bims-skolko Biomed News
on Scholarly communication
Issue of 2026–01–04
28 papers selected by
Thomas Krichel, Open Library Society



  1. Elife. 2025 Dec 31. pii: RP107765. [Epub ahead of print]14
      There is a widely held perception that science is becoming more international-through multi-national collaborations-and interdisciplinary, drawing on knowledge from multiple domains. However, these hypothesized trends have not yet been quantitatively characterized. With the publication metadata from OpenAlex, we examine trends in two groups of journals: disciplinary journals in natural sciences, life sciences, social sciences, and multidisciplinary journals that publish articles in multiple fields. Supporting existing perceptions, we find an almost universal trend towards increasing internationalization of both sets of journals. Nevertheless, we find disparities: medicine journals are less international than journals in other disciplines and do not increase their levels of internationalization, whereas physics journals appear to be segregating between those that are international and those that are not. We also find that multidisciplinary journals have undergone significant shifts in their disciplinary focuses over the past century, whereas disciplinary journals appear to have largely maintained their degree of interdisciplinarity.
    Keywords:  collaboration; none; physics of living systems; scientific enterprise; scientific publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.107765
  2. Science. 2026 Jan;391(6780): 5
      It's hard to talk about any topic in science or education today without the subject of artificial intelligence (AI) coming up-whether large language models should be allowed to aid in searching for a scientific paper or even to write or review the paper itself. In some of the wildest speculations, the humans involved in conducting scientific studies and experiments and vetting the results for publication will be steadily eliminated from the process. But when such grandiose rhetoric starts flying, we at Science try to keep calm and carry on in contributing to a robust, human-curated research literature that will stand the test of time.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aee8267
  3. Bioinformatics. 2025 Dec 27. pii: btaf685. [Epub ahead of print]
       MOTIVATION: High-throughput extraction and structured labeling of data from academic articles are crucial for enabling downstream machine learning applications and secondary analyses. Current approaches lack integration with the publishing process and comprehensive annotation of experimental roles and methodologies alongside bioentity recognition.
    RESULTS: We embedded multimodal data curation into the academic publishing process to annotate segmented figure panels and captions, combining natural language processing with authors' feedback to increase annotation accuracy. The resulting dataset, SourceData-NLP, comprises over 620,000 annotated biomedical entities, curated from 18,689 figures in 3,223 articles in molecular and cell biology. Annotations include eight classes of bioentities (small molecules, gene products, subcellular components, cell lines, cell types, tissues, organisms, and diseases), plus additional classes that delineate the entities' roles in experimental designs and methodologies. We evaluate the utility of the dataset for training AI models using named-entity recognition, segmentation of figure captions into their constituent panels, and a novel context-dependent semantic task that assesses whether an entity is a controlled intervention target or a measurement object. We also demonstrate multi-modal applications for segmenting figures into panel images and their corresponding captions.
    AVAILABILITY: Trained models are available at https://huggingface.co/EMBO. The SourceData-NLP dataset and code are available at https://github.com/source-data/soda-data, https://github.com/source-data/soda-model, and https://github.com/source-data/soda_image_segmentation.
    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btaf685
  4. J Craniofac Surg. 2025 Dec 31.
       BACKGROUND: The rapid emergence of large language models (LLMs) has transformed scientific writing, prompting concerns regarding the extent to which generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools may be influencing published research manuscripts. AI-detection software has been proposed as a method to identify AI-generated text; however, the validity of these tools in scientific contexts remains uncertain. This study evaluates detectable AI content in articles published in the Journal of Craniofacial Surgery (JCFS) before and after the widespread adoption of LLMs.
    METHODS: A retrospective cross-sectional analysis was conducted using all JCFS articles published in 2014 (pre-LLM) and 2024 (post-LLM). Full-text manuscripts and individual sections (Abstract, Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion, Conclusion) were analyzed using ZeroGPT to determine the percentage of detectable AI-generated text. Detection scores were compared using the Mann-Whitney U test.
    RESULTS: A total of 1490 manuscripts were analyzed (659 in 2014; 831 in 2024). Mean detectable AI content increased from 8.6% (SD 9.8) in 2014 to 10.7% (SD 10.4) in 2024 (P = 0.00001). Section-level comparison demonstrated the greatest increase in Results sections (19.8%-24.1%, P = 0.00001), with additional increases in Introduction, Methods, Discussion, and Conclusion sections, but no significant change in Abstracts (13.4% versus13.9%, P = 0.32). Although statistically significant, these differences were small in absolute magnitude.
    CONCLUSIONS: Detectable AI content in JCFS manuscripts increased modestly over the past decade, likely reflecting detection software behavior and evolving writing structure rather than widespread use of generative AI. Findings support cautious interpretation of AI-detection outputs and highlight the need for validated tools and thoughtful editorial policy development.
    Keywords:  AI-detection tools; craniofacial surgery; detectable AI text; large language models; scientific publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0000000000012366
  5. Nurse Educ. 2025 Dec 29.
       BACKGROUND: The rapid integration of generative AI into scholarly writing has created an inconsistent policy landscape, challenging academic integrity in nursing education.
    PURPOSE: This study analyzed nursing journals' publishing policies on AI-generated content (AIGC) to create an evidence base for educators.
    METHODS: A cross-sectional analysis of nursing journals from the Scimago database was conducted. Author guidelines were systematically screened for AIGC policies, and data on prevalence, authorship, and disclosure were extracted.
    RESULTS: A majority (65.31%) of the 98 included nursing journals had AIGC policies. Broad agreement prohibits AI authorship (85.94%) and mandates human accountability (84.38%), with all requiring disclosure. However, guidance on AI-generated images was sparse (43.88%) and inconsistent.
    CONCLUSION: Inconsistent and incomplete AIGC policies create an ambiguous landscape for nursing students and faculty. These findings highlight a need for nursing education to proactively develop curricula, shape policies, and advocate for standardized guidelines to ensure the ethical use of generative AI and uphold scholarly integrity.
    Keywords:  author guidelines; curriculum development; generative AI; journal policies; publication ethics
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1097/NNE.0000000000002097
  6. Cardiovasc Res. 2025 Dec 31. 121(17): 2611-2613
      
    Keywords:  Abstract; Artificial intelligence; Scientific history; Scientific integrity; Scientific writing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1093/cvr/cvaf253
  7. Med Teach. 2025 Dec 30. 1-12
      Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) tools are increasingly integrated into research and academic writing, offering opportunities to streamline workflows and increase productivity. However, these tools also introduce risks when used uncritically, unethically, or without transparency. In particular, the undisclosed use of GenAI, now widely documented, may compromise research integrity. The aim of this AMEE Guide is to provide researchers with practical guidance on when and how to disclose the use of GenAI in scholarly writing. Specifically, we propose a clear framework to promote ethical GenAI use and reporting practices in health professions education research. We start with an exploration of key aspects of responsible use of GenAI in publishing (e.g. authorship, verification and responsibility, plagiarism and bias, data privacy and confidentiality, journal requirements). We then address the importance of transparency about GenAI use in research production, both within research teams (internal disclosure) and to journals and readers (external disclosure). With respect to the latter, we highlight the need to be aware of journal-specific guidance and offer guiding principles for effective disclosure. Central to these principles is the call for scholars to provide a candid description of how GenAI was used, allowing readers to understand how the model shaped the research and writing processes. We also briefly consider the use and disclosure of GenAI in peer review. Given that, at the time of writing this Guide (November 2025), many questions remain regarding AI use and disclosure for publishing, we conclude with reflections on future developments and directions for research.
    Keywords:  AI; Disclosure; Publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2025.2607513
  8. J Arthroplasty. 2026 Feb;pii: S0883-5403(25)01525-6. [Epub ahead of print]41(2): 299-303
      Artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly reshaping scientific writing, peer review, and academic publishing. While these technologies offer benefits, including improved clarity, enhanced editorial screening, and expanded global accessibility, they also present substantial challenges. Among the most pressing concerns are accuracy, bias, intellectual property, security, and the potential manipulation of peer review systems. Publishers and editorial boards continue to refine policies to maintain scientific rigor, ensure transparency in AI use, and protect the integrity of human authorship. This article reviews the legal, ethical, and practical challenges associated with AI in medical publishing, highlights emerging risks such as hidden prompts and data security vulnerabilities, and explores how journals, like the Journal of Arthroplasty, can balance innovation with responsible oversight.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2025.12.001
  9. J Pediatr Surg. 2025 Dec 30. pii: S0022-3468(25)00758-4. [Epub ahead of print] 162911
      Generative AI in the form of Large Language Models (e.g. ChatGPT©), having been introduced into (medical) writing in 2022, are here to stay. The real question is - is this a good or a bad thing. This article examines both sides of this argument. It can certainly improve the quality of submissions to the Journal Of Pediatric Surgery, prehaps making it more legible and concise, and thereby broadening the pool of potential authors from around the world. But the potential for scientific misadventure is there, especially if its human overseers lose interest in forensic examination of the final product for reality, honesty and accuracy.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2025.162911
  10. Gut. 2025 Dec 31. pii: gutjnl-2025-337873. [Epub ahead of print]
      
    Keywords:  CELIAC DISEASE
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1136/gutjnl-2025-337873
  11. Dev World Bioeth. 2025 Dec 31.
      Research integrity has become a pressing concern in China, which accounts for a large share of global retractions. Yet little is known about how research integrity is understood and enacted within teaching hospitals. In this cross-sectional study, we surveyed 106 medical researchers across four Shanghai hospitals to assess their awareness, attitudes, and practices regarding scientific misconduct, as well as the role of integrity education. Most respondents reported familiarity with definitions of fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism and expressed strong disapproval of these behaviors. Nonetheless, 11%-22% indicated some degree of tolerance toward selective reporting or unjustified authorship, and firsthand reports of witnessed misconduct were uncommon. Participation in formal courses or lectures on research integrity was associated with higher knowledge scores and stronger agreement with ethical principles. These findings reveal a tension between high awareness and partial tolerance, highlighting the importance of exploring how institutional cultures and incentive systems may influence ethical behavior in future research and policy efforts.
    Keywords:  China; research misconduct; scientific integrity; teaching hospital
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1111/dewb.70022
  12. Am Surg. 2025 Dec 27. 31348251412260
      The maxim "publish or perish" has become both the mantra and the malaise of modern academic surgery. While publication remains essential to scientific progress, the increasing reliance on quantitative metrics-publication counts, impact factors, and citation indices-has altered how excellence is defined, rewarded, and sustained. This commentary examines the widening gap between impactful productivity and metric-driven academic survival, distinguishing surgeon-scientists whose prolific scholarship arises from creativity, intellectual clarity, and disciplined efficiency from those who simply optimize institutional expectations. We argue for an ethic of differentiated excellence, in which departments recognize varied modes of academic contribution, protect gifted outliers from bureaucratic containment, and cultivate environments that transform exceptional talent into institutional capital. Ultimately, academic success in surgery should not be measured by volume alone, but by the depth, authenticity, and translational power of scholarly work that advances science, improves care, and shapes future generations of surgeons.
    Keywords:  academic leadership; academic promotion; academic surgery; prolific authorship; scholarly metrics; surgeon-scientist
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1177/00031348251412260
  13. Niger Med J. 2025 Jul-Aug;66(4):66(4): 1572-1586
       Background: Research and academic publications are crucial for Indian physicians' professional growth, evidence generation, and academic advancement. It often contributes to the "publish or perish" culture. This study aims to assess Indian physicians' perceptions and self-appraisal on academic publications, for those practicing evidence-based medicine (EBM).
    Methodology: A cross-sectional online survey with proper consent was conducted over two months, targeting Indian physicians practicing EBM to evaluate their views on research and publications.
    Results: A total of 320 physicians participated (mean age 41.15 ± 8.94 years; 68.8% male). Most held post-graduate degrees (73.4%) and worked in government-run institutions (56.6%). A large proportion (88.7%) had prior publications, with a preference for PubMed/Medline-indexed journals (40.0%). Sixty-five percent balanced clinical and academic roles. Physicians were motivated by career advancement (31.6%) and professional recognition (34.7%). Behavioral patterns showed "addiction-like" tendencies, with many frequently checking publication metrics and tracking manuscript progress. Physicians with post-graduate qualifications, particularly in medicine, were more engaged in these behaviors. Those in central government teaching institutions showed even greater engagement.
    Conclusion: This study reveals the complex dynamics of academic publishing among Indian physicians, highlighting the pressures of the "publish or perish" culture. Institutions should focus on fostering quality over quantity in publishing, providing mentorship, and promoting ethical practices to mitigate these pressures.
    Keywords:  Academic Publications; Publish OR Perish; Research Paper; Researcher
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.71480/nmj.v66i4.1002
  14. PLoS Comput Biol. 2025 Dec;21(12): e1013807
      In today's research landscape, the dissemination and utilisation of results are not only an obligation but essential components of impactful research. Funding agencies are increasingly emphasising the translation of academic findings into practical applications that meet societal needs. However, researchers often lack training or incentives to focus on this task, leading to a disconnect between scientific enquiry and impact in practice. Innovation Boot Camps (IBCs) offer a dynamic solution to bridge this gap. IBCs provide a collaborative platform where researchers can familiarise themselves with attitudes and mindsets of end users, including industry professionals, policymakers and community members. This interaction ensures that scientific findings are aligned with real needs and challenges, increasing their relevance and applicability. These workshops foster creativity by encouraging researchers to think beyond the traditional academic framework and explore interdisciplinary approaches. This promotes not only innovative solutions, but also the effective tackling of complex societal problems. In addition to fostering creativity, IBCs also provide training to researchers in important professional skills such as communication, project management and business acumen. These skills are critical for communicating scientific concepts, navigating commercial environments and successfully implementing research findings. By participating in IBCs, researchers can assume a proactive role in transforming their findings into marketable or socially relevant innovations. This article offers a step-by-step guide on how to structure and run an effective Innovation Boot Camp, helping researchers transform their results from bureaucratic obligations into strategic opportunities for societal benefit.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1013807
  15. Imeta. 2025 Dec;4(6): e70086
    Zhihao Zhu, Lin Zhang, Xiaofang Yao, Meiyin Zeng, Yao Wang, Hao Luo, Yuanping Zhou, Tianyuan Zhang, Jiani Xun, Defeng Bai, Haifei Yang, Shanshan Xu, Yang Zhou, Yunyun Gao, Jinbo Xu, Wei Han, ZiAng Shen, Bangzhou Zhang, Tengfei Ma, Xiu-Lin Wan, Chuang Ma, Fengjiao Hui, Hao Bai, Lijing Bai, Qing Bai, Qiangguo Bao, Guodong Cao, Peng Cao, Qiqi Cao, Hu Chen, Jiawen Chen, Jiaxu Chen, Lihua Chen, Tingting Chen, Yi Chen, Haipeng Cui, Shaoxing Dai, Xi-Jian Dai, Xiaofeng Dai, Yanqi Dang, Lei Deng, Yun Deng, Xia Ding, Binhua Dong, Ling Dong, Shujie Dou, Hongzhi Du, Zhencheng Fang, Xiaoxiao Feng, Min Fu, Yuan Gao, Wenping Gong, Xiang Guo, Wenjie Han, Zikai Hao, Zheng-Guo He, Haibo Hu, Haiming Hu, Xuefei Hu, Liang Huang, Xianya Huang, Xueting Huang, Haochen Hui, Dingjiacheng Jia, Aimin Jiang, Di Jiang, Kun Jiang, Dewei Jiang, Ying Jin, Kunyang Lai, Chun Li, Feng Li, Fuyong Li, Jing Li, Juan Li, Junling Li, Kui Li, Ling Li, Moli Li, Peiwu Li, Peng Li, Runze Li, Shengnan Li, Shujin Li, Wanting Li, Wenting Li, Xiaojing Li, Xinrui Li, Xuemeng Li, Qiqi Liang, Xiaoping Liao, Boyang Liu, Canzhao Liu, Chang Liu, Duanrui Liu, Furong Liu, Jianjun Liu, Jinyao Liu, Siqi Liu, Tianyang Liu, Wenjuan Liu, Yan Liu, Yang Liu, Yi Liu, Yuan Liu, Yunhuan Liu, Zhipeng Liu, Zhiyong Liu, Xin Lu, Xiao Luo, Guanju Ma, Jialin Meng, Yuanfa Meng, Runyu Miao, Linxuan Miao, Yawen Ni, Dongze Niu, Tingting Niu, Hongzhao Pan, Guoqiang Qin, Tiantian Qiu, Yueping Qiu, Hui Qu, Linghang Qu, Na Ren, Qiang Sun, Run Shang, Peize She, Xihui Shen, Bohan Shi, You Shu, Jiawei Song, Weibin Song, Qi Su, Qingzhu Sun, YuPing Sun, Zijin Sun, Bufu Tang, Deqin Tang, Hua Tang, Yongfu Tao, Teng Teng, Yanye Tu, Cheng Wang, Hui Wang, Yunhao Wang, Chunli Wang, Dingjie Wang, Gang Wang, Jin Wang, Kaiyi Wang, Mingbang Wang, Shan Wang, Shixiang Wang, Xiaojie Wang, Xing-Chang Wang, Yunzhe Wang, Jiale Wang, Zheng Wang, Weijie Wang, Yongjun Wei, Wei Xu, Fan Wu, Junling Wu, Shijuan Wu, Jian Xiao, Weihua Xiao, Yang Xiao, Xi Xiong, Xue Xiong, Feng Xu, Junyu Xu, Wen Xu, Jun Xu, Yao Xu, Jun Yan, Lutian Yao, Jia Yang, Lulu Yang, Xingzhen Yang, Naiyi Yin, Hua You, Min You, Ting Yu, Yongyao Yu, Renqiang Yu, Shuofeng Yuan, Chaoxiong Yue, Xiaoya Zeng, Andong Zha, Leilei Zhai, Chi Zhang, Dong Zhang, Hengguo Zhang, Heng Zhang, Hongyu Zhang, Jiahao Zhang, Jinyang Zhang, Lishan Zhang, Qi Zhang, Xiang Zhang, Xiangyu Zhang, Xuelei Zhang, Yancong Zhang, Yuan Zhang, Zhenyu Zhang, Jiwei Zhao, Jingxuan Zhao, Kai Zhao, Mingjuan Zhao, Yi Zhao, Yunxiang Zhao, Jixin Zhong, Ling Zhong, Xiangjian Zhong, Dan Zhou, Wei Zhou, Wen Zhou, Yiqian Zhou, Zhemin Zhou, Shiquan Zhu, Shuang-Jiang Liu, Suyin Feng, Shuangxia Jin, Chuanxing Xiao, Ziheng Wang, Peng Luo, Tong Chen, Gang Chen, Yong-Xin Liu.
      The iMeta Conference 2025, part of the iMeta Conference series, themed "Creating High-Impact International Journals," held at the Huangjiahu Campus of Hubei University of Chinese Medicine from August 23rd to 25th, 2025, and focused on frontier topics such as microbiology, medicine, traditional Chinese medicine, botany, and research career development. The event aimed to support the development of researchers and strengthen the impact of academic journals. Through invited reports, thematic seminars, and poster presentations, the conference highlighted hot topics including multi-omics technologies, microbe-host interactions, AI-assisted research, live biotherapeutic products, and the modernization of traditional Chinese medicine. The event demonstrated the innovative momentum of interdisciplinary integration and technological convergence, providing an international platform for academic exchange and laying a foundation for building an innovative scientific research ecosystem and enhancing the global influence of Chinese academic journals.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1002/imt2.70086
  16. Anim Front. 2025 Dec;15(6): 38-41
      
    Keywords:  cultural intelligence; equity; inclusion; representation; scientific publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1093/af/vfaf038
  17. Glob Heart. 2025 ;20(1): 113
      Peer-reviewed publications using local data are critical for understanding disease burdens, generating evidence, and shaping policies tailored to community needs. Although low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) account for 80% of cardiovascular disease (CVD) deaths, they contribute only 2.8% of CVD publications. To address this gap, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and partners launched the Emerging Authors Program for Global Cardiovascular Research (EAP), supporting early- to mid-career LMIC practitioners. EAP coordinated mentorship, provided virtual writing tools, training, technical support, and financial assistance for open access. Between 2019 and 2023, three waves engaged 33 authors from 11 countries, resulting in 31 published manuscripts in six journals, with support from 23 global mentors. The success was driven by committed mentors, motivated authors, local collaboration, accessible resources, and strong communication. Strengthening LMIC authors' writing and publication skills is essential for advancing rigorous research and global health equity in scientific publishing.
    Keywords:  cardiovascular diseases; low- and middle-income countries; mentorship; scientific writing and publication capacity building
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.5334/gh.1508
  18. BMJ Open. 2025 Dec 29. 15(12): e108888
       OBJECTIVES: We surveyed authors of publications in high-impact psychiatry journals to assess the (1) proportion that disseminated results to study participants or others with lived experience, and, among those who disseminated, (2) methods (eg, email) and (3) tools (eg, plain-language summary) used.
    DESIGN: Meta-research review.
    DATA SOURCE: PubMed search on 14 December 2022 and emails to study authors for information on dissemination.
    ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Eligible studies collected primary human data and were published in psychiatry journals with 2021 impact factor ≥10.
    DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Study information was extracted by one investigator and validated by a second investigator, with conflicts resolved by consensus, with a third investigator consulted as necessary. We emailed authors approximately 2 years post-publication to ensure sufficient time had passed to share results. We estimated the proportion of authors that may have disseminated results to participants or others with lived experience, assuming that non-respondents (1) did not disseminate, (2) were half as likely to disseminate as respondents or (3) disseminated in the same proportion as respondents.
    RESULTS: Of 141 studies, 94 (67%) authors responded. Among respondents, 21 (22%) reported disseminating to study participants, and an additional 9 (10%) reported disseminating lay materials to people with lived experience (total of 30 studies, 32%). Overall, we estimated that 15% (95% CI 10% to 22%) to 23% (95% CI 17% to 30%) of authors may have disseminated results directly to study participants and 21% (95% CI 15% to 29%) to 32% (95% CI 25% to 40%) to participants or others with lived experience. Among the 30 that reported disseminating, the most common methods were sending mail or emails to study participants (17 studies, 57%) and posting on social media (15 studies, 50%). The most common tools were plain-language summaries (22 studies, 73%) and webinars or other meetings (15 studies, 50%).
    CONCLUSIONS: Dissemination of results to participants in mental health research is uncommon. Funding agencies, ethics committees, journals and academic institutions should support dissemination.
    Keywords:  ETHICS (see Medical Ethics); Methods; PSYCHIATRY
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2025-108888
  19. Foot Ankle Spec. 2025 Dec 30. 19386400251407176
      BackgroundResearch is an essential component of medical advancement and knowledge dissemination in foot and ankle (FA) orthopaedic surgery. With an ever-growing body of literature, it can be challenging to fully understand and monitor the discipline's vast publishing landscape. The purpose of this study is to provide a practical resource that outlines journal characteristics and publication trends to help identify suitable journals for an investigator's FA manuscript.MethodsWe examined all published articles from 58 English language journals, including general orthopaedic, sport, and FA-specific journals between 2018-2022 in an observational, cross-sectional study design. The author team generated keyword lists and categorized articles into 9 broad topics. We calculated a 5-year impact factor by using Web of Science total citation counts in 2023 for articles published between 2018-2022 divided by the total publications from 2018 to 2022. Variables such as publishing nationality, author count, and research type were also collected using MEDLINE article metadata and summarized for each journal.ResultsThe 58 journals published 81 675 articles (13 157 specifically FA, 16.1%) between 2018 and 2022. FA articles contributed to ≥10% of publications in only 30 journals. On average, ankle/hindfoot topics were the most popular FA topic across the 30 journals, accounting for 76.5% of all FA articles. Arthroscopy/minimally invasive surgery articles were the most impactful at 1.43 ± 0.04 citations per year. On average, larger author teams are mildly associated with increased citations (R2 = 0.337 linear relationship).ConclusionAnkle/hindfoot and arthroscopic/minimally invasive surgery were the most popular and impactful topics in recent FA literature, respectively, making them high yield areas of research for investigators. However, we outline notable differences in the preferences among FA topics and research type across journals, ultimately providing a valuable tool for optimizing FA research by identifying the most suitable journals for a manuscript.Levels of Evidence:4.
    Keywords:  bibliometric analysis; foot and ankle; impact factor; orthopaedic surgery; publication trends
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1177/19386400251407176
  20. Indian J Public Health. 2025 Oct 01. 69(4): 607-613
       BACKGROUND: "Indian Biomedical Journals" (IBMJs), despite a long-standing, lack the metrics and global visibility that a researcher would assume. Lately, there is a growing awareness regarding the issues faced by the IBMJs.
    OBJECTIVES: To inform actionable solutions for intended consequences (pragmatism), a situation assessment was conducted by engaging the IBMJs publishing in English. Toward engaging a sustainable debate to help increase their global impact was the primary objective of this study.
    MATERIALS AND METHODS: In March 2024, editors of IBMJs on varied subjects were invited to participate in a qualitative inquiry. Following journal landscaping (through a self-administered questionnaire), the editor-participants identified the broad domains of inquiry based on their lived experiences. These domains, among many, captured the quality of submitted research manuscripts, time to decision (TTD), financing challenges, etc. Finally, a group discussion with reflections on strengths, weaknesses, and opportunities helped triangulate the study findings.
    RESULTS: A total of 357 IBMJs were screened from the Journal Citation Reports 2023 list. Of these, 20 Science Citation Index Expanded Journals with ≥1000 citations and consistently attaining an impact factor of ≥1 over the five preceding years were invited. Of them, Editors of 13 Journals (three monthly, five bimonthly, and five quarterly) consented and participated. The oldest Journal of this cohort was over 110 years old, and the youngest was 16 years old. All Journals were published in hybrid mode, and only three levied article processing charges. The major strengths of the IBMJs were free access to published content irrespective of subscription status, low-cost publishing, and the ability to cater to research from a wide pool of non-native English-speaking investigators, mainly from the South Asian region. The weaknesses comprised receiving poor-quality manuscripts, lack of novelty, longer TTD, and voluntarism of editors and reviewers. Predominantly published in English, it was observed that IBMJs can promote multiregional collaborations in the Global South and beyond. Other identified opportunities were translating Indian research into multiple local languages (which could help increase visibility), enhancing capacity on "how to write and publish quality manuscripts," "promoting journals through social media and discussions in Journal consortia," and "walking science to the common mass."
    CONCLUSION: This qualitative inquiry identified a few elements to build a future roadmap and revealed some opportunities to increase IBMJs' global footprint. Quality rather than quantity of research publications and innovative dissemination of regional research outputs appear critical in this direction.
    Keywords:  Impact factor; peer review; publishing; questionnaire; research; scholarly communication; social media
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.4103/ijph.ijph_998_25
  21. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2025 Dec 30. 25(1): 281
       BACKGROUND: Research findings must be representative by creating a sample of individuals, ensuring the results can be generalized and applicable to a larger population, which has historically been guided by a power analysis. However, the varied research design methods require a unique approach to sampling and a formula for recruitment and size. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to analyze historical data from published manuscripts in the Journal of Athletic Training (JAT) relative to study design and sample sizes. A secondary purpose was to further explore metrics for survey-based research.
    METHODS: This descriptive analysis explored 1267 publications in each issue of the JAT from January 2012 (Volume 47) to December 2022 (Volume 57). We extracted publications from the JAT website. Every article was entered into a spreadsheet (year of publication, publication title) and data specific to the study design and sample size were used for analysis. For studies that were coded as survey-based research, access, response, and completion rates were completed, and topic area and use of a power analysis were extracted. Data were analyzed using measures of central tendency (mean, median, range).
    RESULTS: Of the 1267 published studies, the most frequent design was cross-sectional (394, 31.1%). In total, 1080 publications (85.2%) were not survey-based, with a median sample size of 34 participants, while 187 publications (14.8%) were survey-based, with a median sample size of 429. Among those surveys, most were cross-sectional (n = 151/187, 80.8%), with 80.7% (n = 151/187) reporting the number initially recruited and 50.8% (n = 95/187) reporting the number of surveys started. The survey publications reported recruiting an average of 4453 potential participants (median = 2500; min = 101, max = 48752), with 985 participants starting the study (median = 816, min = 57, max = 7067), and a final sample size of 819 (median = 429; min = 17, max = 13002). The grand mean access rate was 22.1%, the grand mean response rate was 18.4%, and the grand mean completion rate was 83.1%.
    CONCLUSION: Researchers and reviewers can use these trends to guide authorship and review processes for athletic training research. However, sampling strategies should be consistent with the research question, which may lead to deviations from these reported trends.
    Keywords:  Methodology; Qualitative; Quantitative
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-025-02728-6
  22. Science. 2026 Jan;391(6780): 14-15
      Software bug leads to exposure of peer-review records for 10,000 papers.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aef0583
  23. Int J Spine Surg. 2025 Dec 28. 19(6): 699-709
       BACKGROUND: Social media has fundamentally altered how information is created, disseminated, and consumed, with growing impact on spine surgeons and professional societies. Traditional academic publishing remains the standard for research validation, but digital platforms now shape much of the real-time dialogue in spine care.
    OBJECTIVE: To explore strategies for integrating spine surgeons' social media presence with traditional publishing channels to enhance knowledge dissemination, support clinical innovation, and improve member engagement within spine societies.
    METHODS: This perspective reviews current patterns of social media use among spine surgeons, focusing on platforms such as X (formerly Twitter), Instagram, and LinkedIn. It analyzes benefits (reach, speed, interactivity) and challenges (variable quality, lack of peer review, potential bias), and proposes a conceptual hybrid model in which social media and peer-reviewed journals function in a complementary rather than competitive manner.
    RESULTS: Social media enables rapid sharing of clinical insights, techniques, and innovations, and facilitates engagement with both peers and patients. However, it often privileges observational data, lower-level evidence, and real-world experiences that do not easily fit into traditional high-level evidence frameworks. A hybrid approach is proposed in which professional societies (1) formally recognize curated social media content as a feeder for peer-reviewed work; (2) create more inclusive forums for lower-level evidence and case-based discussions; and (3) intentionally link digital dialogues to structured academic outputs.
    CONCLUSIONS: By aligning the dynamic, interactive nature of social media with the rigor and credibility of traditional publishing, spine societies can foster greater member engagement, accelerate innovation, and reinforce their role as thought leaders. A deliberate, hybrid communication strategy can bridge the gap between digital and print, creating a more collaborative and inclusive platform for advancing spine surgery.
    CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Integrating social media with traditional publishing can accelerate the dissemination of practical, real-world clinical insights, ultimately enhancing surgeon education and improving patient care in spine surgery.
    LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 5:
    Keywords:  clinical innovation; digital platforms; evidence-based practice; knowledge dissemination; medical education; member engagement; social media integration; spine societies; traditional publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.14444/8836