bims-skolko Biomed News
on Scholarly communication
Issue of 2026–05–17
thirty-six papers selected by
Thomas Krichel, Open Library Society



  1. Anat Cell Biol. 2026 May 15.
      Color vision deficiencies, especially red-green types such as deuteranomaly and protanopia, affect many individuals, particularly men, and pose challenges in fields that rely on color-coded visualizations. In biomedical journals, figures such as heatmaps and fluorescence images often use red-green color contrasts that are inaccessible to readers with color vision deficiencies, leading to misinterpretation and reduced clarity. Studies show that a large proportion of scientific figures remain problematic, underscoring the need for inclusive design. This review outlines strategies to improve figure accessibility, including avoiding red-green combinations, adopting perceptually uniform palettes, ensuring luminance contrast, and supplementing colors with patterns or annotations. Providing alternative text and testing figures with colorblindness simulators further enhances usability. Incorporating these practices promotes equitable access to scientific knowledge and strengthens the clarity and impact of published research in biomedical journals and textbooks.
    Keywords:  Color vision defects; Data visualization; Deuteranopia; Protanopia; Visual aids
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.5115/acb.26.011
  2. Behav Genet. 2026 May 15.
      Preprint servers and open science platforms have revolutionized the scientific process. A fundamental feature of these platforms is a lack of peer review-virtually anyone with an internet connection can upload their research in a few clicks. Although this setup has facilitated rapid dissemination of results and open access to research, it has also enabled fringe researchers to post and share pseudoscientific, genetically informed studies of differences in behavior that often advance racial hereditarian and eugenic claims. Because preprint archives are now routinely used by mainstream academics, preprints grant a degree of legitimacy to fringe research that otherwise may have been relegated to a blog post or fringe publication. Previous studies have documented individual examples of pseudoscientific, genetic studies of group differences being posted on preprint archives, but the scope of this problem remains unclear, making it difficult to formulate responses and potential solutions. The present study quantified and characterized pseudoscientific studies of group differences in behavior-including studies that used genetic methods-housed on popular preprint servers and open science collaboration platforms. Dozens of such preprints were identified. Preprinted studies on group differences often analyzed controversial phenotypes, most frequently intelligence and related traits, and furthered classical, widely rejected hereditarian and eugenic theories. Genetically informed analyses rested on fundamentally flawed assumptions about heritability and polygenic scores. The Preprint Problem is indicative of a broader effort to weaponize mainstream academic research and its mechanisms, including Open Science, and a recent resurgence of scientific racism and eugenics. Potential responses to these challenges are introduced.
    Keywords:  Eugenics; Open science; Racial hereditarianism; Scientific racism; Weaponization
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10519-026-10260-6
  3. Account Res. 2026 May 14. 2671154
       BACKGROUND: Early notification of journal readers of the existence of publication integrity concerns by an editorial expression of concern (EoC) can mitigate the adverse effects of unreliable research.
    METHODS: We extracted EoCs and retraction notices from the Retraction Watch database up until the end of 2024. We assessed temporal trends in publication of each notice, the proportion of retracted papers with an associated EoC, and the timing of EoCs according to publication date and retraction status. We examined the ratio of EoCs to retractions among authors, including those with multiple retractions, and among both journals and publishers.
    RESULTS: EoCs were rarely published during the 14y assessment period. Only 3.3% of retracted papers had a preceding EoC. For 56% of publications with an EoC, the EoC was the latest notice. 92% of authors had an EoC:retraction ratio < 1. Only 35% of authors with > 5 retractions had an EoC, and 99% had an EoC:retraction ratio < 1. Publication of an EoC was more common in journals which had published > 5 retractions than in those which had published < 5.
    CONCLUSIONS: EoCs are rarely employed during the assessment of publication integrity concerns. Journal readers are disadvantaged by delayed notification of potentially unreliable research.
    Keywords:  Expression of concern; publication integrity; retraction
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2026.2671154
  4. Int J Older People Nurs. 2026 May;21(3): e70083
      
    Keywords:  artificial intelligence; gerontological nursing; nursing research; peer review; scientific writing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1111/opn.70083
  5. Perspect Clin Res. 2026 Apr-Jun;17(2):17(2): 108-114
      The evolving landscape of scientific publishing has brought renewed attention to the concepts of authorship, contributorship, and acknowledgments. While authorship is a marker of intellectual contribution and accountability, the role of professional medical writers in the development of scientific and biomedical publications has evolved significantly, particularly in the context of industry-supported research. Drawing upon established guidance such as the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), Good Publication Practice (GPP) 2022, the Contributor Roles Taxonomy (CRediT), and other international standards, this review highlights credible authorship criteria, clarifies the role of medical writers in the publication process, and underscores the necessity of transparent and appropriate acknowledgment of their contribution to a publication. The current frameworks and perspectives are synthesized to support informed decision-making for authors and foster responsible recognition of medical writers as contributors in scientific publishing.
    Keywords:  Acknowledgment; authorship; medical writing; professional medical writer; publication ethics; publication writing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.4103/picr.picr_254_25
  6. Can J Nurs Res. 2026 May 09. 8445621261449308
      PurposePredatory publishing remains a persistent concern in nursing scholarship, yet identification approaches often rely on binary classifications or list-based designations that obscure variation among journals. This study examined predatory publishing in nursing using a systems-based, behavior-focused approach.MethodsA dataset of 265 nursing journals was assessed using the Predation Index, a behavior-based instrument that evaluates observable publishing practices associated with predatory risk. Journals with publicly available information were scored and categorized as 1-3 (lower levels of predatory indicators), 4-6 (moderate levels of predatory indicators), or 7-10 (high levels of predatory indicators). Findings were interpreted using the Journal Systems Framework, which conceptualizes journals as systems shaped by governance, capacity, and intent. Longitudinal comparison was conducted with journals identified in a 2016 study.ResultsOf 265 journals, 166 had sufficient information for assessment. Among these, 27 (16%) scored in the lowest range (1-3), 45 (27%) in the intermediate range (4-6), and 94 (57%) in the highest range (7-10). The remaining 99 journals were no longer available for assessment. Journals drawn from exclusionary lists were distributed across all score categories, indicating that lists function as risk screens rather than definitive classifications. Longitudinal analysis found many journals identified in 2016 had ceased operation, reflecting system instability.ConclusionPredatory publishing in nursing is best understood as a systems-level phenomenon rather than a quality continuum. Using behavior-based criteria within a systems framework helps distinguish structurally stressed journals from exploitative ones and supports more precise, ethically grounded responses to research integrity concerns.
    Keywords:  Publication ethics; editorial governance; editorial infrastructure; journal evaluation; journal systems framework; predatoryjournals
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1177/08445621261449308
  7. Front Res Metr Anal. 2026 ;11 1807122
      
    Keywords:  academic freedom; academic suppression; child custody; domestic violence; family court; parental alienation; retraction ethics; scientific suppression
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3389/frma.2026.1807122
  8. Lancet. 2026 May 09. pii: S0140-6736(26)00798-1. [Epub ahead of print]407(10541): 1765-1766
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(26)00798-1
  9. Nature. 2026 May;653(8114): 642
      
    Keywords:  Genomics; Medical research; Research management
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-026-01520-w
  10. Nature. 2026 May;653(8114): 332
      
    Keywords:  Genetics; Medical research; Personalized medicine; Policy; Scientific community
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-026-01475-y
  11. Res Integr Peer Rev. 2026 May 15. pii: 16. [Epub ahead of print]11(1):
       BACKGROUND: Medical education and communication companies (MECCs) are key actors in the production of commissioned publications. Analyzing publications that acknowledge medical writing offers a broad overview of their role, which is scarce in the literature. The reason is that activities related to industry-funded research are highly opaque, which makes access to this information particularly hard, and related analyses scarce. This article offers a novel approach to collecting, and thus, analyzing data. It maps how MECCs, funders, authors, and publishers organize to produce this literature and identifies risks of research integrity breaches.
    METHODS: The database contains the metadata of 29 911 commissioned papers collected from Web of Science (WoS). All articles involving medical writing were collected if they mentioned "medical writing" in WoS, if they were published by MECCs websites, and if they were listed in publication trackers (documents that list the publications of companies, found on the Industry Documents Library (IDL)). The metadata were collected semi-automatically (manually and with R). Reference lists were built to extract MECCs from acknowledgments and harmonize organizations' names. The analysis maps the relationships among MECCs, authors, funders, and publishers and shows how they connect.
    RESULTS: In contrast with pharmaceutical companies and research institutes, only 33.6% of MECCs are listed in the bylines and even less (18%) are acknowledged in the publications found on their websites and on the Industry Documents Library. Even though they provide writing, MECCs are usually not considered as authors. Medical writing is a flourishing business and MECCs are key actors. Only a few sponsors (5.5%) outsource medical writing to many MECCs, and a few MECCs (7.7%) have a high number of clients. The medical writing market is thus very competitive and can benefit sponsors. MECCs sometimes publish in journals that are owned by their parent or sister companies. The business model of the publishers largely benefits from medical writing by publishing their product, and sometimes providing it as a service.
    CONCLUSIONS: The database presented in this article offers new routes to explore the key role of MECCs in industry-funded research and to further assess the commissioned literature and its impacts on biomedical science and research integrity.
    Keywords:  Authorship; Industry-funded research; Medical writing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-026-00194-2
  12. Account Res. 2026 May 12. 2673079
      Despite growing scholarly attention to both research integrity issues and predatory publishing, the phenomenon of retraction in potential predatory journals (PPJs), especially reasons for retraction, remains underexplored. Drawing on the revived Beall's List and the Retraction Watch Database, we identified 16 direct and three indirect reasons for 717 PPJ retractions. The indirect reasons reflected institutional investigations by three stakeholder groups: journal authorities (editors and publishers), research institutions, and research integrity overseers. Fourteen direct reasons were author-related, with five involving content issues and eight concerning broader breaches of research integrity. Another author-related direct reason was retracting to publish elsewhere, accounting for 60.1% of all PPJ retractions. The two non-author direct reasons involved errors made by journal authorities and third parties. PPJ retractions in the Natural Sciences covered all direct retraction reasons, whereas those in the Humanities and Social Sciences involved only four, and cross-disciplinary retractions involved five. The 10 countries with the most retractions for direct reasons contributed 86.5% of the total, with seven Asian countries (Malaysia, China, Iran, India, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Thailand) representing 72.2%. Some direct retraction reasons were significantly associated with disciplinary groupings and/or primary affiliation countries.
    Keywords:  Beall’s List; Committee on Publication Ethics; Retraction Watch Database; potential predatory journal; retraction reason
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2026.2673079
  13. Front Digit Health. 2026 ;8 1826808
      Generative artificial intelligence (AI) has rapidly become embedded in academic writing, assisting with tasks ranging from language editing to drafting text and producing evidence. Despite the wide range of AI use, the expectations for disclosure remain inconsistent. Several journals use binary disclosure statements that fail to distinguish minor language assistance from uses that have a significant impact on the manuscript structure and data interpretation. This article proposes a risk-proportional approach separating disclosure by risk.
    Keywords:  disclosure; generative artificial intelligence; large language models; research integrity; scientific writing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3389/fdgth.2026.1826808
  14. Res Integr Peer Rev. 2026 May 10. pii: 24. [Epub ahead of print]11(1):
      The rapid integration of generative artificial intelligence (Gen AI) into academic writing has outpaced the establishment of consistent norms for responsible and transparent disclosure. Leading organizations including the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME), and the European Commission, Directorate-General for Research and Innovation have issued guidance affirming that AI tools cannot be listed as authors and must be transparently disclosed. However, what remains missing is both a cross-journal consensus and guidance for authors on what constitutes acceptable versus unacceptable use of Gen AI. Furthermore, as authors may employ Gen AI at multiple, distinct stages of manuscript preparation, they currently have no standardized or granular method to report this varied use in sufficient detail. This ambiguity creates a critical gap between high-level disclosure principles and practical implementation, threatening not necessarily the integrity of the underlying research itself, but the reader's and editor's ability to objectively assess the reliability and provenance of reported findings.This paper responds to that gap by proposing a structured, domain-based framework for reporting Gen AI use in scholarly manuscripts. Drawing on a synthesis of evolving editorial statements and guidelines, we outline three domains in which Gen AI is commonly employed: conceptual contributions, linguistic assistance, and research assistance. For each domain, we distinguish uses that are generally acceptable from those that raise ethical or integrity concerns, providing examples to guide authors, reviewers, and journal editors and editorial staff.To operationalize this framework, we introduce a prototype of an online Gen AI use disclosure form that guides authors through documenting their use of Gen AI across the three domains. The tool automatically generates a standardized disclosure statement and assigns a unique, citable reference number. This reference number links to a persistent, publicly accessible summary of the declared Gen AI use, creating a transparent and auditable record. This system is proposed as a 'living' platform, designed to evolve through consensus among journal editors and editorial staff, authors, and research integrity organizations, functioning similarly to other reporting guidelines hosted by the EQUATOR Network.This system moves beyond ad hoc, narrative statements to establish a proactive and standardized disclosure process around the use of Gen AI in scholarly publishing. By embedding transparency, human accountability, and traceability directly into the publication workflow, our approach complements existing frameworks for authorship and conflict of interest. Like conflict-of-interest disclosures, AI use statements surface information that allows readers to contextualize potential risks and judge credibility for themselves. Ultimately, this work advances a practical model to strengthen trust between authors, journal editors and editorial staff, and readers, aligning the promise of generative AI with the enduring principles of research integrity.
    Keywords:  Gen AI Disclosure; Generative Artificial Intelligence; Publication ethics; Research transparency; Standardize Acceptable AI Use
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-026-00212-3
  15. Indian J Community Med. 2026 Mar-Apr;51(2):51(2): 229-232
      This paper examines the challenges in academic publishing related to authorship inflation, citation bias, and the overreliance on quantitative metrics to evaluate research impact. Authorship inflation, including "gift authorship," occurs when individuals with minimal contributions are listed as co-authors, often due to institutional or political norms, inflating academic profiles without reflecting actual input. The study also discusses how citation patterns differ across disciplines, with high-citation fields like biomedical sciences benefiting from larger, faster publications, while researchers in humanities or social sciences may be overlooked despite producing impactful work. The "Matthew Effect" further exacerbates this disparity as highly cited researchers continue to accumulate citations regardless of their contributions. Geographical and institutional biases also play a role, with researchers from high-income countries or prestigious institutions often receiving more recognition than those from low-income regions. The paper highlights how large collaborative works, such as the Human Genome Project or COVID-19 studies, can distort citation metrics and create inequalities in recognition. It proposes solutions such as transparent authorship roles, normalized citation metrics, and focus on qualitative assessments in hiring and promotion processes to address these issues and promote a more equitable academic environment.
    Keywords:  Authorship; biases; citation metrics; evidence synthesis
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.4103/ijcm.ijcm_9_25
  16. Nature. 2026 May 07.
      
    Keywords:  Careers; Communication; Language; Publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-026-01350-w
  17. J Nutr Educ Behav. 2026 May;pii: S1499-4046(26)00056-4. [Epub ahead of print]58(5): 405-406
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneb.2026.02.014
  18. J Can Health Libr Assoc. 2025 Dec;46(3): 104-114
       Objective: Funding bodies such as Canada's Tri-Agency have implemented requirements for grant recipients to encourage improved research data management (RDM) practices and data sharing. Consequently, RDM and data sharing have become a higher priority for researchers and stakeholders supporting the research process, including librarians. Health sciences research can present special challenges to those wishing to share and use research data, as access to sensitive data must be restricted. This study examines the data sharing practices of researchers funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) in recent years.
    Methods: We ran a search of PubMed Central to identify papers funded by CIHR that were published between 2020 and 2023 and had associated data. From the resulting records, we drew a sample of 368 articles. Using Qualtrics for each article, we recorded if and how data was shared and what types of documentation were provided alongside the data. Results were exported to and analyzed using Microsoft Excel.
    Results: We found that 69% of papers included a data availability statement. 34% of articles made at least some data readily accessible, while 31% indicated that some data was available via request or application. Only 9% of articles supplied the kinds of documentation that would support reuse of the data.
    Conclusion: Those seeking to reuse Canadian health sciences research data continue to face significant hurdles. We offer ideas for health sciences librarians looking to support researchers in their efforts to make data available and usable while respecting restrictions required due to ethical considerations.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.29173/jchla29830
  19. Bioinformation. 2026 ;22(2): 2502-2506
      Scholarly communication of data is important for advancement of science. This is done using scholarly journal platforms promoted and managed by publishers. Further, many of these journals are indexed in commercial databases such as WoS from Clarivate Inc. (Canada), SCOPUS from Elsevier Inc. (Netherlands) and several others. This inclusion is selective based on criteria defined by Clarivate Inc. and Elsevier Inc. in their capacity as private business entities. Moreover, inclusion is claimed to be representative by both parties. However, it is not comprehensive and they have large scale business activities in India. Furthermore, there is a huge hype among the scientific community and educational institutions for using data in these databases for selecting journals for scholarly communication. The WoS and SCOPUS databases have included about 300 Indian Journals. This accounts for about 1.4% journals in the database. Nonetheless, about 68% of these journals are closed access and it is managed by foreign publishers such as Wolter Kluwer, Springer, Elsevier, Francis and Taylor etc. This is a 2026 concern for technological embargo while balancing creativity and freedom of expression.
    Keywords:  Data analytics; India; Scopus; WoS; freedom of expression; impact factor
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.6026/973206300222502
  20. Front Med (Lausanne). 2026 ;13 1803578
       Introduction: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses serve as the cornerstone of clinical guidelines, yet their validity hinges on the currency of the included evidence. The publication lag measured as the interval from the last search date to online publication remains unclear in top-tier general medical journals and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR). Existing data are largely outdated and lack exploration of associated factors. Our study aims to fill this gap by quantifying the current publication lag in top-tier general medical journals and the CDSR and identifying its independent predictors.
    Methods: This meta-epidemiological study will analyze interventional, RCT-based meta-analyses published in top-tier general medical journals and the CDSR between 2023 and 2025. We will calculate the publication lag, assess compliance with AMSTAR 2 timeliness standards, and compare the performance between top-tier general medical journals and the CDSR. Multivariable regression analysis will be employed to determine independent factors which associated with the extent of publication delay.
    Discussion: Our study will systematically quantify the current status and determinants of publication lag in top-tier general medical journals and the CDSR. While our reliance on publicly available dates precludes a granular distinction between author-related revisions and editorial processing durations, this limitation may introduce information bias. Specifically, if certain journals attract more complex reviews requiring extensive author revisions, the observed lag may overstate editorial inefficiency. Conversely, high-performance editorial workflows might mask prolonged author delays. By acknowledging these potential directions of bias, our findings will provide a more nuanced, actionable framework for assessing evidence currency.
    Systematic review registration: https://osf.io/cjtk.
    Keywords:  meta-analyses; meta-epidemiology; publication lag; systematic reviews; top-tier medical journals
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2026.1803578
  21. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2026 Apr 18. pii: S1053-0770(26)00336-8. [Epub ahead of print]
      This article is the 10th of an annual series reviewing the research highlights of the year pertaining to the subspecialty of perioperative echocardiography for the Journal of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Anesthesia. The authors thank the editor-in-chief, Dr. Kaplan, and the editorial board for the opportunity to continue this series. In most cases, these will be research articles that are targeted at the perioperative echocardiographic diagnosis and treatment of patients after cardiothoracic surgery, but in some cases, these articles will target the use of perioperative echocardiography in general.
    Keywords:  artificial intelligence; interventional echocardiography; intracardiac echocardiography; perioperative echocardiography; right ventricular function; transesophageal echocardiography; tricuspid regurgitation; tricuspid valve
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1053/j.jvca.2026.04.022
  22. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2026 May 13.
       BACKGROUND: As scientific publishing has shifted to digital platforms, two primary article-publishing modalities have emerged: open access and closed access. Open access is freely accessible with an article processing charge (APC) paid by authors, whereas closed access lies behind paywalls, with low to no APC for authors. As the academic community increasingly relies on digital dissemination, it is critical to evaluate how these models influence research visibility and impact. This study compared open versus closed access randomized control trials (RCTs) across five prevalent orthopaedic conditions by analyzing attention scores, social media metrics, readership, and citations. The study hypothesis was that open access publications would have higher attention and readership, whereas closed access articles would yield more citations.
    METHODS: A PubMed search was conducted in May 2025 to identify RCTs on rotator cuff tears, carpal tunnel syndrome, hip fractures, anterior cruciate ligament tears, and Achilles tendon ruptures. Altmetric Attention Scores, X mentions, Facebook mentions, news mentions, Mendeley readers, and Dimensions citations were collected for each article using the Altmetric Explorer database. A negative binomial regression, adjusted for time since publication, was used to compare metrics between open and closed access publications.
    RESULTS: Of 1,223 articles studied, 53.8% of the articles were open access and 46.2% were closed access. Open access articles had significantly higher Altmetric Attention Scores (44.1 ± 197 vs 17.2 ± 52.0), X mentions (32.2 ± 27.1 vs 17.4 ± 38.4), Facebook mentions (1.2 ± 4.3 vs 1 ± 2.5), news mentions (4.1 ± 25.2 vs 1.0 ± 7.2), number of Mendeley readers (136.6 ± 127.9 vs 113.4 ± 108), and, notably, number of Dimensions citations (36.8 ± 88.9 vs 30.1 ± 45.6) compared with closed access articles ( P < 0.05).
    CONCLUSION: Contrary to our initial hypothesis, open access articles had higher attention metrics and citation numbers when compared with closed access publications. These findings suggest that open access publishing not only enhances visibility and engagement but also may increase academic impact across multiple orthopaedic subspecialties.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.5435/JAAOS-D-25-00915
  23. J Evid Based Dent Pract. 2026 Jun;pii: S1532-3382(26)00008-4. [Epub ahead of print]26(2): 102234
       OBJECTIVE: This narrative review examines key ethical challenges in periodontal research, focusing on retractions, predatory publishing, conflicts of interest (COI), funding-related bias, and additional concerns such as patient consent, data sharing, and authorship integrity.
    METHODS: We synthesised evidence from existing literature, including meta-research across biomedical and dental fields, and conducted exploratory searches to contextualise ethical concerns within periodontology. Targeted bibliometric assessments using PubMed quantified retractions and systematic reviews; and predatory journals were screened using the original and updated Beall's list. Methodological details are provided in Supplementary Materials 1 and 2.
    RESULTS: Periodontology has experienced steady growth in publication volume, accompanied by increasing numbers of systematic reviews and an overall rise in retractions, particularly after 2020. Many recent retractions were linked to suspected paper-mill activity or systemic manipulation, revealing vulnerabilities in editorial oversight. Predatory publishing poses additional risks, with several questionable dental journals exhibiting misleading indexing claims, poor peer review, or unstable online presence. Conflict of interest (COI) and funding disclosures remain inconsistent, and sponsorship bias may affect reported outcomes. Further ethical concerns involve inadequate consent reporting, low data-sharing rates, and problematic authorship practices.
    CONCLUSIONS: Ethical vulnerabilities in periodontal research-ranging from unreliable publications to limited transparency in COI, funding, and data sharing-pose risks to evidence-based practice. Strengthening research integrity requires clearer retraction policies, more robust editorial safeguards, enhanced ethical education, and systemic measures to detect and prevent predatory and fraudulent practices. These steps are essential to ensure the quality, reliability, and clinical applicability of periodontal evidence.
    Keywords:  COI; Ethics; Periodontology; Predatory journals; Retractions; Systematic reviews
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebdp.2026.102234
  24. Bull Am Meteorol Soc. 2026 Mar;107(3): E356-E371
      We analyzed 82 peer-reviewed articles on the relationship between climate change and the geophysical properties of hurricanes published between 1994 and 2023 to determine whether conflicts of interest (COI) disclosures, funding support, or author affiliation are associated with study outcomes or recommendations. There were no associations between COI disclosures and study outcomes or recommendations because none (0) of the 331 authors disclosed COIs. First author having a government affiliation was a significant predictor of making a policy recommendation in the article (odds ratio = 5.44; p value = 0.03). Publication year 2016 or later [odds ratio (OR) = 17.2; p value = 4 × 10-4] and journal impact factor (OR = 1.08; p value = 0.004) were significant predictors of finding a positive association between climate change and geophysical properties of hurricanes. To promote objectivity, transparency, and trust in climate science, journals that publish this research should clearly state that authors must disclose financial and nonfinancial COIs and provide clear processes for doing so. Scientific societies and journals should foster COI disclosure as a norm of professional ethics through policy development, education, and peer modeling.
    Keywords:  Climate; Hurricanes/typhoons; Policy; Social Science
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1175/bams-d-24-0260.1
  25. Hist Cienc Saude Manguinhos. 2026 ;pii: S0104-59702026000100604. [Epub ahead of print]33 e2026005
      The health sector pioneered the dialog with society, the media, health professionals and decision-makers, due to great public interest in this area and its social responsibility. Two internationally prestigious journals with two centuries of history (The New England Journal of Medicine and The Lancet) are examples of communication strategies that extend beyond the walls of academia. This article analyzes the editorial policies, commemorative editorials and communication strategies of these two journals in order to understand their relationship with the public throughout history. This analysis shows that communication to non-experts is an important part of editorial policies, and has expanded over the years in both journals.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1590/S0104-59702026000100005en
  26. Am J Pharm Educ. 2026 May 07. pii: S0002-9459(26)01352-5. [Epub ahead of print] 101996
       BACKGROUND: Although short-term authorship trends in the American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education (AJPE) have been examined, comprehensive long-term, field-wide assessments remain limited.
    OBJECTIVE: To (1) evaluate authorship trends in the American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education (AJPE) from 1946 to 2024, and (2) examine the relationship between author growth rate and CiteScore across top pharmaceutical science journals (2021-2024).
    METHODS: Phase one analyzed 4,095 AJPE articles (3,697 originals; 398 reviews) indexed in Scopus. Publications were grouped by era to assess changes in average authors per article. Phase two examined 100 leading pharmaceutical journals (2021-2024), selected by publication volume. Data on publication count, total citations, authorship, and author growth rate were collected. Linear regression assessed the association between author growth (independent) and CiteScore (dependent).
    RESULTS: AJPE showed a steady rise in authorship, from 1.48 authors/article before 2000 to 3.50 in 2021-2024. In the broader pharmaceutical field (Phase two) 150,774 papers yielded 1,438,377 citations with average citations per article dropping from 16.4 in 2021 to 2.7 in 2024, reflecting citation lag. Among 100 journals, 137,717 papers involved 677,141 authors; 57 journals had increasing authorship. However, regression on 68 journals found no significant association between author growth and CiteScore. The regression coefficient was near zero.
    CONCLUSION: AJPE data confirm a decades-long rise in collaborative publishing.
    Keywords:  AJPE; Authorship trends; bibliometric analysis; multi-authorship; pharmacy education; scholarly publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajpe.2026.101996
  27. J Am Board Fam Med. 2026 Jan;pii: 160162. [Epub ahead of print]39(1):
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3122/jabfm.2026.260131R0