Cell line authentication: a necessity for reproducible biomedical research.

Immortalized or continuous cell lines are invaluable tools in basic and preclinical research. However, the widespread use of misidentified cell lines is a serious threat to scientific reproducibility. Based on the experiences of mandatory cell line authentication at the International Journal of Cancer (IJC), we provide an overview of the issues pertinent to misidentified cell lines and discuss available solutions. We also summarize the lessons learned, revealing that at least 5% of the human cell lines used in manuscripts considered for peer review are misidentified. About 4% of the considered manuscripts are rejected for severe cell line problems, and most are subsequently published in other journals. In order to diminish such malpractice and its consequences for the scientific record, we postulate that strict multi-layered quality control is essential. Besides journals and publishers, we encourage scientists, research institutions, and funders to take action on the matter and revise their respective policies. Hence, we provide concrete recommendations on introducing regular authentication schemes and staff training, and discuss future steps for enhancing good cell culture practices.

Gene therapy clinical trials worldwide to 2023-an update.

To date, 3,900 gene therapy clinical trials have been completed, are ongoing or have been approved worldwide. Our database brings together global information on gene therapy clinical activity from trial databases, official agency sources, published literature, conference presentations and posters kindly provided to us by individual investigators or trial sponsors. This review presents our analysis of clinical trials that, to the best of our knowledge, have been or are being performed worldwide. As of our March 2023 update, we have entries on 3,900 trials undertaken in 46 countries. We have analyzed the geographical distribution of trials, the disease indications (or other reasons) for trials, the proportions to which different vector types are used, and which genes have been transferred. Details of the analyses presented, and our searchable database are on The Journal of Gene Medicine Gene Therapy Clinical Trials Worldwide website at https://a873679.fmphost.com/fmi/webd/GTCT. We also provide an overview of the progress being made around the world, and discuss key trends since the previous review, namely the unprecedented increase in gene therapy clinical trial activity, including the implementation of genome editing technology with the potential to transform the field moving forward.

Title, abstract and keywords: a practical guide to maximize the visibility and impact of academic papers.

In a growing digital landscape, enhancing the discoverability and resonance of scientific articles is essential. Here, we offer 10 recommendations to amplify the discoverability of studies in search engines and databases. Particularly, we argue that the strategic use and placement of key terms in the title, abstract and keyword sections can boost indexing and appeal. By surveying 230 journals in ecology and evolutionary biology, we found that current author guidelines may unintentionally limit article findability. Our survey of 5323 studies revealed that authors frequently exhaust abstract word limits-particularly those capped under 250 words. This suggests that current guidelines may be overly restrictive and not optimized to increase the dissemination and discoverability of digital publications. Additionally, 92% of studies used redundant keywords in the title or abstract, undermining optimal indexing in databases. We encourage adopting structured abstracts to maximize the incorporation of key terms in titles, abstracts and keywords. In addition, we encourage the relaxation of abstract and keyword limitations in journals with strict guidelines, and the inclusion of multilingual abstracts to broaden global accessibility. These recommendations to editors are designed to improve article engagement and facilitate evidence synthesis, thereby aligning scientific publishing with the modern needs of academic research.

Welcoming a new Main Editor of Journal of Synchrotron Radiation.

Introducing a new Main Editor of JSR.

Celebrating JSR's 30th anniversary: reminiscences of a Main Editor.

Reminiscences of one of the founding Main Editors of JSR on its 30th anniversary.

The BJPsych journals: open for business and faster than a speeding bullet in advancing psychiatry internationally.

The Royal College of Psychiatry journals have an outstanding reputation for excellence, integrity and impact in psychiatry. Facilitated by Cambridge University Press, which is equally steeped in tradition, the family of College journals remains committed to enriching our understanding of mental science and exploring the clinical issues that matter.

Centennial issue.

The Journal of Comparative Physiology A, also known as JCPA, was founded by Karl von Frisch and Alfred Kühn in 1924, then under its German title Zeitschrift für vergleichende Physiologie. During the 100 years of its history, it became the leading international journal in comparative physiology and its daughter discipline, neuroethology. As such, it had a major impact on the development of these disciplines. In celebration of this achievement and the nearly 10,000 articles that appeared during the last 100 years, this Centennial Issue is published. Its authors reflect on the history of JCPA and the early pioneers, including women scientists, of comparative physiology; share the impact that the Journal had on their careers; discuss the benefit of the enormous taxonomic diversity of model systems used in studies published in JCPA; contrast this philosophy with the strategy of a limited number of standard biomedical model systems; review popular and trending research topics covered in JCPA; and, by interrogating the past, take a peek into the future of neuroethology.

One hundred years of excellence: the top one hundred authors of the Journal of Comparative Physiology A.

The Journal of Comparative Physiology A is the premier peer-reviewed scientific journal in comparative physiology, in particular sensory physiology, neurophysiology, and neuroethology. Founded in 1924 by Karl von Frisch and Alfred Kühn, it celebrates its 100th anniversary in 2024. During these 100 years, many of the landmark achievements in these disciplines were published in this journal. To commemorate these accomplishments, we have compiled a list of the Top 100 Authors over these 100 years, representing approximately 1% of all its authors. To select these individuals, three performance criteria were applied: number of publications, total number of citations attracted by these articles, and mean citation rate of the papers published by each author. The resulting list of the Top 100 Authors provides a fascinating insight into the history of the disciplines covered by the Journal of Comparative Physiology A and into the academic careers of many of their leading representatives.

Analysis of Top 100 Articles Cited in Top Pain Journals: A Comprehensive Two Decade Bibliometric Analysis.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: A bibliometric analysis was performed to analyze and compare the top 100 articles from the most well-known five pain journals: Pain, Pain Physician, Pain Medicine, Regional Anesthesia & Pain Medicine, and Journal of Pain. A query of the Scopus database was performed to filter the top 200 most cited articles from each journal. CY score was calculated for the top 200 articles from each journal by dividing the total number of citations by the number of years the article has been published. RECENT FINDINGS: All articles had a collective analysis of the top CY scores, the top 100 of which were further analyzed. The pain subtype, type of publication, country of origin, and senior author were extrapolated from these top 100 articles. Frequency tables were organized, revealing Pain Journal as the highest publishing journal out of the top 100 articles. Chronic pain was the most studied subtype of pain and narrative reviews were the most common type of evidence. Studies were also organized in five-year epochs to analyze the frequency of publications in these intervals. Results show that 2010-2014 had the highest frequency of articles published overall. Journal Impact Factor (JIF) is also an objective indicator of the average number of citations per published article from each journal. The journal with the highest JIF was Pain with an impact factor of 7.926. (6).

Evaluation of retracted articles in the field of emergency medicine on the web of science database.

BACKGROUND: The retraction of articles stands as the most significant mechanism employed to uphold the integrity of science, particularly in flawed studies. OBJECTIVES: This study aims to explore the reasons for article retractions in the field of emergency medicine and elucidate the problems arising from such retractions. The goal is to identify parameters in retracted articles that compromise scientific knowledge and raise awareness. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Retracted articles within the emergency medicine category were analyzed and assessed using the Web of Science database. The study sought to address the following questions: 1. In which year or years were the most articles retracted? 2. In which journals were the retracted articles published? 3. What is the distribution of topics in retracted articles? 4. What are the reasons for the retraction of articles? 5. What is the time difference and citation count between the publication and retraction years of the articles? RESULTS: The study delved into reasons for article retractions, types of retracted articles, and other relevant factors. A total of 61 retracted articles were examined and analyzed, revealing an increasing trend in the rate of article retractions over the years. The majority of retracted articles occurred in 2023, with the highest retraction rate identified in the "Emergency Medicine International" journal. On average, articles were retracted 356 days after publication. Reasons for retracted articles included concerns related to data, authorship issues, plagiarism, duplication, and biased or fraudulent peer review. CONCLUSIONS: This study provided an examination of retracted articles in the field of emergency medicine, highlighting a noteworthy increase in retractions due to various reasons. Despite retractions, it was observed that the citation counts of retracted articles increased. The growing number of retracted articles and frequent citations pose potential dangers from a scientific perspective, as citing retracted articles damages scientific integrity. The study underscores the importance of understanding the reasons for retracted articles and preventing the spread of such incidents in emergency medicine literature. The results, analyzed within various variables, indicate the need for further research and solutions, guiding future research efforts and contributing to the literature.

The impact of open access on citations, Pageviews, and downloads: a scientometric analysis in Postgraduate Medical Journal.

PURPOSE: The influence of Open Access (OA) on the citation impact of scholarly articles remains a topic of considerable debate. This study aims to elucidate the relationship between OA publication and citation metrics, as well as article visibility, within the context of the Postgraduate Medical Journal (PMJ). METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of 373 articles published in PMJ between 2020 and 2021. Data on OA status, citations, page views, PDF downloads, and other relevant variables were extracted from Journal Citation Reports and PMJ's official website. Multivariable linear regression and other statistical analyses were used to assess the impact of OA on these metrics. RESULTS: OA articles (n = 78) demonstrated significantly higher citation counts, page views, and PDF downloads compared with subscription-based articles (n = 295). Specifically, OA articles showed a significant increase in citation frequency with a ß coefficient of 25.08 and a 95% CI of 17.168-32.992 (P < .001). Similarly, OA status was independently associated with increases in page views [ß = 288.636, 95%CI: 177.749-399.524, P < .001] and PDF downloads [ß = 118.966, 95%CI: 86.357-151.575, P < .001]. Strong correlations among total citations, page views, and PDF downloads were observed in both OA and subscription articles. CONCLUSION: The study highlights a significant and independent association of OA publishing with increased citation counts, page views, and PDF downloads in PMJ, suggesting that OA articles have broader reach and greater visibility. Further research, including randomized controlled studies across various journals, is needed to confirm these findings and explore the full impact of OA publishing.

Evaluation and Comparison of Academic Impact and Disruptive Innovation Level of Medical Journals: Bibliometric Analysis and Disruptive Evaluation.

BACKGROUND: As an important platform for researchers to present their academic findings, medical journals have a close relationship between their evaluation orientation and the value orientation of their published research results. However, the differences between the academic impact and level of disruptive innovation of medical journals have not been examined by any study yet. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to compare the relationships and differences between the academic impact, disruptive innovation levels, and peer review results of medical journals and published research papers. We also analyzed the similarities and differences in the impact evaluations, disruptive innovations, and peer reviews for different types of medical research papers and the underlying reasons. METHODS: The general and internal medicine Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE) journals in 2018 were chosen as the study object to explore the differences in the academic impact and level of disruptive innovation of medical journals based on the OpenCitations Index of PubMed open PMID-to-PMID citations (POCI) and H1Connect databases, respectively, and we compared them with the results of peer review. RESULTS: First, the correlation coefficients of the Journal Disruption Index (JDI) with the Journal Cumulative Citation for 5 years (JCC5), Journal Impact Factor (JIF), and Journal Citation Indicator (JCI) were 0.677, 0.585, and 0.621, respectively. The correlation coefficient of the absolute disruption index (Dz) with the Cumulative Citation for 5 years (CC5) was 0.635. However, the average difference in the disruptive innovation and academic influence rankings of journals reached 20 places (about 17.5%). The average difference in the disruptive innovation and influence rankings of research papers reached about 2700 places (about 17.7%). The differences reflect the essential difference between the two evaluation systems. Second, the top 7 journals selected based on JDI, JCC5, JIF, and JCI were the same, and all of them were H-journals. Although 8 (8/15, 53%), 96 (96/150, 64%), and 880 (880/1500, 58.67%) of the top 0.1%, top 1%, and top 10% papers selected based on Dz and CC5, respectively, were the same. Third, research papers with the "changes clinical practice" tag showed only moderate innovation (4.96) and impact (241.67) levels but had high levels of peer-reviewed recognition (6.00) and attention (2.83). CONCLUSIONS: The results of the study show that research evaluation based on innovative indicators is detached from the traditional impact evaluation system. The 3 evaluation systems (impact evaluation, disruptive innovation evaluation, and peer review) only have high consistency for authoritative journals and top papers. Neither a single impact indicator nor an innovative indicator can directly reflect the impact of medical research for clinical practice. How to establish an integrated, comprehensive, scientific, and reasonable journal evaluation system to improve the existing evaluation system of medical journals still needs further research.

Assessing the Reproducibility of the Structured Abstracts Generated by ChatGPT and Bard Compared to Human-Written Abstracts in the Field of Spine Surgery: Comparative Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Due to recent advances in artificial intelligence (AI), language model applications can generate logical text output that is difficult to distinguish from human writing. ChatGPT (OpenAI) and Bard (subsequently rebranded as "Gemini"; Google AI) were developed using distinct approaches, but little has been studied about the difference in their capability to generate the abstract. The use of AI to write scientific abstracts in the field of spine surgery is the center of much debate and controversy. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to assess the reproducibility of the structured abstracts generated by ChatGPT and Bard compared to human-written abstracts in the field of spine surgery. METHODS: In total, 60 abstracts dealing with spine sections were randomly selected from 7 reputable journals and used as ChatGPT and Bard input statements to generate abstracts based on supplied paper titles. A total of 174 abstracts, divided into human-written abstracts, ChatGPT-generated abstracts, and Bard-generated abstracts, were evaluated for compliance with the structured format of journal guidelines and consistency of content. The likelihood of plagiarism and AI output was assessed using the iThenticate and ZeroGPT programs, respectively. A total of 8 reviewers in the spinal field evaluated 30 randomly extracted abstracts to determine whether they were produced by AI or human authors. RESULTS: The proportion of abstracts that met journal formatting guidelines was greater among ChatGPT abstracts (34/60, 56.6%) compared with those generated by Bard (6/54, 11.1%; P<.001). However, a higher proportion of Bard abstracts (49/54, 90.7%) had word counts that met journal guidelines compared with ChatGPT abstracts (30/60, 50%; P<.001). The similarity index was significantly lower among ChatGPT-generated abstracts (20.7%) compared with Bard-generated abstracts (32.1%; P<.001). The AI-detection program predicted that 21.7% (13/60) of the human group, 63.3% (38/60) of the ChatGPT group, and 87% (47/54) of the Bard group were possibly generated by AI, with an area under the curve value of 0.863 (P<.001). The mean detection rate by human reviewers was 53.8% (SD 11.2%), achieving a sensitivity of 56.3% and a specificity of 48.4%. A total of 56.3% (63/112) of the actual human-written abstracts and 55.9% (62/128) of AI-generated abstracts were recognized as human-written and AI-generated by human reviewers, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Both ChatGPT and Bard can be used to help write abstracts, but most AI-generated abstracts are currently considered unethical due to high plagiarism and AI-detection rates. ChatGPT-generated abstracts appear to be superior to Bard-generated abstracts in meeting journal formatting guidelines. Because humans are unable to accurately distinguish abstracts written by humans from those produced by AI programs, it is crucial to exercise special caution and examine the ethical boundaries of using AI programs, including ChatGPT and Bard.

Quality Assessment of TikTok as a Source of Information About Mitral Valve Regurgitation in China: Cross-Sectional Study.

BACKGROUND: In China, mitral valve regurgitation (MR) is the most common cardiovascular valve disease. However, patients in China typically experience a high incidence of this condition, coupled with a low level of health knowledge and a relatively low rate of surgical treatment. TikTok hosts a vast amount of content related to diseases and health knowledge, providing viewers with access to relevant information. However, there has been no investigation or evaluation of the quality of videos specifically addressing MR. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to assess the quality of videos about MR on TikTok in China. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted on the Chinese version of TikTok on September 9, 2023. The top 100 videos on MR were included and evaluated using quantitative scoring tools such as the modified DISCERN (mDISCERN), the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) benchmark criteria, the Global Quality Score (GQS), and the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool for Audio-Visual Content (PEMAT-A/V). Correlation and stepwise regression analyses were performed to examine the relationships between video quality and various characteristics. RESULTS: We obtained 88 valid video files, of which most (n=81, 92%) were uploaded by certified physicians, primarily cardiac surgeons, and cardiologists. News agencies/organizations and physicians had higher GQS scores compared with individuals (news agencies/organizations vs individuals, P=.001; physicians vs individuals, P=.03). Additionally, news agencies/organizations had higher PEMAT understandability scores than individuals (P=.01). Videos focused on disease knowledge scored higher in GQS (P<.001), PEMAT understandability (P<.001), and PEMAT actionability (P<.001) compared with videos covering surgical cases. PEMAT actionability scores were higher for outpatient cases compared with surgical cases (P<.001). Additionally, videos focused on surgical techniques had lower PEMAT actionability scores than those about disease knowledge (P=.04). The strongest correlations observed were between thumbs up and comments (r=0.92, P<.001), thumbs up and favorites (r=0.89, P<.001), thumbs up and shares (r=0.87, P<.001), comments and favorites (r=0.81, P<.001), comments and shares (r=0.87, P<.001), and favorites and shares (r=0.83, P<.001). Stepwise regression analysis identified "length (P<.001)," "content (P<.001)," and "physicians (P=.004)" as significant predictors of GQS. The final model (model 3) explained 50.1% of the variance in GQSs. The predictive equation for GQS is as follows: GQS = 3.230 - 0.294 × content - 0.274 × physicians + 0.005 × length. This model was statistically significant (P=.004) and showed no issues with multicollinearity or autocorrelation. CONCLUSIONS: Our study reveals that while most MR-related videos on TikTok were uploaded by certified physicians, ensuring professional and scientific content, the overall quality scores were suboptimal. Despite the educational value of these videos, the guidance provided was often insufficient. The predictive equation for GQS developed from our analysis offers valuable insights but should be applied with caution beyond the study context. It suggests that creators should focus on improving both the content and presentation of their videos to enhance the quality of health information shared on social media.

The McMaster Health Information Research Unit: Over a Quarter-Century of Health Informatics Supporting Evidence-Based Medicine.

Evidence-based medicine (EBM) emerged from McMaster University in the 1980-1990s, which emphasizes the integration of the best research evidence with clinical expertise and patient values. The Health Information Research Unit (HiRU) was created at McMaster University in 1985 to support EBM. Early on, digital health informatics took the form of teaching clinicians how to search MEDLINE with modems and phone lines. Searching and retrieval of published articles were transformed as electronic platforms provided greater access to clinically relevant studies, systematic reviews, and clinical practice guidelines, with PubMed playing a pivotal role. In the early 2000s, the HiRU introduced Clinical Queries-validated search filters derived from the curated, gold-standard, human-appraised Hedges dataset-to enhance the precision of searches, allowing clinicians to hone their queries based on study design, population, and outcomes. Currently, almost 1 million articles are added to PubMed annually. To filter through this volume of heterogenous publications for clinically important articles, the HiRU team and other researchers have been applying classical machine learning, deep learning, and, increasingly, large language models (LLMs). These approaches are built upon the foundation of gold-standard annotated datasets and humans in the loop for active machine learning. In this viewpoint, we explore the evolution of health informatics in supporting evidence search and retrieval processes over the past 25+ years within the HiRU, including the evolving roles of LLMs and responsible artificial intelligence, as we continue to facilitate the dissemination of knowledge, enabling clinicians to integrate the best available evidence into their clinical practice.

Twenty-Five Years of Progress-Lessons Learned From JMIR Publications to Address Gender Parity in Digital Health Authorships: Bibliometric Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Digital health research plays a vital role in advancing equitable health care. The diversity of research teams is thereby instrumental in capturing societal challenges, increasing productivity, and reducing bias in algorithms. Despite its importance, the gender distribution within digital health authorship remains largely unexplored. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to investigate the gender distribution among first and last authors in digital health research, thereby identifying predicting factors of female authorship. METHODS: This bibliometric analysis examined the gender distribution across 59,980 publications from 1999 to 2023, spanning 42 digital health journals indexed in the Web of Science. To identify strategies ensuring equality in research, a detailed comparison of gender representation in JMIR journals was conducted within the field, as well as against a matched sample. Two-tailed Welch 2-sample t tests, Wilcoxon rank sum tests, and chi-square tests were used to assess differences. In addition, odds ratios were calculated to identify predictors of female authorship. RESULTS: The analysis revealed that 37% of first authors and 30% of last authors in digital health were female. JMIR journals demonstrated a higher representation, with 49% of first authors and 38% of last authors being female, yielding odds ratios of 1.96 (95% CI 1.90-2.03; P<.001) and 1.78 (95% CI 1.71-1.84; P<.001), respectively. Since 2008, JMIR journals have consistently featured a greater proportion of female first authors than male counterparts. Other factors that predicted female authorship included having female authors in other relevant positions and gender discordance, given the higher rate of male last authors in the field. CONCLUSIONS: There was an evident shift toward gender parity across publications in digital health, particularly from the publisher JMIR Publications. The specialized focus of its sister journals, equitable editorial policies, and transparency in the review process might contribute to these achievements. Further research is imperative to establish causality, enabling the replication of these successful strategies across other scientific fields to bridge the gender gap in digital health effectively.

What makes an article a must read in medical education?

BACKGROUND: The dissemination of published scholarship is intended to bring new evidence and ideas to a wide audience. However, the increasing number of articles makes it challenging to determine where to focus one's attention. This study describes factors that may influence decisions to read and recommend a medical education article. METHODS: Authors analyzed data collected from March 2021 through September 2022 during a monthly process to identify "Must Read" articles in medical education. An international team of health sciences educators, learners, and researchers voted on titles and abstracts to advance articles to full text review. Full texts were rated using five criteria: relevance, methodology, readability, originality, and whether it addressed a critical issue in medical education. At an end-of-month meeting, 3-4 articles were chosen by consensus as "Must Read" articles. Analyses were used to explore the associations of article characteristics and ratings with Must Read selection. RESULTS: Over a period of 19 months, 7487 articles from 856 journals were screened, 207 (2.8%) full texts were evaluated, and 62 (0.8%) were chosen as Must Reads. During screening, 3976 articles (53.1%) received no votes. BMC Medical Education had the largest number of articles at screening (n = 1181, 15.8%). Academic Medicine had the largest number as Must Reads (n = 22, 35.5%). In logistic regressions adjusting for the effect of individual reviewers, all rating criteria were independently associated with selection as a Must Read (p < 0.05), with methodology (OR 1.44 (95%CI = 1.23-1.69) and relevance (OR 1.43 (95%CI = 1.20-1.70)) having the highest odds ratios. CONCLUSIONS: Over half of the published medical education articles did not appeal to a diverse group of potential readers; this represents a missed opportunity to make an impact and potentially wasted effort. Our findings suggest opportunities to enhance value in the production and dissemination of medical education scholarship.

Journal metrics of the top-ranked Orthopaedic, Medical, and Surgical journals - A cross-sectional, comparative study.

PURPOSE: In academic publishing, research metrics play a crucial role in assessing the scientific impact and performance of the published literature, as well as of the journals in which they are published. Several journal-level metrics (JLM) such as the h-index of the analysed journals, total citations, total documents, citable documents, references and external citations per document are considered crucial indicators of the importance and reputation of the journals. We hypothesize that journals in the field of Medicine receive more citations than those in Surgical journals like Orthopaedic surgery, and hence have better JLM. This study aims to to assess and compare the JLM of Medical and Surgical journals between two time zones 2017-2019 vs. 2020-2022, i.e., pre and post-COVID-19 pandemic period. METHODS: A cross-sectional bibliometric analysis of the top-ranked Orthopaedic, Medical, and Surgical journals was undertaken based on traditional JLM, using the SCImago database from 2017 to 2022. Our analysis focused on identifying trends in the h-index of the analysed journals, total citations, total documents, citable documents, references and external citations per document. RESULTS: Overall Medical journals were found to have higher JLM than the Surgical and Orthopaedic journals. The h-index of Surgical journals, Medical journals and Orthopaedic journals were comparable between the two periods (pre and -post-COVID-19 pandemic); Total Cites (3 years), total documents (2017), total documents (3 years), total references, and citable documents (3 years) of Surgical journals, Medical journals and Orthopaedic journals were significantly higher in the period 2020-2022. CONCLUSION: There has been a steady increase in the number of publications from post COVID-19 period. Medical journals have higher JLM than Surgical and Orthopaedic journals. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (Am), Annals of Surgery and Diabetes Care were the most published journals in Orthopaedics, General Surgery and Medicine-related topics respectively.

Retraction of health science articles by researchers in Latin America and the Caribbean: A scoping review.

We aimed to conduct a scoping review to assess the profile of retracted health sciences articles authored by individuals affiliated with academic institutions in Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC). We systematically searched seven databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, Medline/Ovid, Scielo, and LILACS). We included articles published in peer-reviewed journals between 2003 and 2022 that had at least one author with an institutional affiliation in LAC. Data were collected on the year of publication, study design, authors' countries of origin, number of authors, subject matter of the manuscript, scientific journals of publication, retraction characteristics, and reasons for retraction. We included 147 articles, the majority being observational studies (41.5%). The LAC countries with the highest number of retractions were Brazil (n = 69), Colombia (n = 16), and Mexico (n = 15). The areas of study with the highest number of retractions were infectology (n = 21) and basic sciences (n = 15). A retraction label was applied to 89.1% of the articles, 70.7% were retracted by journal editors, and 89.1% followed international retraction guidelines. The primary reasons for retraction included errors in procedures or data collection (n = 39), inconsistency in results or conclusions (n = 37), plagiarism (n = 21), and suspected scientific fraud (n = 19). In conclusion, most retractions of scientific publications in health sciences in LAC adhered to international guidelines and were linked to methodological issues in execution and scientific misconduct. Efforts should be directed toward ensuring the integrity of scientific research in the field of health.

Ranking the community psychology research output of institutions and authors: A new system of evaluating the field.

There have been multiple efforts to evaluate the contributions of the field of Community Psychology, and one of the more popular methods has involved gathering citations and articles published in Community Psychology journals. In recent years, several sites have gathered citation analysis and article publication rates so that it is now relatively easy to summarize settings and scholar rankings. In the current study, articles published in the two major journals of the field of Community Psychology over the past five decades were evaluated for these publications and citations. Findings indicated that several of the settings with highest publication and citation rates have not developed Community Psychology graduate programs, thus indicating that many publishing authors are in settings without formal graduate programs in Community Psychology. The benefits and limitations of this method of ranking programs and individuals are reviewed.