What Cell Press reviewers think about innovative peer review models: George Burslem, Dan Larson, Susanne Lens, and Victor Greiff.

In this Q&A, Cell Press Community Review Product Manager Matt Pavlovich talks to George Burslem, Dan Larson, Susanne Lens, and Victor Greiff about their experience reviewing manuscripts submitted to Community Review. These scientists share their thoughts on Community Review and other emerging peer review paradigms.

Stigmatizing Terminology for Outcomes and Processes (STOP) in Alcohol Research: A Meta-epidemiologic Assessment of Language Used in Clinical Trial Publications.

INTRODUCTION: Stigmatizing language used to describe patients and medical conditions is associated with poorer health outcomes. A recent investigation showed that approximately 80% of medical literature focused on alcohol use disorder (AUD) contained stigmatizing terms related to individuals; however, the quantification of stigmatizing terminology for outcomes and processes (STOP) among AUD research is unknown. Thus, our primary objective was to evaluate publications of clinical trials for their inclusion of STOP. METHODS: We performed a systematic search of PubMed for AUD clinical trials between January 1, 2017 and June 30, 2021. Article screening and data extraction were performed in a masked, duplicate manner by 2 investigators. We searched the full text of included manuscripts for STOP. We reported the frequency and percentage of manuscripts with STOP and individual terms. We evaluated associations between STOP usage and several clinical trial characteristics via logistic regression. RESULTS: Our search returned 1552 articles, which were then randomized and the first 500 were screened for inclusion. Of 147 included articles, 115 (78.2%) included STOP. The most common STOP were "drop out" (38.78%; 57/147), "relapse" (36.05%; 53/ 147), and "adherent, nonadherence" (35.37%; 52/147). No significant associations were found between STOP usage and trial characteristics. DISCUSSION: STOP was found in a majority of AUD clinical trial publications. As AUD is highly stigmatized, steps should be taken to eliminate usage of STOP in literature pertaining to AUD treatments. Many stigmatizing terms can be replaced by person-centered, more clinically accurate terms to further combat AUD stigma.

Female authorship of covid-19 research in manuscripts submitted to 11 biomedical journals: cross sectional study.

OBJECTIVE: To describe prominent authorship positions held by women and the overall percentage of women co-authoring manuscripts submitted during the covid-19 pandemic compared with the previous two years. DESIGN: Cross sectional study. SETTING: Nine specialist and two large general medical journals. POPULATION: Authors of research manuscripts submitted between 1 January 2018 and 31 May 2021. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome: first author's gender. SECONDARY OUTCOMES: last and corresponding authors' gender; number (percentage) of women on authorship byline in "pre-pandemic" period (1 January 2018 to 31 December 2019) and in "covid-19" and "non-covid-19" manuscripts during pandemic. RESULTS: A total of 63 259 manuscripts were included. The number of female first, last, and corresponding authors respectively were 1313 (37.1%), 996 (27.9%), and 1119 (31.1%) for covid-19 manuscripts (lowest values in Jan-May 2020: 230 (29.4%), 165 (21.1%), and 185 (22.9%)), compared with 8583 (44.9%), 6118 (31.2%), and 7273 (37.3%) for pandemic non-covid-19 manuscripts and 12 724 (46.0%), 8923 (31.4%), and 10 981 (38.9%) for pre-pandemic manuscripts. The adjusted odds ratio of having a female first author in covid-19 manuscripts was <1.00 in all groups (P<0.001) compared with pre-pandemic (lowest in Jan-May 2020: 0.55, 98.75% confidence interval 0.43 to 0.70). The adjusted odds ratio of having a woman as last or corresponding author was significantly lower for covid-19 manuscripts in all time periods (except for the two most recent periods for last author) compared with pre-pandemic (lowest values in Jan-May 2020: 0.74 (0.57 to 0.97) for last and 0.61 (0.49 to 0.77) for corresponding author). The odds ratios for pandemic non-covid-19 manuscripts were not significantly different compared with pre-pandemic manuscripts. The median percentage of female authors on the byline was lower for covid-19 manuscripts (28.6% in Jan-May 2020) compared with pre-pandemic (36.4%) and non-covid-19 pandemic manuscripts (33.3% in Jan-May 2020). Gender disparities in all prominent authorship positions and the proportion of women authors on the byline narrowed in the most recent period (Feb-May 2021) compared with the early pandemic period (Jan-May 2020) and were very similar to values observed for pre-pandemic manuscripts. CONCLUSIONS: Women have been underrepresented as co-authors and in prominent authorship positions in covid-19 research, and this gender disparity needs to be corrected by those involved in academic promotion and awarding of research grants. Women attained some prominent authorship positions equally or more frequently than before the pandemic on non-covid-19 related manuscripts submitted at some time points during the pandemic.

John Hatton's manuscript record of the surgical and pathological lectures given by Joseph Jordan, FRCS, in 1837-1838.

John Hatton, LSA MRCS FRCS MD (1817-1871), was apprenticed from 1833 to Joseph Jordan, MRCS FRCS (1787-1873), a well-known Manchester surgeon. Jordan, who had been teaching anatomy since 1814, closed his Mount Street Medical School in 1834 and was elected as surgeon to the Manchester Royal Infirmary in 1835. He continued to lecture on surgery and surgical pathology at the Infirmary, and sometimes at the Pine Street Medical School run by Thomas Turner, LSA FRCS (1793-1873). During 1837-38 Hatton transcribed and illustrated these lectures in a bound manuscript and also added notes and drawings in his personal copy of The Dublin Dissector. He gained his Licentiate of the Society of Apothecaries (LSA) in 1836 and Membership of the Royal College of Surgeons (MRCS) in 1839 and set up in Manchester as surgeon from around 1840. This paper is based on three previously unrelated documents in the University of Manchester Archives: a handwritten catalogue of specimens in Jordan's Anatomy Museum, Hatton's annotated copy of The Dublin Dissector and his manuscript record of Jordan's lectures. These documents provide a valuable insight into medical education during the 1830s.

Al-Masa'il fi al-tibb: Hunain ibn Ishaq's historic medical text with a distinctive style of Islamic medical education.

The golden age of Islamic medicine (800 to 1300 CE) is a notable period in medical history. Medical education in this period of time was significant and systematic in Islamic territory. In the early Golden Age of Islamic Medicine, Abu Zayd Hunain ibn Ishaq al-'Ibadi, an exceptional scholar and translator, emerged. He was known as Johannitius in medieval Europe. Al-Masa'il fi al-tibb lil-Mutallimin (Questions on Medicine for Students) was written by Hunain ibn Ishaq. This book remains a definitive text on Islamic medicine and has been printed and published widely in Europe. Al-Masa'il fi al-tibb is written in the style of questions and answers which is distinct from the conventional writing style of medical books on Islamic medicine. The current article reviews Al-Masa'il fi al-tibb and its distinguishing style, the question and answer format. Today, the question-and-answer method is a popular method of medical education, and clinical teachers tend to use it in medical education because of the advantages it offers. The use of this method in Al-Masa'il fi al-tibb for education and examination of medical students by Hunain ibn Ishaq reflects a great improvisation in medical education and introduces him as the leading developer of the question-and-answer method in Islamic medical education.

The name to remember: Flexibility and contextuality of preliterate folk plant categorization from the 1830s, in Pernau, Livonia, historical region on the eastern coast of the Baltic Sea.

ETHNOPHARMACOLOGICAL RELEVANCE: Research on the folk categorization of nature in preliterate societies in Europe is complicated due to the fragmentation of the information available and is rarely undertaken. Yet the data is valuable and may provide, in certain circumstances, important insights, if not into novel medicines, then into the historical logic of selection and memorisation of plants useful from a medicinal perspective. AIMS OF THE STUDY: We aim to understand the ethnobotany of a preliterate society by analysing the emic (derived from people) perspective on nature-related culture of one of Europe's smaller nations, whose written language and culture was shaped in the 18th-19th centuries by other, larger nations of Europe, and thus from the etic (academic) perspective. We attempt to identify how folk categorization is reflected in the relationships between plant names and uses and to map the structure of those relationships. DATA AND METHODS: We base our analysis on one of the oldest ethnobotanical manuscripts and herbaria of the Baltic governorates, compiled in 1831 by an amateur botanist, Baltic German Pastor Johann Heinrich Rosenplänter (1782-1846), which was derived from conversations with his parishioners from the tiny Pärnu parish. The historical dataset was critically analysed from an ethnobotanical perspective in light of recent identifications of the herbarium specimens. RESULTS: Although the Rosenplänter collection is fragmentary, the logic of plant categorization by non-literate peasants at that time is clearly seen in the data. Plants preserved in the herbarium were predominantly used for ethno-medicinal, food or ethno-veterinary purposes, such as treating chronic skin and joint diseases as well as severe acute diseases in humans and animals. Among 129 folk taxa analysed, more than one third had apparent purpose-related plant names providing clear links to their use, whereas a few multifunctional plants had several names reflecting diverse uses. For example, Hypericum spp., which was used in three different ways, had three semantically distinct names. However, among the plants that Rosenplänter collected, there were also some that were simply named and described by people but lacked any usability data (e.g., Trollius europaeus), meaning that use as such was not the primary criterion for recognising a plant. The web-like structure of preliterate thinking in plant-related knowledge reveals a deep relationship with the environment and the interpretation of new elements through familiar natural objects. CONCLUSION: Our findings demonstrate that historical ethnobotanical data, if thoughtfully analysed, can be used not only for comparative purposes, but also for understanding the logic of preliterate thinking. We encourage future in-depth studies of historical ethnobotanical data in Europe in order to understand the relationship between nature and culture of native European populations.

How to Submit a Clinical Paper: Basics, Tips and Traps - Part III.

One of the main goals of clinicians is to constantly improve the healthcare by spreading their expertise and by introducing innovations in medical science. Therefore, publishing is of utmost importance. Moreover, publishing helps authors in developing their academic carrier. Learning how to properly write and submit a manuscript should be a goal for all medical students, residents, clinicians and researchers. Everyone, from students to senior physicians and surgeons, advance in their carrier by publishing papers and by getting their work cited by others. The aim of this paper, published in three parts, is to enable the readers to write and publish their work effectively; the current part is addressing the actual writing workflow of a clinical paper and its submission process to a journal.

Representation of Women Authors in International Heart Failure Guidelines and Contemporary Clinical Trials.

BACKGROUND: Gender disparities in authorship of heart failure (HF) guideline citations and clinical trials have not been examined. METHODS: We identified authors of publications referenced in Class I Recommendations in United States (n=173) and European (n=100) HF guidelines and of publications of all HF trials with >400 participants (n=118) published between 2001 and 2016. Authors' genders were determined, and changes in authorship patterns over time were evaluated with linear regression and nonparametric testing. RESULTS: The median proportion of women authors per publication was 20% (interquartile range [IQR], 8%-33%) in United States guidelines, 14% (IQR, 2%-20%) in European guidelines, and 11% (IQR, 4%-20%) in HF trials. The proportion of women authors increased modestly over time in United States and European guidelines' references (ß=0.005 and 0.003, respectively, from 1986 to 2016; P<0.001) but not in HF trials (12.5% [IQR, 0%-20%] in 2001-2004 to 8.9% [IQR, 0%-20%] in 2013-2016; P>0.50). Overall proportions of women as first or last authors in HF trials (16%) did not change significantly over time (P=0.60). North American HF trials had the highest likelihood of having a woman as first or senior author (24%). HF trials with a woman first or senior author were associated with a higher proportion of enrolled female participants (39% versus 26%, P=0.01). CONCLUSIONS: In HF practice guidelines and trials, few women are authors of pivotal publications. Higher number of women authors is associated with higher enrollment of women in HF trials. Barriers to authorship and representation of women in HF guidelines and HF trial leadership need to be addressed.