Investigating academic nurse researchers' knowledge, experience, and attitude toward predatory journals.

BACKGROUND: Selecting a journal with an appropriate scope and breadth, well-respected by other scholars in the field, and widely indexed and accessible to readers is an integral part of publishing. Academic publishing has recently seen a significant shift away from traditional print publications and toward open access journals and online publications. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate academic nurse researchers' knowledge, experience, and attitudes regarding predatory journals. METHODS: A descriptive cross-sectional quantitative study design was conducted using Predatory Journals Questionnaire to collect the data from academic nurse educators working at X and XX University. RESULTS: Almost two-thirds (68.6 %) of participants had previous knowledge of the term "predatory journal." As well as, the majority of academic educators had previous experience as they had used predatory journals before, as by being asked to publish in their journal (84.3 %) or serve on its editorial board (24.3 %), participants were more likely to receive requests to submit an article to a predatory journal (52.9 %) via email, mail, or phone. In addition, academic nurse researchers had a moderate perspective (mean = 3.87 ± 1.06; mean % score = 71.71) toward predatory journals. CONCLUSION: Publishing in a predatory journal, whether done knowingly or unknowingly, can harm authors' reputations as academics, their capacity to submit to other journals, and the quality of their work. According to the results of our study, many researchers still lacked a thorough understanding of the predatory journal publishing model, which is a phenomenon that demands an increasing amount of research, despite hearing about the phenomenon of a predatory journal and having previously attended training.

Some Reflections on Dental Publishing 100 yrs Ago.

Publication of dental textbooks was a thriving business years ago and multiple publishing house entered the work place. Historical reflections on one of the early dental publishers coming in Philadelphia over 100 yrs ago are highlighted.

ChatGPT and Corporations of Mega-journals Jeopardize the Norms That Underpin Academic Publishing.

Those who participate in and contribute to academic publishing are affected by its evolution. Funding bodies, academic institutions, researchers and peer-reviewers, junior scholars, freelance language editors, language-editing services, and journal editors are to enforce and uphold the ethical norms on which academic publishing is founded. Deviating from such norms will challenge and threaten the scholarly reputation, academic careers, and institutional standing; reduce the publishers' true impacts; squander public funding; and erode the public trust to the academic enterprise. Rigorous review is paramount because peer-review norms guarantee that scientific findings are scrutinized before being publicized. Volunteer peer-reviewers and guest journal editors devote an immense amount of unremunerated time to reviewing papers, voluntarily serving the scientific community, and benefiting the publishers. Some mega-journals are motivated to mass-produce publications and attract the funded projects instead of maintaining the scientific rigor. The rapid development of mega-journals may diminish some traditional journals by outcompeting their impacts. Artificial intelligence (AI) tools/algorithms such as ChatGPT may be misused to contribute to the mass-production of publications which may have not been rigorously revised or peer-reviewed. Maintaining norms that guarantee scientific rigor and academic integrity enable the academic community to overcome the new challenges such as mega-journals and AI tools.

Writing for publication: Argument and evidence.

The rules for writing a research report are well defined but novice writers need more clarification on writing scholarly scientific papers for publication. The purpose of this paper is to enable novice writers to confidently apply the skills of scientific writing to the development of a scholarly paper for publication. We highlight the importance of having a clearly defined question or clarity in focus before moving on to consider the components of a scholarly paper including, the question, thesis, introduction, body, discussion, conclusion and finally, an abstract.

Major mistakes in scientific medical writing based on manuscripts' reviews.

INTRODUCTION: Peer review is a crucial process in ensuring the quality and accuracy of scientific research. It allows experts in the field to assess manuscripts submitted for publication and provide feedback to authors to improve their work. AIM: To describe mistakes encountered while peer reviewing scientific manuscripts submitted to "La Tunisie Médicale" journal. METHOD: This was a bibliometric study of research manuscripts submitted to "La Tunisie Médicale" and reviewed during 2022. The data collected included the type of the manuscripts and the number of reviews conducted per manuscript. The study also identified variables related to writing mistakes encountered during the peer review process. RESULTS: A total of 155 manuscripts (68% original articles) were peer reviewed and 245 reviews were delivered, by two reviewers. Out of 62 mistakes detected, 21% concerned the results section. In 60% of the manuscripts, the keywords used were not MeSH (Medical Subject Headings) terms. The introduction lacked in-text citations in 30% of the reviewed manuscripts, while the method section did not have a clear study framework (27%). The two major mistakes detected in the results section were the misuse of abbreviations in tables/figures, and the non-respect of the scientific nomenclature of tables/figures with respectively 39% and 19% of manuscripts. CONCLUSION: This study identified 62 mistakes while reviewing scientific manuscripts submitted to "La Tunisie Médicale" journal. Scholars can benefit from participation in scientific writing seminars and the use of a safety checklist for scientific medical writing to avoid basic mistakes.

Poster Abstracts - Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy 2024.

The AMCP Poster Abstract Program provides a forum for authors to share their research with the managed care pharmacy community. Authors submit their abstracts to AMCP, and each abstract is reviewed by a team of peer reviewers and editors. All accepted abstracts are presented as posters at AMCP's Annual and Nexus meetings. These abstracts are also available through the AMCP meeting app. This JMCP supplement publishes all abstracts that were peer reviewed and accepted for presentation at AMCP 2024. Abstracts submitted in the Student and Encore categories did not undergo peer review; therefore, these abstracts are not included in the supplement.