Forty Years of Inferential Methods in the Journals of the Society for Molecular Biology and Evolution.

We are launching a series to celebrate the 40th anniversary of the first issue of Molecular Biology and Evolution. In 2024, we will publish virtual issues containing selected papers published in the Society for Molecular Biology and Evolution journals, Molecular Biology and Evolution and Genome Biology and Evolution. Each virtual issue will be accompanied by a perspective that highlights the historic and contemporary contributions of our journals to a specific topic in molecular evolution. This perspective, the first in the series, presents an account of the broad array of methods that have been published in the Society for Molecular Biology and Evolution journals, including methods to infer phylogenies, to test hypotheses in a phylogenetic framework, and to infer population genetic processes. We also mention many of the software implementations that make methods tractable for empiricists. In short, the Society for Molecular Biology and Evolution community has much to celebrate after four decades of publishing high-quality science including numerous important inferential methods.

Academic publishing requires linguistically inclusive policies.

Scientific knowledge is produced in multiple languages but is predominantly published in English. This practice creates a language barrier to generate and transfer scientific knowledge between communities with diverse linguistic backgrounds, hindering the ability of scholars and communities to address global challenges and achieve diversity and equity in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM). To overcome those barriers, publishers and journals should provide a fair system that supports non-native English speakers and disseminates knowledge across the globe. We surveyed policies of 736 journals in biological sciences to assess their linguistic inclusivity, identify predictors of inclusivity, and propose actions to overcome language barriers in academic publishing. Our assessment revealed a grim landscape where most journals were making minimal efforts to overcome language barriers. The impact factor of journals was negatively associated with adopting a number of inclusive policies whereas ownership by a scientific society tended to have a positive association. Contrary to our expectations, the proportion of both open access articles and editors based in non-English speaking countries did not have a major positive association with the adoption of linguistically inclusive policies. We proposed a set of actions to overcome language barriers in academic publishing, including the renegotiation of power dynamics between publishers and editorial boards.

IOF position on scientists and societies operating in conflict zones.

This position paper of the International Osteoporosis Foundation reports the findings of an IOF Commission to consider to recommend rules of partnership with scientists belonging to a country which is currently responsible for an armed conflict, anywhere in the world. The findings and recommendations have been adopted unanimously by the Board of IOF.

Maximizing Access and Minimizing Barriers to Research in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: Open Access and Health Equity.

Access to published research has always been difficult for researchers and clinicians in low- and middle-income countries, because of the cost of and lack of access to the relevant publications. The dramatic recent increase in electronic research publications has resulted in a marked improvement in reader access to these publications through their mainly Open Access policies, however the costs of processing of submissions and publication have now become the burden of the researchers wishing to publish, rather than the readers. For many researchers working in LMIC, the Article Processing Charges (APC) are prohibitive, hampering the publication of research being conducted in and relevant to these countries. A number of grant funding agencies and international not-for-profit organizations are trying to address these issues by including funding for article publications in their grants, or by supporting publishing entities by subsiding the cost of publication, but more needs to be done by major journal publishers through markedly reducing the APC being charged to researchers in LMIC for open access facilities.

High-impact journal publishing: the devil is in the detail!

Research in medicine is an indispensable tool to advance knowledge and improve patient care. This may be particularly true in the field of human reproduction as it is a relatively new field and treatment options are rapidly evolving. This is of particular importance in an emerging field like 'human reproduction', where treatment options evolve fast.The cornerstone of evidence-based knowledge, leading to evidence-based treatment decisions, is randomized controlled trials as they explore the benefits of new treatment approaches. The study design and performance are crucial and, if they are carried out correctly, solid conclusions can be drawn and be implemented in daily clinical routines. The dissemination of new findings throughout the scientific community occurs in the form of publications in scientific journals, and the importance of the journal is reflected in part by the impact factor. The peer review process before publication is fundamental in preventing flaws in the study design. Thus, readers of journals with a high impact factor usually rely on a thorough peer review process and therefore might not question the published data. However, even papers published in high-impact journals might not be free of flaws, so the aim of this paper is to encourage readers to be aware of this fact and critically read scientific papers as 'the devil lies in the details'.

75 years' journey of malaria publications in English: what and where?

Malaria has inflicted serious morbidity and mortality across the globe. The major brunt of the disease has been on African, South-East Asian and South American countries. Proportionally, malaria has attracted global research priorities and this is evident from the number of publications related to malaria from across the globe, irrespective of its endemicity. However, formal and exhaustive analyses of these 'malaria publications' are rarely reported. The systematic review and secondary data analyses were done to retrieve information on what has been published on malaria, where is it published, and which countries are major contributors to malaria research.The study presents malaria publications from 1945 to 2020 retrieved using three databases: Web of Science™, Embase® and Scopus®. Exported data were examined to determine the number of publications over time, their subject areas, contributions from various countries/organizations, and top publishing journals.The total number of published records on malaria ranged from 90,282 to 112,698 (due to three different databases). Based on the number of publications, USA, UK, France, and India were identified as the top four countries. Malaria Journal, American Journal of Tropical Medicine & Hygiene, and PLoS One were the most preferred journals, whereas the University of London (Institutions other than LSHTM), the National Institute of Health, the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, and the University of Oxford appeared to be the top contributing organization.A disproportional contribution to malaria research was observed with non-malaria endemic countries making the largest contribution. Databases differed in their output format and needed standardization to make the outputs comparable across databases.

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.

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.

A narrative review of the phenomenon of predatory journals to create awareness among researchers in veterinary medicine.

In recent years, especially since the COVID-19 pandemic, the number of predatory journals has increased significantly. Predatory journals exploit the "open-access model" by engaging in deceptive practices such as charging high publication fees without providing the expected quality and performing insufficient or no peer review. Such behaviors undermine the integrity of scientific research and can result in researchers having trouble identifying reputable publication opportunities, particularly early-career researchers who struggle to understand and establish the correct criteria for publication in reputable journals. Publishing in journals that do not fully cover the criteria for scientific publication is also an ethical issue. This review aimed to describe the characteristics of predatory journals, differentiate between reliable and predatory journals, investigate the reasons that lead researchers to publish in predatory journals, evaluate the negative impact of predatory publications on the scientific community, and explore future perspectives. The authors also provide some considerations for researchers (particularly early-career researchers) when selecting journals for publication, explaining the role of metrics, databases, and artificial intelligence in manuscript preparation, with a specific focus on and relevance to publication in veterinary medicine.

Is orthodontic research falling prey to obscure and predatory journals? A bibliometric study.

AIMS: To evaluate where orthodontic research papers are published and to explore potential relationships between the journal of publication and the characteristics of the research study and authorship. METHODS: An online literature search of seven research databases was undertaken to identify orthodontic articles published in English language over a 12-month period (1 January-31 December 2022) (last search: 12 June 2023). Data extracted included journal, article, and author characteristics. Journal legitimacy was assessed using a ternary classification scheme including available blacklists and whitelists, cross-checking of indexing claims and history of sending unsolicited emails. The level of evidence (LOE) of all included studies was assessed using a modified Oxford LOE classification scale. Univariable and multivariable ordinal logistic regression analyses were performed to examine possible associations between the level of evidence, journal discipline, and authorship characteristics. RESULTS: A total of 753 studies, published by 246 unique journal titles, were included and further assessed. Nearly two-thirds of orthodontic papers were published in non-orthodontic journals (62.8%) and over half (55.6%) of the articles were published in open-access policy journals. About a fifth of the articles (21.2%) were published either in presumed predatory journals or in journals of uncertain legitimacy. Journal discipline was significantly associated with the level of evidence. Higher-quality orthodontic studies were more likely published in established orthodontic journals (likelihood ratio test P < .001). LIMITATIONS: The identification and classification of predatory journals are challenging due to their covert nature. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of orthodontic articles were published in non-orthodontic journals. In addition, approximately one in five orthodontic studies were published in presumed predatory journals or in journals of uncertain legitimacy. Studies with higher levels of evidence were more likely to be published in established orthodontic journals.

"A life-changing experience and the beginning of a lifelong commitment": experiences and impact of Global Health Community Service-Learning in undergraduate dental curriculum in Canada.

BACKGROUND: Global Health Community Service-Learning (GHCSL) can have a profound professional and personal impact on learners. This pedagogy provides understanding of unfamiliar environments and challenges learners to step out of their comfort zones, adapt to new cultures, and navigate unique situations. Yet, there are relatively few studies exploring the experiences of learners participating in community service-learning placements in global regions as part of undergraduate dental curriculum. This study aimed to explore the experiences and impact of the GHCSL program in East Africa among undergraduate dental learners at the Schulich School of Dentistry. METHODS: Eight undergraduate dental learners were enrolled in GHCSL pilot placements. Placement agreements were established with Makerere University in Kampala, Uganda, and the University of Rwanda in Kigali, Rwanda for the summer of 2022. Stakeholders from both institutions were engaged in the development and implementation of these placements. Learners were required to engage in weekly reflection through a 'storytelling and incident-based narrative' while carrying out their placement. A qualitative study design was employed, and an inductive interpretive approach was utilized to thematically analyze the learners' reflective essays. RESULTS: Five major themes emerged from the learners' reflective essays: (1) experiential clinical learning; (2) cultural humility and social awareness; (3) awareness of contrasting healthcare systems; (4) commitment to service; and (5) personal and professional growth. Most learners reflected on their engagement with diverse communities, being exposed to unique patient cases, and witnessing the adaptability exuded in resource-constrained environments. These experiences presented the learners with an opportunity to develop cultural humility and gain a newfound motivation to mitigate global oral health disparities in populations beyond that of their local communities. Learners also reflected on enhanced social awareness experiences and the awareness of contrasting healthcare systems in Canada and their placements, which encouraged the development of empathy, communication, and compassion skills, as well as an understanding of the disproportionate burden of conditions in low-resource settings. CONCLUSION: The reflective essays concluded that the GHCSL placements had a positive impact on the learners, encouraging many to develop a heightened desire for lifelong learning to address oral health disparities within a global context.

I reflect, therefore I am!, Exploring the use of a Voluntary Online Reflective Journal as a learning tool among postgraduate dental students.

INTRODUCTION: Reflection is widely used in all aspects of teaching and learning in dental education and makes a fundamental part of all learning activities for dental students. However, reflective tasks are often used with a clear purpose; for example, in completing e-portfolios or dealing with critical incidences. This study explores the use of optional online journals that Postgraduate (PG) dental students were encouraged to use as part of their own development. AIM: To explore how PG dental students perceive the use of optional online journals. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data were collected via an anonymous questionnaire that included a word pool, Likert-scale statements and free text comment sections. RESULTS: Overall, 31 students (93%) responded to the questionnaire with high focus on the usefulness of the journal, with 58% selecting 'connecting with tutors' and 41% selecting 'keeping track' of their own learning and progress. The word 'reflection' was selected by 87% of participants when describing the use of the journal. Some participants, 29%, considered the journal as 'added pressure', and 41% felt it was 'extra work' as the journal, although voluntary, presented an added task to complete. All students made at least one entry in the online journal. CONCLUSION: The use of an optional online journal can be a useful tool in establishing connection between dental students and their tutors. Some postgraduate dental students valued the benefits of reflective journal without it being linked to assessments. Some concerns were reported around the time constraints as well as the added work related to taking part in such activity.

Snippets of the History of the American Journal of Epidemiology.

In this article, I present a brief summary of landmark events in the American Journal of Epidemiology, including its founding, the first few decades, the change in name, the increasing focus on nontransmissible disease, and selected key manuscripts. A list of developments that will likely result in new papers submitted to epidemiology journals are also described, and they include themes such as consequential epidemiology and the use of artificial intelligence methods in epidemiologic data analyses.

Race/Ethnicity and Gender Representation in Hematology and Oncology Editorial Boards: What is the State of Diversity?

INTRODUCTION: Women and underrepresented groups in medicine hold few academic leadership positions in the field of hematology/oncology. In this study, we assessed gender and race/ethnicity representation in editorial board positions in hematology/oncology journals. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Editorial leadership board members from 60 major journals in hematology and oncology were reviewed; 54 journals were included in the final analysis. Gender and race/ethnicity were determined based on publicly available data for Editor-in-Chief (EiC) and Second-in-Command (SiC) (including deputy, senior, or associate editors). Descriptive statistics and chi-squared were estimated. In the second phase of the study, editors were emailed a 4-item survey to self-identify their demographics. RESULTS: Out of 793 editorial board members, 72.6% were men and 27.4% were women. Editorial leadership were non-Hispanic white (71.1%) with Asian editorial board members representing the second largest majority at 22.5%. Women comprised only 15.9% of the EiC positions (90% White and 10% Asian). Women were about half as likely to be in the EiC position compared with men [pOR 0.47 (95% CI, 0.23-0.95, P = .03)]. Women represented 28.3% of SiC editorial positions. Surgical oncology had the lowest female representation at 2.3%. CONCLUSION: Women and minorities are significantly underrepresented in leadership roles on Editorial Boards in hematology/oncology journals. Importantly, the representation of minority women physicians in EiC positions is at an inexorable zero.

The BJPsych: your journal, your voice, your research, your choice.

There is a long tradition of excellence in research and clinical expertise in psychiatry across Britain. The BJPsych aims to reflect this wealth of mental science and practical experience alongside the very best of research and clinical practice from around the world using a variety of different kinds of articles.

Analysis of gender representation on transfusion medicine journal editorial boards: Comparison between 2019 and 2022.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: A 2019 study highlighted significant gender inequities among blood banking and transfusion medicine (BBTM) journal editorial boards. We sought to assess if the representation of women has improved in the intervening 3 years. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We analysed the gender composition of nine BBTM journal editorial boards as of 13 September 2022, including the seven journals studied in 2019. We compared this to the proportion of females (term used by authors) on seven BBTM journal editorial boards in 2019 to assess change in the editorial board composition. We also assessed gender composition by editorial position (editor-in-chief [EIC], associate/assistant/titled editors and editorial board members). RESULTS: Nine BBTM journals have a total of 398 editorial positions and comprise significantly more men than women (68.8%, 274/398 vs. 31.2%, 124/398; p < 0.001). Among the seven journals analysed in 2019, the proportion of women on these seven editorial boards has remained unchanged (2019: 30.1%, 81/269 vs. 2022: 31.9%, 103/323; p = 0.66) despite the addition of 54 editorial positions. CONCLUSION: Women remain inequitably represented on journal editorial boards among all journal editorial positions. Although advocacy efforts are increasing, there has been limited improvement in gender equity in 3 years, despite a 20% increase in editorial positions.

Improving the Reporting of Primary Care Research: Consensus Reporting Items for Studies in Primary Care-the CRISP Statement.

Primary care (PC) is a unique clinical specialty and research discipline with its own perspectives and methods. Research in this field uses varied research methods and study designs to investigate myriad topics. The diversity of PC presents challenges for reporting, and despite the proliferation of reporting guidelines, none focuses specifically on the needs of PC. The Consensus Reporting Items for Studies in Primary Care (CRISP) Checklist guides reporting of PC research to include the information needed by the diverse PC community, including practitioners, patients, and communities. CRISP complements current guidelines to enhance the reporting, dissemination, and application of PC research findings and results. Prior CRISP studies documented opportunities to improve research reporting in this field. Our surveys of the international, interdisciplinary, and interprofessional PC community identified essential items to include in PC research reports. A 2-round Delphi study identified a consensus list of items considered necessary. The CRISP Checklist contains 24 items that describe the research team, patients, study participants, health conditions, clinical encounters, care teams, interventions, study measures, settings of care, and implementation of findings/results in PC. Not every item applies to every study design or topic. The CRISP guidelines inform the design and reporting of (1) studies done by PC researchers, (2) studies done by other investigators in PC populations and settings, and (3) studies intended for application in PC practice. Improved reporting of the context of the clinical services and the process of research is critical to interpreting study findings/results and applying them to diverse populations and varied settings in PC.Annals "Online First" article.

The stories about racism and health: the development of a framework for racism narratives in medical literature using a computational grounded theory approach.

INTRODUCTION: The scientific study of racism as a root cause of health inequities has been hampered by the policies and practices of medical journals. Monitoring the discourse around racism and health inequities (i.e., racism narratives) in scientific publications is a critical aspect of understanding, confronting, and ultimately dismantling racism in medicine. A conceptual framework and multi-level construct is needed to evaluate the changes in the prevalence and composition of racism over time and across journals. OBJECTIVE: To develop a framework for classifying racism narratives in scientific medical journals. METHODS: We constructed an initial set of racism narratives based on an exploratory literature search. Using a computational grounded theory approach, we analyzed a targeted sample of 31 articles in four top medical journals which mentioned the word 'racism'. We compiled and evaluated 80 excerpts of text that illustrate racism narratives. Two coders grouped and ordered the excerpts, iteratively revising and refining racism narratives. RESULTS: We developed a qualitative framework of racism narratives, ordered on an anti-racism spectrum from impeding anti-racism to strong anti-racism, consisting of 4 broad categories and 12 granular modalities for classifying racism narratives. The broad narratives were "dismissal," "person-level," "societal," and "actionable." Granular modalities further specified how race-related health differences were related to racism (e.g., natural, aberrant, or structurally modifiable). We curated a "reference set" of example sentences to empirically ground each label. CONCLUSION: We demonstrated racism narratives of dismissal, person-level, societal, and actionable explanations within influential medical articles. Our framework can help clinicians, researchers, and educators gain insight into which narratives have been used to describe the causes of racial and ethnic health inequities, and to evaluate medical literature more critically. This work is a first step towards monitoring racism narratives over time, which can more clearly expose the limits of how the medical community has come to understand the root causes of health inequities. This is a fundamental aspect of medicine's long-term trajectory towards racial justice and health equity.

An Exploratory Study of Medical Journal's Twitter Use: Metadata, Networks, and Content Analyses.

BACKGROUND: An increasing number of medical journals are using social media to promote themselves and communicate with their readers. However, little is known about how medical journals use Twitter and what their social media management strategies are. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to understand how medical journals use Twitter from a global standpoint. We conducted a broad, in-depth analysis of all the available Twitter accounts of medical journals indexed by major indexing services, with a particular focus on their social networks and content. METHODS: The Twitter profiles and metadata of medical journals were analyzed along with the social networks on their Twitter accounts. RESULTS: The results showed that overall, publishers used different strategies regarding Twitter adoption, Twitter use patterns, and their subsequent decisions. The following specific findings were noted: journals with Twitter accounts had a significantly higher number of publications and a greater impact than their counterparts; subscription journals had a slightly higher Twitter adoption rate (2%) than open access journals; journals with higher impact had more followers; and prestigious journals rarely followed other lesser-known journals on social media. In addition, an in-depth analysis of 2000 randomly selected tweets from 4 prestigious journals revealed that The Lancet had dedicated considerable effort to communicating with people about health information and fulfilling its social responsibility by organizing committees and activities to engage with a broad range of health-related issues; The New England Journal of Medicine and the Journal of the American Medical Association focused on promoting research articles and attempting to maximize the visibility of their research articles; and the British Medical Journal provided copious amounts of health information and discussed various health-related social problems to increase social awareness of the field of medicine. CONCLUSIONS: Our study used various perspectives to investigate how medical journals use Twitter and explored the Twitter management strategies of 4 of the most prestigious journals. Our study provides a detailed understanding of medical journals' use of Twitter from various perspectives and can help publishers, journals, and researchers to better use Twitter for their respective purposes.

Journals accepting case reports.

Background: Few resources exist to support finding journals that accept case reports by specialty. In 2016, Katherine Akers compiled a list of 160 journals that accepted case reports, which many librarians continue to use 7 years later. Because journals' editorial policies and submission guidelines evolve, finding publication venues for case reports poses a dynamic problem, consisting of reviewing a journal's author guidelines to determine if the journal accepts case report manuscripts. This project aimed to create a more up to date and extensive list of journals that currently accept case reports. Case Presentation: 1,874 journal titles were downloaded from PubMed. The team reviewed each journal and identified journal titles that accept case reports. Additional inclusion factors included being indexed in MEDLINE, accessible on the internet, and accepting and publishing English language submissions. Discussion: The new journal list includes 1,028 journals covering 129 specialties and is available on the Open Science Framework public page.