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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]