bims-skolko Biomed News
on Scholarly communication
Issue of 2026–09–13
forty-one papers selected by
Thomas Krichel, Open Library Society
  1. Popular open-science platform to stop hosting data and code amid funding concerns.
  2. Subscription, open access, hybrid - and now AI: AI-induced evidence skew in scholarly work.
  3. Why the super-fun Ig Nobel prizes bring serious value to science.
  4. The World Bank is right to prioritize reproducibility.
  5. Why retracted articles can have an influential afterlife-and what to do about it.
  6. Imaginaries of Writing and Pain: The Backstage of a Ghostwritten Paper.
  7. Citation integrity in the AI era: a focused evidence map and layered verification framework for gastroenterology and hepatology publishing.
  8. Correction: "The system is obviously bonkers": The APC Trap and the bind of scholarly publishing across four research intensive institutions in the U.S.
  9. Paper Mills in Dermatology: A Cross-Sectional Study of Retracted Publications.
  10. When Science Becomes a Commodity: Publication Inflation in Dental Research.
  11. AI and authorship: Norms and uses to preserve human-led science.
  12. How science gets by with a little help from the Beatles: Detecting cultural wordplay in scientific literature using large language models.
  13. Writing as formation: supervising AI use in early-career medical authorship.
  14. Variability in Journal and Publisher Policies on Artificial Intelligence Use in Manuscript Preparation: An Orthopaedic Perspective.
  15. The Em Dash-Should We Allow AI to Change Our Writing Styles?
  16. Discovery Stack Pilot demonstrates the feasibility and outcomes of a scientist-designed peer-review model that separates quality and impact.
  17. Supporting Peer Review through Academic Policy.
  18. Reviewer #2 and other natural disasters: Humorous reflections on the Peer Review process.
  19. Beyond predatory journals: peer review transparency as a preventive strategy for editorial integrity in scholarly communication.
  20. Behind the Peer Reviewer's Desk: Common Recurring Pitfalls in Case Reports Submitted to the Journal of Orthopaedic Case Reports.
  21. Who Agrees to Review a Manuscript in Ecology and Evolution? It Depends on Who Asks.
  22. Correcting the record on "Publication integrity and industry influences on the editorial process: a case study".
  23. Training Peer Review as an Overlooked Scholarly Competence in Health Professions Education.
  24. Publishing in medicine: why, when, where, what and how.
  25. A guide to writing and publishing effective plain language summaries in Headache.
  26. Editorial: How to get published - nine golden rules of writing.
  27. Ethical considerations for consent for publication.
  28. Preparing a Competitive Submission.
  29. "Ethics Committee Approval and Participant Consent Were Not Required": Challenging a Persistent Misconception in Biomedical Research.
  30. Building better citation practices in public health research: Practical considerations for student researchers, from source discovery to crafting and positioning claims.
  31. Manifesto by the editors of Brazilian scientific journals in the field of human aging in support of open access to research and publications.
  32. [Series: Concise Research. Dentists want more research in Dutch professional journals].
  33. [Scientific publications from Dutch dental faculties, response of the authors].
  34. [Scientific publications from Dutch dental faculties].
  35. The orthopaedic surgeon's responsibility: Creating and protecting scientific evidence as its custodian.
  36. What happens to your manuscript: characteristics of papers published in volume 194 of the American Journal of Epidemiology.
  37. Paying for Use: Rethinking Article Processing Charges as Dissemination Investments in Nutrition Science.
  38. Engineering transparency: a conversation with Guosong Hong.
  39. Writing and reviewing for JNCI.
  40. Evolution of Artificial Intelligence Adoption in American Journal of Sports Medicine Abstracts: A Period and Nativity-Based Analysis.
  41. The European Journal of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery firmly established as the leading Global Vascular Surgical Journal.
  1. Nature. 2026 Sep 09.
    Popular open-science platform to stop hosting data and code amid funding concerns.
    Dalmeet Singh Chawla.
      
    Keywords:  Publishing; Research data; Scientific community; Technology
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-026-02598-y
  2. Account Res. 2026 Sep 09. 2725029
    Subscription, open access, hybrid - and now AI: AI-induced evidence skew in scholarly work.
    Sameh Eltaybani.
       OBJECTIVE: Little attention has been paid to how publication and access models influence the evidence that AI systems retrieve, process, and summarize. This article introduces the concept of AI-induced evidence skew, proposes four pathways through which it may arise, and provides a preliminary empirical illustration.
    METHODS: Nine widely used large language models (LLMs) were prompted to generate literature-supported content. The accessibility status of the references provided was compared with the percentage of open-access records identified through searches of three scholarly databases.
    RESULTS: AI-induced evidence skew is a structural distortion in AI-assisted evidence synthesis whereby outputs disproportionately represent open-access or otherwise machine-accessible literature. Four proposed pathways are differential representation of literature in training data, retrieval-access constraints, human verification practices, and system- or user-imposed access restrictions. Among 78 verifiable references generated by LLMs, a mean of 95.38% had freely available full text (87.43% were open-access), compared with a mean open-access percentage of 57.83% across scholarly database search results.
    CONCLUSIONS: Although exploratory and non-generalizable, these findings support the hypothesis that AI-assisted search and synthesis may overrepresent publicly accessible literature. The concern is not the quality of open-access literature, but that accessibility may become an unintended determinant of included evidence. Mitigation requires greater awareness, human oversight, transparent reporting of AI use and retrieval limitations, verification of AI-generated references, and improved transparency regarding AI evidence coverage. Further empirical investigation across disciplines, platforms, and AI tools is warranted.
    Keywords:  Artificial intelligence in publishing; biomedical publishing; large language models; publication models; research integrity
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2026.2725029
  3. Nature. 2026 Sep;657(8131): 319
    Why the super-fun Ig Nobel prizes bring serious value to science.
      
    Keywords:  Careers; Publishing; Scientific community
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-026-02793-x
  4. Nature. 2026 Sep;657(8131): 320
    The World Bank is right to prioritize reproducibility.
      
    Keywords:  Publishing; Research data; Research management; Scientific community
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-026-02678-z
  5. Stem Cells Transl Med. 2026 Aug 18. pii: szag080. [Epub ahead of print]15(9):
    Why retracted articles can have an influential afterlife-and what to do about it.
    Jeremy Snyder, Leigh Turner.
      Retractions of published journal articles are an increasingly common means by which the research community ensures the quality and integrity of publications and addresses research misconduct missed during pre-publication peer review. Retractions are intended to notify the public of issues that undermine the integrity of these publications so that readers will not rely on their findings and conclusions. Continued citation and other uses of these publications without acknowledging their retracted status are therefore problematic and suggest shortcomings in retraction processes. In this commentary, we use the examples of retracted articles published in this journal to outline ways in which retracted articles can maintain an influential afterlife in the academic literature, online materials from non-profit organizations and private businesses, and responses from generative artificial intelligence. Given that this ongoing influence compounds the harms of these publications, we recommend changes in how publishers manage article retractions. These changes include ensuring that article retraction notices are maintained when journal publishing agreements change, increasing the visibility of retractions, and notifying scholars and members of the public when an article they reference is retracted. While these changes will make article retractions more effective, there is a continued need to limit the publication of studies that violate the requirements of research integrity.
    Keywords:  research integrity; research misconduct; retraction; stem cells
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1093/stcltm/szag080
  6. Soc Stud Sci. 2026 Sep 07. 3063127261474457
    Imaginaries of Writing and Pain: The Backstage of a Ghostwritten Paper.
    Maud Bernisson, Willem Halffman.
      Ghostwritten medical papers are a cornerstone of pharmaceutical marketing. We trace how one manuscript written under the instructions and supervision of opioid producer Mallinckrodt was produced and eventually published in a medical journal to present a marketing message. We systematically analyse an archive of internal communications made public after litigation through the lens of Ricœur's work on imaginaries. Along his first analytic axis, we show how the ghostwriting process shapes and reshapes identities, ascribing agency and portraying social order. Along the second, legitimacy was constructed by the expert voice of a peer-reviewed article 'authored' by researchers, but written by backstage medical writers. Third, the result was a twisted phantasmagory of both academic writing and pain management. Professional medical writers generated an imaginary of pain management to expand the prescription of opioids by redefining pain categories and reassigning agency and responsibility of actors in pain treatment. Meanwhile, backstage writers also reproduced an imaginary of scientific writing, with efficient writing as an editorial service that misrepresents authorial contribution and responsibility. We suggest that Ricœur's analytic scheme could also be used to disentangle technoscientific imaginaries in other settings.
    Keywords:  Mallinckrodt; ghostwriting; imaginaries; opioids; scientific writing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1177/03063127261474457
  7. Gastroenterol Rep (Oxf). 2026 Feb;14 goag098
    Citation integrity in the AI era: a focused evidence map and layered verification framework for gastroenterology and hepatology publishing.
    Eun-Ae Jung, Jeong-Ju Yoo, Sang Gyune Kim, Young Seok Kim.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1093/gastro/goag098
  8. PLoS One. 2026 ;21(9): e0358346
    Correction: "The system is obviously bonkers": The APC Trap and the bind of scholarly publishing across four research intensive institutions in the U.S.
    Melissa H Cantrell, Rachel Caldwell, Jennifer A Mezick, Matthew Estill, Lauren B Collister.
      [This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0351430.].
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0358346
  9. Br J Dermatol. 2026 Sep 05. pii: ljag381. [Epub ahead of print]
    Paper Mills in Dermatology: A Cross-Sectional Study of Retracted Publications.
    Eugene Tan, Richard Epstein, Shehnaz Ahmed, Hywel C Williams.
       BACKGROUND: Paper mills represent a growing threat to research integrity, producing fabricated manuscripts for sale at scale and infiltrating the biomedical literature. While this phenomenon has been described in other fields, its impact within dermatology remains poorly characterised.
    OBJECTIVES: To describe the landscape of paper mill-associated retractions in dermatology, raise awareness of their prevalence, and identify features that may facilitate early detection.
    METHODS: A cross-sectional analysis was conducted using the Retraction Watch Database and reported in accordance with STROBE statement for cross-sectional studies. (OSF registration: doi:10.17605/OSF.IO/382PT). Dermatology-related records were identified using pre-defined keywords. Only articles explicitly labelled as "paper mill" in the retraction reason were included. Data extracted included study design, topic, research integrity indicators, country of origin, journal metrics, publisher, and reasons for retraction. Time to retraction was analysed using Kaplan-Meier methods and compared using the log-rank test.
    RESULTS: A total of 118 paper mill-associated articles (9.8%) were identified among 1,209 dermatology retractions. No cases were observed prior to 2018, followed by a rapid rise peaking in 2023 (>50 retractions). Studies were predominantly experimental (67%) and focused on cutaneous oncology (47%). No paper-mill articles reported data availability or protocol pre-registration, and 79% lacked ethics approval. China accounted for 86% of cases. Articles were published across 50 journals, most in the first or second SCImago Journal Rank quartile (80%), with a mean impact factor of 3.0. The mean time to retraction was 957 days, with no significant difference compared with non-paper mill articles (P = 0.53).
    CONCLUSIONS: Paper mill activity in dermatology has emerged rapidly and is characterised by consistent deficits in research integrity, particularly in data transparency and ethical oversight. Strengthening editorial screening, mandating data availability statements, and collaborating across publishers and wider research ecosystem will be essential to mitigate the impact of paper mills and protect the reliability of the dermatology evidence base for patient benefit.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1093/bjd/ljag381
  10. Aust Dent J. 2026 Sep 09.
    When Science Becomes a Commodity: Publication Inflation in Dental Research.
    Mohammed Turky, Paul M H Dummer.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1111/adj.70070
  11. PNAS Nexus. 2026 Sep;5(9): pgag277
    AI and authorship: Norms and uses to preserve human-led science.
    Charles C Branas, Bruce L Levine.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1093/pnasnexus/pgag277
  12. PLoS One. 2026 ;21(9): e0356147
    How science gets by with a little help from the Beatles: Detecting cultural wordplay in scientific literature using large language models.
    Gabriel Budel, Robert E Kooij, Michiel Tjepkema.
      The Beatles' cultural influence reaches well beyond music into television, fashion, and global media. As we show, it reaches into scientific publishing too. This study documents how often Beatles song titles and lyrics appear in academic article titles, identifying 2,237 exact references and 963 instances of creative wordplay in data from Scopus. Working from a curated list of Beatles songs and lyrics, we combine automated title queries with large-language-model screening, followed by manual verification, to detect both exact references and wordplay. To our knowledge, this is the first study to systematically identify wordplay on Beatles song titles and lyrics in scientific article titles. We report which titles and lyrics are referenced most often, trace how their use has grown over the decades, and show that this growth has outpaced the expansion of the scientific literature as a whole while varying systematically across disciplines. The result is the first large-scale, cross-disciplinary account of how the Beatles have left their mark on scientific writing.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0356147
  13. Front Artif Intell. 2026 ;9 1874377
    Writing as formation: supervising AI use in early-career medical authorship.
    Tiago Jacinto.
      International editorial bodies require authors to disclose the use of large language models in manuscript preparation and to retain accountability for the final text. This guidance is appropriate for formed researchers but does not address what trainees should or should not do during the formative phase of a doctoral thesis, a residency case report, or a first-authored paper. I propose a supervisor-led framework for AI use in medical doctoral and early-career scientific writing, grounded in an argument about professional formation rather than compliance alone; the scope is the writing and interpretation of results, not AI use across all of doctoral research. Writing is one of the settings in which scientific reasoning is exercised and tested, and disclosure is insufficient as a primary control during training because it addresses the reader rather than the writer. When a trainee offloads the first draft of an argument to a model, the formative work that drafting was meant to do does not happen, and the trainee risks becoming a copy-editor of plausible text rather than the author of its argument, a gap no disclosure recovers. The framework rests on three operational moves: a career-stage axis, a sequencing rule, and a revision trace. The career-stage axis makes the same AI operation potentially appropriate for a formed researcher and inappropriate for a first-year trainee. The sequencing rule, applied during training, permits generative AI use only after an unassisted first draft, so that the cognitive work the writing was meant to occasion is performed before the tool touches the text. The revision trace pairs a short disclosure paragraph with an internal log that makes the trainee's tool use inspectable to the supervisor. These moves are organized by a four-tier task typology, related in shape to AI-use rubrics developed in general higher education, delivered as a one-page policy that supervisors or institutions can adapt. The framework is prescriptive in places; the restraint it recommends is formative, and supervisors rather than policy are its primary enforcement mechanism.
    Keywords:  academic writing; artificial intelligence; doctoral training; medical education; research integrity; supervision
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3389/frai.2026.1874377
  14. JB JS Open Access. 2026 Jul-Sep;11(3):pii: e26.00221. [Epub ahead of print]11(3):
    Variability in Journal and Publisher Policies on Artificial Intelligence Use in Manuscript Preparation: An Orthopaedic Perspective.
    Nicholas Kelly, Jillian Neuner, Sanjeev Sabharwal.
       Background: Artificial intelligence (AI)-generated text has been detected in nearly 90% of orthopaedic peer-reviewed publications, yet public disclosure of AI use remains extremely low. Whether journal and publisher policies for authors on AI use are present, sufficiently detailed, and internally consistent has not been systematically examined in orthopaedics. We characterized the prevalence, scope, and within-publisher consistency of AI policies across a structured sample of leading orthopaedic and biomedical journals.
    Methods: We performed a cross-sectional analysis of publicly available author instructions, editorial policies, and publisher guidance for 32 journals (6 core orthopaedic, 19 orthopaedic subspecialty, 7 general biomedical) across 12 biomedical publishers. Forty-one variables were extracted per journal between March and April 2026, including presence of policy for AI use for authors, disclosure requirements, and use of AI for data analysis, generating figures and references, and policies for peer reviewers. A second reviewer independently coded a 12-variable subset for 10 journals (31% calibration) to assess inter-rater reliability (Cohen's kappa = 0.90, 96% agreement).
    Results: Twenty-nine of 32 journals (91%) had an identifiable AI policy for authors; 3 subspecialty journals had none. All core orthopaedic (6/6) and general biomedical (7/7) journals had policies, versus 16 of 19 subspecialty journals (84%). Among journals with policies, 28 of 29 (97%) required disclosure of AI use by authors and 22 of 29 (76%) prohibited listing AI as an author. Coverage of other domains was less frequent: figures and images (66%), hallucinations or fabrication (62%), AI-generated references (48%), peer review (45%), and data analysis (41%).
    Conclusions: Domains that can directly impact scientific integrity and clinical practice, such as AI-assisted manipulation of data, statistical outputs, fabricated references, and undisclosed image alterations, are currently not consistently queried in detail at manuscript submission. With advances in software technology, biomedical journals can test and adopt AI-detection tools that are both sensitive and specific to screen all submissions before peer-review to maintain scientific integrity and transparency.
    Level of Evidence: Level IV, Cross-Sectional Study.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.OA.26.00221
  15. Acad Psychiatry. 2026 Sep 10.
    The Em Dash-Should We Allow AI to Change Our Writing Styles?
    Alyssa C Smith, Rashi Aggarwal.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40596-026-02435-4
  16. PLoS Biol. 2026 Sep 08. 24(9): e3003986
    Discovery Stack Pilot demonstrates the feasibility and outcomes of a scientist-designed peer-review model that separates quality and impact.
    Maureen A McGargill, Beiyun C Liu, Michael S Kuhns, Daniel Mucida, Isabella Rauch, Lauren B Rodda, Meghan A Koch, Hugo Gonzalez Velozo, Ken Cadwell, Tanya S Freedman, Tiffany C Scharschmidt, Richard Sever, Jose Ordovas-Montanes, Sara Suliman, Andrew Oberst, Brooke Runnette, Matthew F Krummel.
      Peer review serves as the cornerstone of scientific quality control. Yet, the current journal-centric system is hindered by long timelines, high publication costs, inconsistent review quality, systemic biases, and editorial gatekeeping. Notably, the system relies on misaligned measures of impact that are tethered to journal branding and conflate scientific rigor (Quality) with perceived significance (Impact). Here, we report findings from the Discovery Stack Pilot Study, which tested a scientist-designed, journal-independent peer review model. The Discovery Stack model integrates in-line reviewer comments to promote constructive feedback and separately evaluates scientific Quality and Impact using defined criteria. To examine feasibility and effectiveness, manuscripts were reviewed in parallel with traditional journal review. A total of 162 reviews were completed, and survey data from 86 participants were analyzed. The results showed that reviewers effectively evaluated Quality and Impact as separate dimensions, with Quality scores being more consistent across reviewers than Impact scores. Participants strongly supported the core elements of the Discovery Stack model and expressed enthusiasm for its broader adoption to enhance transparency, efficiency, and value in peer review. Future studies will explore integrating this model into a digital platform for reviewing and curating scientific discoveries to improve the production and dissemination of high-quality research.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3003986
  17. J Nutr Educ Behav. 2026 Sep;pii: S1499-4046(26)00424-0. [Epub ahead of print]58(9): 842
    Supporting Peer Review through Academic Policy.
    Jared McGuirt.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneb.2026.07.012
  18. Am J Surg. 2026 Sep 03. pii: S0002-9610(26)00416-2. [Epub ahead of print]262 117231
    Reviewer #2 and other natural disasters: Humorous reflections on the Peer Review process.
    Dhananjaya Sharma.
      This is a light-hearted yet affectionate exploration of the quirks, contradictions, and enduring mysteries of peer review. Through the legendary Reviewer #2 and other familiar academic encounters, this satire celebrates the frustrations, resilience, and ultimately indispensable role of peer review in strengthening scientific scholarship.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2026.117231
  19. Front Res Metr Anal. 2026 ;11 1850943
    Beyond predatory journals: peer review transparency as a preventive strategy for editorial integrity in scholarly communication.
    Flavio Aliaga.
      Since the emergence of predatory journals, the integrity of scientific communications has faced serious challenges, particularly when this integrity is assessed solely through external indicators which, while providing an initial safeguard, do not ensure in practice whether there was a rigorous, independent peer review, or whether traceable evidence exists regarding the decision leading to acceptance. This study focuses on complementing existing detection systems with transparency in the peer-review process as a preventive strategy against the current opacity of this process in most scientific journals. Furthermore, this structural vulnerability is not limited to clearly deceptive journals but may also be reflected in legitimate journals due to weaknesses in governance, poor oversight, or manipulation by unethical actors, without necessarily implying an explicit intent to engage in misconduct. This transparency alone does not solve the problem of predatory journals, but by intervening at the most critical and vulnerable point, it could be considered a strategy that-through explicit peer review policies (ex ante), process traceability (in-process), and auditability (ex post)-and progressive or full disclosure of review reports-can prevent anomalies or mitigate the impact of malpractice on editorial integrity. Finally, this study does not seek to replace existing predatory journal identification systems but to complement the verification of editorial processes with strategies that are integral and genuine, ensuring trust and truth in scientific communications.
    Keywords:  editorial integrity; open peer review; paper mills; peer review transparency; predatory journals; research integrity; scholarly publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3389/frma.2026.1850943
  20. J Orthop Case Rep. 2026 Sep;16(9): 7-9
    Behind the Peer Reviewer's Desk: Common Recurring Pitfalls in Case Reports Submitted to the Journal of Orthopaedic Case Reports.
    Faaiz Ali Shah, Javed Iqbal, Ashok Shyam.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.13107/jocr.2026.v16.i09.7966
  21. Ecol Evol. 2026 Sep;16(9): e74214
    Who Agrees to Review a Manuscript in Ecology and Evolution? It Depends on Who Asks.
    Amy Yanagitsuru, Ivan C C Provinciato, Arley F Muth, Jenny Ouyang.
      Gender inequality in publishing is a well-documented phenomenon especially for STEM fields. Thus far, however, the focus has been on authorship itself rather than the peer review process. Using reviewer responses from the past 5 years, we asked whether there is a gender bias in accepting to review a manuscript for articles submitted to Ecology and Evolution. Although men were asked twice as much as women to review a manuscript, we found no gender difference in agreeing to review a manuscript. However, we found that the gender of the editor asking does make a difference. To illustrate, men were more likely to agree to review a manuscript when asked by someone they likely perceived as a male editor than a female editor, whereas female reviewers were equally likely to agree regardless of their perception of the editor's gender. We urge further examination of these results to disentangle the specific underlying causes, as well as extensions into other fields and soliciting requests in academia.
    Keywords:  acceptance; editor; gender; gender equity; peer review; workload
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.74214
  22. Res Integr Peer Rev. 2026 Sep 07. pii: 49. [Epub ahead of print]11(1):
    Correcting the record on "Publication integrity and industry influences on the editorial process: a case study".
    James P Rathmell.
      In 2024, Anesthesiology published a systematic review and meta-analysis of liposomal bupivacaine together with four editorials presenting both strong support for its conclusions and critical perspectives, with the editorial authors' industry affiliations and financial interests disclosed. A subsequent case study in Research Integrity and Peer Review characterized this presentation as a "retraction in situ" and questioned whether organizational and industry relationships compromised editorial independence. This Correspondence presents additional facts relevant to evaluating those conclusions. The research article remained intact. The coordinated presentation was commissioned by the Editor-in-Chief, while a senior editor serving as acting Editor-in-Chief independently managed peer review and made the publication decisions for all four editorials. Before the case study was published, its authors had submitted to Anesthesiology a manuscript advancing a similar critique. That manuscript underwent multiple rounds of external assessment, senior editorial-board review, and discussion by the full editorial board; its rejection was not unilateral. During my tenure, neither the American Society of Anesthesiologists nor Pacira BioSciences participated in or influenced the 2024 publication decisions for the research article or accompanying editorials, or the disposition of the authors' later submission. Greater procedural clarity could have been achieved through timelier publication, fuller disclosure of organizational relationships, and complete recusal of the Editor-in-Chief from consideration of the later submission. These are legitimate procedural lessons, but they do not establish external influence or editorial misconduct. The publication record instead reflects the transparent presentation of scientific disagreement, not a disguised retraction.
    Keywords:  Competing interests; Editorial decision-making; Editorial independence; Industry influence; Liposomal bupivacaine; Peer review; Publication ethics; Scientific disagreement
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-026-00249-4
  23. J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2026 Sep 09.
    Training Peer Review as an Overlooked Scholarly Competence in Health Professions Education.
    Javier Arredondo Montero.
       ABSTRACT: Peer review is central to the integrity of scientific knowledge, yet it remains largely unsupported by structured, competency-based training within health professions education. This article reframes peer review as a core scholarly competence in continuing professional development and proposes a pragmatic, theory-informed framework to support its development. Drawing on evidence suggesting that traditional workshops and feedback interventions have limited and often short-lived effect, the model emphasizes mentored co-review, benchmarking against peer reports, and training approaches informed by cognitive load theory as promising strategies to support progressive expertise. The framework also addresses emerging ethical challenges, including the responsible use of artificial intelligence and the risk of superficial or automated evaluation. Beyond individual skill development, it outlines institutional strategies such as curriculum integration, reviewer portfolios, qualitative recognition systems, and more equitable distribution of reviewing responsibilities. By aligning individual accountability with structural reform, this article offers a practical pathway for educators, journals, and institutions to strengthen the quality, transparency, and professionalization of peer review within continuing professional development.
    Keywords:  academic publishing; artificial intelligence; cognitive load theory; continuing professional development; coreview; health professions education; mentorship; peer review; reviewer training; scholarly competence
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1097/CEH.0000000000000672
  24. Br J Cardiol. 2026 ;33(3): 034
    Publishing in medicine: why, when, where, what and how.
    Benoy N Shah.
      
    Keywords:  literature; publish; review
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.5837/bjc.2026.034
  25. Headache. 2026 Sep 08.
    A guide to writing and publishing effective plain language summaries in Headache.
    Meghan Piccinin, Robert C Gibler, Jenn Vallimont.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1111/head.70203
  26. Child Adolesc Ment Health. 2026 Sep 10.
    Editorial: How to get published - nine golden rules of writing.
    Bernadka Dubicka.
      Trying to get onto the academic career ladder is tough for early career researchers, and getting peer-reviewed publications is an essential part of the process. As an Editor-in-Chief, I am often approached by authors about how to get published - the brutal reality is that our journal receives far more papers than it can publish and the vast majority of submissions will be rejected without being sent for review. That is a hard statistic for an author who has laboured for many hours in the hope of publication. So, how to increase those chances? Here are my suggestions.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1111/camh.70127
  27. Case Rep Womens Health. 2026 Sep;51 e00816
    Ethical considerations for consent for publication.
    Marc Cornock.
      
    Keywords:  Consent; Legally valid consent; Publication ethics; Research consent
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crwh.2026.e00816
  28. Compr Rev Food Sci Food Saf. 2026 Sep;25(5): e70647
    Preparing a Competitive Submission.
    Mary Ellen Camire.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1111/1541-4337.70647
  29. Indian J Psychol Med. 2026 Sep 06. 02537176261483252
    "Ethics Committee Approval and Participant Consent Were Not Required": Challenging a Persistent Misconception in Biomedical Research.
    Rajshekhar Bipeta.
      Biomedical journal editors often encounter manuscripts claiming that ethics review or participant consent was unnecessary because the studies were low risk or did not involve patients. Such claims may reflect misunderstandings of contemporary research ethics. Ethical responsibilities extend to research involving human participants, identifiable data, biological materials, and digital or online settings. Exemption from ethics review and waiver or modification of informed consent are distinct decisions that should be made in accordance with applicable regulations and, where required, determined by an ethics committee rather than the investigator alone. This article examines four common misconceptions and provides practical guidance for clear ethics statements in biomedical manuscripts.
    Keywords:  Ethical review; ethics committees; informed consent; publishing; research ethics
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1177/02537176261483252
  30. PLOS Glob Public Health. 2026 ;6(9): e0007257
    Building better citation practices in public health research: Practical considerations for student researchers, from source discovery to crafting and positioning claims.
    Ella August, Andrea Mahieu, Andrew F Brouwer.
      Discovering, selecting, and citing sources to craft claims is fundamental to public health research and writing. Sources influence our research questions, shape our methodological approaches, connect our work to the broader public health literature, and affect how successfully our writing persuades readers that our research is valuable and that our arguments are sound. Despite the importance of source and citation practices to successful scientific writing, many student researchers receive limited or no formal training on these practices, particularly on drawing from sources to build persuasive arguments. Without specific training, many student researchers struggle to use sources effectively and often encounter pitfalls such as citation bias, quotation errors, and academic plagiarism. In this article, we provide practical considerations for effective source use and citation practices for academic papers. We highlight best practices for source discovery, from strategies for conducting comprehensive literature searches to active reading and synthesis techniques that inform academic thinking and writing. Given the rise of AI, including generative AI and AI-powered research tools, we address both the potential benefits such tools can offer and the potential pitfalls arising from uncritical use. Finally, we discuss selecting and using sources to craft and position claims, including choosing sources to support different types of claims, building credible arguments, and framing citations to reflect a stance or judgment. In this article, we offer practical introductory advice for student researchers to strengthen their source use and citation practices. Using this guidance as a starting point, student researchers can improve the quality of their publications and refine their reading, critical thinking, and writing skills which will serve them throughout their research careers.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgph.0007257
  31. Dement Neuropsychol. 2026 ;20 e2026E001
    Manifesto by the editors of Brazilian scientific journals in the field of human aging in support of open access to research and publications.
    Patrick Alexander Wachholz, Adriano Pasqualotti, Alfredo Cataldo, Anelise Crippa, Beltrina Côrte, Carla Helena Augustin Schwanke, Einstein Francisco de Camargos, Graciela de Brum Palmeiras, Johannes Doll, Kenio Costa de Lima, Lilian Cristine Hubner, Maria Elisa Gonzalez Manso, Régis Gemerasca Mestriner, Renato Gorga Bandeira de Melo, Ricardo Nitrini, Roberto Alves Lourenço, Sonia Maria Dozzi Brucki, Vanessa Sgnaolin, Renata Eloah de Lucena Ferretti-Rebustini.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1590/1980-5764-DN-2026-E001
  32. Ned Tijdschr Tandheelkd. 2026 Mar 03. 133(3): 142
    [Series: Concise Research. Dentists want more research in Dutch professional journals].
    F Kok, A Schuller.
      In recent years, a great deal of scientific research has been published within Dutch dentistry. It is common practice to do this primarily in international journals. But do practicing dentists also obtain their scientific knowledge from there? The aim of this research was to gain insight into the publication behavior of researchers at dental faculties in the Netherlands and the information search behavior of practicing dentists in the Netherlands, and the extent to which these correspond.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.5177/ntvt.2026.03.25084
  33. Ned Tijdschr Tandheelkd. 2026 06 09. 133(6): 319
    [Scientific publications from Dutch dental faculties, response of the authors].
    F Kok, A Schuller.
      The authors F. Kok and A.A. Schuller reply to the comment written bij H.S. Brand on their article 'Dentists want more research in Dutch professional journals' (March 2026).
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.5177/ntvt.2026.06.25084com
  34. Ned Tijdschr Tandheelkd. 2026 06 09. 133(6): 318
    [Scientific publications from Dutch dental faculties].
    Henk Brand.
      The letter to the editor is a response to the article 'Dentists want more research in Dutch professional journals' by F. Kok and A.A. Schuller, which appeared in March 2026.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.5177/ntvt.2026.06.25084com
  35. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2026 Sep 07.
    The orthopaedic surgeon's responsibility: Creating and protecting scientific evidence as its custodian.
    Lika Dzidzishvili, Luca Macchiarola, Theodorakys Marin Fermin, George Mihai Avram, Michael T Hirschmann, Stefano Zaffagnini.
      Progress in surgery has never been driven by technical innovation alone. Advancing patient care extends far beyond the operating room, relying on the research and academic engagement of orthopaedic surgeons. Every improvement in surgical practice, from refined indications to optimised rehabilitation protocols, has been built on rigorous research and critical evaluation of evidence. Among academic activities, peer review is perhaps one of the most undervalued. It is time-consuming, often performed after long clinical hours, and offers little personal recognition. Yet, it remains the cornerstone of scientific integrity, strengthening manuscripts by challenging unsupported conclusions, refining methodology, and improving the quality of evidence that informs clinical decision-making. The benefits of peer review extend beyond the published article. Critically evaluating the work of others enhances reviewers' analytical skills, keeps them current with emerging evidence, and fosters more critical interpretation of the literature. The future of orthopaedic surgery is shaped not only by those who operate, but by those who question, investigate, review, and train future generations. Our patients deserve surgeons who are not merely skilled technicians but thoughtful towards scientific progress.
    Keywords:  academic surgeon; clinical research; evidence‐based medicine; peer review
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1002/ksa.70592
  36. Am J Epidemiol. 2026 Sep 08. pii: kwag212. [Epub ahead of print]
    What happens to your manuscript: characteristics of papers published in volume 194 of the American Journal of Epidemiology.
    Sita Lujintanon, Catherine R Lesko, Lorraine T Dean, John W Jackson, Harriett Telljohann, Enrique F Schisterman, On Behalf Of The Editorial Board.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwag212
  37. Nutr Rev. 2026 Sep 05. pii: nuag132. [Epub ahead of print]
    Paying for Use: Rethinking Article Processing Charges as Dissemination Investments in Nutrition Science.
    Tao Yu.
      Open access has become an important route for making nutrition research available, but availability is not the same as use. Nutrition evidence creates value only when it is interpreted, translated, trusted, and taken up in clinical nutrition, dietetic practice, public health programs, guideline development, policy, and professional education. This commentary argues that article processing charges (APCs) should not be treated merely as publication fees or automatic postacceptance reimbursements but as dissemination investments under resource constraints. Journal Impact Factor (JIF), publisher brand, and open-access (OA) status are visible signals, but they do not necessarily show whether publication spending helps evidence reach intended users. A cross-sectional descriptive analysis of 98 nutrition and dietetics publication venues found a modest positive rank correlation between average JIF and listed APC (Spearman ρ = 0.33). Average JIF alone explained little variation in listed APCs (adjusted R² = 0.03); the adjusted R² increased to 0.56 when OA type was added and to 0.64 when publisher group was added. Although dissemination value was not measured directly, these findings indicate APCs are not simply the price of journal impact. Together with prior research, they support dissemination portfolio management, aligning journal selection for each manuscript and resource allocation across manuscripts with scientific fit, intended users, expected reach, cost, time, and rejection risk. Paying for access is no longer enough; nutrition science must learn to pay for use by reconsidering APCs as dissemination investments designed around intended users and evidence use.
    Keywords:  article processing charges; dissemination; nutrition science; open-access publishing; research governance
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1093/nutrit/nuag132
  38. Biophotonics Discov. 2026 Apr;3(2): 020501
    Engineering transparency: a conversation with Guosong Hong.
    Darren Roblyer, Travis Sawyer.
      BIOS Editor-in-Chief Darren Roblyer and Associate Editor Travis Sawyer interviewed Guosong Hong about his path in biophotonics.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1117/1.BIOS.3.2.020501
  39. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2026 Sep 05. pii: djag263. [Epub ahead of print]
    Writing and reviewing for JNCI.
    Eduardo L Franco.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djag263
  40. Orthop J Sports Med. 2026 Sep;14(9): 23259671261463933
    Evolution of Artificial Intelligence Adoption in American Journal of Sports Medicine Abstracts: A Period and Nativity-Based Analysis.
    Zirvecan Güneş, Esra Kutsal Mergen.
       Background: While large language models (LLMs) have made a tremendous impact on scientific workflow, there are also serious concerns about ethical integrity and nondiverse written language in medical and orthopaedic literature. Recent studies have yielded conflicting results regarding the involvement of artificial intelligence (AI) in writing processes.
    Purpose: To (1) determine the extent of AI involvement in American Journal of Sports Medicine (AJSM) abstracts across 4 different time periods; (2) to determine whether AI usage differs based on authorship nativity.
    Study Design: Cross-sectional study.
    Methods: We retrospectively reviewed abstracts from AJSM and organized these into 4 periods. We chose the year 2000 as a human baseline to establish a threshold for AI involvement. We also selected the years 2015 and 2020 to observe changes in AI probability scores. Considering the release of ChatGPT in November 2022, we included abstracts from 2023 to 2025 to determine the increase in AI usage. We classified articles into native English-speaking, non-native English-speaking, and mixed groups to determine authorship nativity based on institutional affiliations. We used Originality.AI to report AI probability scores. We evaluated differences across years and nativity groups using the Kruskal-Wallis and post hoc tests.
    Results: Across the 6 time periods, 1885 abstracts were analyzed. AI probability scores from the year 2000 (n = 124; mean, 1.68%) were significantly lower than all subsequent years (P < .001 for all pairwise comparisons). Scores remained stable between 2015 (n = 348; mean, 9.39%) and 2020 (n = 383; mean, 8.91%; P≥ .999). However, scores began a rapid and significant increase starting in 2023 (n = 345; mean 15.48%) and continued to rise through 2025 (n = 323; mean, 30.6%; P < .001) compared with all previous years. The percentage of abstracts exceeding the threshold increased consistently throughout the years, from 4% in the 2000 baseline to 62.5% in 2025. When nativity groups were compared within the Generative AI Era, no statistically significant differences in AI probability scores were observed in 2023 (P = .364), 2024 (P = .053), or 2025 (P = .454).
    Conclusion: Our study demonstrated that the prevalence of AI-like linguistic patterns in AJSM abstracts has increased since the release of ChatGPT. AI adoption across all nativity groups suggests that AI has become a universal standard for efficient article writing, regardless of the language barrier encountered by non-native speakers.
    Keywords:  artificial intelligence; authorship; bibliometrics; large language models; scientific writing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1177/23259671261463933
  41. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2026 Sep;pii: S1078-5884(26)00748-3. [Epub ahead of print]72(3): 413-414
    The European Journal of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery firmly established as the leading Global Vascular Surgical Journal.
    Jonathan R Boyle, Maarit A Venermo, Armando Mansilha.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejvs.2026.07.067
This page is being maintained by Thomas Krichel. It was last updated on 2026‒09‒13 at 13:41.