Search

There is growing recognition that animal methods bias, a preference for animal-based methods where they are not necessary or where nonanimal-based methods may already be suitable, can impact the likelihood or timeliness of a manuscript being accepted for publication. Following April 2022 workshop about animal methods bias in scientific publishing, a coalition of scientists and advocates formed a Coalition to Illuminate and Address Animal Methods Bias (COLAAB). The COLAAB has developed this guide to be used by authors who use nonanimal methods to avoid and respond to animal methods bias from manuscript reviewers. It contains information that researchers may use during 1) study design, including how to find and select appropriate nonanimal methods and preregister a research plan, 2) manuscript preparation and submission, including tips for discussing methods and choosing journals and reviewers that may be more receptive to nonanimal methods, and 3) the peer review process, providing suggested language and literature to aid authors in responding to biased reviews. The author's guide for addressing animal methods bias in publishing is a living resource also available online at animalmethodsbias.org, which aims to help ensure fair dissemination of research that uses nonanimal methods and prevent unnecessary experiments on animals., (© 2023 The Authors. Advanced Science published by Wiley-VCH GmbH.)

This Perspective presents comments intended for junior researchers by Carol A. Lange, Editor-in-Chief, Endocrinology, and Stephen R. Hammes, former Editor-in-Chief, Molecular Endocrinology, and former co-Editor-in-Chief, Endocrinology., Principal Points: 1. Know when you are ready and identify your target audience.2. Select an appropriate journal.3. Craft your title and abstract to capture your key words and deliver your message.4. Tell a clear and impactful story.5. Review, polish, and perfect your manuscript., (Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Endocrine Society 2021.)

The purpose of specialized medical journals is to accurately disseminate the results of new research. The peer-review process is crucial for journals to be able to fulfill this purpose. Although the peer-review determines whether scientific papers are accepted or rejected for publication, for many authors is a not well known process in its entirety. Many journals have focused on educating their audience about how and what is assessed during peer-review, nevertheless, the rate of manuscripts rejected because of easily-avoidable causes related to this, remains high. In this paper, we describe the process that specialized journals use to assess original medical manuscripts and list the main causes of paper rejection. Practicing physicians and medical students who wish to report their research results stand to benefit if they can identify and early avoid on the issues that most often arise during the peer-review process.

Objective: The extent of intervention reporting in emergency medicine journals remains unclear. The primary objective is to assess overall completion of the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist described in emergency medicine randomized clinical trials (RCTs). The secondary outcomes were to (1) compare reporting before and after TIDieR publication; (2) evaluate factors associated with intervention reporting., Methods: Our cross-sectional study used Google Scholar's metrics to identify seven emergency medicine journals; of which, we randomly sampled 300 articles. Using two PubMed searches, we extracted 150 RCTs before and after publications of TIDieR. Two investigators independently extracted data. The primary analysis to measure overall completion included descriptive statistics for each checklist item. Our secondary analysis used an interrupted time series analysis and generalized estimating equations to determine the effect of TIDieR publication on intervention reporting., Results: Our initial search yielded 635 articles; from which, we randomly sampled 300 articles. We excluded 67 articles, leaving 233 for analysis. The mean number of TIDieR items reported was 5.4 (standard deviation = 1.18). Of the 233 trials, 42.9% provided information about materials, 67% provided intervention procedures, and 99.1% provided intervention delivery. The least reported items were intervention modifications (2.6%), intervention adherence assessment methods (3.4%), and intervention adherence assessment outcomes (2.2%)., Conclusions: The completeness of intervention reporting is suboptimal in emergency medicine journals, necessitating improvement. The current state of adherence could be improved through the combined efforts of journal editors, major editorial organizations, and authors., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest None., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Herein, we discuss a novel way to knit current life sciences publishing structures together under the scope of a single life science journal that would countermand many of the issues faced in current publishing paradigms. Such issues include, but are not limited to, publication fees, subscription fees, impact factor, and publishing in more "glamorous" journals for career health. We envision a process flow involving (i) a single, overall, life sciences journal, (ii) divided into sections headed by learned societies, (iii) to whom all scientific papers are submitted for peer review, and (iv) all accepted scientific literature would be published open access and without author publication fees. With such a structure, journal fees, the merit system of science, and unethical aspects of open access would be reformed for the better. Importantly, such a journal could leverage existing online platforms; that is to say, it is conceptually feasible. We conclude that wholly inclusive publishing paradigms can be possible. A single, open access, online, life sciences journal could solve the myriad problems associated with current publishing paradigms and would be feasible to implement.

Problem: Nursing is experiencing the growth of predatory journals with questionable peer review processes. These journals publish submissions quickly and do not enhance the authors' reputation and scholarship of nursing., Methods: A qualitative, descriptive study design examined the legitimacy of the peer-review process described on the websites of predatory nursing journals. Posted review processes (n = 53) were examined for quality indicators related to language use, author control, and transparency., Findings: Of the 53 predatory nursing journals describing a peer-review process, the majority indicated that all submitted content was sent for peer review (n = 34, 64.15%). Most journals did not describe the criteria on which submitted articles would be evaluated ( n = 39, 73.58%). Quality indicators for language included multiple grammatical errors and odd language and phrases ( n = 39, 73.58%). Author control of tracking, revisions, and review of galley proofs were inconsistent in the described peer-review processes. The majority did not provide a way to track a manuscript through the process ( n = 29, 54.72%). Most journals did not explain the types of peer review they conducted ( n = 31, 58.49%)., Conclusion: Authors can sidestep the trap of publishing in predatory journals by paying attention to the peer review process when selecting a journal for publication., (© 2019 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Scholarly publication in a peer-reviewed journal is the highest form of disseminating research findings. However, the process of publishing in peer-reviewed journals remains a daunting task for researchers and academics in Africa. This commentary will assist authors in Africa to understand the peer-review process, to appreciate the length of time it takes for a manuscript to be published and to encourage them to publish in local peer-review journals. The authors argue that the peer-review process is essential because it acts as a quality control mechanism to ensure that valid and reliable research is published. Although peer review does not guarantee exclusive publication of reliable and valid research, it remains central in the scientific activity. Authors need to take the comments from reviewers and editors, even in cases of rejection seriously and in the positive sense, inorder to improve upon the quality of their work. Rejections by some journals happen not to be scientifically grounded. It happens that African authors suffer more from this flaw. This could justify why some naïve authors easily turn to publish in predatory journals. The authors argue that publishing in local journals is imperative for Africans scholars. Therefore, initiatives to encourage publication in these journals are highly needed., Competing Interests: The authors declare no competing interest.

Competing Interests: Competing interests: All authors have read and understood BMJ policy on declaration of interests and declare the following interests: HMK and JSR are recipients of a research grant, through Yale, from Medtronic and Johnson & Johnson (Janssen) to develop methods of clinical trial data sharing, and were the recipients of a research grant, through Yale, from Medtronic and the FDA to develop methods for post-market surveillance of medical devices. HMK chairs a cardiac scientific advisory board for UnitedHealth; is a participant/participant representative of the IBM Watson Health Life Sciences Board; is a member of the advisory board for Element Science and the physician advisory board for Aetna; and is the founder of Hugo, a personal health information platform. JSR was a recipient of a research grant, through Yale, from the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association and receives research funding from the Laura and John Arnold Foundation. HMK and JSR are working with a team from BMJ and Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory to develop a “MedRxiv” preprint server for health sciences. CMO is editor in chief of Heart, published by BMJ.

Background: The annual Pediatric Hospital Medicine (PHM) conference serves as a venue for the dissemination of research in this rapidly growing discipline. A measure of research validity is subsequent publication in peer-reviewed journals., Objective: To identify the publication rate of abstracts submitted to the 2014 PHM conference and determine whether presentation format was associated with subsequent journal publication or time to publication., Methods: We identified abstracts submitted to the 2014 PHM conference. Presentation formats included rejected abstracts and poster and oral presentations. Abstracts subsequently published in journals were identified by searching the author and abstract title in PubMed, MedEdPORTAL, and Google Scholar. We used logistic regression and Cox proportional hazards models to determine if presentation format was associated with publication, time to publication, and publishing journal impact factor., Results: Of 226 submitted abstracts, 19.0% were rejected, 68.0% were selected for posters, and 12.8% were selected for oral presentations; 36.3% were subsequently published within 30 months after the conference. Abstracts accepted for oral presentation had more than 7-fold greater odds of publication (adjusted odds ratio 7.8; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.6-23.5) and a 4-fold greater likelihood of publication at each month (adjusted hazard ratio 4.5; 95% CI, 2.1-9.7) compared with rejected abstracts. Median journal impact factor was significantly higher for oral presentations than other presentation formats (P < 0.01)., Conclusions: Abstract reviewers may be able to identify methodologically sound studies for presentation; however, the low overall publication rate may indicate that presented results are preliminary or signify a need for increased mentorship and resources for research development in PHM.

Introduction: Peer review, a cornerstone of academia, promotes rigor and relevance in scientific publishing. As educators are encouraged to adopt a more scholarly approach to medical education, peer review is becoming increasingly important. Junior educators both receive the reviews of their peers, and are also asked to participate as reviewers themselves. As such, it is imperative for junior clinician educators to be well-versed in the art of peer reviewing their colleagues' work. In this article, our goal was to identify and summarize key papers that may be helpful for faculty members interested in learning more about the peer-review process and how to improve their reviewing skills., Methods: The online discussions of the 2016-17 Academic Life in Emergency Medicine (ALiEM) Faculty Incubator program included a robust discussion about peer review, which highlighted a number of papers on that topic. We sought to augment this list with further suggestions by guest experts and by an open call on Twitter for other important papers. Via this process, we created a list of 24 total papers on the topic of peer review. After gathering these papers, our authorship group engaged in a consensus-building process incorporating Delphi methods to identify the papers that best described peer review, and also highlighted important tips for new reviewers., Results: We found and reviewed 24 papers. In our results section, we present our authorship group's top five most highly rated papers on the topic of peer review. We also summarize these papers with respect to their relevance to junior faculty members and to faculty developers., Conclusion: We present five key papers on peer review that can be used for faculty development for novice writers and reviewers. These papers represent a mix of foundational and explanatory papers that may provide some basis from which junior faculty members might build upon as they both undergo the peer-review process and act as reviewers in turn., Competing Interests: Conflicts of Interest: By the WestJEM article submission agreement, all authors are required to disclose all affiliations, funding sources and financial or management relationships that could be perceived as potential sources of bias. No author has professional or financial relationships with any companies that are relevant to this study. There are no conflicts of interest or sources of funding to declare.

Background: The Internet has transformed scholarly publishing, most notably, by the introduction of open access publishing. Recently, there has been a rise of online journals characterized as 'predatory', which actively solicit manuscripts and charge publications fees without providing robust peer review and editorial services. We carried out a cross-sectional comparison of characteristics of potential predatory, legitimate open access, and legitimate subscription-based biomedical journals., Methods: On July 10, 2014, scholarly journals from each of the following groups were identified - potential predatory journals (source: Beall's List), presumed legitimate, fully open access journals (source: PubMed Central), and presumed legitimate subscription-based (including hybrid) journals (source: Abridged Index Medicus). MEDLINE journal inclusion criteria were used to screen and identify biomedical journals from within the potential predatory journals group. One hundred journals from each group were randomly selected. Journal characteristics (e.g., website integrity, look and feel, editors and staff, editorial/peer review process, instructions to authors, publication model, copyright and licensing, journal location, and contact) were collected by one assessor and verified by a second. Summary statistics were calculated., Results: Ninety-three predatory journals, 99 open access, and 100 subscription-based journals were analyzed; exclusions were due to website unavailability. Many more predatory journals' homepages contained spelling errors (61/93, 66%) and distorted or potentially unauthorized images (59/93, 63%) compared to open access journals (6/99, 6% and 5/99, 5%, respectively) and subscription-based journals (3/100, 3% and 1/100, 1%, respectively). Thirty-one (33%) predatory journals promoted a bogus impact metric - the Index Copernicus Value - versus three (3%) open access journals and no subscription-based journals. Nearly three quarters (n = 66, 73%) of predatory journals had editors or editorial board members whose affiliation with the journal was unverified versus two (2%) open access journals and one (1%) subscription-based journal in which this was the case. Predatory journals charge a considerably smaller publication fee (median $100 USD, IQR $63-$150) than open access journals ($1865 USD, IQR $800-$2205) and subscription-based hybrid journals ($3000 USD, IQR $2500-$3000)., Conclusions: We identified 13 evidence-based characteristics by which predatory journals may potentially be distinguished from presumed legitimate journals. These may be useful for authors who are assessing journals for possible submission or for others, such as universities evaluating candidates' publications as part of the hiring process.

Peer review for publication is fundamental to science-based fields, and nursing is no exception. Peer review provides benefits to the reviewer and the author(s) of the reviewed work. The purpose of this article is to provide readers with an explanation of how the peer review process works, what the responsibilities of a peer reviewer are, how to get involved in peer review, and the benefits of the review process.

Manuscript peer review is fundamental to the evaluation and dissemination of modern science; it is the process whereby good science is enhanced and bad science is dismissed. Very little objective evidence, however, has been amassed to guide the manuscript peer review process. Rather, it is learned by experience and mentoring: by doing reviews, receiving reviews of one's own work, and by obtaining feedback from seasoned reviewers. Here, I lay out my perspective on this cornerstone of the scientific endeavor., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Readers' trust on the medical literature has been eroded, and journal editors and some editorial boards are taking measures to ensure that authors fully and accurately report research findings and disclose conflicts of interest. This article describes a case study in which the papers editor of the World Health Organization (WHO) Bulletin influenced the content of an article that had been approved by the external reviewers. The editor objected to the publication of the large price differentials of the new molecular entities (NMEs) across the Latin American countries where they had been tested and the limited added therapeutic value of the NMEs that had been assessed by independent drug bulletins. This article summarizes the exchanges with WHO staff and posits the hypothesis that the WHO Bulletin might be affected by the shifts in WHO financing. Several authors have raised concern about the impact of financial conflicts of interest in WHO activities in the field of nutrition, intellectual property, and in the emergency response to the flu pandemic. Moreover, it has been reported that powerful WHO contributors pressured WHO into revising its publication policy. This is the first time that authors question if these conflicts of interest are also affecting the editorial independence of the WHO Bulletin.

Objectives: To assess whether reports from reviewers recommended by authors show a bias in quality and recommendation for editorial decision, compared with reviewers suggested by other parties, and whether reviewer reports for journals operating on open or single-blind peer review models differ with regard to report quality and reviewer recommendations., Design: Retrospective analysis of the quality of reviewer reports using an established Review Quality Instrument, and analysis of reviewer recommendations and author satisfaction surveys., Setting: BioMed Central biology and medical journals. BMC Infectious Diseases and BMC Microbiology are similar in size, rejection rates, impact factors and editorial processes, but the former uses open peer review while the latter uses single-blind peer review. The Journal of Inflammation has operated under both peer review models., Sample: Two hundred reviewer reports submitted to BMC Infectious Diseases, 200 reviewer reports submitted to BMC Microbiology and 400 reviewer reports submitted to the Journal of Inflammation., Results: For each journal, author-suggested reviewers provided reports of comparable quality to non-author-suggested reviewers, but were significantly more likely to recommend acceptance, irrespective of the peer review model (p<0.0001 for BMC Infectious Diseases, BMC Microbiology and the Journal of Inflammation). For BMC Infectious Diseases, the overall quality of reviewer reports measured by the Review Quality Instrument was 5% higher than for BMC Microbiology (p=0.042). For the Journal of Inflammation, the quality of reports was the same irrespective of the peer review model used., Conclusions: Reviewers suggested by authors provide reports of comparable quality to non-author-suggested reviewers, but are significantly more likely to recommend acceptance. Open peer review reports for BMC Infectious Diseases were of higher quality than single-blind reports for BMC Microbiology. There was no difference in quality of peer review in the Journal of Inflammation under open peer review compared with single blind., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.)

Scientific authors are responsible for the accuracy of their writings and references to others' works. However, relying on authors is not enough when it comes to processing their manuscripts. Joint efforts of authors, peer reviewers, editors, and publishers throughout the publishing process may prevent most reference errors. This article analyzes essential aspects of bibliographic management and focuses on the importance of validating references by all stakeholders of scholarly publishing.

The peer-review process is a central pillar of academic publishing. However, the work that goes into ensuring the quality of published content is rarely recognised. Here we present a correction factor for the h-index, one of the most popular metrics for quantifying academic output, that will allow for the inclusion of peer-review effort in the evaluation of the outputs produced by an academic., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Much of what is researched is never published. This would not be of great concern if the selection of what we read would occur irrespective of study outcomes. Unfortunately, the reverse is the case: "positive" studies have a much larger chance of acceptance after editorial and peer review than "negative" ones. Several solutions to this problem of publication bias have been discussed or implemented, but none seem to be very effective. In this article, the approach of implementing an editorial and peer-review procedure that is blinded to study outcomes is discussed. This would require a two-step submission procedure of manuscripts: first a version including just the introduction and methods and in some cases followed by a second submission including results and discussion. The pros and cons of such an approach are discussed., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Peer reviewing for medical education journals is an art, a privilege, a responsibility and a service to the profession. Writing a review report requires skills and commitment and takes time. Novice reviewers may be interested in participating in this service, but they might lack sufficient knowledge of their role as peer reviewers and the skills needed to conduct a comprehensive and fair review., Aims: The aims of this article are to help novice reviewers in their preparation of manuscript review reports and improve their confidence and skills in their role as reviewers., Methods: We reviewed the literature in this area and applied lessons learned from our experience as peer reviewers. In addition, one of the authors has presented several training workshops for faculty reviewers., Results: Incorporating all the methods described, we have developed a series of simple strategies that medical educators can utilise to perform high-quality reviews of manuscripts., Conclusions: Though the development of skills in reviewing medical education papers is the outcome of continuous practice and experience; the strategies described in this article will be of value to those starting their professional contribution as reviewers and enhance their skills in this area.

Review articles comprehensively covering a specific topic are crucial for successful research and academic projects. Most editors consider review articles for special and regular issues of journals. Writing a review requires deep knowledge and understanding of a field. The aim of this review is to analyze the main steps in writing a narrative biomedical review and to consider points that may increase the chances of success. We performed a comprehensive search through MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, and Web of Science using the following keywords: review of the literature, narrative review, title, abstract, authorship, ethics, peer review, research methods, medical writing, scientific writing, and writing standards. Opinions expressed in the review are also based on personal experience as authors, peer reviewers, and editors.

Purpose: Dissemination of scholarly findings in peer-reviewed journals is critical for sustaining optimal evidence-based practice standards for advanced practice nurses (APNs). However, many schools of nursing do not teach the process or significance of peer review. The purpose of this article is to describe the peer review process and provide practical suggestions for APNs reviewing a research-based manuscript., Data Sources: This article was prepared by reviewing both theoretical and data-based literature concerning editorial peer review., Conclusions: Reviewing manuscripts requires a high level of professional expertise and commitment. This article describes the history and benefits of peer review and provides a practical overview of the peer review process. A template has also been developed to serve as a checklist for critical elements relating to peer review., Implications for Practice: Peer review has a critical role in improving the quality of nursing's published knowledge base and ultimately the quality of patient care. The ability to provide sound critique of nursing manuscripts is essential to the continued development of advanced practice nursing., (©2010 The Author Journal compilation ©2010 American Academy of Nurse Practitioners.)