Search

Objectives/hypothesis: To identify the most influential publications in laryngology since 2000., Study Design: Modified Delphi process., Methods: Samples of laryngologists drawn from editors of leading journals, organization officers, and thought leaders were invited to participate in a modified Delphi identification of influential laryngology papers. Influential was defined as follows: yielding meaningful practice changes, catalyzing further work as a foundation for an important topic, altering traditional views, or demonstrating durability over time. Quality and validity were not among the selection criteria. Each participant nominated 5 to 10 papers in Round 1. These nominations, augmented with papers from bibliometric analysis, were narrowed further in Round 2 as participants identified their top 20. The 40 papers with the most Round 2 votes were discussed by video conference and then subjected to Round 3 voting, with each participant again selecting their top 20 most influential papers. Final results were collated by the number of Round 3 votes., Results: Sixteen of 18 invited laryngologists participated overall (all 16 in Rounds 1 and 3; 14 in Round 2). Twenty-one papers were identified as most influential. One paper appeared on all 16 Round 3 lists; three papers with eight (50%) votes each were lasted to make the list. Eleven of these 21 focused on voice; three each related to cancer, airway, and swallowing; and one encompassed all of these clinical areas., Conclusions: This list of 21 influential laryngology papers serves to focus further research, provides perspective on recent advances within the field, and is an educational resource for trainees and practicing physicians., Level of Evidence: NA Laryngoscope, 132:406-412, 2022., (© 2021 The Authors. The Laryngoscope published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of The American Laryngological, Rhinological and Otological Society, Inc.)

One of the tasks required of most statistics researchers and academic faculty is to publish their innovative ideas in the peer‐reviewed literature. In this paper, we provide guidance about the different stages of the process as experienced authors and offer advice from those who hold the decision about the success or failure of these papers, namely the editors of applied statistics journals. The paper is organized into four sections focusing on the different stages of publishing: (1) Planning what to write about, where to submit and how to organize the paper; (2) The process of writing the paper; (3) Interpreting and responding to peer‐reviews from the journal editors and referees to prepare for resubmission; and (4) General comments about the publication process, including collaboration and mentoring. Each section starts with fundamentals provided by the moderators (C.A.C. and L.L.) on key aspects to consider on each topic and then is followed with discussion from some current and past editors of impactful journals in the field of applied statistics. Our hope is that this collection of insights may help accelerate learning about the process for young researchers and help all researchers to understand some of the important often‐unspoken aspects of the process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Identifying factors that associate with more cited or higher quality research may be useful to improve science or to support research evaluation. This article reviews evidence for the existence of such factors in article text and metadata. It also reviews studies attempting to estimate article quality or predict long‐term citation counts using statistical regression or machine learning for journal articles or conference papers. Although the primary focus is on document‐level evidence, the related task of estimating the average quality scores of entire departments from bibliometric information is also considered. The review lists a huge range of factors that associate with higher quality or more cited research in some contexts (fields, years, journals) but the strength and direction of association often depends on the set of papers examined, with little systematic pattern and rarely any cause‐and‐effect evidence. The strongest patterns found include the near universal usefulness of journal citation rates, author numbers, reference properties, and international collaboration in predicting (or associating with) higher citation counts, and the greater usefulness of citation‐related information for predicting article quality in the medical, health and physical sciences than in engineering, social sciences, arts, and humanities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Open data as an integral part of the open science movement enhances the openness and sharing of scientific datasets. Nevertheless, the normative utilization of data journals, data papers, scientific datasets, and data citations necessitates further research. This study aims to investigate the citation practices associated with data papers and to explore the role of data papers in disseminating scientific datasets. Dataset accession numbers from NCBI databases were employed to analyze the prevalence of data citations for data papers from PubMed Central. A dataset citation practice identification rule was subsequently established. The findings indicate a consistent growth in the number of biomedical data journals published in recent years, with data papers gaining attention and recognition as both publications and data sources. Although the use of data papers as citation sources for data remains relatively rare, there has been a steady increase in data paper citations for data utilization through formal data citations. Furthermore, the increasing proportion of datasets reported in data papers that are employed for analytical purposes highlights the distinct value of data papers in facilitating the dissemination and reuse of datasets to support novel research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The field of economics is undergoing a paradigm shift, marked by what has become known as the "credibility revolution." This shift has impacted what economists write about, how they organize and structure their papers, and where they chose to publish their findings. This paper traces publishing trends from the 100 most cited papers in the decades from 1970 to 2019 (500 papers in total). Data suggest that the field has become more empirical and that the structure of papers is more standardized, often following a format that is closer to that of scientific papers. Increases in the percentage of women first‐listed authors and the gender ratio are noted and found to be correlated with emerging fields. Most interestingly, a decreasing number of highly cited papers are from what are generally considered the "Top 5" journals in economics, suggesting increasing importance of articles published outside of the Top 5. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: To examine how countries differ in attitudes to adverse drug reactions by examining published scientific papers., Methods: We searched Ovid EMBASE for publications indexed by the category "therapeutic agents", and the subcategory "adverse effects", by country for 43 countries., Results: We counted 1 810 202 papers world-wide regarding therapeutic agents during 14 years, of which 195 154 (10.8%) were included in the adverse effects subcategory. There were substantial differences between countries, not explained by population, economic variation, overall publication rate on therapeutic agents, or the presence of large indigenous pharmaceutical companies., Conclusions: Many local cultural factors influence the ratio of papers on adverse reactions to all drug effects, so it may be difficult to improve their recognition and reporting by international efforts.

In 2014 leading publishers withdrew more than 120 nonsensical publications automatically generated with the SCIgen program. Casual observations suggested that similar problematic papers are still published and sold, without follow‐up retractions. No systematic screening has been performed and the prevalence of such nonsensical publications in the scientific literature is unknown. Our contribution is 2‐fold. First, we designed a detector that combs the scientific literature for grammar‐based computer‐generated papers. Applied to SCIgen, it has a 83.6% precision. Second, we performed a scientometric study of the 243 detected SCIgen‐papers from 19 publishers. We estimate the prevalence of SCIgen‐papers to be 75 per million papers in Information and Computing Sciences. Only 19% of the 243 problematic papers were dealt with: formal retraction (12) or silent removal (34). Publishers still serve and sometimes sell the remaining 197 papers without any caveat. We found evidence of citation manipulation via edited SCIgen bibliographies. This work reveals metric gaming up to the point of absurdity: fraudsters publish nonsensical algorithmically generated papers featuring genuine references. It stresses the need to screen papers for nonsense before peer‐review and chase citation manipulation in published papers. Overall, this is yet another illustration of the harmful effects of the pressure to publish or perish. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: This study assessed the features of the 100 most‐cited papers on oral health‐related quality of life (OHRQoL). Methods: The 100 most‐cited OHRQoL papers were collected from Web of Science, adopting a combined keyword search strategy. Google Scholar and Scopus databases were searched to compare citations. The following data were extracted from papers: title of the paper, number of citations, authorship, country, year of publication, title of the journal, study design, sample size, topic and OHRQoL instruments used. Graphical bibliometric networks were created using VOSviewer software. Results: The number of citations of the top 100 most‐cited OHRQoL papers ranged from 73 to 949. Fifty‐six papers received at least 100 citations and two received more than 400 citations. Most papers were from Canada (23%) and had been published in Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology (37%). David Locker was the most‐cited author (25 papers; 3,521 citations). The cross‐sectional study design was the most common (68%). The impact of oral health conditions on OHRQoL (43%) was the most frequent topic, and the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP) was the most commonly used OHRQoL instrument (48%). Conclusions: This bibliometric analysis highlighted the characteristics of the 100 most‐cited OHRQoL papers, demonstrating that this field is far from saturated. This list of the most‐cited articles can provide a reference point to guide oral health research, education and services. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal (FCSRJ) is a multidisciplinary journal that includes Professional Issues as one of eight topic areas. This paper examined 28 professional issue papers published in FCSRJ between 2009 and 2022. The following eight categories emerged: Early Leaders in Family and Consumer Sciences (FCS); Understanding FCS; Accreditation and Standards; Collaboration, Funding, and Leadership; Current Leaders; Mentoring Students; Mastering the Art of Publishing; and Approaches to Quantitative and Qualitative Research. Overall, this study highlights the potential for diverse voices and formats to enrich the discourse surrounding professional issues. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article examines the joint makulatura campaign of 1974–91 by the Soviet Supply Committee (Gossnab) and the State Committee for Publishing (Goskomizdat), a campaign in which readers could exchange collected wastepaper for vouchers to obtain the popular and otherwise unavailable titles of the makulatura book series. Through analysis of the debate in Literaturnaia gazeta on the perceived waste and shortage of printing paper, the official campaign instructions, and the changing "editorial" paratexts of the makulatura books, the article sheds light on the public negotiations about the campaign and the value and reuse value of paper and reading matter in late Soviet society. By materializing the abstract relation between paper and books, the makulatura experiment turned both paper scrap and books into collection items and readers into paper suppliers. This materialization gave both readers and writers a marked awareness of paper as a raw material and a medium of cultural production. However, the shift of readers from the receiver to the producer side of the textual communication circuit also implied a collision of logics from the different perspectives of authors, collectors, publishers, and supply agencies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

During the coronavirus pandemic, changes in the way science is done and shared occurred, which motivates meta‐research to help understand science communication in crises and improve its effectiveness. The objective is to study how many Spanish scientific papers on COVID‐19 published during 2020 share their research data. Qualitative and descriptive study applying nine attributes: (a) availability, (b) accessibility, (c) format, (d) licensing, (e) linkage, (f) funding, (g) editorial policy, (h) content, and (i) statistics. We analyzed 1,340 papers, 1,173 (87.5%) did not have research data. A total of 12.5% share their research data of which 2.1% share their data in repositories, 5% share their data through a simple request, 0.2% do not have permission to share their data, and 5.2% share their data as supplementary material. There is a small percentage that shares their research data; however, it demonstrates the researchers' poor knowledge on how to properly share their research data and their lack of knowledge on what is research data. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the importance of quantifying the impact and quality of research articles, discussing traditional metrics such as the Journal Impact Factor (JIF), CiteScore, and the H-index. It also introduces alternative metrics (Altmetrics) like the Altmetric Attention Score (AAS), emphasizing their role in measuring the reach and success of research articles through social media engagement.

This article discusses OpenAI's ChatGPT, a generative pre‐trained transformer, which uses natural language processing to fulfill text‐based user requests (i.e., a "chatbot"). The history and principles behind ChatGPT and similar models are discussed. This technology is then discussed in relation to its potential impact on academia and scholarly research and publishing. ChatGPT is seen as a potential model for the automated preparation of essays and other types of scholarly manuscripts. Potential ethical issues that could arise with the emergence of large language models like GPT‐3, the underlying technology behind ChatGPT, and its usage by academics and researchers, are discussed and situated within the context of broader advancements in artificial intelligence, machine learning, and natural language processing for research and scholarly publishing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

When writing a research paper, the author has to select information to include in the paper to support various arguments. The information has to be organized and synthesized into a coherent whole through relationships and information structures. There is hardly any research on the information structure of research papers, and how information structure supports rhetorical and argument structures. Thus, this study is focused on information organization in the Abstract and Introduction sections of sociology research papers, analyzing the information structure of research objective, question, hypothesis, and result statements. The study is limited to research papers reporting research that investigated cause–effect relations between two concepts. Two semantic frames were developed to specify the types of information associated with cause–effect and comparison relations, and used as coding schemes to annotate the text for different information types. Six link patterns between the two frames were identified—showing how comparisons are used to support the claim that the cause‐effect relation is valid. This study demonstrated how semantic frames can be incorporated in discourse analysis to identify deep structures underlying the argument structure. The results carry implications for the knowledge representation of academic research in knowledge graphs, for semantic relation extraction, and teaching of academic writing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article explores the factors influencing the future citations of conference papers. We concentrated on the explanatory power of early attention on conference papers for citations collected from Google Scholar and Scopus. The early attention data includes users' online activities in a conference support system: CN3. Bookmarks from the bibliographic management system, Citeulike, were used as a collateral source of early attention. To examine the chronological contributions of 13 factors on citations, a multiple sequential regression analysis was conducted for three timepoints of the publication cycle—paper submission, time of conferences, and months after conferences. Our results illustrate that online readers' early attention of Citeulike bookmarks were found to have the most influence on the future impact of the conference papers. The early attention records from CN3 made noteworthy improvements to explaining both the Google and Scopus citations as well. We also found that the type of papers the number of papers presented at a conference, and the best article award records were significant factors influencing future citations. However, the magnitude of the effects made by online readers' early attention from both sources appears to be larger than these three traditional factors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We analysed how long it has taken for papers authored by Scott Reuben, Joachim Boldt and Yoshitaka Fujii to be retracted: investigations into these three anaesthetists have shown much of their research to be unethical or fraudulent. To date, 94% of their combined papers requiring retraction have been retracted; however, only 85% of the retraction notices were compliant with guidelines produced by the Committee on Publication Ethics. We contacted the Editors-in-Chief and/or publishers of all the journals containing articles that had been identified as requiring retraction but had not yet been retracted. In response to our enquiries, 16 articles have since been retracted; we have documented the journals' responses regarding the remaining papers and await further retractions in the future. There is room for improvement in the way that unethical or fraudulent papers are handled by journals and publishers, beyond the identification of the authors' misconduct. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To explore the citation evolution of papers published in the same year but different month, we selected papers from a discipline (physical geography), a subject (diabetes: endocrine and metabolism) and a journal (Journal of Biological Chemistry) published in 2005 as research objects. These papers were divided into six groups according to the difference in publication month, and we analyzed citations to these papers for the 9 years after publication. The results showed that within 5 years after papers from physical geography were published, the overall differences in citations of papers in different groups were statistically significant (P < 0.05); after that, the differences were not statistically significant. Within 5 years after papers from diabetes (endocrine and metabolism) were published, the overall differences in citations of papers in different groups were statistically significant (P < 0.05); thereafter, the differences were not statistically significant. Within 7 years after papers from the Journal of Biological Chemistry were published, the overall differences in citations of papers in different groups were statistically significant (P < 0.05); thereafter, the differences were not statistically significant. Citations of papers followed the same pattern irrespective of discipline, subject or journal: citations of papers published in the same year but different month were obviously different in the first few publishing years, but as time went on, only the difference in publication month in a calendar year did not affect the papers' longer-term citation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article calls on authors to submit papers or articles for the William M. Jones Award to be presented at the 2024 American Culture Association annual meeting.

When writing a research paper, the author has to select information to include in the paper to support various arguments. The information has to be organized and synthesized into a coherent whole through relationships and information structures. There is hardly any research on the information structure of research papers, and how information structure supports rhetorical and argument structures. Thus, this study is focused on information organization in the Abstract and Introduction sections of sociology research papers, analyzing the information structure of research objective, question, hypothesis, and result statements. The study is limited to research papers reporting research that investigated cause–effect relations between two concepts. Two semantic frames were developed to specify the types of information associated with cause–effect and comparison relations, and used as coding schemes to annotate the text for different information types. Six link patterns between the two frames were identified—showing how comparisons are used to support the claim that the cause‐effect relation is valid. This study demonstrated how semantic frames can be incorporated in discourse analysis to identify deep structures underlying the argument structure. The results carry implications for the knowledge representation of academic research in knowledge graphs, for semantic relation extraction, and teaching of academic writing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An editorial is presented the Pentatone label's deliberate development of a Mahler cycle with the Czech Philharmonic and conductor Semyon Bychkov, emphasizing the release of Mahler's second symphony as the third installment, and highlighting Bychkov's deep connection to the work throughout his career. The topics include the orchestral collaboration's significance, Bychkov's history with Mahler's second symphony, and the hope for the completion of the cycle despite economic uncertainties.

Concerned that studies contain false data, I analysed the baseline summary data of randomised controlled trials when they were submitted to Anaesthesia from February 2017 to March 2020. I categorised trials with false data as 'zombie' if I thought that the trial was fatally flawed. I analysed 526 submitted trials: 73 (14%) had false data and 43 (8%) I categorised zombie. Individual patient data increased detection of false data and categorisation of trials as zombie compared with trials without individual patient data: 67/153 (44%) false vs. 6/373 (2%) false; and 40/153 (26%) zombie vs. 3/373 (1%) zombie, respectively. The analysis of individual patient data was independently associated with false data (odds ratio (95% credible interval) 47 (17-144); p = 1.3 × 10 -12 ) and zombie trials (odds ratio (95% credible interval) 79 (19-384); p = 5.6 × 10 -9 ). Authors from five countries submitted the majority of trials: China 96 (18%); South Korea 87 (17%); India 44 (8%); Japan 35 (7%); and Egypt 32 (6%). I identified trials with false data and in turn categorised trials zombie for: 27/56 (48%) and 20/56 (36%) Chinese trials; 7/22 (32%) and 1/22 (5%) South Korean trials; 8/13 (62%) and 6/13 (46%) Indian trials; 2/11 (18%) and 2/11 (18%) Japanese trials; and 9/10 (90%) and 7/10 (70%) Egyptian trials, respectively. The review of individual patient data of submitted randomised controlled trials revealed false data in 44%. I think journals should assume that all submitted papers are potentially flawed and editors should review individual patient data before publishing randomised controlled trials., (© 2020 Association of Anaesthetists.)

This paper examines the citation counts of papers published in the first 25 years of the Sociology of Health and Illness. According to this measure only a small number of papers have made a major impact on the discipline of sociology of health and illness and an analysis of these select papers identifies some common themes. In particular, ‘successful’ papers have provided important theoretical constructs for the field while exploration of aspects of identity has been a recurrent focus. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents the discussion on following papers being accepted for publication in a future issue of the Health Information and Libraries Journal including survey of US academic libraries highlighting the COVID-19 experience.

It is a common practice for authors of an academic work to thank the anonymous reviewers at the journal that is publishing it. Allegedly, scholars thank the reviewers because their comments improved the paper and thanking them is a proper way to show gratitude to them. Yet often, a paper that is eventually accepted by one journal is first rejected by other journals, and even though those journals' reviewers also supply comments that improve the quality of the work, those reviewers are not customarily thanked. We contacted prominent scholars in bioethics and philosophy of medicine and asked whether thanking such reviewers would be a welcome trend. Having received responses from 107 scholars, we discuss the suggested proposal in light of both philosophical argument and the results of this survey. We argue that when an author's work is published, the author should thank the reviewers whose comments improved the paper regardless of whether those reviewers' journals rejected or accepted the work. That is because scholars should show gratitude to those who deserve it, and those whose comments improved the paper deserve gratitude. We also consider objections against this practice raised by scholars and show why they are not entirely persuasive. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article offers information on how to submit articles to be published in the journal, including the topics accepted and the email address for submission.

This paper compares 'high-impact' papers from China, Japan, India and Korea in 2012, together with papers from these countries in Cell, Nature, and Science (CNS) from 2010 to 2012. China leads on 'highly cited' and 'hot' papers in 2012, while Japan has the highest number in CNS (653), followed by China (471), Korea (131) and India (83). Although China published more high-impact papers in 2012, papers published in CNS were at a relatively low level, which appears to show that while some of the research in China is at a relatively high level, this is not entirely reflected in the number of papers in these 'elite' journals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Despite general agreement within philosophy that peer review is indispensable, its fairness and reliability is often questioned. This article suggests that such worries can to a large extent be met by adopting the practice that reviews as well as earlier versions of papers are made publicly available when the final version of a paper is published. This suggestion combines the advantages of transparency with the merits of anonymity of reviewers. While there are obstacles to this suggestion, the article argues that it would be worthwhile to implement it because it can help map patterns of conduct and secure confidence in the fairness and reliability of review procedures and journal editing within philosophy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An editorial is presented clarifying the scope of Nursing Inquiry and the types of manuscripts that align with its aims, including discursive papers, critical analyses, and theoretical debates on nursing and healthcare practices. It emphasizes the importance of avoiding a prescribed formula and standardized formats, and encourages authors to engage in critical reflection and present well-developed narrative logic in their submissions to advance the discipline's shared body of knowledge.

Lists papers on economics from various financial institutions. Inclusion of working papers from the Asian Development Bank; Conference papers from the Cambodia Development Resource Institute; Special papers from the International Development Research Center.

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]

Key points A more general and continuous form of ‘A short history of SHELX’ phenomenon has been found. The Review of Particle Physics (RPP) series, which is called the bible in the particle physics field, is highly cited by other research papers. The RPP phenomenon is found in different journals and is affected by the host journal's impact factor and publication size. The RPP phenomenon provides a big or small, but temporary, boost to its host journal's impact factor. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Key content As with all skills, the art of reviewing a scientific paper can be acquired, refined and perfected., It is not only a compliment to be invited to review an article but the knowledge acquired in the process, along with the continuing professional development credits gained, makes it a valuable opportunity for the reviewer, quite apart from it being a service to the journal and the scientific community., This article describes the basic principles and responsibilities of reviewing a medical paper., A considered peer review gives constructive feedback to the authors, enhances the credibility and value of the journal and is a service to medical science., Learning objectives To understand the basic principles of reviewing a paper., To be aware of the responsibilities of a reviewer., To know how to write feedback for authors and the editor., Ethical issues Plagiarism can be committed by the reviewer or author., Does the allegiance of the reviewer lie with the journal or the author? [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents the discussion on accepting the publication in a future issue of the Health Information and Libraries Journal. Topics include survey of health information seeking by cancer patients indicating some problems over medical explanations and terminology; and development of a validated search filter for Ovid Embase for degenerative cervical myelopathy.

Background. The scientific community views the publication of academic papers as a means of disseminating information, ensuring transparency and good practice in terms of research utilization. However, the choice of journal in which to publish is frequently influenced by other, less obvious, factors. This paper describes the lengthy route taken to get a methodological paper about pilot studies into print. Aim and method. This paper shares some of our experiences and discusses the lessons that we learned about the process of getting into print. A case study approach is adopted to help the reader understand the different influences on this process. Findings. Our methodological paper was submitted to six different academic journals before it was finally accepted for publication. The choice of journal was influenced by the need to reach an appropriate academic audience, the estimated turn around time (the time taken between submission of a paper and its subsequent publication) and the level of academic credibility of the journal (often assessed by the journal's Impact Factor). Publishing in 'high impact' academic journals assumed considerable importance for us in view of the UK Research Assessment Exercise (RAE). However, the consequence of going down the journal status hierarchy was that we lost about 1 year through submitting, rewriting according to each of the journal's specific requirements and resubmitting. The case study also demonstrates that getting into print often depends on a range of factors, not just the quality of the written text. Conclusions. Getting a paper published may depend not only on the intrinsic quality of the paper, but also whether it is submitted to the 'right' academic journal. Moreover, if journals do not take certain papers (e.g. ones with negative findings or those reporting multi-disciplinary studies) then this can lead to publication bias. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As future scientists, university students need to learn how to avoid making errors in their own manuscripts, as well as how to identify flaws in papers published by their peers. Here we describe a novel approach on how to promote students' ability to critically evaluate scientific articles. The exercise is based on instructing teams of students to write intentionally flawed manuscripts describing the results of simple experiments. The teams are supervised by instructors advising the students during manuscript writing, choosing the ‘appropriate’ errors, monitoring the identification of errors made by the other team and evaluating the strength of their arguments in support of the identified errors. We have compared the effectiveness of the method with a journal club‐type seminar. Based on the results of our assessment we propose that the described seminar may effectively complement the existing approaches to teach critical scientific thinking. © 2017 by The International Union of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, 46(1):22–30, 2018. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Conference proceedings are one of the most important forms of communication for computer scientists. This study investigated the policies of a large number of computer science journals with regard to the republication of papers which had already appeared in conference proceedings. Nearly one-quarter of journal editors would not republish such papers other than in special circumstances (such as a special conference issue), and almost all of the remainder would do so only after substantial updating and expansion of the original paper. Many specified the amount of content that should be new: 30% was the proportion most frequently mentioned. Thus, many sections of text may be identical to the original paper. However, some journal editors do not appear to consider this self-plagiarism provided the original publication is properly cited. Nevertheless, such (re)publication is likely to lead to high similarity scores in CrossCheck; in this field, therefore, journal editors need to exercise particular discretion when evaluating CrossCheck results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An editorial is presented on the Australian Journal of Rural Health (AJRH) has ranked as a Quartile journal by Scopus, meaning that aside from being well ranked, it receives many submissions from all over the world and particularly from within Australia. Topics include the journal relies on good-quality reviews from volunteer reviewers, the important therefore for people who have agreed to review for the journal to understand review requirements and processes.

This means that, at any time in your career, whether you are a scientist, a physician, or a health professional, having a peer-reviewed paper published will be among the most significant single events that happen in your working life: an achievement every professional is eager to experience. The relevance and impact of the publication of a scientific article have a meaning beyond the simple quotation on PubMed. AUTHOR CONTRIBUTION The author contributed substantively to the design, writing, and editing of the Editorial thoughts and approved the final version submitted for publication. [Extracted from the article]