical Neurology and Neuroscience studies by providing guidelines and advice to authors at manuscript submission.
    Keywords:  analysis; biostatistics; guidelines; peer review; reproducibility; standards; statistics; transparent reporting
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1111/ene.16013
  28. Arthrosc Sports Med Rehabil. 2023 Aug;5(4): 100765
    Orthopaedic Surgeons Should Consider Online and E-publication Resources for the Most Current Evidence-Based Medicine Following the COVID-19 Pandemic.
    Sydney M Fasulo, Kristen De Wilde, Karan Kalahasti, Jaydeep Dhillon, Mary K Mulcahey, Anthony J Scillia, Matthew J Kraeutler.
      Purpose: To compare the time to publication of accepted manuscripts and content in orthopaedic sports medicine journals during the first 2 years of the COVID-19 pandemic.Methods: A convenience sample of articles published in January, May, and September during the years 2019-2021 was taken from Arthroscopy, American Journal of Sports Medicine (AJSM), and Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy (KSSTA). The duration between the aspects of the article publication process was compared between journals and years.
    Results: Overall, 826 journal articles were included. Arthroscopy demonstrated no significant differences in the time from manuscript submission to journal publication from 2019 to 2021, a significant decrease in time from acceptance to e-Pub (140 vs 74 vs 16 days; P < .001), but an increase from e-Pub to journal publication (23 vs 74 vs 130 days; P < .001). In AJSM, there was an overall increase in time from submission to journal publication significant between 2019 and 2021 (P = .05) and 2020 and 2021 (P = .001). KSSTA demonstrated the longest timelines in 2020. There was a trend toward a greater number of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
    Conclusion: Changes in various aspects of the time to publication and journal content occurred in orthopaedic sports medicine journals in the years surrounding the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. Although it is not possible to know whether these delays are caused by journal or author-related factors, orthopaedic surgeons should be aware of the possible delay in time to publication and consider online and e-publication resources for the most current evidence-based medicine, while journals may take this information into account to consider ways of improving the publication process and when determining journal content.
    Clinical Relevance: It is important to understand the impact the COVID-19 pandemic had on the publications which orthopaedic sports medicine surgeons rely on for clinical knowledge and the practice of evidence-based medicine.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asmr.2023.100765
  29. United European Gastroenterol J. 2023 Jul 29.
    Beyond the numbers: United European Gastroenterology journal's mission to build a community and connect.
    Iris J M Levink, Alberto Balduzzi, Joost P H Drenth.
      
    Keywords:  European; basic; clinical; digestive diseases; gastroenterology; hepatology; journal; open access; research; translational
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1002/ueg2.12447
  30. J Alzheimers Dis. 2023 Jul 24.
    JAD: A Forum for Philosophy in Science.
    Timothy Daly.
      The Journal of Alzheimer's Disease (JAD) is already an established forum for cutting-edge science as well as ethical reflection. But I argue that beyond science and ethics, JAD is also a forum for philosophy in science, and that interdisciplinary researchers asking innovative questions about AD should publish their reflections and findings in JAD.
    Keywords:  Alzheimer’s disease; ethics; interdisciplinary research; philosophy; philosophy in science; philosophy of science; science
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3233/JAD-230407
This page is being maintained by Thomas Krichel. It was last updated on 2023‒08‒06 at 1:35.