bims-skolko Biomed News
on Scholarly communication
Issue of 2025–06–22
25 papers selected by
Thomas Krichel, Open Library Society
  1. Decentralized knowledge assessment.
  2. To: Science over language: a plea to consider language bias in scientific publishing.
  3. Journals Operating Predatory Practices Are Systematically Eroding the Science Ethos: A Gate and Code Strategy to Minimise Their Operating Space and Restore Research Best Practice.
  4. Predatory Journals.
  5. Publishing in predatory journals damages the credibility of science.
  6. Artificial intelligence transforming the publishing industry: a case of the book sector in Africa.
  7. Generative artificial intelligence and scientific publishing: Turning noise into trust.
  8. EXPRESS: Large Language Model Content Detectors: Effects of Human Editing and ChatGPT Mimicking Individual Style - A Preliminary Study.
  9. Defining the Boundaries of AI Use in Scientific Writing: A Comparative Review of Editorial Policies.
  10. Artificial Intelligence and Publishing Ethics: A Narrative Review and SWOT Analysis.
  11. The Power of Peer Review.
  12. Transparent peer review to be extended to all of Nature's research papers.
  13. Atmospheres of influence: the role of journal editors in shaping early climate change narratives - ERRATUM.
  14. The power of data sharing: strengthening research integrity and advancing scientific discovery.
  15. "It's messy and it's massive": How has the open science debate developed in the post-COVID era?
  16. On the Importance of Reference Verification in Scientific Writing.
  17. Strengthening Qualitative Research Manuscript Preparation for Submission to Progress in Transplantation.
  18. Writing for Impact: How to Craft a Standout Clinical Research Paper.
  19. From the editor: The five-generation workplace.
  20. Mentorship as a Catalyst for Academic Writing in Emergency Medicine.
  21. Write LIFE: Start Writing Without a Research Project.
  22. Reporting Guidelines for Music-based Intervention: an update and validation study.
  23. From conference to journal: Analyzing the path to publication for EUGA and JOGS 2022 abstracts.
  24. West and the rest? Interreferencing among majority world countries in developmental psychology research.
  25. Advancing Health communication, a Call for the Future: 30 Years of the Journal of Health Communication: International Perspectives.
  1. Innovation (Camb). 2025 Jun 02. 6(6): 100945
    Decentralized knowledge assessment.
    Kai Sun, Liyi Zhou, Yike Guo.
      The peer-review process, which serves as the quality-control mechanism of scientific knowledge production, has been criticized for its bias, unreliability, and inefficiency. Academic conferences and journals typically rely on a centralized mechanism for reviewer assignment and paper assessment. We argue that this centralization is a major factor contributing to the unreliability of the review process, leading to deficiencies in the current knowledge-assessment systems. To address this, we propose a novel decentralized model that democratizes peer review by shifting decision-making rights from centralized authorities to all scholars participating in a scholarly community. Our model includes a dual-rewarding incentive mechanism that motivates scholars to actively participate in peer review by recognizing both their effort and scientific contributions. This model transforms peer review from passive judgment to active collaboration. We simulated the model in conference settings and demonstrated its potential to revolutionize knowledge production and dissemination.
    Keywords:  decentralization; incentives; knowledge assessment; knowledge production; peer review
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.xinn.2025.100945
  2. Crit Care Sci. 2025 ;pii: S2965-27742025000101001. [Epub ahead of print]37 e20250027
    To: Science over language: a plea to consider language bias in scientific publishing.
    Rohan Magoon.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.62675/2965-2774.20250027
  3. Microb Biotechnol. 2025 Jun;18(6): e70180
    Journals Operating Predatory Practices Are Systematically Eroding the Science Ethos: A Gate and Code Strategy to Minimise Their Operating Space and Restore Research Best Practice.
    Kenneth Timmis, Paul Williams, Zeynep Ceren Karahan, Purificación López-García, Paul Rainey, Max Chavarria, Chris Greening, Karen Steward, John E Hallsworth, Cristina Silva Pereira, Rafael Giraldo, Willy Verstraete, Stipan Jonjić, Juan Luis Ramos, Olga Nunes, Antonio Ventosa, Rachel Armstrong, Angela Sessitsch, Eliora Ron, Hui Wang.
      Scientific research seeks to extend knowledge and understanding, an activity that perhaps more than any other advances society and humanity. In essence, it is the search for truth. But, because it seeks new knowledge, there is little or no benchmark for appraisal of the plausibility or validity of the immediate conclusions drawn from new information gained, no instant confirmation. For this and other reasons, the science ethos requires the highest level of rigour to ensure the highest level of probability that new findings are true, or at least the most plausible under the prevailing circumstances and state of knowledge. Research is only as good as its degree of rigour. Rigour comes through intensive and comprehensive scientific training and mentoring that teaches critical and agnostic evaluation of new results, self-scrutiny and self-criticism. Additional rigour comes via independent scrutiny and validation: peer review of results and interpretations submitted as publications, and peer repetition of key experiments. However, the current proliferation of publication vehicles whose business model is based on maximisation of papers published, and the revenue stream of article processing charges (APCs) they generate, is promoting an insidious degradation of rigour and quality standards of reviewing-editing practices. Such predatory practices result in the systematic degradation of research quality and its "truthfulness". Moreover, they undermine the science ethos and threaten to create a new generation of scientists that lack this ethos. These trends will inevitably progressively erode public trust in scientists and the research ecosystem. This Editorial is a call for action to all actors, in particular leaders, in scientific research to oppose predatory practices in science dissemination-to restrict the operational space of those responsible for such practices-in order to restore and maintain research rigour and the science ethos and to prevent a downward spiral of research quality. It proposes two linked actionable solutions to the problem, one for the "pull" element of predatory practices and one for the "push" element of research ecosystem management practices, especially those promoting the publish or perish mentality, that drive authors to publish in journals with predatory practices. To counter the "pull", we propose a solution based on the principle of prevention, rather than cure, and list a number of essential policy decisions and actions that should be taken at all levels of the science chain/cloud to achieve this. A central plank of the concept is journal accreditation, without which a journal would be ineligible for payment of APCs from public funds. For accreditation, a journal would need to convincingly demonstrate adoption of a prescribed journal code of conduct. Ideally, accreditation would also be required for inclusion in journal indexing and ranking services and bibliographic databases. To counter the "push", we propose a top-down imposition of a cultural change in science management that ensures merit-based success of scientists and their careers, research best practice, improved education and mentoring of younger scientists in the science ethos and greater support of them in their careers. This must include explicit recognition of the crucial role of peer reviewing for the good health of the research enterprise, its incentivisation and appropriate appreciation of the time and effort involved. To orchestrate this change, we propose the creation of a multi-stakeholder alliance whose brief is to develop the framework and implementation strategy for changes in the research ecosystem. This Editorial also exhorts all actors to embrace the principle of publish less, publish better and to use public funding provided by tax revenues more effectively to perpetually raise the bar of science quality, dissemination and potential to advance humanity.
    Keywords:  journal accreditation; journal and editorial code of conduct; peer review; predatory practices in research publication; publication inflation; science ethos; science management; special issues
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1111/1751-7915.70180
  4. Einstein (Sao Paulo). 2025 Jun 13. pii: S1679-45082025000100100. [Epub ahead of print]23 eED01663
    Predatory Journals.
    Jacyr Pasternak.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.31744/einstein_journal/2025ED1663
  5. J Sci Med Sport. 2025 Jul;pii: S1440-2440(25)00163-X. [Epub ahead of print]28(7): 519-520
    Publishing in predatory journals damages the credibility of science.
    Tim Meyer.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsams.2025.06.003
  6. Front Res Metr Anal. 2025 ;10 1504415
    Artificial intelligence transforming the publishing industry: a case of the book sector in Africa.
    Justin Salani, Mass Masona Tapfuma.
      The increasing availability and accessibility of artificial intelligence have triggered a seismic transformation of the publishing value chain, presenting unprecedented opportunities and challenges for publishers. Artificial Intelligence (AI) has been integrated into the entire publishing value chain, streamlining the processes of content acquisition by authors and publishers, content and product development, as well as the marketing and distribution of products. However, the disruptive force of AI renders some publishing functions obsolete and transforms the production and distribution of materials, and subsequently, knowledge dissemination. Despite the acknowledged value and potential of integrating especially generative artificial intelligence in the publishing industry, concerns have been raised over integrity, copyright and intellectual property rights in AI-generated content, text and data mining. The impetus of this study emanates from a dearth of literature on the adoption, challenges and opportunities associated with the integration of AI in the production, dissemination and distribution of publications in the book sector in Africa. This paper explores the role of artificial intelligence in the production and distribution of teaching and learning materials by educational publishers. Informed by the disruptive innovation theory, this conceptual paper provides a review of the extant literature on the integration of artificial intelligence in the educational publishing value chain in Africa and its implications on creativity, integrity and intellectual property rights issues associated with AI-generated content. The paper will proffer recommendations.
    Keywords:  Africa; artificial intelligence; book sector; digital publishing; disruptive technologies; educational book publishing; emerging technologies; textbook publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3389/frma.2025.1504415
  7. Surgery. 2025 Jul;pii: S0039-6060(25)00348-4. [Epub ahead of print]183 109496
    Generative artificial intelligence and scientific publishing: Turning noise into trust.
    Julio Mayol, Caitlin W Hicks, Steven D Wexner.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2025.109496
  8. J Investig Med. 2025 Jun 17. 10815589251352572
    EXPRESS: Large Language Model Content Detectors: Effects of Human Editing and ChatGPT Mimicking Individual Style - A Preliminary Study.
    Shigeki Matsubara.
      The use of large language model (LLM), such as ChatGPT, in academic writing is increasing, but the extent to which LLM-generated content can evade detection remains unclear. This descriptive pilot study investigates whether LLM-generated abstracts, edited by humans or LLM trained to mimic a specific writing style, can escape LLM detectors. Using a previously published original article, ChatGPT-4 generated an abstract (Abstract 1). This abstract underwent three modifications: context-based human editing (Abstract 2), stylistic human editing (Abstract 3), and ChatGPT editing incorporating the author's writing style (Abstract 4). The genuine human-written abstract from the original article served as Abstract 5. Five freely available LLM detectors analyzed these abstracts, providing LLM-generated probability scores. The genuinely LLM-generated manuscript (Abstract 1) was judged as LLM-generated with 82~100% (median: 100%) probability. The genuinely human-written manuscript (Abstract 5) was judged as human-written with the LLM-generated probability of 0~13% (median: 0%). Human-edited abstracts (Abstracts 2 and 3) exhibited a decreasing LLM-generated probability 4~71% (median: 64%) and 2~65% (median: 61%), respectively, but varied widely among detectors. The LLM-mimicked abstract (Abstract 4) was classified as LLM-generated, with LLM-generated probability ranging 82~100% (median: 100%). The results showed variations across different LLM detectors. Supplementary experiments demonstrated a similar trend. Human editing reduces LLM-detection probabilities but does not guarantee evasion. LLM-generated content mimicking a specific writing style remains largely detectable. This preliminary experiment provided a novel study concept. Further studies on various manuscripts and different LLM detection methods will enhance understanding of the relationship between LLM-aided paper writing and LLM detectors.
    Keywords:  Education; Medical; Medicine; Publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1177/10815589251352572
  9. J Korean Med Sci. 2025 Jun 16. 40(23): e187
    Defining the Boundaries of AI Use in Scientific Writing: A Comparative Review of Editorial Policies.
    Jin-Hong Yoo.
      The rapid rise of generative artificial intelligence (AI) is fundamentally transforming the landscape of medical writing and publishing. In response, major academic organizations and high-impact journals have released guidelines addressing core ethical concerns, including authorship qualification, disclosure of AI use, and the attribution of accountability. This review analyzes and compares key statements from several international medical or scientific editors' organizations along with submission policies of major leading journals. It also evaluates the AI usage policy of the Journal of Korean Medical Science (JKMS), which presents one of the most specific frameworks among Korean journals, and offers suggestions for refinement. While most journals prohibit listing AI tools as authors, their stance on AI-assisted writing varies. JKMS aligns with international norms by prohibiting AI authorship and recommending that authors explicitly report the tool name, prompt, purpose, and scope of AI use. This policy demonstrates a flexible but principled approach to AI integration. The limitations of AI detection tools are also discussed. These tools often struggle with accuracy and bias, with known tendencies to misclassify human-written content as AI-generated. As such, sole reliance on detection tools is insufficient for editorial decisions. Instead, fostering a culture of ethical authorship and responsible disclosure remains essential. This review highlights the need for balanced policies that promote transparency without impeding innovation. By clarifying disclosure expectations and reinforcing human accountability, journals can guide the ethical use of AI in scientific writing and maintain the integrity of scholarly communication.
    Keywords:  Authorship; ChatGPT; Generative AI; Publishing; Writing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2025.40.e187
  10. Cureus. 2025 May;17(5): e84098
    Artificial Intelligence and Publishing Ethics: A Narrative Review and SWOT Analysis.
    Pooja Gurnal, Lokesh Rana.
      Artificial intelligence (AI), after surviving two major AI winters (1974-1980 and 1987-2000), is now growing at an exponential rate. This rapid advancement, particularly in its application to medical science and literature, has significantly transformed how research is conducted. The large language tools can produce highly realistic text, enabling diverse tasks with broad applications. In other words, their responses resemble human answers to human questions; however, their malicious use poses serious challenges to scientific research integrity and literature, especially when outputs influence human life, the ethical compass gains more importance than the benefits. This review aims to provide a comprehensive narrative review of AI, in particular the emergence of large language models and their impact on healthcare scientific research, with a focus on the challenges it poses to ethics and scientific integrity. In addition, it aims to discuss the evolving guidelines from various international organizations on authorship, transparency, and the responsible use of AI. Databases such as PubMed, Cochrane, Scopus, and Google Scholar were searched to provide a comprehensive review from the published literature on the emergence of AI in the healthcare research setting, along with its positive and negative impacts on research ethics. We also performed a SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats) analysis of AI in research publications and evaluated the ethical challenges it poses. Chatbots are AI-based conversational large language models, which are proving to be of significant importance in healthcare education, practice, and research. However, caution needs to be exercised in its malicious fabricated use. Organizations such as the Committee on Publication Ethics, World Association of Medical Editors, Journal of the American Medical Association, and International Committee of Medical Journal Editors state that chatbots do not qualify as co-authors, with only responsible and ethical use of AI being permitted. Caution needs to be exercised at the individual level by academics when they use these tools, and they should be transparent in their disclosure of their use. The advent of Google revolutionized scientific research, and similarly, AI-assisted chatbots represent the next leap forward. Hence, it is crucial to use these tools with caution, accountability, and transparency. Through this narrative review, we aim to guide researchers in understanding new guidelines and approaches to research ethics in this fast-evolving era of AI.
    Keywords:  artificial intelligence; chatbots; large language models (llms); publishing ethics; swot analysis
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.84098
  11. Sr Care Pharm. 2025 Jun 01. 40(6): 235-236
    The Power of Peer Review.
    Demetra Antimisiaris, Patricia W Slattum.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.4140/TCP.n.2025.235
  12. Nature. 2025 Jun;642(8068): 542
    Transparent peer review to be extended to all of Nature's research papers.
      
    Keywords:  Authorship; Peer review; Publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-025-01880-9
  13. Br J Hist Sci. 2025 Jun 18. 1
    Atmospheres of influence: the role of journal editors in shaping early climate change narratives - ERRATUM.
    Robert Naylor, Eleanor Shaw.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007087425000408
  14. Korean J Pain. 2025 Jun 18.
    The power of data sharing: strengthening research integrity and advancing scientific discovery.
    Jose Eric Mella Lacsa.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3344/kjp.25103
  15. F1000Res. 2025 ;14 500
    "It's messy and it's massive": How has the open science debate developed in the post-COVID era?
    Melanie T Benson Marshall, Stephen Pinfield, Pamela Abbott, Andrew Cox, Juan Pablo Alperin, Natascha Chtena, Alice Fleerackers.
      The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated the global adoption of open science (OS) practices. However, as the pandemic subsides, the debate around OS continues to evolve. This study investigates how the pandemic has shaped the OS discourse and identifies key issues and challenges. Interviews were conducted with influential stakeholders across the research and publishing communities. The findings show that while many areas of debate remained constant, the ways in which they were discussed exposed underlying systemic challenges, which must be addressed if OS is to progress. These issues included the scope and definition of OS; regional variations in its implementation; the relationship between OS and fundamental questions of the purpose and practice of science; and the need to reform incentives and reward structures within the research system. A more complex understanding of OS is required, which takes into account the importance of equity and diversity and the challenges of implementing OS in different cultural and geographical contexts. The study emphasises the importance of shifting scientific culture to prioritise values such as quality, integrity, and openness, and reforming rewards structures to incentivise open practices.
    Keywords:  COVID-19; Open science; open access; preprints; science communication; scientific culture
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.162577.1
  16. J Craniofac Surg. 2025 Jun 19.
    On the Importance of Reference Verification in Scientific Writing.
    Mustafa Said Tekin, Şamil Şahin, Yaşar Kemal Duymaz, İlhan Bahşi.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0000000000011575
  17. Prog Transplant. 2025 Jun 17. 15269248251349759
    Strengthening Qualitative Research Manuscript Preparation for Submission to Progress in Transplantation.
    Nicholas R Henry.
      
    Keywords:  ethnography; grounded theory; performance improvement; phenomenology; qualitative research; quality; rigor
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1177/15269248251349759
  18. Foot Ankle Orthop. 2025 Apr;10(2): 24730114251347096
    Writing for Impact: How to Craft a Standout Clinical Research Paper.
    Charles L Saltzman, Robert B Anderson, Brad D Blankenhorn, John T Campbell, Christopher P Chiodo, Timothy R Daniels, George B Holmes, Ellie Pinsker, Stefan Rammelt, Robert A Vander Griend.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1177/24730114251347096
  19. Work. 2025 Jun 19. 10519815251349372
    From the editor: The five-generation workplace.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1177/10519815251349372
  20. AEM Educ Train. 2025 Jun;9(3): e70062
    Mentorship as a Catalyst for Academic Writing in Emergency Medicine.
    J David Gatz, T Andrew Windsor, Eileen Chu, Zachary D W Dezman, Laura J Bontempo.
       Background: Academic writing is an important professional development skill, yet emergency medicine (EM) residents rank their competency in this area poorly. The goal of this study is to define the impact of an academic writing mentorship program on EM residents and faculty.
    Methods: Forty-three mentorship program participants from a single academic EM department were surveyed regarding their academic productivity and their interest, confidence, difficulty, familiarity, and assessment of the importance of academic writing. Participants also rated the quality of their mentorship and suggested improvements to the program. Data was analyzed using a Wilcoxon signed-rank test.
    Results: There was an 81.4% survey response rate (18 residents and 17 faculty). Respondents reported significantly increased interest and confidence in academic writing, and increased familiarity with the peer-reviewed publishing process after participation. Respondents reported significantly decreased perceived difficulty of academic writing after mentorship program participation. Participants had increased manuscript submission rates after participation.
    Conclusion: Participation in an academic writing mentorship program positively impacts both EM residents and faculty perceptions of academic writing and decreases the perceived difficulty of academic writing. Participation was associated with increased academic writing productivity.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1002/aet2.70062
  21. Fam Med. 2025 Jun 03.
    Write LIFE: Start Writing Without a Research Project.
    Sarah I Ramírez, Héctor Arreaza, Viviana Martinez-Bianchi, Donna Baluchi, José E Rodríguez.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.22454/FamMed.2025.162513
  22. Front Psychol. 2025 ;16 1551920
    Reporting Guidelines for Music-based Intervention: an update and validation study.
    Sheri L Robb, Stacey Springs, Emmeline Edwards, Tasha L Golden, Julene K Johnson, Debra S Burns, Melita Belgrave, Joke Bradt, Christian Gold, Assal Habibi, John R Iversen, Miriam Lense, Jessica A MacLean, Susan M Perkins.
       Background: Detailed intervention reporting is essential to interpretation, replication, and translation of music-based interventions (MBIs). The 2011 Reporting Guidelines for Music-Based Interventions were developed to improve transparency and reporting quality of published research; however, problems with reporting quality persist. This represents a significant barrier to advances in MBI scientific research and translation of findings to practice.
    Objective: To update and validate the 2011 reporting guidelines using a rigorous Delphi approach that involved an interdisciplinary group of MBI researchers; and to develop an explanation and elaboration guidance statement to support dissemination and usage.
    Methods: We followed the methodological framework for developing reporting guidelines recommended by the EQUATOR Network and guidance recommendations for developing health research reporting guidelines. Our three-stage process included: (1) an initial field scan, (2) a consensus process using Delphi surveys (two rounds) and Expert Panel meetings, and (3) development and dissemination of an explanation and elaboration document.
    Results: First-Round survey findings revealed that the original checklist items were capturing content that investigators deemed essential to MBI reporting; however, it also revealed problems with item wording and terminology. Subsequent Expert Panel meetings and the Second-Round survey centered on reaching consensus for item language. The revised RG-MBI checklist has a total of 12-items that pertain to eight different components of MBI interventions including name, theory/scientific rationale, content, interventionist, individual/group, setting, delivery schedule, and treatment fidelity.
    Conclusion: We recommend that authors, journal editors, and reviewers use the RG-MBI guidelines, in conjunction with methods-based guidelines (e.g., CONSORT) to accelerate and improve the scientific rigor of MBI research.
    Keywords:  intervention; music; music therapy; reporting guidelines; reporting quality
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1551920
  23. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2025 Jun 18.
    From conference to journal: Analyzing the path to publication for EUGA and JOGS 2022 abstracts.
    Reut Rotem, Bobby D O'Leary, Claire M McCarthy, Barry A O'Reilly, Orfhlaith E O'Sullivan.
       OBJECTIVE: To determine the full-text publication rate of abstracts presented at the European Urogynaecological Association (EUGA) and the Junior Obstetrics and Gynecology Society (JOGS) annual scientific meetings in 2022, and to compare variables such as publication format, number of authors, and journal impact factor.
    METHODS: Abstract lists from the 2022 EUGA and JOGS meetings were reviewed. PubMed searches were conducted to identify corresponding full-text publications up to August 2024 inclusive. Matches were determined based on substantial similarities in study title, authorship, and study design. Statistical comparisons were made using χ tests and Mann-Whitney U tests.
    RESULTS: A total of 304 abstracts were included (138 EUGA, 166 JOGS), with an overall publication rate of 21.1%. EUGA had a significantly higher publication rate than JOGS (31.9% vs. 12.7%, P < 0.001). Oral presentations were more likely to be published than poster presentations (P < 0.001), with no significant difference in oral presentation publication rates between conferences (50% vs. 40%, P = 0.636). Poster presentations at EUGA had a higher publication rate than JOGS (22.3% vs. 8.9%, P = 0.006). Abstracts were more likely to be published if they had a greater number of authors (P < 0.001). The median journal Impact factor was 2.6, and 50% of published articles were open access.
    CONCLUSION: International and national conferences play a crucial role in disseminating evidence, although just over one-fifth of presented abstracts progress to publication. A higher number of authors was associated with increased publication rates. Notably, oral presentations at both national and international levels were linked to favorable publication outcomes.
    Keywords:  education; medical literature; training; urogynecology
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1002/ijgo.70319
  24. Dev Psychol. 2025 Jun 16.
    West and the rest? Interreferencing among majority world countries in developmental psychology research.
    Xuan Li.
      Despite increasing awareness of sample, author, and editor representation and measurement equivalence in developmental psychology (DP), implicit and nuanced unevenness in the knowledge production consolidating the persisting Minority World dominance remains less explored. Inspired by Chen's (2010) "Asia as Method," this commentary introduces and investigates interreferencing among Majority World countries as a methodological approach that could potentially break through the Minority World dominance. A survey of 3,879 empirical articles from four top DP journals (Developmental Psychology, Child Development, Developmental Science, International Journal of Behavioral Development) up to 2022 showed that the total volume and proportion of studies including any Majority World sample(s) grew from the 2003-2013 period (11.41%) to the 2018-2022 period (14.72%). Nevertheless, studies including multiple Majority World samples (and potentially, using each other as points of reference) remain rare (1.31%), and existing interreferencing studies appear to be the fruits of exceptional teams rather than routinized scholarly practices. While challenging, interreferencing among Majority World countries is important as it can help demonstrate the contextual diversity within the Majority World; identify and test border-crossing processes and their developmental impacts; generate new scholarly insight; avoid essentialist or nationalist interpretation of research findings; and alleviate power imbalance in international research teams. Without excluding Minority World scholarship or undervaluing studies that include single Majority World samples, interreferencing can help Majority World scholars accumulate a greater presence, build allegiance, and develop a stronger sense of subjectivity that would lead to theoretical and methodological breakthroughs in the long run. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0002001
  25. J Health Commun. 2025 Jun 18. 1-6
    Advancing Health communication, a Call for the Future: 30 Years of the Journal of Health Communication: International Perspectives.
    Scott C Ratzan, Rebecca K Ivic, Sara Rubinelli, Kenneth H Rabin, Hye Kyung Kim, Ruth M Parker.
      The 30th anniversary of the Journal of Health Communication: International Perspectives occurs at a pivotal moment. In our inaugural issue in 1996, founding editor Scott Ratzan described his vision "to promote global health with effective communication strategies to improve health outcomes and well-being." Since then, JOHC has consistently championed rigorous and forward-thinking research and perspectives that have helped shape today's multi-disciplinary practice. As we mark this milestone and honor the Journal's legacy, we must also confront the pressing challenges that define the current landscape of health communication. We live in an era where scientific reasoning is increasingly questioned by policymakers, patients, and the public alike. The institutions that have traditionally upheld evidence-based practice have lost trust, respect and authority. In this evolving context, health communication cannot remain a static field. In the decades ahead, the Journal must take an active and unapologetic stance-maintaining the highest ethics while driving innovation in digital health communication, scientific methodology, data interpretation and translation for better uptake. Its mission must be to accelerate measurable global health gains by advancing communication strategies that not only inform, but inspire trust, foster agency, and empower individuals and populations to make evidence-based choices they willingly and confidently adopt.
    Keywords:  Health communication; health literacy; perspectives
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2025.2515206
This page is being maintained by Thomas Krichel. It was last updated on 2025‒06‒24 at 4:39.