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]

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]