bims-skolko Biomed News
on Scholarly communication
Issue of 2026–09–27
37 papers selected by
Thomas Krichel, Open Library Society
  1. Rethinking Academic Impact: A Context-Constrained Framework for Publication Strategy and Evaluation.
  2. China punishes prominent academics exposed by research sleuth.
  3. Who really owns science? The Sci-Hub ban and the battle for scientific equity.
  4. Competition heats up in the regenerative-medicine ranks.
  5. Hundreds of 'free' academic journals have started charging fees.
  6. Journal quartiles and article-level citation performance: a single-institution case study in academic dentistry.
  7. Beyond the impact factor: What readers and authors value in scientific journals.
  8. Research integrity in orthopedics: a bibliometric analysis of retracted articles, and the role of publication incentives.
  9. From Solitude to AI Companionship-Three Phases of a Writing Life and What They Reveal About Rethinking Scholarly Support in Academic Medicine.
  10. The Moral Economy of Nursing Research: Commodification, Metricisation and Scholarly Integrity.
  11. Coping with the impacts of generative artificial intelligence on scholarly publications.
  12. More abstracts, more science? Conference visibility and evidence maturity in reproductive medicine.
  13. From existence checking to semantic auditing: citation verifiability in the age of AI.
  14. AI translation and citation irregularities.
  15. Is AI Redefining Scientific Publications?
  16. Quantifying Artificial Intelligence Contribution in Academic Writing: Development of the Transparency and Reporting of Artificial Intelligence Contribution for Evaluating Submissions Instrument.
  17. Safeguarding academic integrity in the age of generative artificial intelligence across dental research, publishing, and clinical practice: Are we prepared to uphold ethics while embracing innovation?
  18. Artificial Intelligence in Cardiovascular Science and Publishing.
  19. Language editing in the artificial intelligence era: achieving epistemic integrity: an expanded Korean translation.
  20. Generative AI in pharmacology publishing: Detection is necessary; governance of disclosure and equity is the harder task.
  21. Standards and Guidance for Transparent Disclosure of Human-Artificial Intelligence Collaboration Content in Medical Research (2026).
  22. When the Review Reads Too Well: Responding to AI-Generated Peer Review.
  23. Statistical Complexity Is Outpacing Peer Review.
  24. [How to deal with peer review effectively for case reports].
  25. Teaching authentic peer review using preprints: a modular curriculum that can be embedded into existing science courses.
  26. Participant Fraud: How Imposters and Bots Undermine Health Databases.
  27. A step toward inclusion: A transparent dataset for automatic text simplification for screen reader users.
  28. An assessment of data and code sharing in research funded by the Nathan Shock Centers, 2017-2022: a meta-research study.
  29. Getting your publication right - Part 3 structuring a research manuscript: A guide to writing clinical trials.
  30. Advancing clinical trial designing, reporting, and publishing.
  31. The Review We Owe Each Other: Sustaining Peer Review in Interventional Cardiology.
  32. AI cannot synthesise what has never been reported: the future of the spine journal.
  33. Publishing at the Speed of a Moving Target: Generative AI, the Peer-Review Lag, and the Studies the Journal of Endourology Will Value.
  34. American Journal of Human Biology Now Accepting Study Protocol Manuscripts.
  35. Publishing Educational Innovations, Pilots and Interventions in The Clinical Teacher.
  36. Scientific influence on the rise: 2025 impact factors for JAVMA and AJVR.
  37. Share your research in Experimental Hematology-Announcing exciting new article types!
  1. J Nucl Med Technol. 2026 Sep 22. pii: jnmt.126.273072. [Epub ahead of print]
    Rethinking Academic Impact: A Context-Constrained Framework for Publication Strategy and Evaluation.
    Geoffrey M Currie.
      In nuclear medicine, scholarly value is not always captured by the metrics used to judge it. Work that improves protocols, strengthens radiation safety, supports technologist education, clarifies clinical decision-making, or advances professional practice may have substantial impact without generating high citation counts or appearing in high-impact journals. Yet academic performance is increasingly evaluated through bibliometric indicators that offer incomplete, and sometimes distorted, representations of scholarly contribution. When citation counts, impact factors, and journal rankings become targets rather than descriptive tools, they can create tension between productivity, journal prestige, audience alignment, and meaningful clinical impact. This tension is particularly important for nuclear medicine technology, where scholarship often serves a specialized professional audience within a comparatively constrained journal ecosystem. Methods: A conceptual framework was developed that models academic impact as a nonlinear, context-dependent function of publication volume, journal standing, and audience alignment, moderated by career stage and disciplinary structure. The framework introduces parameters that account for the nonlinear contribution of journal rank and the influence of audience fit on citation performance. Results: The model is not intended as a universal metric for evaluating research quality. Consistent with Goodhart's law, optimization of any single measure risks distorting scholarly behavior. Instead, the framework is positioned as a decision-support tool to guide researchers in balancing competing priorities and aligning publication strategies with disciplinary context, career stage, and professional goals. Conclusion: By reframing impact as an optimization problem under constraint, the model supports more deliberate, context-sensitive, and sustainable approaches to research dissemination.
    Keywords:  academic; impact; metrics; publishing; quality; research
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.2967/jnmt.126.273072
  2. Nature. 2026 Sep 21.
    China punishes prominent academics exposed by research sleuth.
    Xiaoying You.
      
    Keywords:  Funding; Government; Policy; Publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-026-02890-x
  3. Indian J Med Ethics. 2026 Jul-Sep;XI(3):XI(3): 235-237
    Who really owns science? The Sci-Hub ban and the battle for scientific equity.
    Surajit Bhattacharya, Kaushik Bhattacharya, Neeta Bhattacharya, Neela Bhattacharya, Dhananjaya Sharma.
      On August 19, 2025, the Delhi High Court ordered the blocking of Sci-Hub, a landmark ruling affecting access to scientific knowledge. Founded by Alexandra Elbakyan, Sci-Hub provided free access to millions of pay-walled research articles. While publishers framed this as copyright infringement, many researchers - particularly those in resource-constrained countries like India - viewed it as a democratising force. The judgment foregrounds a fundamental conflict in contemporary scientific publishing: the privileging of intellectual property enforcement over the ethical principle that publicly funded research should be freely and equitably accessible. Current publishing models often require authors to transfer copyright, pay article processing charges, and leave readers facing costly subscriptions, perpetuating inequity. Although Sci-Hub facilitated research and challenged publisher dominance, it also raised concerns about copyright violations and sustainability. In India, limited R&D funding makes subscriptions unaffordable, underscoring the need for policy solutions such as national subscriptions and mandatory open access. The debate calls for treating knowledge as a public good.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.20529/IJME.2026.030
  4. Nature. 2026 Sep;657(8133): S57
    Competition heats up in the regenerative-medicine ranks.
      
    Keywords:  Institutions; Medical research; Publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-026-02856-z
  5. Nature. 2026 Sep 22.
    Hundreds of 'free' academic journals have started charging fees.
    Dalmeet Singh Chawla.
      
    Keywords:  Funding; Publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-026-02818-5
  6. Front Res Metr Anal. 2026 ;11 1894451
    Journal quartiles and article-level citation performance: a single-institution case study in academic dentistry.
    Andy Wai Kan Yeung.
      Journal quartiles derived from the journal citation reports are widely used for research evaluation, yet empirical evidence on their relationship with article-level normalized citation impact within specific disciplines remained limited. By examining this relationship using article-level indicators, the study explicitly addresses how journal quartiles function in institutional research evaluation practice, rather than as standalone bibliometric descriptors. This study analyzed 1,180 publications (2015-2024) from a research-intensive dental school to examine how journal quartile related to category normalized citation impact (CNCI). Descriptive analyses demonstrated a strong and orderly gradient in CNCI and raw citation counts from Q4 to Q1. Multivariable Gamma regression with log link and negative binomial models showed that quartile effects persist after adjusting for collaboration type, authorship, document type, and publication year. These findings aligned with cross-field scientometric evidence showing that higher-quartile journals attract disproportionate citation attention. The results extended prior journal-level analyses by showing a strong adjusted association between quartile and article-level normalized performance on aggregate. The study provided discipline-specific evidence relevant to institutional research strategy and publication planning. Future work could assess whether similar quartile gradients appear across other academic healthcare or biomedical subject areas.
    Keywords:  citation analysis; dentistry research; journal quartiles; normalized citation impact (CNCI); research evaluation; scholarly publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3389/frma.2026.1894451
  7. Ann Hepatol. 2026 Sep 25. pii: S1665-2681(26)00270-X. [Epub ahead of print] 102450
    Beyond the impact factor: What readers and authors value in scientific journals.
    Shigeki Matsubara.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aohep.2026.102450
  8. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2026 Sep 23. pii: S1877-0568(26)00323-3. [Epub ahead of print] 104902
    Research integrity in orthopedics: a bibliometric analysis of retracted articles, and the role of publication incentives.
    Shirin Monadjemi, Pierre-Henry Paya, Pierre-Hugo Gratuze, Guillaume Villatte, Stéphane Descamps, Roger Erivan.
       BACKGROUND: Article retractions are increasing across scientific literature, raising concerns about research integrity. In orthopedics, the distribution of retracted publications across study designs and their relationship with bibliometric indicators remains poorly characterized. This study aimed to: (1) analyze study designs and publication characteristics of retracted orthopedic articles; (2) assess the reasons for retractions across different study designs; and (3) explore factors contributing to increasing retraction rates and implications for research integrity.
    HYPOTHESIS: We hypothesized that clinical studies would account for the greatest proportion of retractions.
    METHODS: We analyzed 134 English-language orthopedic journals and identified retracted publications issued between January 2000 and January 2026 using PubMed, Scopus, and Retraction Watch Database. Data extracted included study design, reasons for retraction, journal impact factor, SIGAPS rank, country of origin, citation count, and time to retraction.
    RESULTS: A total of 184 retracted articles from 58 journals were included. Clinical studies represent the largest proportion (118/184, 64.1%), followed by basic science (33/184, 17.9%) and secondary research (31/184, 16.8%). Cohort studies were most frequently retracted (44/184, 24.0%), while randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews with meta-analyses accounted together for 20.7% (38/184). Most retractions occurred in SIGAPS B-ranking journals (63/184, 34.2%). Misconduct was the leading cause of retraction. The most cited article was also associated with the longest retraction delay (22 years) and had been retracted for misconduct.
    CONCLUSION: Orthopedic research retractions are increasing and predominantly involve clinical studies. The retraction of randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews with meta-analyses is particularly concerning given their high level of evidence. Misconduct remains the leading cause of retraction. Improved detection methods and increasing publication pressure may contribute to these trends, underscoring the need to prioritize research quality and integrity over publication output.
    LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III; retrospective study.
    Keywords:  SIGAPS; ethics; misconduct; orthopedics; retracted publication
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otsr.2026.104902
  9. Teach Learn Med. 2026 Sep 24. 1-7
    From Solitude to AI Companionship-Three Phases of a Writing Life and What They Reveal About Rethinking Scholarly Support in Academic Medicine.
    Moshe Y Flugelman.
      I describe three phases of a physician-scientist's writing career: solitary writing, human collaboration, and engagement with generative artificial intelligence (AI) based on large language models. I use these phases to argue that academic medicine should rethink how it supports scholarly work. The central claim, offered from a single case as hypothesis rather than proof, is that a significant obstacle to scholarly productivity can be structural rather than cognitive: the unavailability of appropriate intellectual companionship at the moment of need. In the first phase, characterized by productive solitude, I built an original scholarly voice, but it led, over time, to epistemic loneliness and exhaustion. In the second phase, collaboration with a scientific editor restored my energy, but our interaction was constrained by scheduled availability. The third phase introduced generative AI as an unusually accessible intellectual companion that allowed me to engage at the moment of curiosity, bridged clinical science and the medical humanities, and made it less costly to admit uncertainty. I describe concrete examples in the text and in a supplementary appendix that serves as an extended disclosure of AI use. I argue that generative AI, grounded in deep research, teaching, and clinical experience, extends rather than replaces human thought and that the experience likely speaks to hybrid scholars of many kinds, not to physician-scientists alone. This essay draws implications for faculty development, equitable access, responsible AI use, and the formation of scholarly voice among learners and identifies research questions for the field.
    Keywords:  Academic writing; creativity; generative artificial intelligence; large language models; medical humanities; physician-scientist; solitude
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1080/10401334.2026.2737803
  10. Nurs Philos. 2026 Oct;27(4): e70122
    The Moral Economy of Nursing Research: Commodification, Metricisation and Scholarly Integrity.
    Daniel Joseph E Berdida.
      This paper offers a philosophical critique of the moral economy of nursing research under conditions of commodification and metricisation. Using the concept of the junkification of research as an analytic lens, it examines tensions that may arise when institutional criteria such as publication volume, journal prestige, citation visibility, grant capture and speed of dissemination operate alongside criteria concerned with methodological rigour, conceptual contribution, ethical seriousness and practical significance. The paper does not claim that nursing research as a whole has become junkified or that particular areas of nursing knowledge have been empirically demonstrated to be marginalised. Rather, it asks how contemporary evaluative conditions may shape what forms of scholarship are feasible, recognised and circulated. It argues that this question is especially important in nursing because nursing knowledge is simultaneously empirical, explanatory, interpretive, relational, situated and practice-accountable. The paper further examines how marketised access and prestige structures can affect participation and epistemic recognition, and concludes by framing doctoral education, academic leadership, publishing, institutional assessment and professional governance as sites of disciplinary stewardship.
    Keywords:  commodification of knowledge; epistemic injustice; junkification of research; metricisation; moral economy; nursing knowledge; scholarly integrity
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1111/nup.70122
  11. Account Res. 2026 Sep 25. 2737718
    Coping with the impacts of generative artificial intelligence on scholarly publications.
    Mohammad Hosseini, Lisa Rasmussen, David B Resnik.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2026.2737718
  12. Reprod Biomed Online. 2026 Sep 04. pii: S1472-6483(26)00500-6. [Epub ahead of print]53(6): 105959
    More abstracts, more science? Conference visibility and evidence maturity in reproductive medicine.
    Fadi Choucair, Alex C Varghese, Maha Al-Asmakh, Carin Huyser.
      Conference abstracts disseminate rapidly, remain indexed and citable, and can reach clinicians and patients long before a peer-reviewed report appears, or in its place. This commentary examines that gap between visibility and evidence maturity in reproductive medicine. Submissions to the major fertility congresses continue to rise, plausibly sustained by tools that lower the cost of producing an abstract and by incentives that reward its acceptance. A substantial proportion of presented trials never reach full publication, and findings can change as data mature, yet abstracts continue to accrue citations and media attention regardless. This commentary argues for strengthening traceability rather than restricting communication, and sets out measures that congresses and professional societies could adopt.
    Keywords:  Assisted reproductive technology; Conference abstracts; Publication bias; Research integrity; Scientific meetings
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2026.105959
  13. Front Res Metr Anal. 2026 ;11 1927189
    From existence checking to semantic auditing: citation verifiability in the age of AI.
    Libor Ansorge.
      This paper reflects on the current crisis of academic integrity caused by the phenomenon of fabricated and semantically incorrect citations. In the era of 'fast science' and permanent citation inflation, human reviewers face extreme cognitive overload and time pressure, making it impossible to consistently verify literature sources. As a key solution, this paper proposes the deployment of autonomous AI agents (Agentic AI) designed for the deep semantic auditing of manuscripts. This technological shift is complemented by an innovative proposal to introduce mandatory authorial 'citation reports' that operationalize the concepts of citation classification. The resulting synergy between human expertise and machine precision relieves reviewers of their mechanical burden and can help strengthen the rigor, transparency, and credibility of peer review.
    Keywords:  agentic AI; artificial intelligence (AI); citation classification; citation inflation; citation ontology; citations; fake citations; semantic auditing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3389/frma.2026.1927189
  14. Account Res. 2026 Sep 21. 2736608
    AI translation and citation irregularities.
    Ka Wai Fan.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2026.2736608
  15. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2026 Sep 22.
    Is AI Redefining Scientific Publications?
    Padmaja Sankaridurg.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s44402-026-00183-4
  16. J Neurosci Nurs. 2026 Sep-Oct 01;58(5):58(5): E5
    Quantifying Artificial Intelligence Contribution in Academic Writing: Development of the Transparency and Reporting of Artificial Intelligence Contribution for Evaluating Submissions Instrument.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1097/JNN.0000000000000913
  17. J Am Dent Assoc. 2026 Sep 25. pii: S0002-8177(26)00474-5. [Epub ahead of print]
    Safeguarding academic integrity in the age of generative artificial intelligence across dental research, publishing, and clinical practice: Are we prepared to uphold ethics while embracing innovation?
    Fotini V Anagnostopoulos-King.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adaj.2026.07.016
  18. Circulation. 2026 Sep 22. 154(12): 1053-1055
    Artificial Intelligence in Cardiovascular Science and Publishing.
    Thomas M Maddox.
      
    Keywords:  artificial intelligence; publishing; research
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.126.080230
  19. Ewha Med J. 2026 Sep 21.
    Language editing in the artificial intelligence era: achieving epistemic integrity: an expanded Korean translation.
    Yunhee Whang, Andrew Dombrowski.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.12771/emj.2026.01529
  20. Br J Pharmacol. 2026 Sep 23.
    Generative AI in pharmacology publishing: Detection is necessary; governance of disclosure and equity is the harder task.
    Răzvan M Cherecheș.
      
    Keywords:  AI disclosure; AI text detection; equity in publishing; generative artificial intelligence; publication ethics; research integrity
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1111/bph.70684
  21. Zhongguo Yi Xue Ke Xue Yuan Xue Bao. 2026 Aug;48(4): 591-606
    Standards and Guidance for Transparent Disclosure of Human-Artificial Intelligence Collaboration Content in Medical Research (2026).
    Medical Journals Committee of the Society of China University Journals
      The rapid iteration of artificial intelligence (AI) tools is propelling medical research into a new phase characterized by human-AI collaboration.In the course of this process,AI has evolved from an external instrument into a functional component embedded within research workflows.As the collaborative boundary between human researchers and AI becomes increasingly ambiguous,governance challenges have grown increasingly salient.Concurrently,there remains a lack of internationally harmonized standards for the declaration of AI-assisted content,giving rise to notable disclosure gaps and implementation disconnects both domestically and abroad.To address these issues,the Professional Committee of Medical Journals of the Society of China University Journals assembled a multidisciplinary expert team covering fields such as medicine,biostatistics,epidemiology,medical ethics,scientific journal editing,and medical AI technology.Employing a modified Delphi method,the team conducted three rounds of online surveys and two consensus meetings.Drawing upon evidence from policy surveys of 1 692 medical journals,position statements from international organizations such as the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors,AI policy texts from the world's major academic publishers (Elsevier,Springer Nature,Wiley,Taylor & Francis,SAGE,etc.),and comparative studies on AI detection tool performance,the team ultimately formulated ten recommendations addressing core issues in medical publishing.This guidance emphasizes the core principles of transparent disclosure,human accountability,risk stratification,and technology-assisted oversight,aiming to fully harness the benefits of AI technology while upholding the bottom line of academic integrity.It provides a systematic framework for the standardized disclosure of human-AI collaboration content in medical research and offers actionable normative guidance for researchers,journal editors,peer reviewers,and academic institutions.
    Keywords:  academic integrity; artificial intelligence; evidence-based methodology; human-artificial intelligence collaboration; medical research; publishing ethics; transparent disclosure
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3881/j.issn.1000-503X.17531
  22. Clin Exp Dermatol. 2026 Sep 22. pii: llag422. [Epub ahead of print]
    When the Review Reads Too Well: Responding to AI-Generated Peer Review.
    Keshavamurthy Vinay, Sejal Jain, Hitaishi Mehta.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1093/ced/llag422
  23. J Eval Clin Pract. 2026 Sep;32(6): e70613
    Statistical Complexity Is Outpacing Peer Review.
    Michal Ordak.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1111/jep.70613
  24. Rinsho Shinkeigaku. 2026 Sep 19.
    [How to deal with peer review effectively for case reports].
    Akiyuki Hiraga.
      To achieve acceptance of a case report, authors must provide an effective response to the reviewers' comments and perform a thorough revision of the manuscript. Authors should adopt three key mindsets: (i) reviewers are not adversaries, but collaborators who help improve the manuscript; (ii) if a reviewer misunderstands a point, the writing should be clarified; and (iii) the revised manuscript should be resubmitted promptly. When responding to reviewers, authors should follow three fundamental principles: (i) address all comments, (ii) respond politely, and (iii) provide evidence when offering a rebuttal. The final decision to accept or reject a paper is made by the editors, not the reviewers. Therefore, when responding to a comment is difficult, statements such as "we shall abide by the editor's decision" in the cover letter may be effective.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.5692/clinicalneurol.cn-002299
  25. J Microbiol Biol Educ. 2026 Sep 22. e0017226
    Teaching authentic peer review using preprints: a modular curriculum that can be embedded into existing science courses.
    Sarah C Fankhauser, Gary S McDowell, Meena M Balgopal, Rebeccah S Lijek.
      The peer-reviewed literature is the foundation of science and science education. Peer-reviewed journal articles are often assigned as readings or used as references in undergraduate science courses. However, students cannot participate in journal peer review and are rarely taught how to write peer review reports, an authentic form of scientific communication and an important part of the job of a scientist. As such, authentic peer review represents part of STEM's hidden curriculum. Here, we present a modular, project-based curriculum on how to peer review a manuscript and write a balanced peer review report. Students work through outside-of-class, scaffolded assignments that can be clustered within weeks or distributed throughout the semester. These activities embed into disciplinary courses, complementing, not replacing, existing course material, to deepen content understanding and develop communication skills. The curriculum uses preprints: free, online, scientific manuscripts that have not yet undergone peer review. Preprint peer review does not have barriers to access like journal peer review, allowing students and educators to participate. Students are taught how to find preprints of interest and write peer review reports, which can be published online, creating scholarly products with citable digital object identifiers (DOIs). Field testing at six sites demonstrated that the curriculum is highly adaptable across diverse institutional settings, student populations, and course levels. By learning the mechanisms of peer review and authentically participating in it, students in the curriculum have the opportunity to develop scientific literacy, a sense of identity as a scientist, and belonging in the scientific community.
    Keywords:  authentic peer review; modular curriculum; preprints; science identity; scientific literacy
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1128/jmbe.00172-26
  26. J Med Internet Res. 2026 09 21. 28 e112019
    Participant Fraud: How Imposters and Bots Undermine Health Databases.
    Cliff Dominy.
       Unlabelled: Advances in technology are making scientific fraud easier, faster, and harder to detect-from fake papers and fake authors to fake participants. In this News and Perspectives article, JMIR Correspondent Cliff Dominy reports on the evolving problem of participant fraud, as well as measures that can be taken to detect and prevent it.
    Keywords:  artificial intelligence; bots; computer security; data integrity; fraud; internet; research ethics
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.2196/112019
  27. Data Brief. 2026 Aug;69 113217
    A step toward inclusion: A transparent dataset for automatic text simplification for screen reader users.
    Nelson Pérez-Rojas, Martín Solís, Saúl Calderón-Ramírez, Mónica Arias-Monge, Horacio Saggion, Danny Xie-Li.
      GeoSimp is a Spanish-language dataset for automatic text simplification (ATS), comprising approximately 3200 discourse segments derived from peer-reviewed geological scientific articles. The dataset was constructed to address two documented gaps in existing ATS resources: the limited availability of Spanish-language corpora for text simplification and text complexity classification, and the scarcity of domain-specific datasets focused on specialized scientific writing. Source texts were drawn exclusively from articles published in the Revista Geológica de América Central, a peer-reviewed, open-access journal, all of which are distributed under a single Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0) license. Text extraction was performed manually to preserve structural coherence. Paragraphs were copied into Microsoft Excel spreadsheets, assigned unique identifiers, and subsequently segmented into discourse segments by one of the authors, a researcher with expertise in linguistics. Four annotators with university degrees in Spanish philology and professional experience in text editing performed attribute identification and simplification, using a predefined scheme of 21 linguistic complexity attributes. Prior to annotation, these annotators completed a structured training and calibration phase. The dataset is distributed as two Excel files. The training file (GeoSimp_train.xlsx) contains 2956 records, each comprising the original discourse segment, one simplified version, the annotator identifier, the identified complexity attributes, the paragraph identifier, and the identifier of the source article. The test file (GeoSimp_test.xlsx) contains 301 records, each comprising the original discourse segment and four independently produced simplified versions with their corresponding attribute annotations. A simplification guidelines manual used during annotation is also included in the repository. GeoSimp is suitable for training and evaluating ATS models, for developing text complexity classification models, and for research on paragraph-level simplification. The dataset is specifically oriented toward simplification for blind and low-vision users who rely on screen readers, a population underrepresented in the ATS literature. The explicit annotation of linguistic complexity attributes per segment supports reproducibility and fine-grained error analysis. The dataset is openly available in a public GitHub repository.
    Keywords:  Artificial intelligence; Automatic text simplification; Dataset; Natural language processing; Text accessibility
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dib.2026.113217
  28. Innov Aging. 2026 ;10(10): igag090
    An assessment of data and code sharing in research funded by the Nathan Shock Centers, 2017-2022: a meta-research study.
    Colby J Vorland, Simon Chung, Aidan S Kramer, John R Hultquist, David B Allison, Andrew W Brown.
       Background and Objectives: Data and code sharing facilitate reproducibility, trust, and efficient reuse of research resources. Growing recognition of their importance among researchers, journals, and funders led the Nathan Shock Centers (NSC) Coordinating Center to propose documenting and supporting data and code sharing in aging research. As a baseline, we characterized data and code sharing practices in NSC-funded research.
    Research Design and Methods: We surveyed articles citing NSC grants published 2017-2022 indexed in PubMed. In full-text screening (n = 507), we excluded articles that did not generate or analyze data. For included articles, we classified data/code availability statements as available via repository, supplemental file, inclusion in paper, available on request, explicitly not available, no statement included, or other. We checked articles indicating open data/code to determine whether materials could be located per the provided statement.
    Results: Of 400 articles included, 50% and 92% had no data or code availability statements, respectively. Data statements indicated availability via repository (30%), supplemental files (26%), inclusion in paper (10%), and on request (14%). For code, 6% indicated availability in repositories, and ≤1% each for other categories. Of those indicating open data or code, materials were located for 63% and 81%, respectively.
    Discussion and Implications: Availability statements were absent for about half of articles for data and most for code; when open data or code was claimed, materials were located in most, but not all. Future work will evaluate how these practices improve over time as the NSC Coordinating Center's support and journal and funder guidelines evolve.
    Keywords:  Nathan Shock Centers; Replicability; Reproducibility
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1093/geroni/igag090
  29. J Conserv Dent Endod. 2026 Sep;29(9): 955-967
    Getting your publication right - Part 3 structuring a research manuscript: A guide to writing clinical trials.
    Aditya Mitra, R S Mohan Kumar, Shishir Singh, Velmurugan Natanasabapathy, Sonali Sharma, Geeta Asthana, Sonali Taneja, Suparna Ganguly Saha.
      Clinical trials form the cornerstone of evidence-based healthcare and play a crucial role in translating research into clinical practice. However, successful publication of clinical trials requires not only scientific rigor but also strategic planning, ethical transparency, accurate reporting, and effective scientific writing. This narrative review explores the "art" of publishing clinical trials, highlighting essential components from protocol development to manuscript submission and peer-review navigation. Key aspects discussed include formulation of a focused research question, trial registration, adherence to Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials guidelines, ethical considerations, statistical reporting, authorship integrity, and journal selection. Common reasons for manuscript rejection and practical approaches to improve acceptance rates are also reviewed. The review further emphasizes the importance of clarity, reproducibility, data presentation, and avoidance of publication bias. By integrating methodological standards with effective communication skills, researchers can enhance the quality, visibility, and impact of their clinical trial publications. This review aims to guide clinicians, academicians, and early-career researchers in preparing scientifically robust and publishable clinical trial manuscripts.
    Keywords:  Clinical; research; trials
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.4103/JCDE.JCDE_794_26
  30. Reumatologia. 2026 ;64(4): 263-265
    Advancing clinical trial designing, reporting, and publishing.
    Burhan Fatih Kocyigit, Olena Zimba.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.5114/reum/225916
  31. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2026 Sep 21.
    The Review We Owe Each Other: Sustaining Peer Review in Interventional Cardiology.
    Jose M Montero-Cabezas, Alfonso Jurado-Román.
      
    Keywords:  artificial intelligence; editorial integrity; interventional cardiology; peer review; research ethics; scientific publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1002/ccd.70903
  32. J Spine Surg. 2026 Sep 30. 12(9): 142
    AI cannot synthesise what has never been reported: the future of the spine journal.
    Ralph J Mobbs.
      
    Keywords:  Artificial intelligence (AI); case reports; clinical data; registries; scientific publishing; spine surgery; surgical innovation
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.21037/jss-20262-05
  33. J Endourol. 2026 Sep 19. 8927790261492115
    Publishing at the Speed of a Moving Target: Generative AI, the Peer-Review Lag, and the Studies the Journal of Endourology Will Value.
    Jin Kyu Kim, Jaime Landman, Chandru P Sundaram.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1177/08927790261492115
  34. Am J Hum Biol. 2026 Sep;38(9): e70339
    American Journal of Human Biology Now Accepting Study Protocol Manuscripts.
    William R Leonard.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1002/ajhb.70339
  35. Clin Teach. 2026 Dec;23(6): e70529
    Publishing Educational Innovations, Pilots and Interventions in The Clinical Teacher.
    Paul E S Crampton, Annette Burgess.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1111/tct.70529
  36. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2026 Oct 01. 264(10): 1262-1263
    Scientific influence on the rise: 2025 impact factors for JAVMA and AJVR.
    Lisa A Fortier.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.2460/javma.264.10.1262
  37. Exp Hematol. 2026 Sep;pii: S0301-472X(26)00125-6. [Epub ahead of print]161 105492
    Share your research in Experimental Hematology-Announcing exciting new article types!
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.exphem.2026.105492
This page is being maintained by Thomas Krichel. It was last updated on 2026‒09‒27 at 4:30.