bims-skolko Biomed News
on Scholarly communication
Issue of 2024‒05‒12
25 papers selected by
Thomas Krichel, Open Library Society
  1. Prescription for controversy.
  2. Meaning and relevance of paper mills.
  3. All is well that replicates well: The replicability of reported moderation and interaction effects in leading organizational sciences journals.
  4. Comment on 'Scientific rot: Unsustainable publishing practices threatens trust in medicine'.
  5. Identifying and Minimizing Incentives for Competing Interests in Sports Medicine Publications.
  6. Rethinking the author name ambiguity problem and beyond: The case of the Chinese context.
  7. A Checklist Confirming Whether a Manuscript for Submission Adheres to the Fundamentals of Academic Writing: A Proposal.
  8. Journal-specific Regulations for Writing and Submitting Papers: Burden for Both Authors and Journals.
  9. Generative artificial intelligence is infiltrating peer review process.
  10. As a good companion in Child Health Nursing Research: a peer reviewer.
  11. Navigating the journey as a peer reviewer: a roadmap to success.
  12. Not just disclosure of generative artificial intelligence like ChatGPT in scientific writing: peer-review process also needs.
  13. The Art of Peer Review.
  14. Human versus machine: identifying ChatGPT-generated abstracts in Gynecology and Urogynecology.
  15. ChatGPT use should be prohibited in writing Letters.
  16. Exploring ChatGPT's abilities in medical article writing and peer review.
  17. Open Access Publication in Total Ankle Arthroplasty Literature Is Associated With Increased Social Media Attention, but Not Increased Citations.
  18. Responsible data sharing: Identifying and remedying possible re-identification of human participants.
  19. How to Overcome the Barriers Behind Writing Case Reports for Beginners and Young General Physicians.
  20. Writing and publishing papers in academic radiology: Why it needs to be more than a box checked for promotion.
  21. Shapeshifters: Global South scholars and their tensions in border-crossing to Global North journals.
  22. The Centrality of Trust in Academic Publishing Lies with the Corresponding Author.
  23. Does it take too much time to publish in the JPD? - Our peer-review process.
  24. Gender equity in The Journal of the American Dental Association: A review of the past 2 plus decades.
  25. Perspective on the Journal of Physician Assistant Education: From Association Newsletter to Academic Peer-Reviewed Journal Celebrating 25 Years.
  1. Science. 2024 May 10. 384(6696): 612-614
    Prescription for controversy.
    Retraction Watch
      Firms offering a fast track to publication target foreign applicants to U.S. medical residency programs.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adq2869
  2. Med Clin (Barc). 2024 May 04. pii: S0025-7753(24)00211-2. [Epub ahead of print]
    Meaning and relevance of paper mills.
    Marta Pulido.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.medcli.2024.02.029
  3. J Appl Psychol. 2024 May 09.
    All is well that replicates well: The replicability of reported moderation and interaction effects in leading organizational sciences journals.
    Marcus Crede, Lukas K Sotola.
      We examine 244 independent tests of interaction effects published in recent issues of four leading journals in the organizational sciences in order to estimate the replicability of reported statistically significant interaction effects. A z-curve analysis (Brunner & Schimmack, 2020) of the distribution of p values indicates an estimated replicability of 37%, although this figure varied somewhat across the four journals. We also find that none of the coded studies reported having conducted a priori power analyses and that only one reported having preregistered their hypotheses-despite longstanding exhortations for researchers to plan their studies to have adequate power and to engage in open science practices. Our results suggest that moderation results that have been reported in these leading journals fail to meet the methodological and statistical burden that would lead us to recommend that scientists and practitioners rely on these findings to inform their research and practice. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0001197
  4. J Eval Clin Pract. 2024 May 07.
    Comment on 'Scientific rot: Unsustainable publishing practices threatens trust in medicine'.
    Rujittika Mungmunpuntipantip, Somsri Wiwanitkit, Viroj Wiwanitkit.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1111/jep.14006
  5. Sports Med. 2024 May 07.
    Identifying and Minimizing Incentives for Competing Interests in Sports Medicine Publications.
    Ian Shrier, Franco M Impellizzeri, Steven D Stovitz.
      Academics in sports medicine as well as other medical fields are generally expected to publish research and opinions in peer-reviewed journals. The peer-review process is intended to protect against the publication of flawed research and unsubstantiated claims. However, both financial and non-financial competing interests may result in sub-optimal results by affecting investigators, editors, peer reviewers, academic institutions, and publishers. In this article, we focus on the non-financial competing interests created in our current academic system. Because these competing interests are embedded in our current scholastic framework, the potential biases are difficult to quantify. To minimize the effect of these competing interests, we review and highlight some underlying incentives for each stakeholder and some potential solutions to mitigate their effects.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-024-02037-w
  6. Account Res. 2024 May 05. 1-24
    Rethinking the author name ambiguity problem and beyond: The case of the Chinese context.
    Shaoxiong Brian Xu, Guangwei Hu.
      The perennial problem of author name ambiguity has attracted increasing attention in the academic community. Drawing on the literature, this article first highlights the pervasiveness of the problem and discusses its adverse consequences. It then analyzes the behavioral causes of the problem in the Chinese context and attributes them to personal, cultural, and institutional factors. Informed by this analysis and recognizing ORCID as a promising solution, we propose an ORCID-based "Prevention plus Cure" campaign against author name ambiguity. The prevention objective relies on researchers' consistent use of ORCID, while the cure objective involves retrospectively integrating ORCIDs into backfile publications. We also outline the responsibilities of various stakeholders to ensure the success of the campaign. Furthermore, we argue that universal adoption of ORCID can help curb authorship-related misconduct, discern predatory journals and publishers, and track researchers' undesirable records of academic publishing. We then analyze the current status of ORCID adoption in China, identify potential challenges, propose tentative solutions to address them, and highlight ORCID as a tool that can be utilized to empower China's combat against research misconduct. In conclusion, we emphasize the importance of conducting empirical research to inform more effective promotion of ORCID adoption in China.
    Keywords:  Author name ambiguity; Chinese names; ORCID; author name disambiguation; retraction
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2024.2349115
  7. JMA J. 2024 Apr 15. 7(2): 276-278
    A Checklist Confirming Whether a Manuscript for Submission Adheres to the Fundamentals of Academic Writing: A Proposal.
    Shigeki Matsubara, Daisuke Matsubara.
      A manuscript written not adhering to the fundamentals of academic writing (so-called paper-writing rules) may be rejected before the significance of the study is recognized. Submitting authors, especially those with little experience, may neglect such fundamentals. A simple checklist, which would enable the authors to check whether a manuscript for submission adheres to such fundamentals, should appear at the beginning of the Author Guidelines of medical journal. This checklist may contribute to writing a manuscript following the fundamentals of academic writing, thereby preventing rejection based solely on the writing style.
    Keywords:  author guideline; review; reviewer; study significance; writing style
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.31662/jmaj.2023-0201
  8. JMA J. 2024 Apr 15. 7(2): 295-296
    Journal-specific Regulations for Writing and Submitting Papers: Burden for Both Authors and Journals.
    Shigeki Matsubara.
      
    Keywords:  author guidelines; journals; submission; writing papers
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.31662/jmaj.2023-0175
  9. Crit Care. 2024 May 07. 28(1): 149
    Generative artificial intelligence is infiltrating peer review process.
    Kunming Cheng, Zaijie Sun, Xiaojun Liu, Haiyang Wu, Cheng Li.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-024-04933-z
  10. Child Health Nurs Res. 2024 Apr;30(2): 75-76
    As a good companion in Child Health Nursing Research: a peer reviewer.
    Yunsoo Kim.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.4094/chnr.2024.019
  11. J Am Pharm Assoc (2003). 2024 May 03. pii: S1544-3191(24)00135-3. [Epub ahead of print] 102115
    Navigating the journey as a peer reviewer: a roadmap to success.
    Brian N LaPlant, Charles D Ponte, Sarah E Vordenberg, Logan T Murry, Laura A Rhodes, Afonso Miguel Cavaco, Sujith Ramachandran, Brianna Lu, Jordan R Covvey.
      Peer review is an essential step in scientific progress and clinical improvement, providing opportunity for research to be critically evaluated and improved by one's colleagues. Pharmacists from all job settings are called to serve as peer reviewers in the ever-growing publication landscape of the profession. Despite challenges to engagement such as time and compensation, peer review provides considerable professional development for both authors and reviewers alike. This article will serve as a practical guide for peer reviewers, discussing best practices as well as the handling of different situations that may arise during the process.
    Keywords:  peer review; publications; research
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.japh.2024.102115
  12. Int J Surg. 2024 May 09.
    Not just disclosure of generative artificial intelligence like ChatGPT in scientific writing: peer-review process also needs.
    Haiyang Wu, Wanqing Li, Xiaofeng Chen, Cheng Li.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1097/JS9.0000000000001619
  13. WMJ. 2024 May;123(2): 70-73
    The Art of Peer Review.
    David C Mallinson, Corlin Jewell, Fahad Aziz.
      
  14. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2024 May 04. pii: S0002-9378(24)00571-4. [Epub ahead of print]
    Human versus machine: identifying ChatGPT-generated abstracts in Gynecology and Urogynecology.
    Evelyn T Pan, Maria Florian-Rodriguez.
      BACKGROUND: ChatGPT, a publicly available artificial intelligence (AI) large language model, has allowed for sophisticated AI technology on demand. Indeed, use of ChatGPT has already begun to make its way into medical research. However, the medical community has yet to understand the capabilities and ethical considerations of AI within this context, and unknowns exist regarding ChatGPT's writing abilities, accuracy, and implications for authorship.OBJECTIVES: We hypothesize that human reviewers and AI detection software differ in their ability to correctly identify original published abstracts and AI-written abstracts in the subjects of Gynecology and Urogynecology. We additionally suspect that concrete differences in writing errors, readability, and perceived writing quality exist between original and AI-generated text.
    STUDY DESIGN: Twenty-five articles published in high impact medical journals and a collection of Gynecology and Urogynecology journals were selected. ChatGPT was prompted to write 25 corresponding AI-generated abstracts, providing the abstract title, journal-dictated abstract requirements, and select original results. The original and AI-generated abstracts were reviewed by blinded Gynecology and Urogynecology faculty and fellows to identify the writing as original or AI-generated. All abstracts were analyzed by publicly available AI detection software GPTZero, Originality, and Copyleaks and were assessed for writing errors and quality by AI writing assistant Grammarly.
    RESULTS: One hundred fifty-seven reviews of 25 original and 25 AI-generated abstracts were conducted by 26 faculty and 4 fellows. Fifty-seven percent of original abstracts and 42.3% of AI-generated abstracts were correctly identified for an average of 49.7% across all abstracts. All three AI detectors rated the original abstracts as less likely be AI-written than the ChatGPT-generated abstracts (GPTZero 5.8 vs 73.3%, p<0.001; Originality 10.9 vs 98.1%, p<0.001; Copyleaks 18.6 vs 58.2%, p<0.001). The performance of the three AI detection software differed when analyzing all abstracts (p=0.03), original abstracts (p<0.001), and AI-generated abstracts (p<0.001). Grammarly text analysis identified more writing issues and correctness errors in original than AI abstracts, including lower Grammarly score reflective of poorer writing quality (82.3 vs 88.1, p=0.006), more total writing issues (19.2 vs 12.8, p<0.001), critical issues (5.4 vs 1.3, p<0.001), confusing words (0.8 vs 0.1, p=0.006), misspelled words (1.7 vs 0.6, p=0.02), incorrect determiner use (1.2 vs 0.2, p=0.002), and comma misuse (0.3 vs 0.0, p=0.005).
    CONCLUSIONS: Human reviewers are unable to detect the subtle differences between human and ChatGPT-generated scientific writing due to AI's ability to generate tremendously realistic text. AI detection software improve identification of AI-generated writing but still lack complete accuracy and require programmatic improvements in order to achieve optimal detection. As reviewers and editors may be unable to reliably detect AI-generated pieces, clear guidelines for reporting AI use by authors and implementing AI detection software in the review process will need to be established as AI chatbots gain more widespread use.
    Keywords:  AI chatbots; AI detection; AI ethics; AI writing; artificial intelligence; authorship; large language models; plagiarism; research ethics; research policy
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2024.04.045
  15. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2024 May 04. pii: S0002-9378(24)00572-6. [Epub ahead of print]
    ChatGPT use should be prohibited in writing Letters.
    Shigeki Matsubara.
      
    Keywords:  ChatGPT; art; artificial intelligence; letter; writing paper
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2024.04.046
  16. Croat Med J. 2024 Apr 30. 65(2): 93-100
    Exploring ChatGPT's abilities in medical article writing and peer review.
    Gültekin Kadi, Mehmet Ali Aslaner.
      AIM: To evaluate the quality of ChatGPT-generated case reports and assess the ability of ChatGPT to peer review medical articles.METHODS: This study was conducted from February to April 2023. First, ChatGPT 3.0 was used to generate 15 case reports, which were then peer-reviewed by expert human reviewers. Second, ChatGPT 4.0 was employed to peer review 15 published short articles.
    RESULTS: ChatGPT was capable of generating case reports, but these reports exhibited inaccuracies, particularly when it came to referencing. The case reports received mixed ratings from peer reviewers, with 33.3% of professionals recommending rejection. The reports' overall merit score was 4.9±1.8 out of 10. The review capabilities of ChatGPT were weaker than its text generation abilities. The AI as a peer reviewer did not recognize major inconsistencies in articles that had undergone significant content changes.
    CONCLUSION: While ChatGPT demonstrated proficiency in generating case reports, there were limitations in terms of consistency and accuracy, especially in referencing.
  17. Foot Ankle Orthop. 2024 Apr;9(2): 24730114241247817
    Open Access Publication in Total Ankle Arthroplasty Literature Is Associated With Increased Social Media Attention, but Not Increased Citations.
    Trayce Gray, Andrew B Harris, Rahi Patel, Julius Oni, Amiethab Aiyer.
      Background: Open access (OA) publications are increasingly common in orthopaedic literature. However, whether OA publications are associated with increased readership or citations among total ankle arthroplasty (TAA) literature is unclear. We hypothesize that compared with non-OA status, OA status is associated with increased social media dissemination, and readership, but not with citation count. This study aimed to analyze social media attention, citations, readership, and cost of TAA OA and non-OA publications.Methods: Using a PubMed query search, there were 368 publications from 81 journals, with 25% (91/368) being OA articles and 75% (277/368) non-OA articles from 2016 to 2023. We analyzed the Altmetric Attention Score (AAS), Mendeley readership score, and citations between OA vs non-OA articles. Citations and cost of OA articles were determined using an altered timeline and publisher's website, respectively. Subgroup analysis was performed among articles published in the top 5 TAA journals (Tables 2 and 3). Negative binomial regression was used while adjusting for days since publication. Significance was considered at P <.05.
    Results: OA publication was associated with a larger mean AAS score (8.7 ± 37.0 vs 4.8 ± 26.3), Mendeley readership (42.4 ± 41.6 vs 34.9 ± 25.7), and Twitter mentions (4.6 ± 7.4 vs 3.3 ± 8.1), but not citations (19.7 ± 24.8 vs 20.3 ± 23.5) (Table 1).
    Conclusion: TAA OA publications and top 5 journals were associated with significantly increased social media attention but not Mendeley readership or citation counts.
    Keywords:  altmetric; citation; open access; social media; total ankle arthroplasty
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1177/24730114241247817
  18. Am Psychol. 2024 May 06.
    Responsible data sharing: Identifying and remedying possible re-identification of human participants.
    Kirsten N Morehouse, Benedek Kurdi, Brian A Nosek.
      Open data collected from research participants creates a tension between scholarly values of transparency and sharing, on the one hand, and privacy and security, on the other hand. A common solution is to make data sets anonymous by removing personally identifying information (e.g., names or worker IDs) before sharing. However, ostensibly anonymized data sets may be at risk of re-identification if they include demographic information. In the present article, we provide researchers with broadly applicable guidance and tangible tools so that they can engage in open science practices without jeopardizing participants' privacy. Specifically, we (a) review current privacy standards, (b) describe computer science data protection frameworks and their adaptability to the social sciences, (c) provide practical guidance for assessing and addressing re-identification risk, (d) introduce two open-source algorithms developed for psychological scientists-MinBlur and MinBlurLite-to increase privacy while maintaining the integrity of open data, and (e) highlight aspects of ethical data sharing that require further attention. Ultimately, the risk of re-identification should not dissuade engagement with open science practices. Instead, technical innovations should be developed and harnessed so that science can be as open as possible to promote transparency and sharing and as closed as necessary to maintain privacy and security. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0001346
  19. Int J Gen Med. 2024 ;17 1723-1727
    How to Overcome the Barriers Behind Writing Case Reports for Beginners and Young General Physicians.
    Kosuke Ishizuka, Shun Yamashita, Yuichiro Mine, Yukichika Yamamoto, Hiroki Kojima, Hidehiro Someko, Taiju Miyagami.
      Background: Case reports are fundamental to clinical medicine that trace back to ancient Egypt preceding Hippocrates in the history of medicine. Case reports contribute to academic development and new clinical research. However, among cases presented at an annual academic conference for Japanese generalists, only a few cases were later published in peer-reviewed journals, highlighting potential barriers regarding the writing of case reports, such as mentorship absence. This paper aimed to offer guidance and strategies to novice and young general physicians in overcoming barriers and effectively composing case reports for international peer-reviewed journals.Methods: This paper focuses on case reports for general physicians with extensive experience in writing case reports for international peer-reviewed journals. We conducted a narrative review to help beginners and young general physicians in writing case reports and discussed strategies for overcoming these barriers.
    Results: We propose the following three tips as important processes for writing case reports: recognize the types of suitable cases for case reports; select a journal for submission using a list of candidate journals for general physicians; and organize the discussion section with one theme per paragraph. In addition, we provide a list of journals that specifically focus on case reports, along with important pointers for beginners and young general physicians that will assist authors in the field of general medicine in choosing appropriate journals for submission.
    Conclusion: We hope that understanding and applying these tips will aid beginners and young general physicians in writing case reports.
    Keywords:  candidate journal; discussion point; generalist; lessons-learned cases; mentor; novelty cases; paragraph; writing process
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.2147/IJGM.S459810
  20. Curr Probl Diagn Radiol. 2024 May 03. pii: S0363-0188(24)00084-7. [Epub ahead of print]
    Writing and publishing papers in academic radiology: Why it needs to be more than a box checked for promotion.
    Elliot K Fishman, Linda C Chu, Steven P Rowe.
      An ongoing challenge in academic radiology is balancing the need to read the scans and generate relative value units (RVUs) with the need to ensure academic leadership and the consistent production of impactful publications. Indeed, the tripartite mission of academic radiology (i.e. clinical care, research, and teaching) does not lend itself to obvious answers in an era when institutions and departments are increasingly focused on RVU generation. Even the minority of radiologists who are interested in pursuing the academic mission and accept academic jobs are likely to find their time increasingly squeezed by massive volumes of scans to read and the priority placed on RVU generation. There are often no incentives for impactful academic work, leading to a decreasing relative number of manuscript submissions from U.S.-based researchers. With the lack of external incentivization for publication, writing and publishing papers must instead be driven by intrinsic enjoyment and a sense of accomplishment. The ability to think of an idea, to get a group of co-authors together, to acquire the data and/or put together the idea into a form that is ready for final publication, and to see that process through to the end is rewarded only by personal satisfaction. Perhaps, in the era of RVU generation, publishing papers in a form of defiance of a system that is hampering the academic mission.
    Keywords:  Academic radiology; PubMed; Publications
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1067/j.cpradiol.2024.05.007
  21. BMJ Glob Health. 2024 Apr 15. pii: e014420. [Epub ahead of print]9(4):
    Shapeshifters: Global South scholars and their tensions in border-crossing to Global North journals.
    Thirusha Naidu, Carrie Cartmill, Sunitha Swanepoel, Cynthia Ruth Whitehead.
      INTRODUCTION: Global South researchers struggle to publish in Global North journals, including journals dedicated to research on health professions education (HPE). As a consequence, Western perspectives and values dominate the international academic landscape of HPE. This study sought to understand Global South researchers' motivations and experiences of publishing in Global North journals.METHODS: This study used a hermeneutic phenomenological perspective. Unstructured interviews were conducted with 11 authors from 6 Global South countries. Interview transcripts were analysed through a process of familiarisation, identifying significant statements, formulating meanings, clustering themes, developing exhaustive descriptions, producing a fundamental structure and seeking verification.
    RESULTS: Participants described being motivated by local institutional expectations, to improve reputation, to meet Global North perceptions of quality and to draw attention to their Global South context. Participants described experiences where their work was deemed irrelevant to Global North audiences, they were unable to interpret rejections and had learnt to play the publishing game by attending to both local and global imperatives. These motivations and experiences revealed several practical, academic and transformational tensions that Global South authors faced.
    CONCLUSION: The tensions and negotiations encountered by Global South authors who publish in HPE journals reflect a 'border consciousness' whereby authors must shift consciousness, or become 'shapeshifters', inhabiting two or more worlds as they cross borders between the Global South and Global North conventions. There is an added burden and risk in performing this shapeshifting, as Global South authors stand astride the borders of two worlds without belonging fully to either.
    Keywords:  health education and promotion; health policies and all other topics; qualitative study
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2023-014420
  22. Rambam Maimonides Med J. 2024 Apr 28. 15(2):
    The Centrality of Trust in Academic Publishing Lies with the Corresponding Author.
    Jaime A Teixeira da Silva.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.5041/RMMJ.10525
  23. J Prosthet Dent. 2024 May 06. pii: S0022-3913(24)00280-4. [Epub ahead of print]
    Does it take too much time to publish in the JPD? - Our peer-review process.
    Stephen Rosenstiel.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2024.04.005
  24. J Am Dent Assoc. 2024 May 04. pii: S0002-8177(24)00114-4. [Epub ahead of print]
    Gender equity in The Journal of the American Dental Association: A review of the past 2 plus decades.
    Riki Gottlieb, Ehsan Jozaghi, Hane Chen, Al M Best.
      BACKGROUND: Considering evidence of closing the gender gap in dental scholarship, this study assessed women's participation as authors, reviewers, and members of the editorial board for The Journal of the American Dental Association (JADA) from 2000 through 2022.METHODS: The study authors downloaded author names from PubMed and retrieved names of reviewers and editorial board members from JADA's pages. The authors used Gender-API software to determine gender on the basis of first names. They used logistic regression to test for trends.
    RESULTS: From January 2000 through December 2022, there were 2,935 full-length articles, 2,775 reviewers, 4 editors in chief, and 85 editorial board members. The percentage of women authors increased by 1.2% annually (95% CI, 1.03% to 1.33%), reaching 47% in 2022. First authorship increased by 2.1% annually (95% CI, 1.84% to 2.39%) and has been at more than 50% since 2016. In articles with multiple authors, there was a modest increase; second authorship increased 0.7% annually (95% CI, 0.36% to 1.09%) and last authorship by 0.7% (95% CI, 0.03% to 1.00%). Women reviewers increased 0.8% annually (95% CI, 0.68% to 0.97%), but the percentage of women on the editorial board did not increase significantly and was 41% in 2022.
    CONCLUSIONS: It was anticipated that 50% of JADA authors would be women by 2024. However, women are still underrepresented on the editorial board. A comprehensive effort is needed to foster role models, provide mentorship opportunities for women, and support women's professional advancement in dental research and publications.
    PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: Gender-based disparities affect women in dental education and clinical practice. Serving as an editorial board member, reviewer, or author can affect academic promotion and the type of scientific investigation being conducted and indirectly affects women's health outcomes.
    Keywords:  ADA; Women; bibliometrics; dentistry; diversity; gender equity; publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adaj.2024.02.012
  25. J Physician Assist Educ. 2024 May 09.
    Perspective on the Journal of Physician Assistant Education: From Association Newsletter to Academic Peer-Reviewed Journal Celebrating 25 Years.
    Donald M Pedersen, P Eugene Jones, David Asprey, Trenton Honda.
      ABSTRACT: For 25 years, the Journal of PA Education (JPAE) and its predecessor publications have been the pre-eminent venues for disseminating and promulgating information and research on the physician assistant (PA) profession. In this article, former and current editors in chief have compiled a detailed history of the journal, its development, and its trajectory into the future, outlining the journey taken by Association of PA Programs/PA Education Association to catalog faculty scholarship through a peer-reviewed journal. Allowing for the referencing of articles and thus adding to the body of knowledge on PAs and PA education, JPAE has not only endured but thrived. This article speaks to the collective effort and excellence of staff, and the many volunteer reviewers, feature editors, and editorial board members who have nurtured JPAE along the way through numerous changes, challenges, and triumphs.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1097/JPA.0000000000000590
This page is being maintained by Thomas Krichel. It was last updated on 2024‒05‒12 at 5:03.