bims-skolko Biomed News
on Scholarly communication
Issue of 2026–04–05
forty papers selected by
Thomas Krichel, Open Library Society
  1. 'Why is publishing so expensive?'
  2. Acknowledgment in the Scientific Literature: An Overlooked Record of Collaboration.
  3. Why science has a credibility problem - and how to address it.
  4. Half of social-science studies fail replication test in years-long project.
  5. Honorary Authorship in Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery: Tradition, Tokenism, or Transgression?
  6. More self-reflection in research can lead to better science.
  7. Publication lags are barriers to conservation in South American ichthyology.
  8. Huge meta-research project puts claims in social-science papers to the test.
  9. Faculty-student differences in authorship perceptions before and after authorship ethics interventions.
  10. Will AI-written and AI-reviewed preprints from aiXiv be bibliometrically accepted?
  11. Our AI-Powered Discoveries Are Trapped in a Predigital System.
  12. Fabricated citations: the quiet crisis of AI hallucinations in scientific publishing.
  13. Hallucinated citations are polluting the scientific literature. What can be done?
  14. Artificial intelligence in manuscript peer review: Opportunities, risks, and the continuing role of human judgement.
  15. Large language models for peer review in biotechnology.
  16. Anatomy of a High-Quality Peer Review Report.
  17. Ethical Implications of Medical Student Participation in Journal Peer Review.
  18. Building transparency, credibility and trust in evidence synthesis practice: why editorial standards and policies matter.
  19. Turning major revision into opportunity: 10 tips to navigate peer review after manuscript submission.
  20. Generative artificial intelligence in medical scientific writing: Practical and ethical considerations.
  21. How can authors address reflexivity in quantitative studies?
  22. Strengthening the Standards for Case-Based Scholarship in the Journal of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Anesthesia.
  23. Reconfiguring global primary care evidence: The essential role of regional journals.
  24. Developments in the International Journal of Laboratory Hematology.
  25. Comparison of Quantitative and Qualitative Research to Support Nurse Researchers in Developing Articles for Submission.
  26. The Exposome journal on hiatus: not even a flesh wound.
  27. Introducing the 45-year special collection: Driving innovation in primary care scholarship.
  28. Types of Articles that We Publish in Policy, Politics, & Nursing Practice.
  29. Predatory publishing in nutrition and dietetics: Risks, impacts, and collaborative solutions.
  30. Helicobacter 30 Years On: A Message From the Editor, Emeritus.
  31. Is it worth publishing Open Access? - the scientific impact of Open Access publications in the field of medical education.
  32. Promoting awareness of open access publishing in speech-language therapy and audiology: Lessons from multilingual language assessment research.
  33. A New Age of Open Access for the Journal of Avian Medicine and Surgery.
  34. Disclosures of conflicts of interest from the editors of the Journal of Global Health - 2026.
  35. Post-publication corrections of rheumatology articles: a comprehensive analysis.
  36. A call for peace from the Editorial Board.
  37. The value of learned societies in the biological sciences: benefits, threats, and futures.
  38. Knowledge, practices, and perception of predatory journals among North-African Dental University Hospital Doctors.
  39. Asbestos, talc, and The Lancet's 1977 publication - Editors' reply.
  40. The academy and its journal: 45 years of editorial leadership in South African family medicine.
  1. J Exp Biol. 2026 Mar 15. pii: jeb252490. [Epub ahead of print]229(6):
    'Why is publishing so expensive?'
    Katherine Brown, Craig E Franklin, Michaela J P Handel.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.252490
  2. Indian J Psychol Med. 2026 Mar 29. 02537176261429867
    Acknowledgment in the Scientific Literature: An Overlooked Record of Collaboration.
    Rajshekhar Bipeta.
      In scientific writing, it is important to recognize research contributions that do not qualify for authorship. However, acknowledgment sections are often short and lack a consistent structure. This article examines how acknowledgment statements document these contributions and reviews bibliometric evidence indicating that acknowledgments reveal types of collaboration not reflected in author lists. Examples from mental health research show how field teams and people with lived experience are recognized. Paying more attention to acknowledgment practices, along with established authorship and contributorship frameworks, could help better represent the many ways people contribute to research.
    Keywords:  Authorship; ethics; professional relationships; publishing; social responsibility
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1177/02537176261429867
  3. Nature. 2026 Apr;652(8108): 36-38
    Why science has a credibility problem - and how to address it.
    Nicola Jones.
      
    Keywords:  Publishing; Research data; Research management; Scientific community
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-026-00972-4
  4. Nature. 2026 Apr 01.
    Half of social-science studies fail replication test in years-long project.
    Nicola Jones.
      
    Keywords:  Peer review; Psychology; Research data; Scientific community
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-026-00955-5
  5. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2026 Apr;pii: S0278-2391(25)00932-2. [Epub ahead of print]84(4): 437-439
    Honorary Authorship in Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery: Tradition, Tokenism, or Transgression?
    Anuj Jain.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2025.08.023
  6. Nature. 2026 Apr;652(8108): 7
    More self-reflection in research can lead to better science.
      
    Keywords:  Publishing; Research data; Research management; Scientific community; Society
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-026-00965-3
  7. J Fish Biol. 2026 Apr 01.
    Publication lags are barriers to conservation in South American ichthyology.
    Elioenai da Silva Oliveira, Felipe Polivanov Ottoni, Josie South.
      
    Keywords:  conservation barriers; fish conservation; publication process; strutural inequity
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1111/jfb.70424
  8. Nature. 2026 Apr;652(8108): 39-41
    Huge meta-research project puts claims in social-science papers to the test.
    Alfredo Sánchez-Tójar, Jelte M Wicherts, Robb Willer.
      
    Keywords:  Human behaviour; Publishing; Research data; Scientific community; Sociology
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-026-00805-4
  9. Account Res. 2026 Apr 02. 2651757
    Faculty-student differences in authorship perceptions before and after authorship ethics interventions.
    Elise Demeter, George Banks, Andrew McBride, Holly Holladay-Sandidge, Katherine Hall-Hertel, Lisa Rasmussen.
      Authorship practices in collaborative research teams are often complex and influence perceptions surrounding fairness, responsibility, and accountability in scholarly work. This study investigates prevailing authorship norms, the frequency of authorship disagreements, and differences in authorship perceptions across faculty and student roles, genders, and disciplinary contexts. Survey results reveal systematic differences, particularly between faculty and students, in how authorship distribution is perceived and how different types of researcher contributions are valued toward authorship credit. We further assess changes in authorship norms and ethical perceptions through a follow-up survey after a three-year effort to improve authorship ethics on our campus, which included training on ethical authorship practices and adoption of a formal institutional authorship policy. The results show notable shifts in researchers' awareness, expectations, and attitudes toward authorship ethics and responsibilities. This suggests proactive education and policymaking can promote integrity in collaborative scholarly work and recalibrate local norms. Based on these insights, we offer recommendations for supporting transparent authorship communication and fostering more ethical research environments.
    Keywords:  Authorship; collaboration; ethics
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2026.2651757
  10. Health Aff Sch. 2026 Mar;4(3): qxag064
    Will AI-written and AI-reviewed preprints from aiXiv be bibliometrically accepted?
    Jaime A Teixeira da Silva.
      The preprint server aiXiv allows documents to be authored and/or peer-reviewed exclusively by generative artificial intelligence (GAI). Journal editors may find themselves in an ethical bind-either embracing preprints and GAI, or sanctioning them, including by banning the citation of GAI-generated knowledge. Will GAI-generated or GAI-reviewed content become indexed in major scientific databases, including in peer-reviewed articles citing it?
    Keywords:  conflict; editorial standards; publishing ethics; risk; transparency
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1093/haschl/qxag064
  11. J Med Internet Res. 2026 Mar 31. 28 e96018
    Our AI-Powered Discoveries Are Trapped in a Predigital System.
    Boon-How Chew.
      
    Keywords:   digital health; scholarly communication; artificial intelligence; innovation; peer review; reproducibility of results; research; scientific publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.2196/96018
  12. Am J Vet Res. 2026 Mar 16. pii: ajvr.87.04.editorial. [Epub ahead of print]87(4):
    Fabricated citations: the quiet crisis of AI hallucinations in scientific publishing.
    Lisa A Fortier.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.2460/ajvr.87.04.editorial
  13. Nature. 2026 Apr;652(8108): 26-29
    Hallucinated citations are polluting the scientific literature. What can be done?
    Miryam Naddaf, Elizabeth Quill.
      
    Keywords:  Ethics; Machine learning; Publishing; Scientific community
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-026-00969-z
  14. Trop Doct. 2026 Apr 02. 494755261437565
    Artificial intelligence in manuscript peer review: Opportunities, risks, and the continuing role of human judgement.
    Kaushik Bhattacharya, Surajit Bhattacharya, Dhananjaya Sharma, Michael Cotton.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1177/00494755261437565
  15. N Biotechnol. 2026 Mar 26. pii: S1871-6784(26)00040-3. [Epub ahead of print]93 218-225
    Large language models for peer review in biotechnology.
    Wenyu Li, Runyu Zhao, Pei-Ti Sun, Jeffrey Lee, Olivia Lu, Sophia Yuan, Pavan Sureshkumar, Yixin Chen, Zhengyang Xiao, Yinjie J Tang.
      As researchers use Large Language Models (LLMs) for rapid manuscript feedback, a key question is whether they can function as reliable peer reviewers in biotechnology. This study tested AI peer review using 763 preprints (398 with open peer reviews) and 12 grant proposals provided by the authors, including three resubmissions. We found that AI reviewers (GPT-5, Qwen-Plus, and Gemini 2.5 Pro) all provided substantive and well-structured comments, with a strong emphasis on experimental design and statistical analysis; however, they tended to be more lenient overall than human reviewers. AI reviewers are less likely than humans to critique paper positioning or ask for more citations. LLMs often rate grant proposals more favorably than humans (i.e. clustering at 3.2-3.8 vs human average 2.5 in scale of 1-4) and have less variation in word choices. AI detectors failed to reliably identify AI-generated text in review comments, as simple rewording bypassed them and detectors usually lagged behind fast-evolving LLMs. Our results suggest that: (1) AI can serve as a valuable and less biased ad hoc reviewer; (2) the use of public LLMs in peer review introduces privacy and copyright concerns; (3) it is important to develop a review agent capable of identifying AI-generated content and verifying that all scientific claims are rigorously evidence-based; and (4) clearer guidelines and sustained human oversight are essential, along with greater transparency through open peer review. Nevertheless, as artificial general intelligence continues to advance, future AI systems may match, or even surpass, human researchers in evaluating scientific manuscripts.
    Keywords:  Artifical General Intelligence; GPT; Gemini; Peer Review; Qwen
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nbt.2026.03.007
  16. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2026 Apr 01. 41(1): e2
    Anatomy of a High-Quality Peer Review Report.
    Jeffrey Michael Franc, Ellen Johnson, Joseph Cuthbertson.
      Peer review is an important step in supporting high-quality research publications. However, understanding the review process can be challenging for peer reviewers. The role of the peer reviewer varies from journal-to-journal. Furthermore, it is sometimes difficult for reviewers to understand how to structure and format their review. This article discusses the role of peer review in the Prehospital and Disaster Medicine (PDM) review process and provides guidance for creating a high-quality peer review report.
    Keywords:  Disaster Medicine; Prehospital Medicine; peer review; statistical methodology
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049023X26108851
  17. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2026 Mar 31. pii: S0190-9622(26)00502-5. [Epub ahead of print]
    Ethical Implications of Medical Student Participation in Journal Peer Review.
    Isha Gandhi, Ghassan Barnawi, Raquel Lazarowitz, Jane M Grant-Kels.
      
    Keywords:  Ethics
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaad.2026.03.087
  18. Environ Int. 2026 Mar 26. pii: S0160-4120(26)00174-1. [Epub ahead of print] 110216
    Building transparency, credibility and trust in evidence synthesis practice: why editorial standards and policies matter.
    Nicolas Roth, Yefeng Yang, Frederic Coulon, Mark J Nieuwenhuijsen, Adrian Covaci.
      Editorial standards are not administrative formalities; they function as scientific quality control mechanisms that directly shape the validity, credibility, integrity, and utility of published research. Since 2016, Environment International has been the first environmental health journal to implement specialist editorial policies for handling systematic review submissions. Over the past decade, Environment International has been committed to the continuous advancement and rigorous editorial standards to ensure publication of trustworthy, high-impact evidence-based research. Central to this effort is the CREST_Triage tool (https://osf.io/bv4en), which enables transparent and rigorous editorial assessment of methodological quality, reporting completeness and reproducibility. In this editorial, we describe the recent developments in our editorial policies and efforts undertaken to further develop and strengthen our standards for evidence syntheses and narrative reviews. A major component of this work has been the expansion of our editorial policies to scoping reviews, review of reviews, their respective protocols, and narrative reviews, which is reflected by the development of new triage instruments, guidance, and workflows, which we have implemented in April 2025. Environment International remains one of the very few journals that actively implement effective quality control measures and enforcement of editorial standards for the evidence syntheses it publishes. We believe that transparent and consistent editorial triage criteria and decisions are beneficial to our authors, peer-reviewers, and the field at large. Amidst the reproducibility crisis in science and increasing concern over the validity of evidence syntheses in environmental health, including those introduced by generative artificial intelligence, we call for stronger editorial stewardship and wider adoption of specialist editorial policies by other journals to increase the quality, transparency and reproducibility of evidence syntheses, leading to more comparable manuscript evaluations across journals. As the evidence synthesis toolkit and practice continues to evolve, our editorial policies and standards will adapt accordingly, ensuring that Environment International remains at the forefront, while upholding the philosophy and principles that have guided us from the beginning.
    Keywords:  Editorial policies; Evidence-based practice; Publishing standards; Quality control; Reproducibility; Review literature
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2026.110216
  19. Clin Kidney J. 2026 Apr;19(4): sfag066
    Turning major revision into opportunity: 10 tips to navigate peer review after manuscript submission.
    Mythri Shankar, Mohamed Hassanein, Alexander Woywodt.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1093/ckj/sfag066
  20. Arch Argent Pediatr. 2026 Apr 02. e202611022
    Generative artificial intelligence in medical scientific writing: Practical and ethical considerations.
    Paula Otero.
      Generative artificial intelligence (AI) is transforming scientific communication in health, offering opportunities to improve the quality and efficiency of academic writing. This article provides practical guidance for healthcare professionals on the ethical and effective use of AI tools in preparing scientific manuscripts. It addresses the fundamental ethical principles established by international publishing organizations, practical implementation strategies, a structured workflow, and specific considerations for pediatric literature. The responsible integration of these technologies can help democratize access to scientific publishing, particularly for researchers whose native language is not English, while maintaining the highest standards of academic integrity.
    Keywords:  artificial intelligence; ethics in scientific publishing; generative artificial intelligence; large language models.; pediatrics
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.5546/aap.2026-11022.eng
  21. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2026 Apr;31(2): 365-368
    How can authors address reflexivity in quantitative studies?
    Patricia O'Sullivan, Susan van Schalkwyk, Ayelet Kuper.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-026-10536-w
  22. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2026 Mar 04. pii: S1053-0770(26)00198-9. [Epub ahead of print]
    Strengthening the Standards for Case-Based Scholarship in the Journal of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Anesthesia.
    Matthew M Townsley.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1053/j.jvca.2026.02.046
  23. S Afr Fam Pract (2004). 2026 Mar 18. 68(2): e1-e5
    Reconfiguring global primary care evidence: The essential role of regional journals.
    Shailendra Prasad, Klaus B Von Pressentin, Bassim Birkland, Ramakrishna Prasad, Esther M Johnston, Diego Garcia-Huidobro.
      Primary care research (PCR) strengthens health systems and informs policy, but is dominated by high-income country (HIC) institutions and authors creating epistemic injustice by marginalising local knowledge from low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) and reinforcing structural inequities. Regional journals are vital for providing accessible, relevant evidence by lowering publishing barriers, supporting emerging researchers, enabling multilingual dissemination, and creating practice-focused knowledge for local health systems. Strengthening regional publishing is essential for a diverse, equitable global evidence base that improves the relevance, impact, and fairness of global PCR.Contribution: This article advances primary care scholarship by invoking epistemic justice and emphasising regional journals as vital for equitable knowledge. It references journals such as South African Family Practice, which celebrates 45 years of local research and mentorship. It links representation, research, and publishing, critiques citation metrics, and offers strategies to improve regional journals and promote justice in global primary care evidence.
    Keywords:  epistemic justice; global primary care; health systems; primary care research; regional journals
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.4102/safp.v68i2.6297
  24. Int J Lab Hematol. 2026 Mar 31.
    Developments in the International Journal of Laboratory Hematology.
    Ian Mackie, Giuseppe d'Onofrio.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1111/ijlh.70104
  25. J Contin Educ Nurs. 2026 Apr;57(4): 169-174
    Comparison of Quantitative and Qualitative Research to Support Nurse Researchers in Developing Articles for Submission.
    Lina Najib Kawar, Emma M Aquino-Maneja, Kim Reina Failla, Sarah L Flores, Veronica Santos Timple, Hannah Jang Kim.
       BACKGROUND: This article explores the fundamental differences between quantitative and qualitative studies to support nurse researchers in developing articles for submission. As demands for evidence-based practice and scholarly contributions grow, nurses must navigate research design, data analysis, and publication standards with confidence and clarity.
    METHOD: This article outlines the defining characteristics of each approach, from the research question to the implications for practice.
    RESULTS: Quantitative research prioritizes statistical measurement and generalizability, whereas qualitative research seeks to understand lived experiences and context through thematic exploration. Despite structural similarities, each method requires distinct ethical considerations and analytical frameworks. By highlighting common publication challenges and offering practical guidance, the authors describe key components of both types of research to empower nurses to select appropriate methods and strengthen scholarly writing.
    CONCLUSION: Greater competence in the complexities of publishing quantitative versus qualitative research will enhance the contribution of the nursing profession to science, policy, and practice.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3928/00220124-20260128-03
  26. Exposome. 2026 ;6(1): osag011
    The Exposome journal on hiatus: not even a flesh wound.
    Gary W Miller.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1093/exposome/osag011
  27. S Afr Fam Pract (2004). 2026 Mar 05. 68(2): e1-e2
    Introducing the 45-year special collection: Driving innovation in primary care scholarship.
    Klaus B Von Pressentin, Ramprakash Kaswa, Simon M Marcus, Mmaphefo M Maluleka, Arun Nair, Mareike Rabe, Indiran Govender.
      No abstract available.
    Keywords:  Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare; Continuing Professional Development; Editorial Policy; Family Medicine; Medical Journals; Open Access Publishing; Peer Review; Primary Care; Primary Health Care; Research Capacity Building
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.4102/safp.v68i2.6298
  28. Policy Polit Nurs Pract. 2026 May;27(2): 83-84
    Types of Articles that We Publish in Policy, Politics, & Nursing Practice.
    Christine Kovner.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1177/15271544261430455
  29. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2026 Mar 28.
    Predatory publishing in nutrition and dietetics: Risks, impacts, and collaborative solutions.
    Marco Capocasa, Davide Venier, Giovanni Destro Bisol.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41430-026-01734-1
  30. Helicobacter. 2026 Mar-Apr;31(2):31(2): e70118
    Helicobacter 30 Years On: A Message From the Editor, Emeritus.
    David Y Graham.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1111/hel.70118
  31. Med Educ Online. 2026 Dec 31. 31(1): 2652722
    Is it worth publishing Open Access? - the scientific impact of Open Access publications in the field of medical education.
    Hendrik Friederichs.
       INTRODUCTION: In medical education research, the transfer of knowledge depends heavily on the visibility of scientific publications. Whether Open Access (OA) actually increases this visibility through a citation advantage (Open Access Citation Advantage, OACA) is still unclear for the field of medical education. This study aims to determine the existence and size of an OACA for medical education articles indexed in PubMed between 2010 and 2019.
    METHOD: In a retrospective bibliometric cohort study, all entries classified as research articles by iCite® with the MeSH term 'Medical Education' (N = 43,275) were analysed. OA was defined by the presence of a PubMed Central identifier (PMCID). Primary endpoints were total citations, citations per year, and the Relative Citation Ratio (RCR). Group comparisons were made using Yuen‑Welch t‑tests (20 % trimmed means, α = 0.05). Sensitivity analyses included negative binomial regression with year and journal fixed effects, and quantile regression for RCR.
    RESULTS: 21.2% of articles had a PMCID. PMCID-indexed publications showed higher trimmed means for total citations (10.31 vs. 7.00), annual citations (1.29 vs. 0.79), and RCR (0.79 vs. 0.49; all p < .001). Robust effect sizes (δˆRAKP, Algina-Keselman-Penfield robust standardized difference) ranged from 0.27 to 0.35 (small to medium). Negative binomial models with year and journal fixed effects confirmed these findings (IRR range: 1.53-1.67).
    CONCLUSIONS: PMCID-indexed articles in the field of medical education are cited significantly more frequently and have higher field‑normalised impact values than non‑OA publications. Despite financial hurdles and methodological limitations including potential selection bias, the moderate OACA supports strategically expanding OA publication funds to maximise the reach and impact of medical education research. Prospective studies should consider different OA types, altmetrics, and potential confounders to pinpoint the impacts of OA.
    Keywords:  Medical education; Open Access; bibliometrics; research article; scientific impact
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1080/10872981.2026.2652722
  32. S Afr J Commun Disord. 2026 Mar 31. 73(1): e1-e8
    Promoting awareness of open access publishing in speech-language therapy and audiology: Lessons from multilingual language assessment research.
    Juan Bornman, Mellissa Bortz, Anita Edwards, Brenda Louw, Jeannie Van der Linde.
      Access to speech-language therapy (SLT) and audiology (AUD) research is critical for clinicians, researchers, policymakers and the public to fulfil the professional scope of practice, support advocacy and enable evidence-based service delivery. However, research locked behind paywalls disproportionately limits access for underserved communities and for clinician-researchers seeking tools in languages with scarce resources. Limited access to clinically applicable research disproportionately affects individuals needing SLT and/or AUD services in under-resourced languages and populations, where contextualised, high-quality evidence is most needed. The authors advocate for open access (OA) publishing as a critical strategy to improve access to research in SLT and AUD. Open access publishing promotes more equitable dissemination of information, potentially fostering inclusion, innovation and informed clinical decision-making. This perspective calls for the clinician-researcher to become aware of the different OA models and how to access their benefits. Furthermore, we encourage advocacy amongst key stakeholders, highlighting how collaborative efforts may strengthen the move towards increased OA publishing.Contribution: This article contributes to the growing dialogue on decolonising knowledge and democratising access within the health sciences. By promoting OA publishing, the fields of SLT and AUD can help dismantle structural inequities in knowledge dissemination, support local and global clinical relevance and improve the quality of service for multilingual and underserved communities worldwide. We specifically call on South African clinician-researchers to engage with OA opportunities and collaborate in sharing clinicallyapplicable findings, including implementation guidance, outcome evidence, and contextual considerations for assessment and intervention in South African languages.
    Keywords:  clinician-researcher; evidence-based practice; knowledge; open access publishing; speech-language therapy and audiology; transformative
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.4102/sajcd.v73i1.1150
  33. J Avian Med Surg. 2026 Mar;40(1): 1-3
    A New Age of Open Access for the Journal of Avian Medicine and Surgery.
    Mark A Mitchell, Thomas N Tully, Michelle G Hawkins.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1647/1082-6742-40.1.1
  34. J Glob Health. 2026 Apr 03. 16 01001
    Disclosures of conflicts of interest from the editors of the Journal of Global Health - 2026.
    Harry Campbell, Igor Rudan.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.7189/jogh.16.01001
  35. Adv Rheumatol. 2026 Mar 31.
    Post-publication corrections of rheumatology articles: a comprehensive analysis.
    Bekir Torun, Erhan Kaya.
       OBJECTIVES: With the growing volume of scientific publications in recent years, both unintentional errors and instances of scientific misconduct have become increasingly common. These errors may include typographical mistakes, inaccuracies in author information, and issues in figures, tables, references, or other sections of articles. This study aims to identify and categorize the most frequent errors in rheumatology publications instead of to provide insights for improving the accuracy and credibility of scientific literature.
    METHODS: Articles published and subsequently corrected in the field of rheumatology between 2000 and 2024 were retrieved from the Web of Science database. A total of 1,716 corrected articles were systematically analyzed for the type, frequency, and severity of errors.
    RESULTS: A total of 1,825 errors were identified, with 36 articles requiring major corrections. The most frequently affected sections included author names and institutional affiliations (644 errors), tables and figures (537 errors), and the results section (164 errors), followed by funding statements, materials and methods, and references. Less frequent issues included errors related to ethics approval, conflicts of interest, plagiarism, and incorrect data. Proportion of articles with major corrections (36 out of 1,716; 2.1%), 19 of them were retracted and the relative distribution of error types (e.g., author information errors constituted 35.2% of total errors).
    CONCLUSIONS: Authors, editors, and publishers share responsibility for maintaining the integrity of published research. Sections such as author information, tables, figures, and results are shown to be at high risk for errors. Careful review and editorial oversight can minimize errors, prevent misinterpretation, and enhance the overall reliability of scientific publications.
    CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
    Keywords:  Corrigendum; Erratum; Publication errors; Research integrity; Rheumatology; Scientific publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1186/s42358-026-00537-z
  36. Afr J Reprod Health. 2026 Mar 30. pii: Afr J Reprod Health. [Epub ahead of print]30(6): 9-12
    A call for peace from the Editorial Board.
    Anne Baber Wallis, Lorretta Ntiomo, Lindsay Edouard, Friday Okonofua.
      As a scientific journal committed to advancing knowledge about the health and well-being of women, children, and entire communities, we affirm a simple but urgent truth: peace is public health. The fate of humanity and the health of our planet are not separable from the absence of war. When human conflict erupts and escalates, it harms generations of people, planetary ecosystems, and civil society. Indeed, each of the five essential pillars - People, Planet, Peace, Prosperity, and Partnerships - upon which the Sustainable Development Goals are built, is deeply compromised by armed conflict.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.29063/ajrh2026/v30i6.1
  37. BMC Biol. 2026 Mar 31.
    The value of learned societies in the biological sciences: benefits, threats, and futures.
    David J S Montagnes, Joel B Dacks, John R Dolan, Virginia Edgcomb, Rachel Foster, R Ellen R Nisbet, Anastasios D Tsaousis.
      Learned societies play a vital role in fostering interactions that are important in scholarly discourse and the advancement of biological sciences. However, they now face threats from declining funding and membership, shifting disciplinary boundaries, changing approaches towards digital communication, and academic marketization. We outline the historical development of these societies and propose ways to sustain them. Key considerations include improving meetings, adapting publishing models, ensuring financial stability, expanding membership, strengthening outreach, and managing increasingly broad remits. Our main aim is to examine how regional learned societies can maintain their roles to support scientific progress and enrich broader society.
    Keywords:  Biological sciences; Learned societies; Scholarly societies
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12915-026-02583-x
  38. BMC Med Educ. 2026 Mar 31.
    Knowledge, practices, and perception of predatory journals among North-African Dental University Hospital Doctors.
    Abir Mannai, Islam Khadmi, Ibtissam Grira, Mehdi Khemiss.
      
    Keywords:  Ethics; Predatory journals; Scientific misconduct; Tunisia
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-026-08895-4
  39. Lancet. 2026 03 25. pii: S0140-6736(26)00559-3. [Epub ahead of print]
    Asbestos, talc, and The Lancet's 1977 publication - Editors' reply.
    The Editors Of The Lancet.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(26)00559-3
  40. S Afr Fam Pract (2004). 2026 Mar 31. 68(2): e1-e8
    The academy and its journal: 45 years of editorial leadership in South African family medicine.
    Klaus B Von Pressentin.
      Journals are living archives of their disciplines. For the South African Family Practice journal, its 45-year journey offers a unique lens on how family medicine in Southern Africa found its voice and evolved alongside global primary care scholarship. This Open Forum reflection traces the journal's trajectory, from print and pharma-supported pages to a fully online, open-access platform grounded in ethical rigour and robust peer review. Drawing on archival insights and a conversation with Prof. Pierre de Villiers, who continued Prof. Sam Fehrsen's editorial legacy, the overview highlights how editorial independence, methodological diversity and capacity building have shaped the journal as a trusted voice for family medicine and primary care. This narrative describes the journal's role in enhancing the discipline's evidence base and scholarly identity over 45 years. The evolution of the journal offers lessons for strengthening primary care scholarship in Africa and other regions.Contribution: Four decades of editorial leadership of the South African Family Practice have significantly shaped the journal's identity, integrity and reputation in primary care across Southern Africa and abroad. Key transitions supporting inclusive scholarly development are highlighted.
    Keywords:  academic publishing; capacity building; editorial leadership; family medicine; history of family medicine.; journal evolution; primary care; primary care research; scholarship
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.4102/safp.v68i2.6282
This page is being maintained by Thomas Krichel. It was last updated on 2026‒04‒11 at 2:14.