bims-skolko Biomed News
on Scholarly communication
Issue of 2026–07–19
thirty papers selected by
Thomas Krichel, Open Library Society



  1. Curr Med Res Opin. 2026 Jul 16. 1-5
      Introduced in 2020, plain language summaries of publications (PLSPs) are standalone articles that aim to expand the reach of scientific findings to non-specialist audiences using plain language and meaningful visuals. Despite increased publication, there is no agreed cross-publisher definition of PLSPs, resulting in inconsistent terminology, formatting, peer-review processes, and metadata that hinder indexing and discoverability in bibliographic databases such as PubMed and Europe PMC. In February 2024, the multistakeholder collaboration Open Pharma launched an initiative to review existing standards and practices related to the publication of PLSPs. After identifying three publishers offering standalone PLSPs - Becaris Publishing, Sage, and Taylor & Francis - representatives from each formed a steering committee to define PLSPs and agree on principles that differentiate them from other publishing formats. PLSPs are defined as standalone summaries of peer-reviewed articles, written according to plain language principles, published open access with a unique digital object identifier (DOI), and are themselves peer reviewed (including by someone who is not a scientific specialist in the topic area). They should include a summary, clear reference to the original article, and a combination of text and meaningful graphics. This consensus provides a foundation for standardizing PLSPs as a distinct article type and acceptable secondary publication format. We hope it will also support consistent authoring, editorial management, peer-review processes and indexing. We call on indexing services to formally recognize PLSPs and on publishers to adopt this format as an accurate and reliable source of understandable scientific information.
    Keywords:  Plain language summary; accessibility; discoverability; medical writing; open access publishing; publishing; scholarly communication; standard
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1080/03007995.2026.2700975
  2. medRxiv. 2026 Jul 07. pii: 2026.07.04.26357187. [Epub ahead of print]
      Retractions attract substantial attention and have become more frequent over time. Retractions reflect the self-correcting nature of science but also wasted resources. The Retraction Watch Database (RWD) includes over 60,000 records. We integrated RWD with NIH funding metadata (RePORTER system). As of July 2026, of the 6,081 U.S. affiliated retracted articles, 1,725 (28.4%) were linked to at least one NIH grant. With a mean attributed cost per retracted NIH-funded article of $255,087 in 2026 dollars, the attributed total cost of NIH-funded retracted research is $440 million in 2026 dollars. Grants associated with retracted papers for which the first or last author of the paper was the principal investigator were awarded $4.03 billion in 2026 dollars. NIH-funded articles take longer to be retracted (mean = 6.3 years) than other US-based articles, which may entail greater downstream implications. NIH funding of retracted authors decreased over the 3 years following retraction, particularly among authors with multiple retractions. We have developed a continuously updated dynamic dashboard ( https://sandovallentisco.shinyapps.io/nih-retractions/ ) for the cost of retractions reflecting NIH-funded work.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.07.04.26357187
  3. Science. 2026 Jul 16. 393(6808): 225
      There's a saying in the management world, popularized by NASA administrator Daniel Goldin in the 1990s, that the goal of technological improvements is to make products faster, better, and cheaper. Although this strategy had some success in the aerospace industry, the zealots of artificial intelligence (AI) have been making the same argument regarding how it will transform work, claiming that so little human effort will be required that humanity will enter an era of radical abundance, free from disease, drudgery, and danger, among other benefits, leaving society with more time for creative pursuits. But history tells a different story. When machines began to increase productivity during the second industrial revolution, American engineer Frederick Winslow Taylor's The Principles of Scientific Management encouraged corporations to use surveillance to get employees to work harder and longer, an approach that exhausted and discouraged workers and led to the transfer of knowledge and any decision-making from workers to management, while enriching the profits for only those at the top. Yet, it remains foundational to the American economic enterprise. Indeed, scientific publishing is starting to experience some Taylorism with the insertion of AI. Rigorous human checking of AI-generated research papers is creating bottlenecks as publishers strive to maintain the integrity of the scientific record. The challenge is requiring even more human effort, making the whole endeavor slower and more expensive.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aek5570
  4. Res Integr Peer Rev. 2026 Jul 11.
      Generative artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly becoming embedded across scientific workflows, yet mechanisms for transparently documenting its use remain fragmented and weakly enforced. Focusing on ecology and evolutionary biology as a model discipline, we systematically mapped AI-related journal policies across 230 journals and assessed article-level compliance using a large sample of recent publications. To provide a reporting background, we also synthesised author contribution guidelines. Nearly half of journals provided no guidance on AI use, and where policies existed, they were largely generic, publisher-driven, and poorly translated into reporting practice. While author contribution statements were widely adopted, explicit AI disclosures appeared in fewer than 6% of papers, even in journals with formal AI policies. Text-mining of 124 guideline documents revealed highly standardised, precautionary language emphasising responsibility and prohibitions, with minimal operational guidance on acceptable uses or disclosure formats. To address this gap, we introduce AIdIT (AI disclosure for Improved Transparency), a standardised, taxonomy-based framework for reporting AI use across all stages of the research lifecycle. AIdIT integrates structured categories of AI use, human oversight statements, and machine-readable outputs to support reproducibility, accountability, and comparability. Together, our systematic evidence synthesis and proposed framework highlight an urgent need to normalise AI transparency as a core component of open research practice.
    Keywords:  Artificial intelligence; Generative AI; LLM; Large language models; Open research practises; Reporting guidelines; Transparent science
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-026-00230-1
  5. Health Aff Sch. 2026 Jul;4(7): qxag158
      
    Keywords:  artificial intelligence; author; peer review
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1093/haschl/qxag158
  6. Am J Sports Med. 2026 Jul 12. 3635465261463006
       BACKGROUND: The peer review system faces increasing strain from rising manuscript volumes, reviewer fatigue, and well-documented interreviewer disagreement. Large language models (LLMs) have shown potential to support the peer review process, but their ability to replicate editorial decisions at high-impact medical journals and their utility as manuscript screening tools remain unknown.
    PURPOSE: To compare the agreement between an LLM and the final editorial decision on manuscripts submitted to the American Journal of Sports Medicine and to evaluate the potential of LLMs as a manuscript screening tool.
    STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional agreement study.
    METHODS: Fifty-four manuscripts randomly selected from submissions to the American Journal of Sports Medicine (September 2024-October 2024) were reviewed by a locally deployed LLM (Ministral 3 14B; Mistral AI) using a standardized prompt. The artificial intelligence (AI) produced a categorical recommendation (reject, cascade, revision, or accept) and a numerical score (0-100) for each manuscript. Agreement with the final editorial decision was assessed by Cohen kappa (4-category model) for pooled human reviewers (n = 139 reviews) and the AI (n = 54). Screening performance was evaluated by positive predictive value (PPV), sensitivity, and specificity.
    RESULTS: Pooled human reviewers demonstrated fair agreement with the final decision (κ = 0.181 [P < .001]; 42.4% agreement), while the AI demonstrated slight, nonsignificant agreement (κ = 0.126 [P = .099]; 37.0% agreement). The AI recommended revision for 61.1% of manuscripts, of which 72.7% were ultimately rejected or cascaded, demonstrating systematic "revision bias." When the AI recommended rejection, 54.5% of those manuscripts were ultimately rejected and 27.3% were cascaded; when the AI recommended cascade, 50% were rejected and 50% were cascaded. However, when the AI recommended rejection or cascade (n = 21), 90.5% received a final decision of rejection or cascade (PPV, 90.5%; specificity, 81.8%). Manuscripts with an AI score <70 were rejected or cascaded 88.0% of the time (PPV, 88.0%).
    CONCLUSION: AI cannot replicate the nuanced judgment of human peer reviewers at a high-impact sports medicine journal. When AI recommended rejection or cascade, 90.5% of manuscripts received that final decision (descriptive PPV, 90.5%; 95% CI, 71.1%-97.3%), suggesting potential utility as an exploratory first-pass screening tool warranting further validation in larger cohorts. However, AI could not reliably distinguish manuscripts destined for outright rejection from those that would be cascaded to a sister journal-an important limitation for editorial triage applications.
    Keywords:  artificial intelligence; editorial triage; interreviewer agreement; large language model; manuscript screening; peer review; sports medicine
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1177/03635465261463006
  7. World J Surg. 2026 Jul 13.
       BACKGROUND: Artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly transforming surgical research and medical publishing by changing how clinicians discover, evaluate, synthesize, and communicate scientific evidence. Despite widespread adoption, practical guidance on the responsible integration of AI into academic writing remains limited, particularly as large language models (LLMs) and emerging AI systems become increasingly sophisticated.
    METHODS: This narrative review examines the contemporary AI ecosystem relevant to medical writing, including LLMs, retrieval-augmented systems, structured evidence extraction platforms, citation analytics tools, AI-enhanced academic databases, and emerging agentic AI systems. Current evidence relating to AI-assisted manuscript preparation, ethical considerations, governance, confidentiality, reproducibility, and scientific integrity was reviewed. A practical workflow integrating literature discovery, evidence extraction, synthesis, citation validation, and editorial refinement is proposed.
    RESULTS: AI can substantially improve the efficiency, organization, clarity, and consistency of manuscript preparation while supporting evidence retrieval, synthesis, and editorial refinement. However, responsible use requires awareness of important limitations, including hallucinated references, publication bias amplification, confidentiality risks, language weighting, and the inability of current LLMs to distinguish reliably between truth and plausibility. The review also highlights the increasing integration of academic databases with AI-assisted retrieval and synthesis, together with the emergence of agentic research systems capable of performing increasingly complex scientific workflows under human supervision.
    CONCLUSIONS: AI should be regarded as an adjunct to, not a substitute for, scientific reasoning and scholarly judgment. When used transparently and under expert supervision, AI can enhance the quality and efficiency of medical writing while preserving the central intellectual responsibilities of authorship, interpretation, verification, and accountability. As AI systems become increasingly autonomous, maintaining rigorous human oversight will become progressively more important.
    Keywords:  academic publishing; artificial intelligence; ethics; generative AI; large language models; medical writing; surgical research
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1002/wjs.70504
  8. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2026 Jul 11. pii: S1553-4650(26)00360-2. [Epub ahead of print]
      
    Keywords:  Artificial Intelligence; Editorial Board; Journal
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2026.06.037
  9. Sci Adv. 2026 Jul 17. 12(29): eaec0494
      Elite general science journals shape scientific discourse, public policy, and scientific careers. However, expectations of confidentiality in most editorial proceedings has limited efforts to understand and improve the review process. Here, we describe and release deidentified data on 110,303 manuscript submissions over 5 years at Science and Science Advances, two elite general science journals. Analyzing evaluation dynamics across the initial editorial review and subsequent peer review stages, we find strong selective effects associated with higher institutional prestige, larger team size, and certain topics and countries. Corresponding authors who are men exhibit a small but significant advantage at Science, while authors based in China have a significant disadvantage. These associations are generally stronger in editorial review than in peer review, even as final editorial decisions correlate strongly with reviewer advice. These patterns highlight the complexity of multistage evaluations at elite journals and the importance of open data to better understand them.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aec0494
  10. Health Aff Sch. 2026 Jul;4(7): qxag159
      
    Keywords:  AI; AI peer-review; LLM; peer-review
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1093/haschl/qxag159
  11. J Bioeth Inq. 2026 Jul 15.
      
    Keywords:  Incentive; Peer review; Review; Reviewer
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-026-10599-9
  12. Acute Med. 2025 ;24(4): 150-151
      Issue 4 of the Acute Medicine Journal (AMJ) reports an interesting exchange between the authors of a service evaluation investigating the prevalence of subarachnoid haemorrhage (SAH) in patients undergoing a lumbar puncture (LP), and readership colleagues evaluating its merit, in light of the current evidence base and clinical recommendations. This discourse highlights the two phases of scientific peer review, which operates as the quality control mechanism for academic publishing.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.52964/AMJA.1020
  13. Cardiol Young. 2026 Jul 13. 1-7
       BACKGROUND: Journal editors play a central role in academic publishing. However, little is known about the experiences of editors within paediatric cardiology. This study aimed to explore the motivations, workload, peer review challenges, and sustainability of editorial roles in this specialty.
    METHODS: A cross-sectional, anonymous survey was conducted among paediatric cardiology journal editors and associate editors. Quantitative responses were analysed descriptively, and free-text responses underwent inductive thematic analysis.
    RESULTS: A total of 28 editors participated. Most respondents (82.1%) identified education and mentorship as key motivations for editorial work. However, 78.6% reported that editorial roles are becoming increasingly difficult, and only 21.4% reported having sufficient protected time, highlighting substantial workload pressures. Reviewer fatigue was a major challenge, with 75.0% reporting difficulty securing timely, high-quality peer review. While 57.9% acknowledged that impact factor influences editorial considerations, 89.5% agreed that journals with lower impact factors remain highly valuable for education. Only 28.6% of respondents considered the current editorial model sustainable, with 46.4% expressing concern regarding long-term sustainability.
    CONCLUSIONS: Paediatric cardiology journal editors demonstrate strong intrinsic motivation but face increasing workload, reviewer fatigue, and limited institutional support. These findings highlight a growing imbalance between editorial expectations and available support structures. Greater institutional recognition, provision of protected time, and pragmatic innovation in peer review processes may be required to sustain editorial engagement and maintain the educational and scientific mission of paediatric cardiology publishing.
    Keywords:  academic publishing; editorial workload; journal editors; paediatric cardiology; peer review; reviewer fatigue
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1017/S104795112611395X
  14. J Extracell Vesicles. 2026 Jul;15(7): e70343
      Transition of extracellular vesicle (EV) research from basic discovery to clinical application raised hopes regarding diagnostic, therapeutic and prognostic progress. Rigorous reporting of experimental details is required to align the EV field with pharmaceutical quality standards. MISEV2023 recommendations encourage concise reporting but widespread adoption remains limited. Current reporting tools are time-consuming, and adherence declines despite rapidly growing number of EV studies. We therefore created EV-Checklist, a complementary digital tool that streamlines reporting and increases transparency. By uploading manuscript text, an AI-assisted algorithm automatically completes a checklist covering EV nomenclature, source, isolation, characterization and function. To ensure accuracy, users validate AI-generated entries before submission-ideally, gaps in reporting can be closed (e.g., missing particle/protein ratio). The resulting concise report can accompany manuscripts helping editors, reviewers and readers by presenting key methodological and results details at a glance. EV-Checklist complements existing comprehensive registries as 'fast-and-easy' tool enhancing clarity and accessibility of EV research data and may promote higher adherence to documentation standards. Adoption may be encouraged by journal endorsement to streamline the review process for compliant submissions, signalling adherence to MISEV2023 standards. EV-Checklist and an accompanying AI-assisted search tool (PMC EV Search), spanning over 45,700 open-access EV manuscripts, are publicly available at https://ev-zone.org/.
    Keywords:  MISEV; artificial intelligence (AI); checklist; dynamic reporting; extracellular vesicles (EVs); research transparency
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1002/jev2.70343
  15. BMJ Open. 2026 Jul 16. 16(7): e121255
       INTRODUCTION: Drowning remains a substantial global health challenge, and research in this area predominantly relies on observational study designs due to ethical, practical and administrative limitations. Although the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement is available, adherence within the drowning research community has been inconsistent and frequently incomplete. Consequently, essential methodological components and drowning-specific factors are often under-reported or inconsistently described, impeding quality, reproducibility, critical appraisal and evidence synthesis.
    AIM: This protocol outlines the development of an extension to the STROBE statement, specifically for reporting observational studies in drowning epidemiology (STROBE-D). The proposed extension aims to provide structured guidance for authors, reviewers and editors, thereby enhancing the clarity, transparency and comparability of reporting practices.
    METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The development of the STROBE-D statement will follow established recommendations and methodological frameworks for guideline creation. The process will include a scoping review and initial draft preparation, a two-round modified Delphi process using surveys with multidisciplinary and international expert participation, an expert consensus meeting to finalise the content and manuscript, public comment with interest-holder involvement and a final revision before submission for peer review.
    ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The Committee on Health Research Ethics in the Region Zealand of Denmark waived the need for ethical approval as this is a consensus study (EMN-2025-09099). Findings will be disseminated through open access peer-reviewed publications, targeted communication through professional networks, conferences and social media platforms. The STROBE-D statement will serve as an extension to the STROBE statement, specifically tailored to observational studies in drowning epidemiology to improve consistency and transparency. Simultaneous publications of the original STROBE-D statement and the accompanying explanation and elaboration paper will be pursued in line with existing best practices.
    Keywords:  ACCIDENT & EMERGENCY MEDICINE; EPIDEMIOLOGY; Guideline Adherence; Protocols & guidelines; STATISTICS & RESEARCH METHODS
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2026-121255
  16. JAAD Int. 2026 Aug;27 115-118
      
    Keywords:  Agentic artificial intelligence; artificial intelligence agents; artificial intelligence governance; artificial intelligence hallucination; artificial intelligence oversight; artificial intelligence safety; authorship; automation bias; compounding errors; deskilling; error propagation; human-in-the-loop; ironies of automation; large language models; medical education; medical errors; patient safety; peer review; scientific publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdin.2026.06.001
  17. Cytopathology. 2026 Jul 17.
      Scientific writing (SW) is an essential component of academic development in cytopathology; however, many professionals face difficulties when attempting to initiate the writing process. This series arises from a commonly shared challenge: not knowing where or how to begin.
    OBJECTIVE: To introduce a practical educational framework for SW in cytopathology, developed in response to the need for structured guidance among both early-career and experienced cytopathologists. This article aims to encourage structured scientific publication, strengthen mentorship, and promote academic continuity within the specialty.
    METHODS: A narrative review of the literature was performed using major biomedical databases and leading cytopathology journals to identify publications addressing SW, medical education, mentorship, research training, and publication practices relevant to cytopathology. Educational initiatives from scientific societies and current resources supporting academic writing, including digital technologies and artificial intelligence, were also reviewed. Based on the available literature and the authors' educational experience, a practical framework was developed to describe the scientific writing pathway from idea generation to manuscript submission.
    RESULTS: The literature specifically addressing scientific writing in cytopathology was found to be limited, and existing educational resources are fragmented. This article introduces a practical and accessible framework for both junior and senior cytopathologists, cytotechnologists, and other biomedical professionals working in cytopathology, addressing key aspects such as how to begin writing, identifying publishable ideas, the fundamental elements of successful publication, the role of mentorship, responsible use of artificial intelligence and digital tools, and the importance of disseminating both positive and negative research findings. The framework is intended to guide readers from their first research idea through manuscript preparation and publication.
    CONCLUSION: SW is a learnable competency that should be incorporated into cytopathology education throughout professional life. Developing structured educational pathways, strengthening mentorship, and promoting the responsible use of modern digital resources may facilitate greater academic participation. Encouraging a culture of SW is essential to develop the next generation of authors, improve international collaboration, and ensure the long-term academic growth of cytopathology.
    Keywords:  academic publishig ‐ academic development; cytopathology; medical education; mentorship; scientific writing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1111/cyt.70111
  18. Acad Med. 2026 Jul 15. pii: wvag218. [Epub ahead of print]
      
    Keywords:  academic medicine; collaborative writing; international; personal history; publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1093/acamed/wvag218
  19. Zool Res. 2026 Jul 18. pii: 2095-8137(2026)04-1134-03. [Epub ahead of print]47(4): 1134-1136
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.24272/j.issn.2095-8137.2026.367
  20. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2026 Jul 16. pii: S1877-0568(26)00215-X. [Epub ahead of print] 104794
       BACKGROUND: Simultaneous submission of manuscripts to multiple journals violates established publication ethics and may compromise the integrity of the peer-review process. However, data on temporal trends, geographic distribution, and outcomes of such practices remain limited. This study aimed to address the following questions: 1) Has the frequency of simultaneous submissions increased over time? 2) Is this practice geographically concentrated or globally distributed? 3) What publication outcomes and metrics characterize these manuscripts?
    HYPOTHESIS: We hypothesized that simultaneous submissions have increased over time and are associated with unfavourable publication outcomes.
    MATERIAL AND METHODS: A retrospective bibliometric study was conducted including all manuscripts submitted to Orthopaedics & Traumatology: Surgery & Research (OTSR) between 2019 and 2025. In total 60 simultaneous submissions were identified between 2019 and 2025 using editorial management systems and similarity screening tools. Data collected included year of submission, country of origin, publication status, time to publication, journal impact factor, and open access status. Temporal trends were analysed using linear regression, and descriptive statistics were applied.
    RESULTS: A total of 60 simultaneous submissions were identified, increasing from 3 cases in 2019 to 22 cases in 2025. We observed a significant upward trend, corresponding to an annual rise of approximately 3.5 cases and an incidence increase of 0.4% per year. Geographic distribution was heterogeneous, and incidence rates adjusted for total submission numbers did not reveal a clear regional pattern. Overall, 36.7% (22/60) of manuscripts were not published. Among the 38 published manuscripts, only 15% (9/60) were accepted by one of the initially targeted journals (however 0 in OTSR which systematically desk rejected due to ethical violation), while the majority were published in different journals. Publication delays were common, with 55.3% (21/38) of manuscripts published after more than 4 months. Most manuscripts were ultimately published in journals with similar or lower impact factors, and 68.4% (26/38) appeared in fully open access journals.
    DISCUSSION: Simultaneous submission appears to be an increasing and globally distributed phenomenon driven by systemic pressures to publish. However, this strategy is largely ineffective, often resulting in delayed publication, lower-impact outcomes, or failure to publish altogether, while exposing all co-authors to ethical risks. Strengthening cross-publisher collaboration and reinforcing adherence to ethical guidelines are essential to mitigate this practice.
    LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV; bibliometric retrospective research.
    Keywords:  Geographic distribution; Journal metrics (impact factor/open access status/article processing charge); Peer-review integrity (reviewer workload/cross-publisher detection/inter-journal communication); Publication outcomes (desk rejection/unpublished manuscripts/time to publication); Simultaneous submission (dual submission/COPE violation/fraudulent behaviour); Temporal trend
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otsr.2026.104794