Search

It is important to identify and develop stable wheat varieties that can grow under heat stress. This important issue was addressed in Bangladesh using six wheat genotypes, including three existing elite cultivars (‘BARI Gom 26’, ‘BARI Gom 27’, ‘BARI Gom 28’) and three advanced lines (‘BAW 1130’, ‘BAW 1138’, ‘BAW 1140’). Six sowing dates, namely early sowing (ES) (10 November), optimum sowing (OS) (20 November), slightly late sowing (SLS) (30 November), late sowing (LS) (10 December), very late sowing (VLS) (20 December) and extremely late sowing (ELS) (30 December) were assessed over two years in four locations, representative of the diversity in Bangladesh’s agro-ecological zones. In a split plot design, sowing dates were allocated as main plots and genotypes as subplots. A GGE biplot analysis was applied to identify heat tolerance and to select and recommend genotypes for cultivation in heat-prone zones. All tested genotypes gave greatest grain yield (GY) after OS, followed by SLS, ES and LS, while VLS and ELS gave smallest GY. When GY and the correlations between GY and stress tolerance indices were considered, ‘BAW 1140’, ‘BARI Gom 28’ and ‘BARI Gom26’ performed best under heat stress, regardless of location or sowing date. In contrast, ‘BARI Gom 27’ and ‘BAW 1130’ were susceptible to heat stress in all locations in both years. Ranking of genotypes and environments using GGE biplot analysis for yield stability showed ‘BAW1140’ to be most stable, followed by ‘BARI Gom 28’ and ‘BARI Gom 26’. Wheat sown on November 20 resulted in highest GY but that sown on December 30 resulted in lowest GY in both years. In conclusion, ‘BAW 1140’, ‘BARI Gom 28’ and ‘BARI Gom 26’ are the recommended wheat genotypes for use under prevailing conditions in Bangladesh.

This research aimed to study the effect of the position of fruits in a tree (inner or outer) and the number of fruits per panicle (one, two or three) on the growth and quality of citrus ‘Pontianak’. The study was conducted in a citrus orchard in Central Java, Indonesia for two seasons, 2014/2015 and 2015/2016. The results indicated that position of fruits on the tree did not influence weight and diameter of fruits, weight of fruit pulp, and contents of sugars and total acids. Increasing the number of fruits per panicle decreased the weight and diameter of fruits and the weight of pulp but increased the contents of vitamin C and total acids.

Key points: Academia is already witnessing the abuse of authorship in papers with text generated by large language models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT.LLM‐generated text is testing the limits of publishing ethics as we traditionally know it.We alert the community to imminent risks of LLM technologies, like ChatGPT, for amplifying the predatory publishing 'industry'.The abuse of ChatGPT for the paper mill industry cannot be over‐emphasized.Detection of LLM‐generated text is the responsibility of editors and journals/publishers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were elaborated to allow authors of such papers to identify quality articles for inclusion in their scholarly work. However, we have identified several issues that point to an over-reliance on the PRISMA guidelines. Firstly, we question the rigor of implementation by authors and the rigor of verification by peer reviewers and editors, and whether they have screened papers to ensure adherence to the PRISMA guidelines. Secondly, we have identified cases where the PRISMA criteria led to as much as 99.97% of the published literature being ignored, suggesting that valid publications meeting these criteria might be at risk of being ignored. Thirdly, we have noted that exclusion is not only a quantitative problem—it is also a qualitative one, since the screening procedure groups all non-conforming literature into one basket. Fourthly, we have noted that seven copies of the PRISMA guidelines exist. This being the case, which one should be cited? To replace over-reliance on PRISMA screening, we encourage authors, peer reviewers, and editors to publish systematic reviews and meta-analyses that respect the dual criteria of scientific plausibility and diversity of included papers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Extant studies have focused on exploring the research output of universities in Nigeria, but the measure of the quality of research output using citations per paper (CPP) from the Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus is scarcely discussed. This paper investigated the quality of papers published by the top 76 universities in Nigeria. Five hypotheses on CPP were tested using Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney tests. These hypotheses tested whether CPP is the same or different i) across six geo-political regions (GPRs), ii) between the two major regions, iii) across three university funding types, iv) in Scopus and WoS, and v) if these two databases are correlated. Results using these two databases indicated that no significant median differences were detected among universities across the six GPRs, between northern and southern Nigeria, and between the three funding types (federal, state, and private). Moreover, no significant median differences in CPP between Scopus and WoS were detected, and CPP in both databases was highly positively correlated (0.879; p = 0.05). A comparison of the mean CPP of Nigeria (5.90) from Scopus with 57 other African countries ranked it 47th despite being ranked third in terms of volume of published articles. Policy prescriptions are made on the implications of using CPP for practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Four publishing-related organizations, the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association (OASPA), and the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME), the first being dedicated specifically to the creation and dissemination of ethics policies, established a set of 16 principles related to journal and publisher transparency and “best” publishing practices. The first, second, third and fourth versions were published in 2013, 2015, 2018, and 2022, respectively. Membership of these organizations implies that members can only become such if they satisfy these principles. This paper compares the four versions to appreciate how the content has changed over time, as a historical endeavor to gather how publishing ethics has progressed over time. An assessment is also made to determine whether all principles are related to transparency and best principles, and if any may be missing. We concluded that the 16 principles offer broad guidance to several important aspects related to journal and publishing ethics and management. However, the vast majority are in general excessively broad, occasionally vague, or lack sufficient examples or specifics, despite the slight improvement between versions 3 and 4. We argue further that these weaknesses may limit their practical application. Until September 2022, there was no transparency regarding the consequences for any members that might violate, or not abide by, these principles. In the light of these arguments, we are of the opinion that the 16 principles of “best” publishing practices merit additional improvements. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]