bims-skolko Biomed News
on Scholarly communication
Issue of 2025–10–19
28 papers selected by
Thomas Krichel, Open Library Society
  1. "We find that…" changing patterns of epistemic positioning in research writing.
  2. Mapping the dissemination of scientific literature during the COVID-19 pandemic.
  3. What an academic misconduct accusation taught me about sharing research.
  4. The False Currency of Authorship.
  5. How journals can break down barriers for Latin American scientists.
  6. Comparing companion open access journals to their traditional journal counterparts.
  7. Author or prompter? Scientific writing, identity, and the Theseus paradox.
  8. The Transparency Paradox: Why Researchers Avoid Disclosing AI Assistance in Scientific Writing.
  9. Artificial intelligence in scientific publishing: technology advances, integrity must remain.
  10. Generative AI: Opportunities, Risks, and Responsibilities for Oral Sciences.
  11. Integrating artificial intelligence into scientific writing: a narrative review for clinical and surgical researchers.
  12. Artificial Intelligence in Medical Writing: Decide its Use or Non-Use Based on Long-Span Merits.
  13. AI: Journals are automatically rejecting public health dataset papers to combat paper mills.
  14. Papers based on open health data face bans.
  15. Development and Implementation of a Peer Review Training Program.
  16. How to Review a Literary Paper or a Scientific Paper?
  17. Peer Review Is in Peril: What Can We Do About It?
  18. Transparency and Reporting in the Evaluation of PD1 by Flow Cytometry.
  19. Open science must include effective results dissemination to study participants.
  20. Structured writing retreats to address barriers to scientific writing.
  21. Publishing Qualitative Research in the Journal for Continuing Education in the Health Professions: A Guide for Authors.
  22. Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity Research Manuscript Writing Guide.
  23. Editorial: Demystifying academic writing in higher education: a process view on academic textual production.
  24. Too many numbers?
  25. Where is the Power in a Power Analysis?
  26. Statistical power analysis in exercise science.
  27. Conversion of theses submitted to the National Board of Examinations for postgraduate degrees into published papers.
  28. Do we publish what we present? Analysis of publications derived from SEMICYUC congresses.
  1. Front Psychol. 2025 ;16 1634848
    "We find that…" changing patterns of epistemic positioning in research writing.
    Yanfang Yang, Xuan Guo.
       Introduction: Epistemic positioning refers to the writer's commitment to the truth of a proposition and assessment of its potential impact on readers. Despite its importance, little attention has been paid to how writers make epistemic judgments across disciplines over time.
    Methods: Drawing on Hyland and Zou's taxonomies of hedges and boosters, we analyzed 240 research articles from education, history, mechanical engineering, and physics, covering three periods (1960, 1990, and 2020).
    Results: Our findings show that epistemic positioning has significantly decreased across all four disciplines over time, with writers increasingly preferring less use of epistemic markers in pursuit of an objective, data-based, and scientific style.
    Discussion: These results suggest a disciplinary shift in research writing practices and have important implications for raising students' and novice academic writers' awareness of evolving knowledge discourses shaped by changing societies.
    Keywords:  diachronic change; disciplinary variation; epistemic positioning; hedges and boosters; research writing history
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1634848
  2. Intern Med J. 2025 Oct;55(10): 1762-1765
    Mapping the dissemination of scientific literature during the COVID-19 pandemic.
    Jack Bradbury, Francis Ha, Joanne So, Patrick Charles, Zachary Spencer, Anoop Koshy, Omar Farouque, Elif Ekinci, Nigel Sutherland, Han Lim.
      The use of social media continues to introduce novel means for the communication of scientific knowledge. We assessed the change in social media use between pandemics regarding total shares, rates of dissemination and rates of global uptake of articles communicating the spread of diseases between epicentres. We found a substantial temporal increase in the use of social media for this purpose, as well as large global discrepancies in circulation, highlighting the role social media has in the communication of scientific knowledge globally and the importance of journals adopting social media policies.
    Keywords:  COVID‐19; disaster planning; journal metrics; scientific communication; social media
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1111/imj.70151
  3. Nature. 2025 Oct 13.
    What an academic misconduct accusation taught me about sharing research.
    Jack W Baker.
      
    Keywords:  Careers; Lab life; Publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-025-02947-3
  4. Am J Med. 2025 Oct 10. pii: S0002-9343(25)00692-8. [Epub ahead of print]
    The False Currency of Authorship.
    Javier Arredondo Montero.
      
    Keywords:  Academic integrity; Authorship inflation; Contributorship; Medical education; Research evaluation
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjmed.2025.10.001
  5. Nature. 2025 Oct;646(8085): 517
    How journals can break down barriers for Latin American scientists.
    Mariana Viglino.
      
    Keywords:  Careers; Scientific community; Society
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-025-03304-0
  6. Account Res. 2025 Oct 18. 1-12
    Comparing companion open access journals to their traditional journal counterparts.
    Alexander Pohlman, Ayham M Odeh, Shawn M Purnell, Layan Alrahmani, Shanda H Blackmon, Julia M Coughlin, Zaid M Abdelsattar.
       BACKGROUND: Many traditional journals have launched companion open access (cOA) journals with similar scope and aims. These journals seek better article dissemination through removal of the paywall and use of article processing charges (APCs). Traditional journals often suggest transfer to their cOA journal, leaving authors with a decision to accept transfer and pay an APC or resubmit elsewhere. We aim to compare costs and impact of these journals to better inform authors.
    METHODS: The top 15 U.S.-based traditional journals within medicine, surgery, pediatrics, and OB/GYN were identified based on 2023 impact factor. Those with cOA journals were included, and all publication data between 2011 and 2023 were extracted. Citation counts were compared using Poisson regression; author demographics were analyzed using multivariable logistic regression.
    RESULTS: There were 14 traditional journals with cOA counterparts, constituting 52,232 publications from 36,577 authors. cOA articles had half the citations of traditional publications (9.4 vs 18.2) and collected an estimated $35 million in APCs. Female and low/middle income country (LMIC) authors were more likely to publish in cOA journals (aOR = 1.23, 1.14, respectively).
    CONCLUSIONS: Authors publishing in companion open access journals incur higher publication costs, and yet, receive fewer citations per publication.
    Keywords:  Companion open access journal; article processing charge; traditional journal
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2025.2575211
  7. Philos Ethics Humanit Med. 2025 Oct 14. 20(1): 29
    Author or prompter? Scientific writing, identity, and the Theseus paradox.
    Metin Akgün.
      Scientific authorship is undergoing a subtle but profound transformation. With the rise of generative artificial intelligence (AI), the boundary between human contribution and machine assistance is increasingly blurred. This article explores how AI-assisted scientific writing challenges traditional definitions of authorship, accountability, and intellectual ownership. Drawing on both identity debates and contribution-based accounts, it argues that the growing role of AI in manuscript production demands a reconsideration of contributor roles, transparency, and recognition. Using the Ship of Theseus as a guiding metaphor, the argument shows how authorship can be reconceived when human-authored components are progressively replaced with AI-generated content. The central concern is not whether AI should be credited, but how the human contribution, control, and accountability should be tracked and attributed when AI mediates linguistic or argumentative content. A set of policy measures is proposed-linking existing authorship standards to disclosure thresholds, contributor roles, and an empirical programme for monitoring AI use-to preserve credibility and accountability.
    Keywords:  Artificial intelligence; Authorship accountability; Intellectual property; Prompt engineering; Publication ethics; Scientific authorship; Ship of theseus
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1186/s13010-025-00195-x
  8. Nat Sci Sleep. 2025 ;17 2569-2574
    The Transparency Paradox: Why Researchers Avoid Disclosing AI Assistance in Scientific Writing.
    Ahmed S BaHammam.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.2147/NSS.S568375
  9. Arch Argent Pediatr. 2025 Oct 16. e202510907
    Artificial intelligence in scientific publishing: technology advances, integrity must remain.
    Mariano Ibarra, Fernando Ferrero.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.5546/aap.2025-10907.eng
  10. J Dent Res. 2025 Oct 15. 220345251356408
    Generative AI: Opportunities, Risks, and Responsibilities for Oral Sciences.
    F Schwendicke, S K Sidhu, J L Ferracane, A Tichy, N S Jakubovics.
      Generative artificial intelligence (AI) has the capability to generate new content-including text, code, imagery, video, and speech-based on human prompts and is entering dental and oral research. By retrieving, analyzing, summarizing, and contextualizing vast datasets, generative AI offers substantial potential to enhance scientific workflows. It can improve documentation, communication, and reproducibility while saving time and accelerating discovery. However, its integration into research brings significant ethical, societal, and scientific challenges. Concerns include embedded data biases, automation bias, overreliance, and error propagation, all requiring critical human oversight. Furthermore, generative AI raises complex issues around plagiarism, fraud, attribution, and reproducibility, compounded by the potential for AI "hallucinations" or fabricated content. Addressing these concerns demands transparency, robust verification processes, ethical compliance, and clear documentation distinguishing synthetic from real-world data. Several scientific and regulatory bodies have published guidelines to support responsible AI use. Recommendations relevant to scientists in dental, oral, and craniofacial research include transparent disclosure of AI tools and methods, thorough verification of AI outputs, ethical oversight, and active monitoring. Scientists are urged to work collaboratively with stakeholders to enforce these principles and engage the public in the evolving discourse. The risk of misuse, particularly through fraudulent AI-generated publications, is growing. Paper mills exploiting generative AI can produce fabricated or manipulated articles, which may mislead the scientific community and distort evidence bases. Coordinated action, involving journals, institutions, and ethics bodies, is essential to combat these threats. As generative AI continues to evolve, adaptive and harmonized guidelines will be necessary to safeguard scientific integrity. Researchers, reviewers, and editors must play a proactive role in ensuring that AI serves to advance-not undermine-the quality and trustworthiness of dental and oral science.
    Keywords:  artificial intelligence; large language models; peer review; reproducibility of results; responsible artificial intelligence; scientific misconduct
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1177/00220345251356408
  11. Am J Surg. 2025 Oct 10. pii: S0002-9610(25)00480-5. [Epub ahead of print]250 116657
    Integrating artificial intelligence into scientific writing: a narrative review for clinical and surgical researchers.
    Suleyman Utku Celik.
      Artificial intelligence (AI), particularly large language models, is reshaping academic and clinical research by supporting key stages of the scientific writing process, including idea generation, literature review, drafting, and revision. Tools such as ChatGPT enhance efficiency, clarity, and accessibility while assisting with hypothesis development, evidence synthesis, data analysis, and figure generation. This narrative review examines the benefits, challenges, and ethical considerations of AI-assisted scientific writing, with emphasis on medical and surgical research. While AI tools streamline manuscript preparation when effectively prompted, they also pose risks such as hallucinations, biased outputs, plagiarism, and reduced critical engagement. Concerns have emerged regarding overreliance and diminished scholarly autonomy. Editorial policies increasingly require transparency and human oversight. To ensure responsible use, structured training for researchers and reviewers is essential. AI should be seen as an augmentative tool that complements-not replaces-human expertise, offering opportunities to broaden access to publishing and promote equitable participation in scientific discourse.
    Keywords:  Artificial intelligence; Biomedical research; Manuscript; Natural language processing; Scientific writing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2025.116657
  12. Ann Card Anaesth. 2025 Oct 01. 28(4): 508-509
    Artificial Intelligence in Medical Writing: Decide its Use or Non-Use Based on Long-Span Merits.
    Shigeki Matsubara.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.4103/aca.aca_95_25
  13. BMJ. 2025 Oct 15. 391 r2170
    AI: Journals are automatically rejecting public health dataset papers to combat paper mills.
    Luke Taylor.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.r2170
  14. Science. 2025 Oct 16. 390(6770): 222-223
    Papers based on open health data face bans.
    Cathleen O'Grady.
      PLOS, Frontiers, and others announce policies intended to stem the tide of suspect papers.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aed1020
  15. Am J Pharm Educ. 2025 Oct 14. pii: S0002-9459(25)00530-3. [Epub ahead of print] 101884
    Development and Implementation of a Peer Review Training Program.
    Jonathan Thigpen, Kevin N Astle, Aleda M H Chen, Surajit Dey, Michael Hegener.
       OBJECTIVE: To create and implement a peer review training program for the American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education.
    METHODS: From 2019 to 2022, several iterations of task forces worked on creating the Reviewer Mentorship Program. The program was designed to appeal to novice reviewers and utilizes a "Mentee"/"Mentor" format, focusing on mentorship and hands-on experiences. Demographics and other characteristics of cohort participants were documented. The program's inaugural cohort launched in the summer of 2022.
    RESULTS: Three cohorts have enrolled in the program to date. Interest remains high with 71, 67, and 81 Mentee applications and 22, 25, and 27 final pairs respectively (Cohort 1, Cohort 2, and Cohort 3).
    CONCLUSION: The American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education successfully established its Reviewer Mentorship Program as a means to improve the quantity and quality of peer reviews. The program provides an opportunity for knowledge and skills development for novice reviewers and continues to improve over time.
    Keywords:  mentorship; professional development; reviewer; training
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajpe.2025.101884
  16. J Craniofac Surg. 2025 Oct 15.
    How to Review a Literary Paper or a Scientific Paper?
    Kun Hwang.
      Reviewing, whether of literary essays or scientific manuscripts, is a discipline that extends beyond the application of formal scoring rubrics. Having engaged in both domains-as a referee of student essay competitions and as a reviewer for scientific journals-the author reflects on the common principles and distinct challenges that underlie these processes. Literary works are judged for authenticity, emotional resonance, and aesthetic depth, while scientific manuscripts are evaluated for novelty, rigor, and utility. Despite these differences, both forms of writing share essential foundations: clarity, honesty, and structural coherence. In the current publishing climate, the responsibilities of reviewers are amplified by the proliferation of more than 19,000 new journals worldwide. Alongside opportunities for knowledge dissemination come significant ethical challenges, including fabricated data, plagiarized content, and the growing presence of AI-generated manuscripts. Reviewers must now act not only as evaluators but also as guardians of integrity. Principles of good practice include careful attention to originality, internal consistency of data and methods, awareness of suspicious or formulaic text, impartiality, and timely communication of ethical concerns to editors. The essay also addresses the dilemma faced when a paper that has been reviewed is later retracted. Such events should not be viewed solely as failures of the review process but as demonstrations of the corrective mechanisms inherent in scholarly publishing. Ultimately, the reviewer's role is to ensure that literature-whether literary or scientific-remains a trustworthy medium for meaning, truth, and human connection.
    Keywords:  Journal article; peer review; research; review literature as topic
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0000000000012069
  17. Fertil Steril. 2025 Oct 14. pii: S0015-0282(25)01993-4. [Epub ahead of print]
    Peer Review Is in Peril: What Can We Do About It?
    Allison A Eubanks, Catherine Racowsky.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2025.10.015
  18. Cytometry A. 2025 Oct 16.
    Transparency and Reporting in the Evaluation of PD1 by Flow Cytometry.
    Marc Sorigue, Roser Salvia, Jordi Petriz.
      Transparent and reproducible reporting is essential in flow cytometry, particularly in cancer research where it is used to evaluate biomarkers like PD1. However, inadequate reporting remains a significant concern. In this study, we conducted a methodological review of 100 recent manuscripts from various journals that assessed PD1 expression by flow cytometry in cancer. We evaluated reporting across six domains: methods, dotplot availability, gating strategy, robustness of analysis, figure presentation, and data availability. We found that compliance with basic standards was suboptimal, with only 35%-70% of manuscripts meeting these criteria across different domains. While reagent and device reporting was strong (~90%), transparency regarding key data, such as representative PD1 dotplots and complete gating sequences, was lacking. Contrary to our initial expectations, journal impact factor and whether a journal was focused on cytometry did not correlate consistently with reporting quality. Our findings highlight an urgent need for authors to improve their reporting practices, for reviewers to increase their vigilance, and for journal editors to enforce minimal reporting standards.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1002/cyto.a.24969
  19. PLoS Med. 2025 Oct 15. 22(10): e1004780
    Open science must include effective results dissemination to study participants.
    Ka Hin Tai, Gérard Legoff, Anne Le Louarn, Nchangwi Syntia Munung, Florian Naudet.
      Open science often centers around publications and data transparency. We highlight how and why disseminating results to study participants is essential for maximizing the values and benefits of open science.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1004780
  20. J Pediatr Psychol. 2025 Oct 15. pii: jsaf091. [Epub ahead of print]
    Structured writing retreats to address barriers to scientific writing.
    Meghan E McGrady, Rachelle R Ramsey.
       OBJECTIVE: Supporting pediatric psychologists who identify as women in overcoming barriers to scientific writing is critical for the career development and advancement of pediatric psychology science priorities of the Society of Pediatric Psychology 2022-2026 Strategic Plan. The purpose of this topical review is to introduce structured writing retreats as a promising strategy for supporting scientific writing among pediatric psychologists.
    METHODS: Recent literature was reviewed to identify barriers to scientific writing and the impacts of structured writing retreats.
    RESULTS: Service burdens, social inequities, and environmental factors impact scientific writing productivity. Structured writing retreats are multi-day, off-campus sessions that can address barriers to writing by providing the protected time and space, supportive peer environment, and behavior change strategies critical for writing. Recommendations for faculty, mentors, and institutions to support engagement in structured writing retreats are provided.
    CONCLUSIONS: This topical review is a call for leaders in pediatric psychology to champion structured writing retreats as a strategic approach to overcoming writing barriers and increasing research productivity.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1093/jpepsy/jsaf091
  21. J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2025 Oct 16.
    Publishing Qualitative Research in the Journal for Continuing Education in the Health Professions: A Guide for Authors.
    Linda Caples, Anita Samuel.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1097/CEH.0000000000000624
  22. Psychol Sex Orientat Gend Divers. 2024 Sep;11(3): 365-396
    Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity Research Manuscript Writing Guide.
    Cindy B Veldhuis, Cory J Cascalheira, Kevin Delucio, Stephanie L Budge, Em Matsuno, Kiet Huynh, Jae A Puckett, Kimberly F Balsam, Brandon L Velez, M Paz Galupo.
      Research on 2SLGBTQIA+ people is relatively new and often marginalized within the field, which can make it hard for researchers to learn how to do this research. We thus wrote this article as a way to provide support and direction for researchers, mentors, reviewers, and journal editors. Rather than providing hard-and-fast rules for how to write about 2SLGBTQIA+ topics, we hope to encourage researchers to be thoughtful and to ensure they keep the needs of the community at the top of their minds.
    Keywords:  Research; guidance; publishing; reflexivity; research training
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1037/sgd0000722
  23. Front Psychol. 2025 ;16 1702487
    Editorial: Demystifying academic writing in higher education: a process view on academic textual production.
    Xinghua Liu, Rui A Alves, A Angelique Aitken, Josef Schmied.
      
    Keywords:  AI; academic writing; higher education; process view; teaching and learning of writing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1702487
  24. Syst Biol. 2025 Oct 17. pii: syaf076. [Epub ahead of print]
    Too many numbers?
    F James Rohlf.
      A somewhat personal account of the development and acceptance of numerical taxonomic methods during the early years of the journal Systematic Zoology. Includes a few perspectives on the changes in taxonomy and the journal after 75 years.
    Keywords:  early computers; history of systematics; mosquitoes; numerical taxonomy
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1093/sysbio/syaf076
  25. Int J Exerc Sci. 2025 ;18(2): 1114-1120
    Where is the Power in a Power Analysis?
    Kevin D Dames, Zoe Climenhaga, Jared Rosenberg.
      Strategic planning of research involves predicting the number of replications of the experiment needed to detect an expected effect. The power analysis to determine sample size for the proposed experiment requires known or estimated characteristics of existing distributions. When used well, power analysis reduces the risk of statistical errors, wasted efforts, and temptations to twist ensuing analyses to eke out a 'significant' result after data collections conclude. This editorial highlights some examples of how this process goes awry. Sections are dedicated to the role of researchers, the case for 'pilot' studies, and the critical involvement of reviewers as arbiters of best practices. Throughout, the importance of reporting standard statistical data to support conclusions is identified as the platform for enabling future power analyses. Logical, evidence-based pre-planning of studies and implementing standard statistical reporting increases transparency of research, the likelihood of a study to be cited in the future, and enhances the body of research that exercise scientists collectively build.
    Keywords:  Alpha and Beta; Type I and Type II error; statistical error
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.70252/AVGK2063
  26. J Sports Sci. 2025 Oct 15. 1-17
    Statistical power analysis in exercise science.
    Aki Uehata, Robert Rein.
      The replicability crisis has widespread debate in many academic disciplines, yet it remains an underexplored issue in exercise science. A major factor contributing to the lack of replicability across disciplines is the low statistical power of studies. In contrast to the common interpretation of low statistical power, where low power only decreases the probability of finding an effect, studies with insufficient statistical power are prone to misinterpreting the true effects of their findings, undermining the integrity of scientific evidence. This exploratory study aims to assess the typical statistical power in exercise science research. This review includes 90 meta-analyses published in the last five years in exercise science, containing N = 1191 individual studies. The statistical power of each study was calculated using the aggregated effect sizes reported in the meta-analyses as an approximation of true effect sizes. The results indicate that the median statistical power of the studies reviewed may be as low as 30%. This result should be rigorously tested in future confirmatory studies.
    Keywords:  Statistical power; exercise science; replicability; replication crisis; research integrity
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2025.2571841
  27. Natl Med J India. 2025 Jul-Aug;38(4):pii: 10.25259/NMJI_1090_2022. [Epub ahead of print]38(4): 212-213
    Conversion of theses submitted to the National Board of Examinations for postgraduate degrees into published papers.
    Atul Kakar, Atul Gogia.
      Background The submission of a thesis or dissertation is a requirement stipulated by the National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences (NBEMS) before a candidate can be awarded a postgraduate degree. Although the thesis is a requirement, its subsequent publication in a journal is not mandatory; if not published, a large amount of potentially valuable research data is lost. Our primary objective was to assess the conversion rate of postgraduate theses into publications in biomedical journals, and the secondary objective was to estimate the frequency of presentations of papers and posters at conferences by postgraduates during their tenure. Methods In this retrospective study, we collected data (between 1991 and 2019) from 434 theses written by the residents of 7 departments of Sir Ganga Ram hospital, New Delhi which were submitted to the NBEMS in partial fulfilment of their final degrees. The 'conversion' rate to publication was calculated using data from the websites PubMed, Google Scholar, and our hospital journal, Current Medicine Research and Practice. Results The conversion rate of the thesis into a publication was 33.2%. The frequency of oral or poster presentations at state, national, or international conferences during the residency period was 47.2%. Conclusion Less than one-third of thesis were published. Almost half were, however, presented at various conferences.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.25259/NMJI_1090_2022
  28. Med Intensiva (Engl Ed). 2025 Oct 15. pii: S2173-5727(25)00191-2. [Epub ahead of print] 502263
    Do we publish what we present? Analysis of publications derived from SEMICYUC congresses.
    Cinta Millan-Gutierrez, Maria Gil-Arrieta, María Luisa Martínez, Juan Miguel Goyeneche, Maria Dolores Bosque, Francesc Marcano-Fernandez.
       OBJECTIVE: To determine what proportion of oral presentations from congresses of the Spanish Society of Intensive care Medicine, Critical care, and Coronary Units (SEMICYUC) are subsequently published in scientific journals.
    DESIGN: Observational descriptive study based on the analysis of oral presentations accepted at SEMICYUC congresses every other year from 2013 to 2021, both inclusive.
    SETTING: National SEMICYUC congresses.
    PARTICIPANTS: Abstracts of oral presentations accepted at SEMICYUC congresses every other year from 2013 to 2021.
    MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The proportion of published oral presentations is the main outcome. Other outcome measures are time to publication, intensive care subspecialty, journal impact factor and quartile, methodological and design characteristics and funding.
    RESULTS: A total of 250 oral presentations were analyzed of which 81 (32.4%) resulted in a publication. "Infection" category had the highest number of oral presentations (64 presentations) and the highest number of published studies (30 publications). Randomized clinical trials (66.7%) and quasi-experimental studies (62.5%) result in the highest publication rates (p=0,015). The average journal impact factor is 5.8 (range: 1.2-44.4).
    CONCLUSIONS: Most abstracts presented as oral presentations at SEMICYUC congresses do not reach publication. Although only 32.4% of these are published, they appear in journals with an average impact factor of 5.8.
    Keywords:  Communication; Comunicación; Congresos; Congresses; Critical care; Cuidados críticos; Factor de impacto; Intensive care units; Journal impact factor; Publicación; Publishing; Unidades de cuidados intensivos
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.medine.2025.502263
This page is being maintained by Thomas Krichel. It was last updated on 2025‒10‒19 at 8:30.