bims-skolko Biomed News
on Scholarly communication
Issue of 2025–03–02
23 papers selected by
Thomas Krichel, Open Library Society
  1. Amid Growing Evidence of Conflicts of Interest and Obdurate Groupthink in Medical Journals, Researchers Must Entertain Contrarian Ideas.
  2. Enhancing patients' role in scientific writing: insights from a global participatory approach with people with multiple sclerosis.
  3. Advancing open science: The evolving role of preprints in biomedical research.
  4. An overview of studies assessing predatory journals within the biomedical sciences.
  5. Financial barriers in urology publishing: an analysis of legitimate and predatory journals.
  6. The editorial boards of behavior-analytic journals: An analysis of geographic distribution and presumed gender.
  7. It takes four to tango: the cooperative adventure of scientific publishing.
  8. Estimating the Causal Effect of Double-Blind Peer Review for a Pulmonary, Critical Care, and Sleep Medicine Journal.
  9. Navigating the use of generative AI in peer review.
  10. The Peer Review Process for the Making Numbers Meaningful Article Collection and Thanks to Collection Editor Marilyn Schapira.
  11. Artificial Intelligence in Peer Review: Enhancing Efficiency While Preserving Integrity.
  12. Adherence of Studies on Large Language Models for Medical Applications Published in Leading Medical Journals According to the MI-CLEAR-LLM Checklist.
  13. Ethical implications of using artificial intelligence to support scientific writing.
  14. A cross-sectional study assessing AI guidelines in dermatology journals: implications and recommendations for authors and reviewers.
  15. Examining the frequency of artificial intelligence generated content in anesthesiology and intensive care journal publications: A cross sectional study.
  16. Understanding the Uniformity in Scientific Publications on Blood Pressure Device Validation.
  17. Inadequate Reporting of Harm From Randomized Clinical Trials in Top Medical Publications.
  18. How to develop a good writing style.
  19. Supporting scholarly writing: An innovative institutional education journal.
  20. Publishers' Response to Post-Publication Concerns About Clinical Research in Women's Health.
  21. Challenges in Publication Ethics, New and Old.
  22. Publications Are More Than Lines on Your Curriculum Vitae: An Epistle to Residents (and Faculty).
  23. Why the European Journal of Public Health and EUPHA are opposing President Trump's attack on the language of diversity.
  1. Cureus. 2025 Jan;17(1): e77895
    Amid Growing Evidence of Conflicts of Interest and Obdurate Groupthink in Medical Journals, Researchers Must Entertain Contrarian Ideas.
    Raphael Lataster, Peter Parry.
      Mainstream medicine, like other academic fields, is shaped by prevailing paradigms and the dominant narratives they create. Over the past half-century, these paradigms have increasingly reflected the growing commercial influence of the pharmaceutical industry. Dominant narratives are closely tied to groupthink, to which medical journals are often subject. In addition, more "prestigious" medical journals tend to have further financial conflicts of interest with the pharmaceutical industry. These dynamics limit scientific progress by suppressing awareness of the iatrogenic aspects of industry products and the benefits of alternative non-patentable and unpatentable medical products and therapeutic interventions. Journals need to adopt a more open policy to manuscripts that encompass contrarian perspectives to dominant narratives while still adhering to time-tested scientific values and methods.
    Keywords:  contrarian ideas; groupthink; incorrect paradigms; taboo science; the science
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.77895
  2. Res Involv Engagem. 2025 Feb 24. 11(1): 14
    Enhancing patients' role in scientific writing: insights from a global participatory approach with people with multiple sclerosis.
    Mariarosaria Savarese, Dilara Usta, Federico Bozzoli, Vanessa Fanning, Federica Molinari, Guendalina Graffigna, Paola Zaratin.
       INTRODUCTION: This study aims to describe a participatory process by investigating the perceptions and expectations of people with multiple sclerosis (pwMS) toward the scientific writing (SW) process and the role of patient engagement and quality of life in influencing them.
    METHODS: A two-phase, multi-methods study was conducted inspired by the MULTI-ACT model. Four co-creation workshops were organized, and the results were used to design a survey, which was translated into eight languages and distributed internationally to 1120 patients. The results from the workshops and the survey were collaboratively used to develop a model for engaging patients in SW.
    RESULTS: Participants expressed a willingness to share their unique experiences of the disease, contribute ideas and words to the project, and engage in research-related problem-solving. The main barriers to patient engagement in SW were identified as physical, psychological, and technical. The survey sample consisted of pwMS primarily from Italy (28.5%), was predominantly female (73.7%), with a mean age of 50.3 years and an average MS diagnosis duration of 13.5 years. Among the participants, 45% had never participated in research initiatives, 89% had never been an author of a scientific publication, and 51% expressed interest in future participation.
    CONCLUSION: Patients' disease awareness and their perception of quality of life may influence their predisposition towards research and SW. Patient co-authors clearly articulated their perspectives on the essential factors required for contributing to the publication process. A more sensitive approach should be adopted in order to take into account the psychosocial conditions of people with multiple sclerosis and what may hinder their participation in research and in writing scientific publications in order to really guarantee equal access to all.
    Keywords:  Authorship; Multiple sclerosis; Participatory governance; Patient author; Patient engagement; Responsible research innovation; Scientific publication authorship
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-025-00687-2
  3. J Spinal Cord Med. 2025 Mar;48(2): 159-160
    Advancing open science: The evolving role of preprints in biomedical research.
    Carol Ann Murphy, Florian P Thomas.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1080/10790268.2025.2466373
  4. Account Res. 2025 Feb 24. 1-20
    An overview of studies assessing predatory journals within the biomedical sciences.
    Felix Althaus, Carla Brigitte Susan Kohl, Clovis Mariano Faggion.
       OBJECTIVE: The proliferation of predatory journals (PJs) poses challenges to the integrity and reliability of scientific research. This study provides a comprehensive overview of studies assessing predatory practices in the biomedical sciences and the evaluation of their methodologies.
    METHODS: We systematically searched three databases: PubMed, Web of Science and Scopus. We included review-type studies published in English that assessed PJs within biomedical fields. We analyzed the characteristics of PJs, and methodological quality using the advice of "a measurement tool to assess systematic reviews" (AMSTAR-2) and the Cochrane Handbook.
    RESULTS: Fifty articles were included in the analysis. The first review of PJs was published in 2015. More than 80% of the reviews were published from 2018 onwards. The studies most often focused on the lack of an adequate peer review process (33/50), time to publication (30/50), and level of article processing charge (27/50). Concerning methodological quality, none of the studies fulfilled all the suggested items; 30 of the studies did not meet any of them.
    CONCLUSIONS: The methodological quality of the existing reviews was rather low, and the results of the present study may help researchers improve the methodological quality of future reviews on this topic.
    Keywords:  Predatory journals; ethics; evidence gaps; peer review; scientific misconduct
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2025.2465625
  5. ANZ J Surg. 2025 Feb 22.
    Financial barriers in urology publishing: an analysis of legitimate and predatory journals.
    Lequang T Vo, David Armany, Simon V Bariol, Sriskanthan Baskaranathan, Tania Hossack, David Ende, Henry H Woo.
       OBJECTIVES: To compare the Article Processing Charges (APCs) and fee transparency between legitimate and potentially predatory urology journals.
    METHODS: Potentially predatory journals were identified from unsolicited email solicitations sent to an academic urologist between December 2023 and January 2024. APC data were collected from the journals' websites and categorized based on fee transparency: no APC, non-transparent APCs, or transparent APCs. Legitimate journals were identified from the 69 urology journals listed in the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons library. APCs for these journals were similarly collected and analyzed. We conducted a quantitative analysis with Chi-squared testing to compare categorical variables and a Mann-Whitney U-test to assess differences in APC values.
    RESULTS: A total of 214 potentially predatory journals were identified from 422 emails, originating from 75 different publishers. Solicitations spanned various disciplines, with only 7.35% from urology journals. Among potentially predatory journals, 3.7% claimed to have no APCs, 21.5% lacked fee transparency, and 74.8% disclosed their APCs, with a mean charge of 2272.50 USD (median 2000 USD; range 150-3690 USD). In contrast, legitimate journals had a mean APC of $3244.51 USD (median 3490 USD; range 635-6950 USD), with 11.6% offering publication without APCs.
    CONCLUSION: Academic urologists often face unsolicited invitations from predatory journals and encounter high APCs from legitimate journals. This dual challenge complicates researchers' decisions and can hinder access to reputable publication avenues. To alleviate this burden, institutions should consider financial support for researchers, and both publishers and researchers must prioritize transparency and caution in the open-access publishing landscape.
    Keywords:  article processing charge; legitimate journals; open access; predatory journals; publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1111/ans.70019
  6. J Appl Behav Anal. 2025 Feb 28.
    The editorial boards of behavior-analytic journals: An analysis of geographic distribution and presumed gender.
    Joey Ryan, Hugo Curiel, Kwangmin Lee.
      The geographic distribution and gender of authors who have published in behavior-analytic journals have been analyzed at different points. Yet little is known about the geographic and gender diversity of editorial board members who have served on prominent behavior-analytic journals. We analyzed the regional and gender distribution of editorial board members-editors in chief, associate editors, and members of editorial boards-serving at the Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, and Perspectives on Behavior Science from 2000 to 2023. Our analysis showed that (a) the journals have been led primarily by editors with U.S. affiliations, (b) women have been underrepresented at the editor-in-chief and associate-editor levels, and (c) the gender gap has steadily decreased among editorial board members in recent years. We discuss the importance of diversity in the editorial leadership of academic journals and offer suggestions for expediting change.
    Keywords:  editorial boards; gender; gender diversity; geographic distribution
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.2939
  7. Microb Cell. 2025 ;12 34-36
    It takes four to tango: the cooperative adventure of scientific publishing.
    Didac Carmona-Gutierrez, Katharina Kainz, Frank Madeo.
      The publication and scientific implementation of scholarly articles is a collaborative effort that unites readers, authors, editors, and referees. A scientific journal thereby serves as a vital platform, enabling these interactions and fostering a shared commitment to advancing the quality and impact of scientific communication. In this short editorial, we celebrate the milestone of publishing the 500th article in Microbial Cell by highlighting these collective efforts. Importantly, from the outset of the journal more than ten years ago, we have cultivated a handcrafted organ that is produced by scientists for scientists. In that frame, we have followed and advocated a radical open access approach that fuels interaction and visibility of such cooperative endeavors for the public good.
    Keywords:  article processing charges; artificial intelligence; fake papers; microbiology; open access; peer review; predatory journals; referees
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.15698/mic2025.02.843
  8. Chest. 2025 Feb 22. pii: S0012-3692(25)00185-0. [Epub ahead of print]
    Estimating the Causal Effect of Double-Blind Peer Review for a Pulmonary, Critical Care, and Sleep Medicine Journal.
    Hayley B Gershengorn, Kelly C Vranas, Colin R Cooke, Christopher G Slatore, Stephanie M Levine.
       BACKGROUND: Double-blind peer review (DBPR, reviewers blinded to author identities and vice-versa) aims to reduce biases. DBPR's effectiveness has not been studied in pulmonary, critical care, and sleep journals.
    RESEARCH QUESTION: What was the causal effect on bias of DBPR at CHEST?
    STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: From January 2020 - June 2022, CHEST and Annals of the American Thoracic Society (AATS) used single-blind peer review (reviewers concealed from authors only); in July 2022, CHEST switched to DBPR. We estimated the causal effect of DBPR on manuscript acceptance at CHEST using AATS as a control. Our co-primary exposures were first and last author gender; secondarily, we considered author residence in English fluent countries. To estimate DBPR's differential impact by exposure, we constructed multivariable regression models with triple interaction terms (e.g., author gender X CHEST vs AATS X pre- vs post-DBPR), all component factors (e.g., author gender), paired interactions (e.g., author gender X CHEST vs AATS), and covariables (year, topic).
    RESULTS: We included 4,651 manuscripts (CHEST: 3,494; AATS: 1,157) sent for peer-review; 4,645 (99.9%) had identifiable author gender. From 2020-2024, CHEST submissions (compared to AATS) were less frequently authored by women (first: 38.7% vs 45.5%, SMD = 0.14; last: 23.9% vs 31.2% SMD = 0.16) or people from English fluent countries (first: 56.0% vs 77.7%, SMD = 0.47; last: 57.9% vs 79.0%, SMD = 0.47), and acceptance rates were lower (30.7% vs 48.4%, SMD = 0.37). After adjustment, no difference was appreciated in DBPR's impact on acceptance for women vs men authors (first: -7.4 [95% CI: -20.9 - 6.0] percentage points, p=0.28; last: -10.1 [-25.1 - 5.0] percentage points, p=0.19). DBPR negatively impacted first (but not last) authors from English fluent countries (vs non-fluent: -16.8 [-32.1 - -1.6] percentage points, p=0.030).
    INTERPRETATION: DBPR did not differentially impact authors by gender but did by presumed English fluency.
    Keywords:  Bias; Female; Language; Peer Review; Publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chest.2025.02.016
  9. Lancet Neurol. 2025 Mar;pii: S1474-4422(25)00041-9. [Epub ahead of print]24(3): 187
    Navigating the use of generative AI in peer review.
    Laura Hart.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/S1474-4422(25)00041-9
  10. MDM Policy Pract. 2025 Jan-Jun;10(1):10(1): 23814683251314513
    The Peer Review Process for the Making Numbers Meaningful Article Collection and Thanks to Collection Editor Marilyn Schapira.
    Lauren E Cipriano.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1177/23814683251314513
  11. J Korean Med Sci. 2025 Feb 24. 40(7): e92
    Artificial Intelligence in Peer Review: Enhancing Efficiency While Preserving Integrity.
    Bohdana Doskaliuk, Olena Zimba, Marlen Yessirkepov, Iryna Klishch, Roman Yatsyshyn.
      The rapid advancement of artificial intelligence (AI) has transformed various aspects of scientific research, including academic publishing and peer review. In recent years, AI tools such as large language models have demonstrated their capability to streamline numerous tasks traditionally handled by human editors and reviewers. These applications range from automated language and grammar checks to plagiarism detection, format compliance, and even preliminary assessment of research significance. While AI substantially benefits the efficiency and accuracy of academic processes, its integration raises critical ethical and methodological questions, particularly in peer review. AI lacks the subtle understanding of complex scientific content that human expertise provides, posing challenges in evaluating research novelty and significance. Additionally, there are risks associated with over-reliance on AI, potential biases in AI algorithms, and ethical concerns related to transparency, accountability, and data privacy. This review evaluates the perspectives within the scientific community on integrating AI in peer review and academic publishing. By exploring both AI's potential benefits and limitations, we aim to offer practical recommendations that ensure AI is used as a supportive tool, supporting but not replacing human expertise. Such guidelines are essential for preserving the integrity and quality of academic work while benefiting from AI's efficiencies in editorial processes.
    Keywords:  Artificial Intelligence; Ethics; Open Access Publishing; Peer Review; Publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2025.40.e92
  12. Korean J Radiol. 2025 Jan 23.
    Adherence of Studies on Large Language Models for Medical Applications Published in Leading Medical Journals According to the MI-CLEAR-LLM Checklist.
    Ji Su Ko, Hwon Heo, Chong Hyun Suh, Jeho Yi, Woo Hyun Shim.
       OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the adherence of large language model (LLM)-based healthcare research to the Minimum Reporting Items for Clear Evaluation of Accuracy Reports of Large Language Models in Healthcare (MI-CLEAR-LLM) checklist, a framework designed to enhance the transparency and reproducibility of studies on the accuracy of LLMs for medical applications.
    MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic PubMed search was conducted to identify articles on LLM performance published in high-ranking clinical medicine journals (the top 10% in each of the 59 specialties according to the 2023 Journal Impact Factor) from November 30, 2022, through June 25, 2024. Data on the six MI-CLEAR-LLM checklist items: 1) identification and specification of the LLM used, 2) stochasticity handling, 3) prompt wording and syntax, 4) prompt structuring, 5) prompt testing and optimization, and 6) independence of the test data-were independently extracted by two reviewers, and adherence was calculated for each item.
    RESULTS: Of 159 studies, 100% (159/159) reported the name of the LLM, 96.9% (154/159) reported the version, and 91.8% (146/159) reported the manufacturer. However, only 54.1% (86/159) reported the training data cutoff date, 6.3% (10/159) documented access to web-based information, and 50.9% (81/159) provided the date of the query attempts. Clear documentation regarding stochasticity management was provided in 15.1% (24/159) of the studies. Regarding prompt details, 49.1% (78/159) provided exact prompt wording and syntax but only 34.0% (54/159) documented prompt-structuring practices. While 46.5% (74/159) of the studies detailed prompt testing, only 15.7% (25/159) explained the rationale for specific word choices. Test data independence was reported for only 13.2% (21/159) of the studies, and 56.6% (43/76) provided URLs for internet-sourced test data.
    CONCLUSION: Although basic LLM identification details were relatively well reported, other key aspects, including stochasticity, prompts, and test data, were frequently underreported. Enhancing adherence to the MI-CLEAR-LLM checklist will allow LLM research to achieve greater transparency and will foster more credible and reliable future studies.
    Keywords:  Adherence; Artificial intelligence; Chatbot; Checklist; Deep learning; Generative; Guideline; Large language model; Large multimodal model; Quality; Reporting; Standard
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2024.1161
  13. Arq Bras Oftalmol. 2025 ;pii: S0004-27492025000200900. [Epub ahead of print]88(2): e20250018
    Ethical implications of using artificial intelligence to support scientific writing.
    Renato Ambrósio, Alexandre Batista da Costa Neto, Matheus Puppe Magalhães, Milton Yogi, Kaio Pereira, Aydano Pamponet Machado.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.5935/0004-2749.2025-0018
  14. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2025 Feb 22. pii: S0190-9622(25)00344-5. [Epub ahead of print]
    A cross-sectional study assessing AI guidelines in dermatology journals: implications and recommendations for authors and reviewers.
    Michael M Ong, Veronica Rotemberg, Maura C Gillis, Karen L Connolly.
      
    Keywords:  ChatGPT; artificial intelligence; large language model; machine learning; research
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaad.2025.02.051
  15. Medicine (Baltimore). 2025 Feb 21. 104(8): e41594
    Examining the frequency of artificial intelligence generated content in anesthesiology and intensive care journal publications: A cross sectional study.
    Selin Erel, Ozge Erkocak Arabaci, Hasan Kutluk Pampal.
      The emergence of artificial intelligence (AI)-based linguistic models has revolutionized academic writing, prompting concerns about integrity. In response, AI-powered text authenticity detectors have been developed. This study examines AI tool usage in anesthesiology and intensive care journals. 1268 articles from 86 journals in "Anesthesiology" and "Anesthesiology and Intensive Care" were analyzed using Copyleaks and ZeroGPT. English abstracts published between April 18 and May 18, 2023, were scrutinized. ZeroGPT and Copyleaks found average AI usage at 25.1% ± 27.5 and 10.5% ± 15.9, respectively. 16.8% of articles were "human-written," while 83.2% were "AI-assisted". AI assistance correlated positively with abstract length and was more common among nonnative English speakers (P < .001). It was also prevalent in high-impact and science citation index-indexed journals (P < .01; P < .001). This study underscores the widespread adoption of AI tools in academic writing, particularly among nonnative English authors and in high-impact journals, emphasizing the need for improved detection mechanisms and regulatory guidelines.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000041594
  16. Vasc Health Risk Manag. 2025 ;21 71-73
    Understanding the Uniformity in Scientific Publications on Blood Pressure Device Validation.
    Roland Asmar.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.2147/VHRM.S513015
  17. J Evid Based Med. 2025 Mar;18(1): e70006
    Inadequate Reporting of Harm From Randomized Clinical Trials in Top Medical Publications.
    Rui Zheng, Liyuan Tao, Yang Sun, Hongcai Shang, Mitchell Levine.
       OBJECTIVE: To assess the quality of harm reporting in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in high-impact general medical journals.
    STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Publications of RCTs involving drugs compared with placebo controls, that were published in five general medical journals with high Impact Factors were identified from January 2022 to December 2023. Data relating to the presentation and discussion of harm were extracted and analyzed based on the Consort Harm framework.
    RESULTS: We identified 175 eligible RCTs (AIM: n = 5; BMJ: n = 8; JAMA: n = 26, Lancet: n = 64, and NEJM: n = 72). None of the studies referenced the CONSORT Harms 2004 statement. Seventy-one percent of studies (n = 125) did not mention how harm data about patients' symptoms were collected and 86.3% of the analyses (n = 151) were limited to descriptive statistics. Only 45.1% of studies (n = 79) discussed the balance of benefits and harms. Common limitations included unclear methodological details, selective reporting, and inadequate analysis of results.
    CONCLUSIONS: RCTs published in five highly cited general medical journals contain deficiencies in harm reporting. The recently updated Consort Harm 2022 provides an implementable evaluation and guidance tool and should be actively promoted among researchers, reviewers, and journal editors. More attention to adequate and reasonable reporting requirements for harms in RCTs is necessary to provide a better opportunity for evidence-based decision making.
    Keywords:  CONSORT Harm 2022; cross‐sectional survey; harm; randomized clinical trials; reporting quality
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1111/jebm.70006
  18. Nature. 2025 Feb 25.
    How to develop a good writing style.
      
    Keywords:  Communication; History; Infection
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-025-00465-w
  19. Med Educ. 2025 Feb 24.
    Supporting scholarly writing: An innovative institutional education journal.
    Kathryn B Garber, Michaela M Jenkins, Linda O Lewin.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.15626
  20. BJOG. 2025 Feb 26.
    Publishers' Response to Post-Publication Concerns About Clinical Research in Women's Health.
    Siddharth Shivantha, Nicole Ling Shan Au, Lyle Gurrin, Jim Thornton, Jeremy Nielsen, Ben W Mol.
       OBJECTIVE: Potentially untrustworthy medical research is often identified after publication. We evaluated the effectiveness and efficiency of post-publication review of such studies in women's health.
    DESIGN: Cohort study.
    SAMPLE: Potentially untrustworthy papers published in women's health journals.
    METHODS: We wrote to the editors and publishers about potentially untrustworthy papers in women's health and requested an investigation according to the procedure established by the Committee of Publication Ethics (COPE).
    MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Study characteristics, investigation outcome classed as retraction, expression of concern (EoC), correction or no wrongdoing found, and time to decision. We also report the case completion rate per journal and publisher.
    RESULTS: Between 7th November 2017 and 30th April 2024, we wrote to editors and publishers of 891 potentially untrustworthy papers published in 206 different journals. At present, 263 (30%) of 891 papers received an outcome, with 227 (86%) labelled as problematic [152 (58%) retracted; 75 (29%) EoC]. For articles with a decision, it took a median time of 38 months for editors and publishers to decide, with 13% of the flagged cases reaching a decision within 12 months.
    CONCLUSIONS: The current PPR process is inefficient and ineffective in assessing and removing untrustworthy data from the medical literature.
    Keywords:  Women's health; post‐publication review; trustworthiness; untrustworthy data
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.18100
  21. Acad Med. 2025 Mar 01. 100(3): 251-252
    Challenges in Publication Ethics, New and Old.
    Laura Weiss Roberts.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000005954
  22. Cureus. 2025 Jan;17(1): e77882
    Publications Are More Than Lines on Your Curriculum Vitae: An Epistle to Residents (and Faculty).
    William C Baumgartner, Michael J Asken, William K Childers.
      Medical professionals often view writing and publishing as a mere checkbox on a curriculum vitae (CV), yet these activities hold profound value beyond career advancement. This article explores the transformative impact of writing on professional and personal development within the medical field, emphasizing how writing refines critical thinking, fosters creativity, and enhances communication skills. Through the example of Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis and parallels from other fields, the article illustrates how writing and publication can influence peers and shape future practices, even without immediate recognition. The article also highlights the evolving role of technology, including conversational AI, in enhancing academic writing and manuscript quality. It underscores the role of writing in patient care, as clear clinical documentation improves patient outcomes by reducing errors and enhancing interdisciplinary communication. Additionally, writing serves as a pathway for discovering hidden talents and interests, as evidenced by the unique career pivot of football coach Andy Reid. This work also highlights the importance of mentorship in guiding novice authors through the rigors of publication and the resilience built through critical feedback. Ultimately, writing contributes far more than CV lines, serving as a powerful catalyst for growth, mastery, and the propagation of innovative ideas within the medical profession.
    Keywords:  clinical communication; critical thinking; medical writing; mentorship in medicine; professional development
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.77882
  23. Eur J Public Health. 2025 Feb 22. pii: ckaf018. [Epub ahead of print]
    Why the European Journal of Public Health and EUPHA are opposing President Trump's attack on the language of diversity.
    Peter Allebeck, Tit Albreht, Charlotte Marchandise, Martin McKee.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckaf018
This page is being maintained by Thomas Krichel. It was last updated on 2025‒03‒08 at 5:07.