Search

Many journals have strict word limits, and authors therefore spend considerable time shortening manuscripts. Here, we provide pointers for efficiently doing so while retaining key content. We include general guidance, tips for condensing the different parts of a scientific paper, and advice on what to avoid when shortening manuscripts. We hope that readers will find our guidance helpful. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A poorly chosen article title may make a paper difficult to discover or discourage readership when discovered, reducing an article's impact. Yet, it is unclear how the structure of a manuscript's title influences readership and impact. We used manuscript tracking data for all manuscripts submitted to the journal Functional Ecology from 2004 to 2013 and citation data for papers published in this journal from 1987 to 2011 to examine how title features changed and whether a manuscript's title structure was predictive of success during the manuscript review process and/or impact (citation) after publication. Titles of manuscripts submitted to Functional Ecology became marginally longer (after controlling for other variables), broader in focus (less frequent inclusion of genus and species names), and included more humor and subtitles over the period of the study. Papers with subtitles were less likely to be rejected by editors both pre- and post-peer review, although both effects were small and the presence of subtitles in published papers was not predictive of citations. Papers with specific names of study organisms in their titles fared poorly during editorial (but not peer) review and, if published, were less well cited than papers whose titles did not include specific names. Papers with intermediate length titles were more successful during editorial review, although the effect was small and title word count was not predictive of citations. No features of titles were predictive of reviewer willingness to review papers or the length of time a paper was in peer review. We conclude that titles have changed in structure over time, but features of title structure have only small or no relationship with success during editorial review and post-publication impact. The title feature that was most predictive of manuscript success: papers whose titles emphasize broader conceptual or comparative issues fare better both pre- and post-publication than do papers with organism-specific titles. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the first instalment of the Words of Advice series, we feature the essentials of good manuscript writing with practical tips on how to plan, organise and write a standout scientific paper. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Most top impact factor ecology journals indicate a preference or requirement for short manuscripts; some state clearly defined word limits, whereas others indicate a preference for more concise papers. Yet evidence from a variety of academic fields indicates that within journals longer papers are both more positively reviewed by referees and more highly cited. We examine the relationship between citations received and manuscript length, number of authors, and number of references cited for papers published in 32 ecology journals between 2009 and 2012. We find that longer papers, those with more authors, and those that cite more references are cited more. Although paper length, author count, and references cited all positively covary, an increase in each independently predicts an increase in citations received, with estimated relationships positive for all the journals we examined. That all three variables covary positively with citations suggests that papers presenting more and a greater diversity of data and ideas are more impactful. We suggest that the imposition of arbitrary manuscript length limits discourages the publication of more impactful studies. We propose that journals abolish arbitrary word or page limits, avoid declining papers (or requiring shortening) on the basis of length alone (irrespective of content), and adopt the philosophy that papers should be as long as they need to be. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The author discusses the steps involved in the submission of research papers and other works for publication in the "British Journal of Industrial Relations." Topics mentioned include the initial submission process, the chief editor's roles in the preliminary assessment of the papers, and the things that authors need to remember if there is an invitation to revise and resubmit.

Peer review is the primary method by which journals evaluate the quality and importance of scientific papers. To help editors find suitable reviewers, many journals allow or require authors to suggest names of preferred and nonpreferred reviewers. Though authors should know best who is qualified to review their papers, they also have a strong incentive to suggest reviewers that they expect to review their paper positively., In this study, we examine the reviewers that are suggested as preferred and nonpreferred by authors, the use of these author suggestions by editors, and the influence of author suggestions on the peer review process and outcomes at the journal Functional Ecology. In particular, we examined how gender of the participants (author, editor and reviewer) influences the role of preferred reviewers in the peer review process., Even when not required by the journal, most authors suggest preferred reviewers, but few suggest nonpreferred reviewers. Most author-preferred reviewers are male, but the proportion of women among author suggestions increased over the 11 years, from a low of 15% in 2004 to a high of 25% in 2014., Male and female authors did not differ in how likely they were to suggest preferred reviewers, but the proportion of women among author suggestions was higher for female authors (~28%, averaged across years) than for male authors (~21%). Women that were suggested as author-preferred reviewers were more likely to be selected by editors than were men suggested by authors., There was no evidence that editor gender, seniority or length of service as an editor for Functional Ecology affected the probability that they used author suggestions. Of reviewers invited to review, those that were author-suggested were more likely to respond to the editors' review invitations but were not more likely to agree to review., Most strikingly, author-preferred reviewers rated papers more positively than did editor-selected reviewers, and papers reviewed by author-preferred reviewers were much more likely to be invited for revision than were papers reviewed by editor-selected reviewers. This difference was not influenced by the gender of the participants in the process., Suggesting preferred reviewers benefits authors because preferred reviewers rate papers significantly more positively than do editor-selected reviewers, improving the chances that a paper will be published. Journals and journal editors should recognize that preferred reviewers rate manuscripts differently than do editor-selected reviewers, and be aware that this difference can have large effects on editor decisions., A is available for this article. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives The purpose of this study was to characterize the publication fate of a recent 2-year sample of manuscripts declined by Academic Emergency Medicine ( AEM), the journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine. Methods This was a retrospective analysis of manuscripts submitted to AEM in 2010 and 2011 that were declined by the AEM editorial review process. An online search was conducted for each declined paper, to determine whether or not it was published in another clinical/scientific journal after being declined by AEM. The investigators used Scopus and Google Scholar, using the submitting author's name, the verbatim title, and key words and phrases from the title, to search for subsequent publication of each paper. Results Of 1,542 manuscript submissions to the journal in 2010 and 2011, 1,052 papers were declined. Of these, 693 (65.9%) were subsequently published elsewhere, in a total of 229 journals: 362 papers in 22 different EM journals, 81 in 14 EM subspecialty journals, 237 in 185 non- EM journals, and 13 in eight nursing journals. Papers were published a median of 16.7 months (interquartile range [ IQR] = 11.8 to 22.0 months) after being declined at AEM. Of the 229 journals, 19 do not have h-indices. The median h-index of the remaining 210 journals is 36 ( IQR = 17 to 64; maximum = 229; AEM's h-index is 78). Thirty of these 210 journals, publishing 43 papers, have higher h-indices than AEM; the other 650 papers were published in journals either with lower h-indices than AEM's ( n = 180 journals) or in journals without h-indices ( n = 19 journals). U.S. and non-U.S. authors had similar rates of subsequent publication (65.3% vs 66.6%, p = 0.69) for papers initially declined by AEM. Papers in the educational advances category were less likely to be subsequently published than those in the original contributions (p < 0.0001) and brief reports (p = 0.0137) categories. Conclusions Nearly two-thirds of manuscripts declined by SAEM's journal are eventually published elsewhere, in a large number and wide variety of both EM and non- EM journals, in a median of 16.7 months. Authors of manuscripts declined by AEM should consider submission elsewhere, as subsequent publication of these manuscripts in another journal is probable. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Authorship is intended to convey information regarding credit and responsibility for manuscripts. However, while there is general agreement within ecology that the first author is the person who contributed the most to a particular project, there is less agreement regarding whether being last author is a position of significance and regarding what is indicated by someone being the corresponding author on a manuscript. Using an analysis of papers published in American Naturalist, Ecology, Evolution, and Oikos, I found that: (1) the number of authors on papers is increasing over time; (2) the proportion of first authors as corresponding author has increased over time, as has the proportion of last authors as corresponding author; (3) 84% of papers published in 2016 had the first author as corresponding author; and (4) geographic regions differed in the likelihood of having the first (or last) author as corresponding author. I also carried out an online survey to better understand views on last and corresponding authorship. This survey revealed that most ecologists view the last author as the 'senior' author on a paper (i.e., the person who runs the research group in which most of the work was carried out), and most ecologists view the corresponding author as the person taking full responsibility for a paper. However, there was substantial variation in views on authorship, especially corresponding authorship. Given these results, I suggest that discussions of authorship have as their starting point that the first author will be corresponding author and the senior author will be last author. I also suggest ways of deciding author order in cases where two senior authors contributed equally. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Technology is being developed to support the peer review processes of journals, conferences, funders, universities, and national research evaluations. This literature and software summary discusses the partial or complete automation of several publishing‐related tasks: suggesting appropriate journals for an article, providing quality control for submitted papers, finding suitable reviewers for submitted papers or grant proposals, reviewing, and review evaluation. It also discusses attempts to estimate article quality from peer review text and scores as well as from post‐publication scores but not from bibliometric data. The literature and existing examples of working technology show that automation is useful for helping to find reviewers and there is good evidence that it can sometimes help with initial quality control of submitted manuscripts. Much other software supporting publishing and editorial work exists and is being used, but without published academic evaluations of its efficacy. The value of artificial intelligence (AI) to support reviewing has not been clearly demonstrated yet, however. Finally, whilst peer review text and scores can theoretically have value for post‐publication research assessment, it is not yet widely enough available to be a practical evidence source for systematic automation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Canadian Journal of Economics is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Charts are presented including the number of submissions received, status of manuscripts, and distribution of papers among co-editors.

The article discusses the manuscripts that have been accepted for publication in the forthcoming issues of Econometrica including the "Monte Carlo Confidence Sets for Identified Sets"; "Optimal Development Policies With Financial Frictions" and "Long Memory via Networking".

The article lists manuscripts to be published in forthcoming issues of the journal including one on progressive learning, one on labor supply, and one on recursive optimization.

The article lists manuscripts accepted for publication in forthcoming issues of "Econometrica," including one on money, one on altruism, and one on asset pricing models.

The article lists the manuscripts that have been accepted for publication in the issues of the periodical.

The article lists the manuscripts for publication in the coming issues of the journal "Econometrica" including "The Economics of Counterfeiting" by L. Smith, "Cautious Expected Utility and the Certainty Effect" by D. Dillenberger, and "Tenable Strategy Blocks and Settled Equilibria" by R. Myerson.

The article lists the manuscripts that have been accepted for publication in the forthcoming issues of "Econometrica" including "How Is Power Shared in Africa?" by Patrick Francois et. al., "Consumption Dynamics During Recessions" by David Berger, and "The Farsighted Table Set" by Debraj Ray.

Palm leaves were one of the essential and primary sources for writing before the advent of paper. Tamil is one of the oldest southern Indian languages and among the ten oldest languages of the world. Agathiyar, a renowned Siddhar of ancient India, considered as the Father of Siddha Medicine, wrote all his therapeutic procedures only on palm leaf manuscripts, in the Tamil language. For modern day, people who try to only write and read new aspects of Tamil, identifying the ancient characters of the language is difficult. To expand readability and secure the written medicinal practices and traditions, a better recognition system is needed that can transform the ancient text images to modern ones, interpreting the ancient Tamil characters from palm leaves and understanding their contexts a time‐consuming and complicated process. Especially when it comes to medicine, the practitioners need to understand the contents of a manuscript, to apply them on a daily basis. Therefore, a recognition system is of much use to understand, interpret, and apply the techniques explained in the manuscript on a daily basis. This study is an attempt to create a considerable volume of Tamil character datasets through the segregation of ancient Tamil palm leaf manuscripts related to the field of medicine. In this study, the characters created are fed as inputs to expert systems for intelligent recognition of the context and content perceived to be present in the selected medical manuscripts. The characters have been identified in large numbers manually, and datasets are created using Gaussian distortion. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

On behalf of the journal, AGU, and the scientific community, the editors would like to sincerely thank those who reviewed the manuscripts for Geophysical Research Letters in 2019. The hours reading and commenting on manuscripts not only improve the manuscripts but also increase the scientific rigor of future research in the field. We particularly appreciate the timely reviews in light of the demands imposed by the rapid review process at Geophysical Research Letters. With the revival of the "major revisions" decisions, we appreciate the reviewers' efforts on multiple versions of some manuscripts. With the advent of AGU's data policy, many reviewers have helped immensely to evaluate the accessibility and availability of data associated with the papers they have reviewed, and many have provided insightful comments that helped to improve the data presentation and quality. We greatly appreciate the assistance of the reviewers in advancing open science, which is a key objective of AGU's data policy. Many of those listed below went beyond and reviewed three or more manuscripts for our journal, and those are indicated in italics. Key Point: The editors thank the 2019 peer reviewers [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this perspective, I will argue that we must reconsider how we write scientific articles. Instead of using the stiff style that has become the norm in academic writings, we should focus on clarity and informality. It's time to abandon old conventions that make scientific articles so unpleasant to read. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the procedure focused on the submission of manuscripts for the journal.

The article offers information on the editorial policies on submission and publication of manuscripts in the journal "Econometrica." Information relating to the Econometric Society's memberships, benefits, membership dues, and subscriptions are also provided. It also lists the 2014 Society officers, council members, and regional standing committees.

Introduction: Women and those with younger onset Parkinson's Disease (YOPD) are typically diagnosed later and face unique situations and challenges. This essay aims to raise awareness of the difficulties in diagnosing YOPD and the need for a personalised approach to care for women with YOPD. Methods: Two professional women with YOPD (academic physiotherapist and practicing dentist) and a female neurologist (clinician academic) came together to write a narrative essay on their personal experience and perspectives in relation to women and YOPD. Results: The essay outlines how the experience of diagnosis is likened to a complex puzzle box with many interlocking components that are hidden and difficult to solve. The concerns of the women about their identity, work, family and the future, with most supports targeting those that are older and retired are outlined. Conclusion: It is concluded that YOPD is a complex puzzle to solve, but can be done by understanding all the intricate interlocking components of the puzzle and combined with greater awareness could lead to earlier diagnosis and the delivery of successful person‐centred care. Patient or Public Contribution: People with lived experience were involved in the essay conception and writing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents the 2015 Editor's Report for the journal. Topics discussed include tables showing manuscripts published by the journal in 2015, changes to the editorial staff of the journal including the resignation of co-editors James MacGee and Salvadore Navarro and the appointment of Abigail Wozniak as co-editor, and a record number of 616 submissions in 2015.

The article discusses the increase of the submission rate at the periodical "Ecological Monographs." Topics mention including the quality of the journal, encouraging cross-discipline and synthetic submission and periodical "Ecological Monographs" which continue to top in ranking of journals in Ecology.

Background: An integral aspect of patient engagement in research, also known as patient and public involvement, is appropriately recognising patient partners for their contributions through compensation (e.g., coauthorship, honoraria). Despite known benefits to compensating patient partners, our previous work suggested compensation is rarely reported and researchers perceive a lack of guidance on this issue. To address this gap, we identified and summarised available guidance and policy documents for patient partner compensation. Methods: We conducted this scoping review in accordance with methods suggested by the JBI. We searched the grey literature (Google, Google Scholar) in March 2022 and Overton (an international database of policy documents) in April 2022. We included articles, guidance or policy documents regarding the compensation of patient partners for their research contributions. Two reviewers independently extracted and synthesised document characteristics and recommendations. Results: We identified 65 guidance or policy documents. Most documents were published in Canada (57%, n = 37) or the United Kingdom (26%, n = 17). The most common recommended methods of nonfinancial compensation were offering training opportunities to patient partners (40%, n = 26) and facilitating patient partner attendance at conferences (38%, n = 25). The majority of guidance documents (95%) suggested financially compensating (i.e., offering something of monetary value) patient partners for their research contributions. Across guidance documents, the recommended monetary value of financial compensation was relatively consistent and associated with the role played by patient partners and/or specific engagement activities. For instance, the median monetary value for obtaining patient partner feedback (i.e., consultation) was $19/h (USD) (range of $12–$50/h). We identified several documents that guide the compensation of specific populations, including youth and Indigenous peoples. Conclusion: Multiple publicly available resources exist to guide researchers, patient partners and institutions in developing tailored patient partner compensation strategies. Our findings challenge the perception that a lack of guidance hinders patient partner financial compensation. Future efforts should prioritise the effective implementation of these compensation strategies to ensure that patient partners are appropriately recognised. Patient or Public Contributions: The patient partner coauthor informed protocol development, identified data items, and interpreted findings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents notes for contributors including manuscript style, copyright, and issue's editors.

b JC: As an Editor I welcome suggestions of qualified reviewers from authors, but I ask Associate Editors to only use one reviewer (at most) from that list. Author Responses are examined in detail by Editors and reviewers to determine the extent to which authors have resolved problems identified in the original submission. The manuscript submission process can be confusing, particularly for authors submitting their work for the first time. [Extracted from the article]

The author discusses the periodic reevaluation by the journal of its standards for graphical displays, focusing on the basic and translational scientific papers. Topics covered include the goal of showing all data points whenever feasible, the journal's liberalization of the maximum size of printed figures from a half page to a full page, and several measures where the implementation of the changes will occur.

To append to this list of successful outputs, all researchers have many a manuscript rejection letter tucked away in their archives; and depending on where we send our manuscripts, we may end up with many more rejection emails from journals than acceptance letters. With the number of reviewers now declining manuscript reviews, and tighter time commitments throughout the publication pipeline, it is imperative that you send your manuscript for review in a "publication ready" state. In many cases, a manuscript could be sent to a variety of journals, and it is assumed that it is best to submit your manuscript to the journal with the highest impact factor, and then work your way down the impact factor until the manuscript is submitted. [Extracted from the article]

The scientific community is becoming more demographically diverse, and team science is becoming more common. Here, we compare metrics of success in academic research, acceptance rates, and citations, among/across differing team compositions regarding demographic diversity. We collected the final decisions and citations as of 2019 of 91,427 manuscripts submitted from 2012–2018 to journals published by the American Geophysical Union. We matched the authors by email on each manuscript to self‐provided demographic information within the American Geophysical Union's membership database. This resulted in 20,940 manuscripts matched to nation, gender, and career stage, and 6,015 manuscripts matched to race/ethnicity for manuscripts in which the entire authorship team was affiliated with the United States. Among similar sized authorship teams (teams of two to four), acceptance rates were 2.7, 4.5, and 0.9% higher (pnation < 0.01, pgender < 0.05, pcareer stage = 0.51) with more than one nation, gender, and career stage, respectively, than nondiverse authorship teams. Diverse papers had 1.2 more citations for international teams than single‐nation teams (pnation < 0.01). There were 0.4 and 1.0 fewer citations for authorship teams with more than one gender or career stage than manuscripts with one gender or career stage (pgender = 0.21, pcareer stage = 0.36). Racially/ethnically diverse teams were associated with 5.5% lower acceptance rates (p < 0.01) and 0.8 fewer citations (p = 0.15) than racially/ethnically homogenous teams. Although not every difference is statistically significant, the overall results are consistent with the notion that diversity can benefit science, but equitable practices and inclusive cultures must also be fostered. Plain Language Summary: This manuscript uses publication data from a large disciplinary scientific publisher, combined with self‐reported demographic information, to understand team diversity as related to scientific outcomes. Acceptance rates and citations are used here to measure the quality of science and impact of a study on the scientific community. We find that in the case of nation, gender, and age diversity, demographically mixed teams have better outcomes. When U.S. author teams have multiracial/multiethnic teams, these scientific outcomes are lower than single‐race/ethnicity teams. This is important to reinforce that diversity has the capacity to better science, but also, critically, diversity must be understood within other social contexts regarding opportunity, networks, and resource distribution. Key Points: Nationally and gender‐diverse teams are associated with higher acceptance rates. International teams are associated with more citationsDiversity in author teams regarding race/ethnicity in U.S.‐based authorship teams is associated with lower acceptance rates and citationsEquity, inclusion, and bias should be considered when assessing the link between diversity and manuscript outcomes [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article offers notes to contributors of the journal including file types and illustrations, manuscript style and reference style. The need for manuscripts to be submitted to the main web-based submission, peer review and manuscript tracking system is tackled. Information about color publication, copyright and ethical review is also presented.

We conducted a literature review of best practice in peer review. Following this research, we identified five principles for better peer review: Content Integrity, Content Ethics, Fairness, Usefulness, and Timeliness. For each of these principles, we have developed a set of recommendations to improve peer review standards. In this article, we describe the role of peer review and how our five principles support that goal. This article is intended to continue the conversation about improving peer review standards and provide guidance to journal teams looking to improve their standards. It is accompanied by a detailed checklist, which could be used by journal teams to assess their current peer review standards. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An editor's report for the "Southern Economic Journal" is presented, including the number of new manuscript submissions received by the Editorial Office from January 1, 2017 to December 31, 2017, the time between submission and the journal's first response, and the editorial process.

With peer review under closer scrutiny than ever before, research is needed to investigate not only what incentives encourage researchers to review manuscripts, but also what reasons prevent them from reviewing. We analysed responses to reviewer invitations sent by one journal in March to July 2015. The data showed that the overwhelming reason why reviewers decline is because they are unavailable to do so. Although the finding may not be surprising and confirms the findings of earlier research, the study illustrates how a journal can analyse and draw conclusions from its own reviewer invitation data as a first step to improving the invitation acceptance rates. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Refugees and migrants face suboptimal involvement in spaces for primary healthcare decision‐making. Given the rising numbers of resettled refugees and migrants in primary care settings in the United States, there is an urgent need for patient‐centred outcome research in practice‐based research networks (PBRNs) with diverse ethnolinguistic communities. This study explored whether researchers, clinicians and patients would achieve consensus on (1) a common set of clinical problems that were applicable across a PBRN and (2) potential clinical interventions to address those problems to inform a patient‐centred outcomes research (PCOR) study in a similar research network. Methods: In this qualitative participatory health research study, patients from diverse ethnolinguistic communities and clinicians from seven practices in a US PBRN discussed preferences for PCOR responsive to patients and the clinicians who serve them in language‐discordant settings. Researchers and an advisory panel that included patients and clinicians from each participating practice held regular advisory meetings to monitor progress on project milestones and solve emerging problems. Participants took part in 10 sessions using Participatory Learning in Action and the World Café methods to identify and prioritise their ideas, using questions set for them by the advisory panel. Data were analysed based on principles of qualitative thematic content analysis. Results: Participants identified common barriers in language‐discordant healthcare settings, principally patient‐clinician communication barriers and suggestions to overcome these barriers. A key finding was an unanticipated consensus about the need for attention to healthcare processes rather than a clinical research priority. Negotiation with research funders enabled further analysis of potential interventions for care processes to improve communication and shared decision‐making in consultations and the practice as a whole. Conclusion: PCOR studies should examine interventions for improving communication between patients from diverse ethnolinguistic communities and primary care staff if the sorts of harms experienced by patients experiencing language‐discordant healthcare are to be reduced or prevented. Flexibility and responsiveness from funders to unanticipated findings are key structural supports for participatory health research in primary care clinical settings with this population and others who experience marginalisation and exclusion. Patient or Public Contribution: Patients and clinicians participated in the study both in the formulation of the study question, data collection, analysis and dissemination of these results; consented to their individual participation; and reviewed early drafts of the manuscript. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The increasing number of journals makes it difficult to decide the right venue for manuscript submission. This becomes more complicated as the selection criteria may vary from one discipline to another. Therefore, appropriate cross-disciplinary studies are required to understand the exact concerns that dominate a particular field. The current study compares 16 factors that influence journal choices between medicine and social sciences using the answers given to a global survey of 235 open access journal authors. The results reveal that authors of both areas consider 'peer reviewed' status as the most important factor while showing the least interest to the 'number of annual subscribers' of the journal. However, compared to social science authors, those in the discipline of medicine give significantly more consideration to (1) impact factor, (2) the inclusion of the journal in abstracting and indexing services, (3) publisher's prestige, and (4) online submission with tracking facility. The factors that were identified can be categorized for both disciplines as reflecting the reputation of a journal, performance or production issues, and reliability and demand characteristics of their publication choice. The editors and publishers can use these findings to attract the best manuscripts as the study reveals the author's perception of the journal's status. The results can also be used to design recommender systems for journal submission for new authors in a discipline. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We compared publication rates of editor‐authored publications between journals that do not blind peer reviewers to author identity with one that does. Our hypothesis was that the if the identity of editors as authors is known to peer reviewers this may potentially bias the recommendation for publication. To do this, we queried Scopus for all publications from five top urology journals from 2013 to 2018, and linked them to a database of editors. Poisson regression analysis was used to compare publication rates of manuscripts with at least one editor as author between blinded journals and a non‐blinded journal. In separate analyses, we compared publication frequency before and after authors became editors and the frequency with which articles were cited. We found that the adjusted rate ratio of editor‐authored manuscripts comparing the non‐blinded journal to the blinded journal was 5.4 (95% CI 3.8–7.6) for 'total publications', and 1.9 (95% CI 1.5–2.2) among 'articles only'. Median citation frequency was slightly higher among articles written by editors compared with non‐editors at 11 (3–26) versus 7 (2–16) (p < 0.001). We concluded that the blinded journal had a smaller representation of their editors as authors of their manuscripts, compared with the non‐blinded journals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Scientists who plan to publish in the British Journal of Pharmacology (BJP) should read this article before undertaking studies utilising anaesthetics in mammalian animals. This editorial identifies certain gaps in the reporting of details on the use of anaesthetics in animal research studies published in the BJP. The editorial also provides guidance, based upon current best practices, for performing in vivo experiments that require anaesthesia. In addition, mechanisms of action and physiological impact of specific anaesthetic agents are discussed. Our goal is to identify best practices and to provide guidance on the information required for manuscripts submitted to the BJP that involve the use of anaesthetic agents in studies with experimental animals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article offers information on various instructions for authors related to periodical "Epilepsia". Topics discussed include several editorial policies including manuscripts in all areas of epilepsy, peer review for original research articles and data reporting via checklists of diagnostic accuracy and meta-analyses, types of manuscripts to be accepted are peer-review papers, editor reviewed materials and special reports and guidelines for manuscripts preparation.

Several charts about the editorial process of the journal are presented which include the number of submissions and accepted manuscripts from 2000 to 2013, distribution of the journal by subject and status of manuscripts by year of submission.

Giving researchers access to not just the data, but also connected resources with assigned PIDs and metadata enables them to fully replicate, understand, and reuse previously acquired data. Instruments In cases where data were collected by an instrument, it is important for data reviewers and users to understand exactly which instrument was used, and what settings/calibrations were in place when the data were collected. Data underlying figures in beyond data: Sharing related research outputs to make data reusable [dataset]. [Extracted from the article]

The authors discuss the significance of acknowledging the role of reviewers in the production of scientific knowledge. They assert that the workload of reviewers is increasing as they assist in the selection of manuscripts for publication in addition to supporting the decisions of editors, which may limit their own research output as scientists. The authors recommend formally crediting the contribution of reviewers following standard criteria.

In this article, the author discusses the periodical's manuscript review methodology. Topics discussed include reviewer's understanding towards the study, provision of providing feedback to authors on improving the manuscript and confidential comments of the editor versus comments to the authors It mentions that a reviewer should write a brief summary at the beginning of the review stating the purpose.