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]

This paper argues for a broad definition of philosophical sources and how Indigenous traditional knowledge fits that definition. It concludes by showing how, following the previous two points, an Indigenous document such as the Huarochirí Manuscript can be considered a philosophical source by academic philosophers. The paper has three sections: the first deals with the methodological point of addressing what can be considered as philosophy. This section presents a conversational approach to philosophy. This approach, although broad, properly captures the practices of inquiring about philosophical issues as is commonly done in Western academic circles, but without excluding the practices of non‐Western cultures from being labelled as philosophical. The second section argues for the analytical distinction between a philosophical source, a philosophical text, and a philosophical insight. It shows that what makes a philosophical source such are the philosophical insights that it can provide. The final section shows how the Huarochirí Manuscript has merits making it worthy of being considered a philosophical source and thus a relevant academic source for those working in the field of philosophy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Submissions fell back slightly in 2023 to 474 manuscripts but remain above pre‐Covid levels. Despite the high number of submissions, there has been little change in the number of papers accepted for publication, with the acceptance rate in 2023 standing at 8%. The acceptance rate is considerably higher for papers originating from Europe and North America. Accepted papers are now routinely made available online as 'Early View'. The Journal's Impact Factor fell back slightly for 2022, but still compares favourably with other journals in the field of agricultural economics. Operational changes include revisions to the journal's webpage and authors' guidelines and a newly configured editorial team. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: ChatGPT's role in medical writing is a topic of discussion. I experimented whether ChatGPT almost automatically generates Correspondence or Letter addressed to a "translated" article, and thereby wish to arouse discussion regarding ChatGPT use in medical writing. Methods: I input an English article of mine into ChatGPT, tasking it with generating an English Disagreement Letter (Letter 1). Next, I tasked ChatGPT with translating the manuscript addressed to from English‐French‐Spanish‐German. Then, I once again tasked ChatGPT with generating an English Disagreement Letter addressed to a German manuscript (triplicate translated manuscript) (Letter 2). Results: Letters 1 and 2 are readable and reasonable, shooting the point that the author (myself) felt as the weakness of the article. Letters addressed to French (single translation) and to Spanish (double translation) and longer Letters (corresponding to Letters 1 and 2) are also readable, and thus stand. Conclusions: Solely based on this experiment, one may be able to write a letter even without understanding the meaning of the paper being addressed, let alone the language of the paper. Although this humble experiment does not conclude anything, I plea for a comprehensive discussion on the implications of these findings. [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]

The article presents the discussion on research community increasingly partners with consumers and community in the design and conduct of research. Topics include Recent studies have explored the perceptions of Editor-in-Chiefs regarding the acceptability for consumer co-researchers to be authors on papers; and authorship were developed by the scientific community to ensure appropriate attribution for the work.

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]

An editorial is presented on the recent surge in submissions to Personality and Mental Health, prompting a review of journal policies to assist authors and reviewers. Topics include the journal's emphasis on advancing research into personality dysfunction, the importance of clinical relevance in submitted papers, and the introduction of new sections for opinion, debate, and commentary to encourage discussion and controversy in the field.

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]