bims-skolko Biomed News
on Scholarly communication
Issue of 2026–10–11
thirty papers selected by
Thomas Krichel, Open Library Society
  1. Biomedical Publishing Metrics as a Barrier to Knowledge Dissemination.
  2. Trends in Retraction of Vascular and Interventional Radiology Research.
  3. Retractions in the field of pregnancy and pain: bibliometric characteristics, reasons, and trends.
  4. When Form Intersects with Automation: Ethics, Authorship, and the Future of IMRAD.
  5. Publisher intervention in editorial decision-making: when established editorial procedures no longer determine publication decisions.
  6. Tracking the Publication Fate of Rejected Manuscripts: A Hybrid Automated-Manual Approach.
  7. In safe hands: human-led publishing and where AI can help.
  8. From prohibition to integration: LLMs in scientific publishing.
  9. It is Prudent to Declare all Possible Conflicts of Interest in Biomedical Publishing: An Ambiguous Example From COVID-19.
  10. Comment on "Exploring AI use policies in manuscript writing in cardiology and vascular journals".
  11. Artificial Intelligence in Veterinary Peer Review: Advancing Rigor or Raising New Concerns?
  12. From Idea to Publication: A Step-by-Step Guide to Original Research in Radiology with AI-Integrated Workflow.
  13. An Analysis of Manuscript Trajectories Following Journal Editorial Decisions.
  14. How Much Peer Review Is Enough? Rethinking Scholarly Service in Academic Medicine.
  15. Does interdisciplinary breadth shape research data sharing and citation impact? Evidence from six research fields.
  16. From "data available upon request" to repository-based sharing: A practical framework for biomedical journals.
  17. Educator's Blueprint: Seven Strategies for Turning Peer Review Into Scholarly Growth.
  18. How to write a rebuttal letter.
  19. Human-first, AI-assisted Peer Review: A Proposed Workflow for Community Medicine and Public Health Journals.
  20. A Practical Approach to Writing a Publishable Manuscript.
  21. Choosing the right reporting guideline in veterinary research: an editorial for authors and editors.
  22. Preprints must not leak sensitive research information.
  23. Cell Biochemistry and Function is Advancing Our Founding Mission and Transitioning to Full Open Access.
  24. Trends in authorship in medical teacher: A 20-year review of regionality and gender indicates slow and unsteady progress.
  25. FELASA: promoting good practice through Laboratory Animals journal.
  26. Impact, Not Impact "Factor": Strategies to Maintain Anesthesia & Analgesia As the World's Most Cited Anesthesia Journal in the New Online Format.
  27. Intensive & Critical Care Nursing: Reflecting on a decade of journal growth and future directions.
  28. Promoting transparency, reproducibility, and rigor: Medical teacher launches registered reports.
  29. AI in Medical Writing: Why JACC Does Not Require Disclosure.
  30. Commentary on Arthroscopy Editorial Commentaries With Gratitude to Our Authors.
  1. Cureus. 2026 Sep;18(9): e115765
    Biomedical Publishing Metrics as a Barrier to Knowledge Dissemination.
    Brian W Rotenberg, Douglas Chepeha.
      The Journal Impact Factor (JIF) is an outdated biomedical metric that hinders knowledge dissemination. Relying on citation counts creates a skewed, easily manipulated system with a temporal lag that ignores global equity. Frontline clinicians consume research to improve care but rarely generate citations, meaning the JIF cannot capture real-world clinical utility. To ensure rankings reflect true value, publishers must adopt a multi-dimensional matrix prioritizing usage-based Altmetrics, such as verified downloads and views, to instantly measure global clinical application.
    Keywords:  altmetric score; citation index; eigenfactor; journal impact factor; publishing metrics; pubmed indexed research
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.115765
  2. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2026 Oct 09. pii: S1051-0443(26)01145-0. [Epub ahead of print] 109134
    Trends in Retraction of Vascular and Interventional Radiology Research.
    Paul Soliman, Luke Jones, Mary Serpe, Meaghan Dendy Case, Nicholas Voutsinas.
      Retractions play an important role in maintaining the integrity of vascular and interventional radiology (VIR) literature, yet their causes and trends remain uncharacterized. A search of PubMed, Embase, and the Retraction Watch Database in April 2026 identified 142 retracted VIR articles published since 2000. The leading reasons for retraction were peer-review manipulation (21.1%), intrinsic study errors (14.8%), and submission duplication (11.3%), although 40% of notices did not specify a reason. Most articles originated from China (69%) and addressed interventional oncology (35.2%). Retractions rose sharply in recent years, with 64.7% occurring between 2023 and 2026. The median time from publication to retraction was 14.8 months, and most articles were retracted within two years. Journal impact factor ranged widely (0.60-78.50) and was not associated with time to retraction. These findings highlight peer-review manipulation as a prominent mechanism of misconduct and reaffirm the importance of rigorous peer review and editorial screening.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvir.2026.109134
  3. Rheumatol Int. 2026 Oct 09. pii: 282. [Epub ahead of print]46(10):
    Retractions in the field of pregnancy and pain: bibliometric characteristics, reasons, and trends.
    Dinara Yerlanova, Olena Zimba, Umida Khojakulova, Bekaidar Nurmashev, Ainur B Qumar, Burhan Fatih Kocyigit.
      The aim of this study is to analyze the dynamics of scientific integrity in the literature by analyzing bibliometric characteristics, temporal trends, and reasons for retractions in the field of pregnancy and pain. This cross-sectional study analyzed publications retrieved in the Scopus database using the keywords "pregnancy" and "pain" and tagged as "retracted". Publication year, retraction year, country, journal, subject area, keywords, citation counts, Altmetric Attention Score (AAS), and reasons for retraction were evaluated. Temporal trends were examined using linear regression, and the correlation between citation counts and AAS was analyzed using Spearman's rho test. A total of 55 retracted publications were examined. A significant upward trend over time was identified (β = 0.36; p = 0.017). These retractions originated from 17 countries, notably from Egypt (n = 19) and China (n = 14). The primary reason for retraction was data integrity issues (n = 20), followed by peer review problems (n = 13) and duplication (n = 9). The median citation count was 8 (0-80), and the median AAS score was 0 (0-659). A positive, significant correlation between citation numbers and AAS scores was reported (rho = 0.35; p = 0.008). Retractions have grown over time, mainly due to data integrity and peer review-publication processes. Citations and digital visibility of retracted studies, especially in clinical contexts, need careful monitoring. The results highlight the importance of rigorous research design, data transparency, and editorial oversight in upholding scientific integrity.
    Keywords:  Ethics; Pain; Peer review; Pregnancy; Retraction notice; Retraction of publication; Scientific misconduct
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00296-026-06319-6
  4. An Acad Bras Cienc. 2026 ;pii: S0001-37652026001103401. [Epub ahead of print]98(suppl 2): e20260465
    When Form Intersects with Automation: Ethics, Authorship, and the Future of IMRAD.
    Vasco Azevedo.
      Academic dishonesty predates artificial intelligence; fabrication, plagiarism, and ghost authorship largely reflect distorted "publish or perish" incentives rather than technological novelty. We argue that using AI to assist with drafting, linguistic editing, and organizing text, tables, and figures in biology is ethically comparable to established editorial support services, provided its use is transparently disclosed and full accountability remains with human authors. At the same time, exponential growth in publication output is intensifying the peer-review bottleneck and challenging the sustainability of an unpaid reviewer workforce. We further contend that IMRAD, while valuable for standardization, should be modernized through layered, machine-actionable extensions (e.g., structured metadata and machine-readable appendices) that serve both human and computational readers. We recommend that journals implement explicit AI governance (mandatory disclosure, prohibition of AI authorship, and documented human verification), adopt extended formats alongside IMRAD, and develop meaningful recognition or incentive mechanisms for peer reviewers to strengthen research integrity and publishing sustainability.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1590/0001-3765202620260465
  5. Arch Toxicol. 2026 Oct 05.
    Publisher intervention in editorial decision-making: when established editorial procedures no longer determine publication decisions.
    Jan G Hengstler.
      The credibility of scientific journals is often attributed to rigorous peer review and editorial independence. In reality, however, scientific publishing, like every human institution, is shaped by competing interests, institutional incentives, and errors of judgment. Its credibility therefore depends less on the presumed virtues of authors, reviewers, editors, and publishers than on transparent procedures, clearly defined responsibilities, and institutional arrangements that make departures from established standards visible and open to scientific scrutiny. This Editorial examines a revealing recent case in which publication of a Guest Editorial that had successfully completed the established editorial procedures of Archives of Toxicology was ultimately prevented by the Publisher. Rather than discussing the scientific merits of the underlying manuscript, the present analysis focuses on how the publication decision changed after the manuscript had already been formally accepted. The documented events show how the publication process was progressively compromised through a succession of additional procedural requirements, each introduced only after the preceding requirement had been fulfilled. As a consequence, publication no longer depended on completion of the journal's published editorial process but on successive interventions outside that process. The case illustrates that transparent editorial procedures alone are insufficient to safeguard editorial integrity. Effective institutional self-correction requires a second, equally important safeguard: the guaranteed possibility that alleged departures from editorial procedures can themselves be subjected to unobstructed public scientific scrutiny through mechanisms such as Commentaries or Opinion Articles. In the present case, both safeguards were compromised simultaneously. The established editorial procedures were progressively displaced, while the very mechanism intended to permit public examination of alleged procedural failures was itself prevented from operating. The present analysis argues that departures from editorial procedures are not corrected automatically. They become self-correcting only when independent publication pathways remain available in which transparent editorial governance is preserved. The long-term credibility of scientific publishing therefore rests not primarily on confidence in individuals but on institutional structures that make procedural departures visible, increase the expected cost of abusing institutional power, and guarantee that alleged failures of governance can themselves be subjected to public scientific scrutiny. Transparency without the guaranteed possibility of such scrutiny remains incomplete.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00204-026-04560-3
  6. Anesth Analg. 2026 Oct 09.
    Tracking the Publication Fate of Rejected Manuscripts: A Hybrid Automated-Manual Approach.
    Valluvan Rangasamy, Daniel Mount, Thomas R Vetter.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1213/ANE.0000000000008347
  7. JBI Evid Synth. 2026 Oct 01. 24(10): 1944-1946
    In safe hands: human-led publishing and where AI can help.
    Melanie Dankel, Mara Lambert, Tara Crandon, Hien Ho.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.11124/JBIES-26-00522
  8. Front Genet. 2026 ;17 1947911
    From prohibition to integration: LLMs in scientific publishing.
    Boris Kirov, Aleksandar Marinchev, Slavil Peykov, Vassil Galabov.
      The growing use of large language models (LLMs) in scientific writing has intensified debates about authorship, originality, and research integrity. Critics often argue that LLM-generated text lacks originality because it is derived from existing literature. This Perspective challenges that assumption by arguing that scientific knowledge, whether produced by humans or machines, is inherently cumulative. We argue that both researchers and LLM systems operate within inherited bodies of scientific knowledge, making intellectual leadership rather than textual production the defining criterion of authorship. Researchers remain the legitimate authors when they formulate the research question, develop the central ideas, and critically direct LLMs throughout the writing process. Beyond authorship, we argue that scientific publishing increasingly rewards procedural compliance over epistemic quality, allowing formal citation practices to substitute for conceptual coherence. Rather than undermining research integrity, LLMs offer an opportunity to restore greater emphasis on reasoning and critical evaluation. Finally, we propose integrating standardized LLM-based verification directly into journal submission systems. Automated verification of references, factual consistency, and scientific and technical integrity should precede peer review, allowing reviewers to focus on originality, scientific significance, and conceptual evaluation. Properly governed, LLMs can become not only a writing assistant but also an institutional component of scientific quality assurance.
    Keywords:  artificial intelligence; epistemic integrity; peer review; research integrity; scientific authorship; scientific publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2026.1947911
  9. J Bioeth Inq. 2026 Oct 06.
    It is Prudent to Declare all Possible Conflicts of Interest in Biomedical Publishing: An Ambiguous Example From COVID-19.
    Jaime A Teixeira da Silva, Timothy Daly.
      Here, we draw on an ambiguous case from the COVID-19 pandemic and use a normative philosophical argument from virtue ethics to argue that it is prudent to disclose all kinds of financial relationships in biomedical publishing that may be perceived as a conflict of interest.
    Keywords:  Conflicts of interest; Coronavirus; Financial donations; Publication ethics; Truthfulness; Virtue ethics
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-026-10622-z
  10. Am Heart J Plus. 2026 Nov;71 100892
    Comment on "Exploring AI use policies in manuscript writing in cardiology and vascular journals".
    S Ninisha Nels, Kiruba Wesley, G G S Pradeep.
      
    Keywords:  AI use policies; Academic publishing; Artificial intelligence; Cardiology; Generative AI; Manuscript writing; Vascular medicine
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ahjo.2026.100892
  11. Vet Med Sci. 2026 Nov;12(6): e71270
    Artificial Intelligence in Veterinary Peer Review: Advancing Rigor or Raising New Concerns?
    Mohammad Raguib Munif, Rachel W Williams.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1002/vms3.71270
  12. Acad Radiol. 2026 Oct 07. pii: S1076-6332(26)00772-5. [Epub ahead of print]
    From Idea to Publication: A Step-by-Step Guide to Original Research in Radiology with AI-Integrated Workflow.
    Isabela Hernandez, Daniel Souza, Cinthia Del Toro, Kristin Parker, Adriana Falcon Vazquez, Gary H Danton, Ty Subhawong, Francesco Alessandrino.
       RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: Over the past decade, according to the National Resident Matching Program Charting Outcomes data, scholarly output of matched United States Medical Doctor radiology applicants has more than doubled, with applicants reporting an average of 12.0 published scholarly works in 2024 compared to 5.7 in 2014. Despite this shift, structured guidance on how to produce peer-reviewed scholarly work remains limited for radiology trainees, and most existing guides predate the widespread availability of artificial intelligence (AI) tools.
    MATERIALS AND METHODS: This guide provides a five-step framework, covering choosing a topic of interest, methodology development, presentation of results, manuscript writing, and revision and submission, with explicit integration of AI tools at each stage.
    RESULTS: A framework for responsible AI use and disclosure is provided.
    CONCLUSION: Scientific writing is a teachable skill. AI tools, when used with transparency and integrity, lower the threshold for entry for radiology trainees and should be integrated into scientific writing education. This guide provides a reproducible, AI-integrated framework applicable to trainees at any stage of training and seeking to publish peer-reviewed scholarly works.
    Keywords:  Artificial intelligence; Medical education; Publication guide; Publication workflow; Radiology; Research; Scientific writing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2026.09.042
  13. Anesth Analg. 2026 Oct 09.
    An Analysis of Manuscript Trajectories Following Journal Editorial Decisions.
    Valluvan Rangasamy, Daniel Mount, Thomas R Vetter.
       BACKGROUND: Manuscript rejection is inevitable in academic publishing. With rising submission volumes, pre-peer review rejection ("desk rejection") is increasingly used as a pragmatic filter to focus on papers more likely to be published. Temporal trends, geographic disparities, and post-rejection outcomes are essential to inform editorial practices, author expectations, and assess whether pre-peer review decisions are justified.
    METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed all original research manuscripts submitted to Anesthesia & Analgesia (A&A) from January 2021 to December 2024. Outcomes were pre-peer review rejection, post-peer review rejection, and acceptance. Predictors included submission year, corresponding author country, and author submission history. Multivariable logistic regression models estimated adjusted odds ratios (aOR). To track rejected manuscripts to publication elsewhere, we developed a hybrid automated-manual tracking system querying PubMed and CrossRef Application Programming Interface (APIs) with title matching and author verification, followed by systematic manual verification. Destination journals were classified by pay-to-publish status.
    RESULTS: Of 3881 manuscripts, 3317 of 3881 (85.5%) were rejected; 1463 (37.7%) received pre-peer review rejection, 1854 (47.8%) post-peer review rejection. Median (interquartile range [IQR]) time to rejection was 5 (3-9) days vs 29 (20-46) days for pre- and post-peer review rejection, respectively. Pre-peer review rejection doubled from 27.9% (2021) to 56.2% (2024), while post-peer review rejection fell from 56.6% to 34%. Manuscripts from upper- and lower-middle-income countries had greater odds of pre-peer review rejection versus high-income countries (aOR, 3.23; 95% CI, 2.79-3.75 and aOR, 3.75; 95% CI, 2.91-4.85; both P < .001) but lower post-peer review rejection odds. Publication tracking achieved 86.5% success (2868/3317). Pre-peer review rejected manuscripts published faster than post-peer review rejected ones (median [IQR] 294 [190-461] vs 345 [220-520] days; P < .001). Of the 2868 manuscripts published elsewhere, 78% of those in journals with an impact factor (IF) appeared in journals with an IF below that of A&A (4.0) and 939 (32.7%) appeared in pay-to-publish venues.
    CONCLUSIONS: Editorial decision-making at A&A shifted markedly toward earlier decision, with pre-peer review rejection doubled while post-peer review rejection halved over 4 years. Geographic disparities emerged at the pre-peer review stage, suggesting earlier filtering of manuscripts from middle-income countries. Although 86.5% of rejected manuscripts were published elsewhere, 78% of those in IF-indexed journals appeared in journals with a lower IF, and 32.7% overall appeared in pay-to-publish venues.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1213/ANE.0000000000008346
  14. J Gen Intern Med. 2026 Oct 05.
    How Much Peer Review Is Enough? Rethinking Scholarly Service in Academic Medicine.
    Emma M Tillman.
      Peer review is widely regarded as the cornerstone of scientific publishing, yet it depends on the voluntary efforts of a limited portion of the academic workforce. For clinician-scientists in academic medicine, peer review represents an essential but largely unrecognized component of faculty workload, competing directly with research, clinical care, teaching, and administrative responsibilities. Despite its central role in ensuring scientific rigor, peer review is rarely formally measured, incentivized, or incorporated into promotion and evaluation processes. This commentary examines the growing burden of peer review from the perspective of a mid-career clinician-scientist and journal editor. As publication productivity increases, so do invitations to review, often concentrating requests among a subset of highly active investigators. At the same time, editors report difficulty recruiting reviewers, sometimes requiring numerous invitations to secure adequate peer review. These dynamics may delay publication, affect dissemination of clinically relevant knowledge, and influence the career progression of authors. This system reflects a misalignment between institutional priorities and the labor required to sustain scholarly publishing. Addressing this imbalance will require greater recognition of peer review as scholarly work, clearer expectations for participation, and broader engagement to ensure sustainability.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-026-10875-9
  15. Front Res Metr Anal. 2026 ;11 1952277
    Does interdisciplinary breadth shape research data sharing and citation impact? Evidence from six research fields.
    Liu Xu, Huan Chen.
       Introduction: Research data sharing has become an important component of open science, yet sharing benefits vary across research contexts. Existing studies have examined factors influencing data sharing and the citation advantage associated with open data, but less is known about how interdisciplinary breadth relates to observable sharing practices and whether the citation advantage of sharing differs across disciplines. This study investigates the relationships among interdisciplinary breadth, observable sharing practices, and citation impact.
    Methods: The study uses 566,188 journal articles indexed in OpenAlex from 2020 to 2025. Interdisciplinary breadth was operationalized as the number of Level-0 disciplinary concepts associated with each article. Observable sharing practices were identified through repository links, supplementary-material links, and textual sharing statements. Regression models were applied to examine associations among interdisciplinary breadth, data sharing, and citation impact across six research fields, and BERTopic-based topic modeling was also applied in history and digital humanities to explore topic-level variations.
    Results: The results show that interdisciplinary breadth had a predominantly negative but non-linear association with observable sharing, with sharing probability generally declining as breadth increased, although the decline weakened at higher levels. Articles with observable sharing signals were associated with higher citation counts overall, but the magnitude of this association varied substantially across fields. History exhibited the largest positive citation advantage, whereas digital humanities showed a negative but statistically uncertain association. Topic-level analysis further revealed that observable sharing was concentrated in specific research topics with distinct methodological and infrastructural characteristics.
    Discussion: These findings highlight that openness practices and their scholarly returns are influenced by disciplinary contexts. Understanding research data sharing therefore requires consideration of both researchers' willingness to share and the infrastructures and evaluation systems embedded in different research disciplines.
    Keywords:  data sharing; interdisciplinary breadth; open data citation advantage; open science; scientometrics
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3389/frma.2026.1952277
  16. Adv Clin Exp Med. 2026 Oct 07.
    From "data available upon request" to repository-based sharing: A practical framework for biomedical journals.
    Marek Misiak, Donata Kurpas.
      Data sharing has become a cornerstone of open science, promoting transparency, reproducibility, and the efficient reuse of research data. Although many biomedical journals encourage data sharing, policies remain inconsistent and often require data to be available only upon reasonable request, a practice shown to be largely ineffective. This editorial discusses the rationale, principles, and practical implementation of mandatory repository-based data sharing in biomedical journals, using the experience of Advances in Clinical and Experimental Medicine as an implementation case. It outlines the policy's key components, current recommendations, and the editorial team's implementation experience. Exceptions based on legal, ethical, or commercial constraints are also described. Repository-based data sharing is intended to strengthen research transparency, reproducibility, and long-term accessibility while reducing reliance on ineffective 'data available upon request' models. A practical framework combining clear requirements, persistent data deposition, standardized data-availability statements, justified exemptions, and active editorial support may facilitate wider adoption of FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable) data practices across biomedical journals.
    Keywords:  biomedical research; data sharing; open science; publishing; reproducibility of results
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.17219/acem/235706
  17. AEM Educ Train. 2026 Oct;10(5): e70265
    Educator's Blueprint: Seven Strategies for Turning Peer Review Into Scholarly Growth.
    Dayle Davenport, Wendy Coates, Adaira Landry, Jaime Jordan, Michael Gottlieb.
      Peer review is central to scholarly publishing and academic advancement in medicine. However, many authors, particularly residents and early-career faculty, receive limited formal training in navigating the peer review process. This Educator's Blueprint provides seven strategies to optimize journal publication success by improving submission quality and reframing rejection as part of the growth process, while also discussing how to build upon the experience to enhance long-term scholarly productivity and impact. These include identifying potential journals, tailoring the manuscript to the target journal, crafting a compelling cover letter, responding to reviewer comments, turning rejection into progress, disseminating findings to broaden reach, and leveraging the experience to build a cohesive scholarly portfolio.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1002/aet2.70265
  18. Nat Methods. 2026 Oct;23(10): 1919
    How to write a rebuttal letter.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41592-026-03261-0
  19. Indian J Community Med. 2026 Sep-Oct;51(5):51(5): 787-791
    Human-first, AI-assisted Peer Review: A Proposed Workflow for Community Medicine and Public Health Journals.
    Urvish Joshi.
      Growth in community medicine and public health publications has increased peer-review workload and the risk of missed methodological and statistical issues. Because peer review is largely voluntary and often performed alongside clinical, teaching, administrative, and research duties, reviews may be delayed or rushed. Generative artificial intelligence (AI) may help, but unstructured use raises concerns about confidentiality, integrity, and automation bias. This viewpoint proposes a human-first, AI-assisted workflow in which reviewers first complete an independent manual review. With editor permission, a constrained AI tool is then used only for checklist-based cross-checking of reporting completeness and internal consistency. Conceptually, this workflow may reduce missed checklist items, improve consistency checks, and support reviewer calibration. Purpose-built, standardized AI tools may offer additional advantages through predefined task boundaries, uniform outputs, and greater control over data retention and disposal. AI-assisted peer review may be acceptable in community medicine and public health journals if journals require permission before use, approved confidentiality-protecting systems, data minimization, disclosure to editors, and full reviewer accountability. The same principles could later be adapted for other disciplines.
    Keywords:  Artificial intelligence; continuing medical education; peer review; public health; research ethics
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.4103/ijcm.ijcm_174_26
  20. Nurs Womens Health. 2026 10;pii: S1751-4851(26)00169-8. [Epub ahead of print]30(5): 357-359
    A Practical Approach to Writing a Publishable Manuscript.
    Heidi Collins Fantasia.
      A practical, structured approach to writing a manuscript includes selecting a topic, reducing distractions, revising, editing, and seeking honest feedback.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nwh.2026.07.003
  21. J Vet Sci. 2026 Sep;27(5): e76
    Choosing the right reporting guideline in veterinary research: an editorial for authors and editors.
    Pan Dong Ryu.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.4142/jvs.26903
  22. Nature. 2026 Oct;658(8135): 572
    Preprints must not leak sensitive research information.
    Jingyi Chen.
      
    Keywords:  Ethics; Publishing; Research data; Technology
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-026-03177-x
  23. Cell Biochem Funct. 2026 Oct;44(10): e70310
    Cell Biochemistry and Function is Advancing Our Founding Mission and Transitioning to Full Open Access.
    Robert J W Heath, Raphael Gaudin.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1002/cbf.70310
  24. Med Teach. 2026 Oct 08. 1-9
    Trends in authorship in medical teacher: A 20-year review of regionality and gender indicates slow and unsteady progress.
    David Hope, Jennifer Cleland.
       INTRODUCTION: Publishing in medical education journals contributes to global discussions on how to train health professionals and, at an individual level, is important for career advancement. However, some groups are under-represented in medical education scholarship - especially those from the 'global south' and, historically, women. To examine this further, we carried out a bibliometric analysis of twenty years of Medical Teacher data to identify geographic and gender differences in representation among the journal authorship, and to identify any visible impacts of relevant editorial policy changes.
    METHODS: We used OpenAlex, a citation recording tool, to extract all publications from Medical Teacher between 1st January 2006 and 31st December 2025, for a total of 5,590 total records. We then applied the United Nations Trade and Development (UNCTAD) definition of 'global north' (GN) membership to identify the location of authors and used genderize.io to predict the gender of first authors. We then examined trends (in percentages) over time for geographic region and gender.
    RESULTS: The share of authors from the global south, and the share of first authors who are women, has been rising slowly for twenty years. However, progress is both localised and unsteady: much of the increase in global south authorship is driven by Asia (and within that, Singapore), and a gap remains whereby GN publications are more likely to have women as first authors. Since 2019, women are the majority of first authors.
    DISCUSSION: Progress in diversifying medical education scholarship is being made, but it is slow, geographically localised, and does not seem responsive to journal policies to increase fairness and representation. However, the analysis here shows that such bibliometric reviews can be done in a cost-effective and routinised way, allowing journals to iterate on their attempts to expand diversity with evidence.
    Keywords:  Bibliometrics; diversity and Inclusion; equality; fairness; global South
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2026.2740177
  25. Lab Anim. 2026 Oct 08. 236772261491490
    FELASA: promoting good practice through Laboratory Animals journal.
    Jean-Philippe Mocho.
      
    Keywords:  3Rs; care; ethics & welfare; laboratory animal welfare; public policy; teaching & training
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1177/00236772261491490
  26. Anesth Analg. 2026 Oct 09.
    Impact, Not Impact "Factor": Strategies to Maintain Anesthesia & Analgesia As the World's Most Cited Anesthesia Journal in the New Online Format.
    Jaideep J Pandit.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1213/ANE.0000000000008311
  27. Intensive Crit Care Nurs. 2026 Oct 05. pii: S0964-3397(26)00264-8. [Epub ahead of print]98 104596
    Intensive & Critical Care Nursing: Reflecting on a decade of journal growth and future directions.
    Stijn Blot.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iccn.2026.104596
  28. Med Teach. 2026 Oct 08. 1-3
    Promoting transparency, reproducibility, and rigor: Medical teacher launches registered reports.
    Dario Cecilio-Fernandes, Jennifer Cleland.
      Concerns about research integrity, reproducibility, and publication bias have prompted calls for greater transparency and rigour across the scientific process. In response, Medical Teacher is the first health professions education journal to adopt Registered Reports. This new section involves peer review of study rationale, methods, and analysis plans before data collection, with publication decisions based on methodological rigor rather than study outcomes. Only confirmatory research requiring hypothesis testing will be accepted under Registered Reports. This approach helps reduce questionable research practices, while supporting the publication of robust research regardless of results.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2026.2740160
  29. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2026 Oct 06. pii: S0735-1097(26)07583-2. [Epub ahead of print]88(14): 1687-1689
    AI in Medical Writing: Why JACC Does Not Require Disclosure.
    Harlan M Krumholz.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2026.08.032
  30. Arthroscopy. 2026 Oct 06.
    Commentary on Arthroscopy Editorial Commentaries With Gratitude to Our Authors.
    Michael J Rossi, Matthew Salzler, Erik Hohmann.
      Editorial Commentaries on new articles serve many roles; they highlight key findings, provide contemporary clinical context, assist in understanding the key strengths and limitations, identify areas of controversy, and stimulate debate. The November 2026 issue of Arthroscopy has its usual compliment of outstanding articles, and we call attention to the 33 outstanding commentaries from Arthroscopy reviewers, editors, authors, and thought leaders. We celebrate and thank all authors who have contributed Editorial Commentaries since their inception in 2015. Their willingness to share their experience and knowledge enriches our journal and strengthens the scientific dialogue.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1002/arj.70703
This page is being maintained by Thomas Krichel. It was last updated on 2026‒10‒11 at 4:40.