bims-skolko Biomed News
on Scholarly communication
Issue of 2025–03–30
thirty-one papers selected by
Thomas Krichel, Open Library Society
  1. How can research supervision relationships affect dissemination?
  2. Does sharing first authorship on a paper carry a penalty? What the research says.
  3. Predatory Journals: What Can We Do to Protect Their Prey?
  4. Research Misconduct and Medical Journals.
  5. What Can We Learn from the Retraction of Medical Articles.
  6. Reply to Vervoort et al.: Too much of a good thing? Redefining open in open access.
  7. Assessing the prevalence, quality and compliance of data-sharing statements in gastroenterology publications: a cross-sectional analysis.
  8. Bringing Lived Expertise to Academic Publishing Through Community Reviewers.
  9. Retracted vs non-retracted obstetrical randomized trials: Which quality criteria are most associated with retraction for untrustworthiness?
  10. Formalistic data and code availability policy in high-profile medical journals and pervasive policy-practice gaps in published articles: A meta-research study.
  11. Transparency of research practices in cardiovascular literature.
  12. The Challenges and Future of Peer Review.
  13. On improving the sustainability of peer review.
  14. Fast & Fair peer review: a bold experiment in scientific publishing.
  15. Artificial intelligence in medical writing: the inconvenient truth behind our automated future.
  16. The Authors Declare the Use of Artificial Intelligence.
  17. The role of large language models in the peer-review process: opportunities and challenges for medical journal reviewers and editors.
  18. Disclosing artificial intelligence use in scientific research and publication: When should disclosure be mandatory, optional, or unnecessary?
  19. Where Artificial Intelligence may take academic publishing: for better or worse.
  20. Letters to the editor generated by AI in neuroscience: The role of neuroethics.
  21. AI is transforming peer review - and many scientists are worried.
  22. Institutional Affiliation: A Significant Variable in Academic Publishing.
  23. Publishing Infectious Disease Research from Low- and Middle-Income Countries.
  24. Editorial - Write it Right and Say it Right: The Anguished English of Dentistry.
  25. "And then one day you find ten years have got behind you": Reflections on a Decade as Editor-in-Chief.
  26. Reviewers' views on the editorial review processes of the Canadian Medical Education Journal.
  27. [Reflections on the transition of scientific publishing].
  28. Announcement on Use of AI.
  29. When the Death of a Colleague Meets Academic Publishing: A Call for Compassion.
  30. Looking back at 20 years of Open Access publishing at Nucleic Acids Research.
  31. What can artificial intelligence do for EUS?
  1. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2025 Mar 25.
    How can research supervision relationships affect dissemination?
    Patricia O'Sullivan, Ayelet Kuper, Susan van Schalkwyk.
      This column is intended to address the kinds of knotty problems and dilemmas with which many scholars grapple in studying health professions education. In this article, the authors set the stage for a series of articles exploring the research supervisory relationship (often also described as a mentor-mentee relationship) and how it influences the dissemination of scholarly work.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-025-10427-6
  2. Nature. 2025 Mar 24.
    Does sharing first authorship on a paper carry a penalty? What the research says.
    Holly Else.
      
    Keywords:  Authorship; Careers; Lab life; Publishing; Scientific community
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-025-00869-8
  3. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2025 01 24. pii: arztebl.m2024.0263. [Epub ahead of print]122(2): 31-32
    Predatory Journals: What Can We Do to Protect Their Prey?
    the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE)
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3238/arztebl.m2024.0263
  4. J Law Med Ethics. 2025 Mar 27. 1-6
    Research Misconduct and Medical Journals.
    Howard Bauchner, Robert Steinbrook, Rita F Redberg.
      Journal editors often deal with allegations of research misconduct, defined by the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) in the United States as fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism. It is important that editors have a transparent and consistent process to deal with these allegations quickly and fairly. This process will include the authors and may include research integrity officers at the sponsoring institution as well as funders. Retractions may not be consistent with the ORI definition, for example, specifying inadequate peer-review and unreported conflict of interest, but nevertheless represent scientific misconduct.
    Keywords:  journals and research misconduct; misconduct; research; scientific misconduct
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1017/jme.2025.35
  5. Med Sci Educ. 2025 Feb;35(1): 497-501
    What Can We Learn from the Retraction of Medical Articles.
    Christopher J Peterson, Kenneth Nugent.
      Article retractions happen across all types of research and can happen to any researcher at any institution. Retracted articles can have negative consequences, particularly when they are used in meta-analyses or clinical guidelines. Peer review is an important though insufficient means of safeguarding academic integrity, and thus all researchers, including trainees, are responsible for helping to ensure integrity in research.
    Keywords:  Article retraction; Graduate medical education; Research integrity; Scientific misconduct
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40670-024-02171-0
  6. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2025 Mar 25. pii: ezaf095. [Epub ahead of print]
    Reply to Vervoort et al.: Too much of a good thing? Redefining open in open access.
    Khaled Moustafa, Akram Adam.
      
    Keywords:  article processing charge (APC); open access; open access journal; open science; predatory publishing; publishing fee
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1093/ejcts/ezaf095
  7. BMJ Open. 2025 Mar 25. 15(3): e092490
    Assessing the prevalence, quality and compliance of data-sharing statements in gastroenterology publications: a cross-sectional analysis.
    Jacksen Moore, Khanh Nguyen, Brody Dennis, Mahad Chaudhry, Annes Elfar, Eli Oldham, Eli Paul, Jacob Cohn, Alicia Ito Ford, Matthew Vassar.
       OBJECTIVE: To examine the current state of data-sharing practices in gastroenterology literature, focusing on data-sharing statements (DSS) and identifying influential factors on DSS inclusion.
    BACKGROUND: High-quality, reproducible research is crucial in addressing the widespread prevalence of gastrointestinal diseases. Data-sharing practices enable researchers to access studies more easily, enhancing reproducibility. Our study aims to analyse the inclusion and influence of DSS in top gastroenterology journals.
    METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional analysis to examine the use and contents of DSS in gastroenterology clinical trials. Using Clarivate's Journal Citation Reports, we selected five leading gastroenterology journals. Then, we searched MEDLINE (PubMed) for original research articles published between 1 January 2018 and 31 December 2023. In a double-blind, duplicate manner, data were extracted on DSS presence, funding source, study design and open-access status. We then conducted a thematic analysis of all DSS. Additionally, authors were contacted and given 14 days to respond or share data to investigate adherence to their DSS.
    RESULTS: Of the 953 articles that met inclusion criteria, 400 (400/953; 42.0%) contained a DSS. Open-access articles had a higher likelihood of containing DSS (estimate=0·413; p<0.05). The Lancet Gastroenterology and Hepatology has the highest percentage of DSS (159/194; 82.0%), while Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology has the lowest percentage of DSS (33/256; 12.9%). Impact factor is a significant indicator for DSS (estimate=0.138, p=0.01). Finally, 'conditional data availability' was the most common data theme in our study (225/303; 74.3%). Over half (153/284; 53.9%) of the authors contacted did not respond to our request for sharing data.
    CONCLUSION: Our findings reveal significant variability in DSS inclusion and adherence among top gastroenterology journals. Journals with mandatory data-sharing policies demonstrated higher compliance, while open-access status and journal impact factor were positively associated with data-sharing practices. However, a notable gap remains in authors' follow-through on stated data-sharing commitments.
    Keywords:  GASTROENTEROLOGY; Information Storage and Retrieval; STATISTICS & RESEARCH METHODS
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2024-092490
  8. Health Serv Res. 2025 Mar 24. e14616
    Bringing Lived Expertise to Academic Publishing Through Community Reviewers.
    Danielle Hessler Jones, Yuri Cartier, Rebekah Angove.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6773.14616
  9. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2025 Mar 23. pii: S0301-2115(25)00185-X. [Epub ahead of print]309 137-142
    Retracted vs non-retracted obstetrical randomized trials: Which quality criteria are most associated with retraction for untrustworthiness?
    Sarah Lawson, Georgios Doulaveris, Kathryn Anderson, Carrie Bennett, Vincenzo Berghella.
       BACKGROUND: Randomized control trials (RCTs) are an essential pillar of scientific knowledge and medical practice, and their integrity has important implications for reliable systemic reviews and meta-analyses. However, the number of article retractions due to falsified data and scientific misconduct has increased in recent years. In response, the scientific community has pursued the creation of quality criteria that can be utilized to promote trustworthiness.
    METHODS: After a quality criteria checklist was created by a team of experts, retracted and nonretracted studies were evaluated for adherence to assess the checklist's usefulness and identify potential pitfalls. Retracted studies published in obstetric literature and retracted between 1994-2024 were identified using the online Retraction Watch Database. A previously created database of non-retracted obstetric RCTs published between 2018-2020 was used for the control group.
    RESULTS: A total of 173 studies were identified, 136 non-retracted and 37 retracted. Overall, 13 of 17 (76.5 %) criteria were statistically different between retracted and non-retracted articles. A cutoff of ≤ 11 total quality criteria granted 94.9 % (95 % CI, 89.7 - 97.9) sensitivity and 78.4 % (95 % CI, 61.8 - 90.2) specificity in distinguishing non-retracted from retracted studies.
    CONCLUSIONS: Retracted studies were significantly less likely to adhere to the 17-quality criteria checklist compared to non-retracted studies, providing useful insight to peer-reviewed scientific journals about what to evaluate for in an RCT manuscript prior to publication. The authors recommend that journal editors play close attention to criteria related to research ethics, data falsification, and risk of bias.
    Keywords:  Data validity; Plagiarism; Quality criteria; Research integrity; Retractions; Scientific misconduct
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2025.03.047
  10. Account Res. 2025 Mar 25. 1-25
    Formalistic data and code availability policy in high-profile medical journals and pervasive policy-practice gaps in published articles: A meta-research study.
    Wei Li, Xuerong Liu, Qianyu Zhang, Liping Shi, Jing-Xuan Zhang, Xiaolin Zhang, Jia Luan, Yue Li, Ting Xu, Rong Zhang, Xiaodi Han, Jingyu Lei, Xueqian Wang, Yaozhi Wang, Hai Lan, Xiaohan Chen, Yi Wu, Yan Wu, Lei Xia, Haiping Liao, Chang Shen, Yang Yu, Xinyu Xu, Chao Deng, Pei Liu, Zhengzhi Feng, Chun-Ji Huang, Zhiyi Chen.
       BACKGROUND: Poor data and code (DAC) sharing undermines open science principles. This study evaluates the stringency of DAC availability policies in high-profile medical journals and identifies policy-practice gaps (PPG) in published articles.
    METHODS: DAC availability policies of 931 Q1 medical journals (Clarivate JCR 2021) were evaluated, with PPGs quantified across 3,191 articles from The BMJ, JAMA, NEJM, and The Lancet.
    RESULTS: Only 9.1% (85/931) of journals mandated DAC sharing and availability statements, with 70.6% of these lacking mechanisms to verify authenticity, and 61.2% allowing publication despite invalid sharing. Secondary analysis revealed a disproportionate distribution of policies across subspecialties, with 18.6% (11/59) of subspecialties having >20% journals with mandated policies. Journal impact factors exhibited positive correlations with the stringency of availability statement policies (ρ = 0.20, p < 0.001) but not with sharing policies (ρ = 0.01, p = 0.737). Among the 3,191 articles, PPGs were observed in over 90% of cases. Specifically, 33.7% lacked DAC availability statements, 23.3% refused sharing (58.4% of which without justification in public statements), and 13.5% declared public sharing, with 39.0% being unreachable. Finally, only 0.5% achieved full computational reproducibility.
    CONCLUSIONS: Formalistic policies and prevalent PPGs undermine DAC transparency, necessitating a supportive publication ecosystem that empowers authors to uphold scientific responsibility and integrity.
    Keywords:  Data and code; availability; journal policy; open science; policy-practice gap
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2025.2481943
  11. Elife. 2025 Mar 26. pii: e81051. [Epub ahead of print]14
    Transparency of research practices in cardiovascular literature.
    Gabriel O Heckerman, Eileen Tzng, Arely Campos-Melendez, Chisomaga Ekwueme, Adrienne Mueller.
      Background: Several fields have described low reproducibility of scientific research and poor accessibility in research reporting practices. Although previous reports have investigated accessible reporting practices that lead to reproducible research in other fields, to date, no study has explored the extent of accessible and reproducible research practices in cardiovascular science literature.
    Methods: To study accessibility and reproducibility in cardiovascular research reporting, we screened 639 randomly selected articles published in 2019 in three top cardiovascular science publications: Circulation, the European Heart Journal, and the Journal of the American College of Cardiology (JACC). Of those 639 articles, 393 were empirical research articles. We screened each paper for accessible and reproducible research practices using a set of accessibility criteria including protocol, materials, data, and analysis script availability, as well as accessibility of the publication itself. We also quantified the consistency of open research practices within and across cardiovascular study types and journal formats.
    Results: We identified that fewer than 2% of cardiovascular research publications provide sufficient resources (materials, methods, data, and analysis scripts) to fully reproduce their studies. Of the 639 articles screened, 393 were empirical research studies for which reproducibility could be assessed using our protocol, as opposed to commentaries or reviews. After calculating an accessibility score as a measure of the extent to which an article makes its resources available, we also showed that the level of accessibility varies across study types with a score of 0.08 for Case Studies or Case Series and 0.39 for Clinical Trials (p = 5.500E-5) and across journals (0.19 through 0.34, p = 1.230E-2). We further showed that there are significant differences in which study types share which resources.
    Conclusion: Although the degree to which reproducible reporting practices are present in publications varies significantly across journals and study types, current cardiovascular science reports frequently do not provide sufficient materials, protocols, data, or analysis information to reproduce a study. In the future, having higher standards of accessibility mandated by either journals or funding bodies will help increase the reproducibility of cardiovascular research.
    Funding: Authors Gabriel Heckerman, Arely Campos-Melendez, and Chisomaga Ekwueme were supported by an NIH R25 grant from the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute (R25HL147666). Eileen Tzng was supported by an AHA Institutional Training Award fellowship (18UFEL33960207).
    Keywords:  medicine; none
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.81051
  12. Crit Care Med. 2025 Mar 26.
    The Challenges and Future of Peer Review.
    Howard Bauchner, Frederick P Rivara.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1097/CCM.0000000000006642
  13. PLoS Biol. 2025 Mar 25. 23(3): e3003127
    On improving the sustainability of peer review.
    PLOS Biology staff editors
      The term "reviewer fatigue" has become only too familiar in scientific publishing. How can we ease the burden on reviewers to make the peer review system more sustainable, while streamlining the publication process for authors?
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3003127
  14. Biol Open. 2025 Mar 15. pii: bio061982. [Epub ahead of print]14(3):
    Fast & Fair peer review: a bold experiment in scientific publishing.
    Daniel A Gorelick, Alejandra Clark.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1242/bio.061982
  15. Pol Arch Intern Med. 2025 Mar 24. pii: 16985. [Epub ahead of print]135(3):
    Artificial intelligence in medical writing: the inconvenient truth behind our automated future.
    Anastasios Koulaouzidis, George Koulaouzidis, Maria Marlicz, Dafni Charisopoulou, Wojciech Marlicz.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.20452/pamw.16985
  16. Sr Care Pharm. 2025 Apr 01. 40(4): 153-154
    The Authors Declare the Use of Artificial Intelligence.
    Demetra Antimisiaris, Patricia W Slattum.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.4140/TCP.n.2025.153
  17. J Educ Eval Health Prof. 2025 ;22 4
    The role of large language models in the peer-review process: opportunities and challenges for medical journal reviewers and editors.
    Jisoo Lee, Jieun Lee, Jeong-Ju Yoo.
      The peer review process ensures the integrity of scientific research. This is particularly important in the medical field, where research findings directly impact patient care. However, the rapid growth of publications has strained reviewers, causing delays and potential declines in quality. Generative artificial intelligence, especially large language models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT, may assist researchers with efficient, high-quality reviews. This review explores the integration of LLMs into peer review, highlighting their strengths in linguistic tasks and challenges in assessing scientific validity, particularly in clinical medicine. Key points for integration include initial screening, reviewer matching, feedback support, and language review. However, implementing LLMs for these purposes will necessitate addressing biases, privacy concerns, and data confidentiality. We recommend using LLMs as complementary tools under clear guidelines to support, not replace, human expertise in maintaining rigorous peer review standards.
    Keywords:  ChatGPT, Republic of Korea; Generative artificial intelligence; Large language models; Peer review
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3352/jeehp.2025.22.4
  18. Account Res. 2025 Mar 24. 1-13
    Disclosing artificial intelligence use in scientific research and publication: When should disclosure be mandatory, optional, or unnecessary?
    David B Resnik, Mohammad Hosseini.
      Currently there is a broad consensus among scholars that artificial intelligence (AI) tools can be used in research and publication, and that their use should be disclosed. Publishers and influential organizations, like the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, have developed different and sometimes contradictory disclosure policies. We review some of these policies, examine the ethical reasons for disclosing AI use in research, and develop a framework for disclosure. We distinguish between mandatory, optional, and unnecessary disclosure of AI use, arguing that disclosure should be mandatory only when AI use is intentional and substantial. AI use is intentional when it is directly employed with a specific goal or purpose in mind. AI use is substantial when it 1) produces evidence, analysis, or discussion that supports or elaborates on the conclusions/findings of a study; or 2) directly affects the content of the research/publication. To support the application of our framework, we state three criteria for identifying substantial AI uses in research: a) using AI to make decisions that directly affect research results; b) using AI to generate content, data or images; and c) using AI to analyze content, data or images. Disclosure should be mandatory when AI use meets one of these criteria.
    Keywords:  ; disclosure; AI; accountability; ethics; transparency
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2025.2481949
  19. J Orthod. 2025 Mar;52(1): 10-11
    Where Artificial Intelligence may take academic publishing: for better or worse.
    Christo Hall.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1177/14653125251325308
  20. Neuroscience. 2025 Mar 22. pii: S0306-4522(25)00242-8. [Epub ahead of print]573 244-246
    Letters to the editor generated by AI in neuroscience: The role of neuroethics.
    Jaime A Teixeira da Silva, Timothy Daly.
      The letter to the editor (LTE) is a correspondence forum that allows a journal's readers to comment on published research and also publish data and arguments in a brief way. The LTE has vital functions as an accessible comment forum, including holding authors and editors accountable for published content. Yet, there is also the possibility of misuse of the LTE format, as was evidenced by a recent mass retraction of 129 LTEs at a neurosurgery journal suspected to have been mass produced by the undeclared use of generative artificial intelligence (GAI). We argue in favor of a more interventionist stance on the part of neuroethicists to engage with, analyze, and propose solutions to the issue of low quality and GAI-generated neuroscience.
    Keywords:  Accountability; Editorial responsibility; Ethics; Retraction; Transparency
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroscience.2025.03.040
  21. Nature. 2025 Mar;639(8056): 852-854
    AI is transforming peer review - and many scientists are worried.
    Miryam Naddaf.
      
    Keywords:  Lab life; Machine learning; Publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-025-00894-7
  22. Med Sci Educ. 2025 Feb;35(1): 591-592
    Institutional Affiliation: A Significant Variable in Academic Publishing.
    Amin Sharifan.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40670-024-02211-9
  23. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2025 Mar 20. pii: S1198-743X(25)00128-4. [Epub ahead of print]
    Publishing Infectious Disease Research from Low- and Middle-Income Countries.
    Erlangga Yusuf, Flaminia Olearo.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmi.2025.03.010
  24. J Hist Dent. 2025 ;73(1): 2-4
    Editorial - Write it Right and Say it Right: The Anguished English of Dentistry.
    Theodore P Croll, James L Gutmann.
      In the late 1980s renowned linguist and wordsmith, Richard Lederer (The Verbivore), gave up his classroom teaching duties at the St. Paul School in New Hampshire after 27 years. His first book, Anguished English, (Fig. 1) was published at that time.1 Some dental communications also can be anguishing. This editorial exposes some common examples of unnecessary attributions or language abuses in our profession.2,3 For example with attributions, when original sources are not identified either by accident, laziness in seeking them, or purposefully, the historical background of a subject becomes muddled and original contributions can be lost to the knowledge of current observers. Reviewers and editors of journals submissions face such intellectual sloppiness or deceit, all too often.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.58929/jhd.2025.073.01.2
  25. J Anxiety Disord. 2025 Mar 20. pii: S0887-6185(25)00043-X. [Epub ahead of print] 103007
    "And then one day you find ten years have got behind you": Reflections on a Decade as Editor-in-Chief.
    Gordon J G Asmundson.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.janxdis.2025.103007
  26. Can Med Educ J. 2025 Feb;16(1): 128-140
    Reviewers' views on the editorial review processes of the Canadian Medical Education Journal.
    Larisa Lotoski, Jennifer O'Brien, Marcel F D'Eon.
       Background: Peer review is an integral part of the scientific process, ongoing efforts are needed to improve this process for both the reviewer and the scientific journal conducting peer review. This work describes the Canadian Medical Education Journal (CMEJ) peer reviewers' experiences in accepting or declining invitations to review.
    Methods: We deployed questionnaires between December 2020 and May 2022. We calculated descriptive statistics for each response group (accepted or declined invitations). We analyzed open-ended comments using conventional content analysis.
    Results: CMEJ Reviewers described their experiences within three broad categories of factors: individual, contextual, and journal. Participants strongly agreed or agreed to review an article (n = 95) because the article was: within their area of expertise (84/95 = 88.4%); within a topic of interest (n = 83, 87.4%); an appropriate length (n = 79, 83.2%); relevant to their work and/or interests (n = 77, 81.1%); of sufficient quality (n = 75, 78.9%); educational (n = 72, 75.8%); and provided the opportunity to remain up-to-date on current research (n = 69, 72.6%). Participants' (n = 17) most cited reason for declining their invitation to review for CMEJ was competing workloads (n = 14, 82.4%). Reviewers appreciated reviewer instructions, knowing the article's outcome, and seeing what other reviewers had to say.
    Conclusion: This work describes the enablers and barriers of CMEJ reviewers and highlights the need to acknowledge peer reviewers' work, while challenging institutions and journals to support peer review activities.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.36834/cmej.77193
  27. G Ital Cardiol (Rome). 2025 Apr;26(4): 217-219
    [Reflections on the transition of scientific publishing].
    Giuseppe Di Pasquale.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1714/4464.44609
  28. Food Saf (Tokyo). 2025 Mar;13(1): 22
    Announcement on Use of AI.
      In recent years, as significant progress has been made in artificial intelligence (AI) technology, various peer-reviewed journals have been extending the policies on use of AI. Considering this situation, Food Safety felt the need to address concerns about the use of the technologies such as Large Language Models (LLMs), chatbots, or image creators in the writing and reviewing of manuscripts. Food Safety , thus, has compiled a tentative and preliminary guideline for responsible use of AI tools based on the ICMJE Recommendations. Authors and reviewers are expected to refer to this guideline during the manuscript preparation and peer-review process. Guide for Authors for Food Safety will be updated in response to the comments from authors and reviewers, as well as updates on the ICMJE Recommendations and policies of other journals. Please feel free to contact Editorial Office of Food Safety if you have any comments or questions about the guideline.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.14252/foodsafetyfscj.D-25-00010
  29. Ann Fam Med. 2025 Mar 24. 23(2): 168-169
    When the Death of a Colleague Meets Academic Publishing: A Call for Compassion.
    Catherine G Derington.
      What would you do if someone approached you to sign a publishing form on your partner's behalf within mere weeks of their death? After my trusted, brilliant coworker died, I grappled daily between grieving her loss and driving productivity on her assigned projects. Because, after all, the world keeps spinning, research progresses, and manuscripts have to be published. In attempting to honor her memory through post-mortem authorship on publications, I was faced with a unique quandary of how to procure a signature on legal publishing forms, which is often requested during the publication process. Little guidance is available for corresponding authors on this issue, so I call on academic publishers to create post-mortem authorship policies that prioritize compassion, dignity, and rationality in the wake of grief.
    Keywords:  authorship; death; forms; post-mortem; publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.240287
  30. Nucleic Acids Res. 2025 Mar 20. pii: gkaf203. [Epub ahead of print]53(6):
    Looking back at 20 years of Open Access publishing at Nucleic Acids Research.
    Rich Roberts.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkaf203
  31. Endosc Ultrasound. 2025 Jan-Feb;14(1):14(1): 1-3
    What can artificial intelligence do for EUS?
    Sarakshi Mahajan, Sun Siyu, Manoop S Bhutani.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1097/eus.0000000000000102
This page is being maintained by Thomas Krichel. It was last updated on 2025‒04‒01 at 12:34.