Unmasking the Process: Perils and Facilitators of Successful Publishing in Forum.

Now in my fifth year as editor, I have gained insights into the publishing process that I was not fully aware of as an author. I would like to share some of these insights and suggestions for prospective authors considering s.

Introducing the Journal of the Medical Library Association's manuscript resubmission deadlines: creating accountability structures for our authors.

The Journal of the Medical Library Association (JMLA) has made the decision to change our "revise-at-will" policy to instead adopt firmer deadlines for manuscript resubmissions. Beginning with this issue, manuscripts returned to authors with a "revise and resubmit" decision must be resubmitted within two months of the editorial decision. Likewise, manuscripts returned to authors with a "revisions required" decision must be resubmitted within one month of the editorial decision. This editorial discusses JMLA's experience using a "revise-at-will" policy and outlines some anticipated benefits of the new resubmission deadlines.

Health sciences faculty publication patterns and related information-seeking behavior.

Objectives: This study aims to explore how health science faculty publication patterns at a large public research university have changed over time and examine how productivity relates to their information-seeking behavior and perception of the academic library. Methods: Two datasets were utilized: one consisted of publication records of health sciences faculty spanning a 15-year period, while the other was from a faculty survey exploring faculty's perception of and satisfaction with library resources and services related to their research. Results: Health sciences faculty publication patterns have changed over time, characterized by greater productivity, collaboration, and use of literature in their publications. Faculty's literature use correlates with productivity, as evidenced by both datasets. The survey revealed that faculty with more publications tend to rely more on online journals and Interlibrary Loan (ILL). Similarly, the publication data indicated that less productive faculty tended to use fewer references in their publications. Discussion: The publication data and survey results offer valuable insights into the health sciences faculty's information-seeking behavior and productivity. Online access to information has been effective in facilitating use of information, as indicated by the greater incorporation of references in publications. Conclusion: The study highlights the changing publication patterns and productivity of health sciences faculty, as well as the role academic libraries play in supporting their research and publishing activities. Although multiple variables influence faculty access to and use of information, faculty attitudes towards the library and use of the library are related to faculty research and productivity.

[Predatory journals: What are they and how to avoid them?] / Las revistas depredadoras: ¿qué son y cómo evitarlas?

Currently, a large number of predatory journals have proliferated. Their purpose is to obtain fraudulent profits by promising the rapid publication of scientific works, without fulfilling the services of quality review. These publishers have managed to copy the models of open access journals, which is why they are increasingly difficult to identify, coupled with the fact that many of them have opened spaces in the most important indexes of scientific journals, such as Medline, Web of Science (WoS), Scopus, Embase, among others. These publishers cheat not only the authors of the research they intend to publish but also the readers and general public with publications that have not been reviewed and evaluated properly by a system of peers or academic experts. Therefore, the aim of this work is to make known some of the most common practices of predatory journals, so that anyone interested in the editorial process, whether as an author, editor or reader, has the elements to identify these fraudulent journals, and this bad practice in the editorial process.

Actualmente han proliferado una gran cantidad de revistas depredadoras, cuyo fin es obtener ganancias fraudulentas mediante la promesa de la publicación rápida de trabajos científicos, sin cumplir con los servicios de una revisión de calidad. Estas editoriales han logrado copiar los modelos de las revistas con acceso abierto, por lo que cada vez son más difíciles de identificar, aunado a que muchas de ellas se han abierto espacios en los índices más importantes de las revistas científicas, como Medline, Web of Science (WoS), Scopus, Embase, entre otros. Estas editoriales defraudan no solo a los autores de las investigaciones que intentan publicar sino también a los lectores y al público en general con publicaciones que no han sido debidamente revisadas y evaluadas por un sistema de pares o expertos académicos. Por lo tanto, el objetivo de este trabajo es dar a conocer algunas de las prácticas más comunes de las revistas depredadoras para que toda persona interesada en el proceso editorial, ya sea como autor, editor o lector, tenga los elementos para identificar estas revistas fraudulentas y esta mala práctica en el proceso editorial.

Practical guide to writing cover letters and response letters for scientific journals.

Communicating with scientific journals is a central part of the publication process, yet sparsely covered in the medical literature. A cover letter to the editor(s) should always accompany new submissions, whereas response (or rebuttal) letters relate to revisions and replying to referees' comments following peer review. This review describes the two types of letters, focusing on content, style, and structure, and provides helpful tips for handling challenging reviewer scenarios.

CAse-BAsed REview sTandards (CABARET): Considerations for Authors, Reviewers, and Editors.

The publication landscape for case reports has undergone a significant shift, with many high-impact journals deprioritizing or ceasing their publication altogether. This trend has led to the emergence of case-based reviews as an alternative to traditional case reports. Several factors drive this shift. Case-based reviews offer a more comprehensive synthesis of the literature compared to single case reports. They employ systematic search methodologies, reducing the risk of excluding relevant data, and providing robust evidence. From a publisher's perspective, case-based reviews have a greater potential for citation. While recommendations exist for writing traditional case reports, such as the CAse REports (CARE) guidelines, there is a lack of published recommendations for composing case-based reviews. This review aims to address this gap by providing guidance on drafting high-quality case-based reviews.

Coercion Authorship: Ubiquitous and Preventable.

Coercion authorship (CA), typically enforced by principal investigators, has detrimental effects on graduate students, young researchers, and the entire scientific endeavor. Although CA is ubiquitous, its occurrence and major determinants have been mainly explored among graduate students and junior scientists in Sweden, Norway, and Denmark where the ratio of CA ranged from 13 to 40%. In addition to lacking comparable figures, developing countries usually lack institutional plans for promoting integrity and effective deterrents against CA and other malpractices. Hence, universities and research centers therein must publish their authorship policies and implement specific strategies to instruct graduate students, junior scientists, and experienced researchers on integrity, publishing ethics, and responsible authorship. Finally, I remark that the primary responsibility of principal researchers to promote fair authorship practices and discourage unfair ones is even greater when it comes to CA due to the asymmetrical power relationship between senior authors and novice scientists.

Creating, publishing, and spreading processes of health-related contents in internet news sites: evaluation of the opinions of actors in health communication.

Introduction: The accuracy and reliability of health information disseminated through news is crucial, as it directly impacts both individual and societal health outcomes. This study aims to analyze the publication process of health content in Türkiye and its implications for public health. By examining the perspectives of various health communication stakeholders, the study seeks to identify existing issues and propose potential solutions. Methods: The research uses a mixed-methods approach, including baseline content analysis of 846 news by 133 criteria, quantitative research with 78 participants encompassing bureaucrats, academics, journalists, and health association members, and 15 in-depth interviews for comprehensive insights. Results: The content analysis indicated that 23.2% of the analyzed news articles lacked credible sources, while 63% did not mention the author's name. A striking 96.2% of respondents stated that inaccurate health news poses a risk to public health, emphasizing the urgent need for standardized reporting practices. The majority (90.9%) pinpointed the media as the primary catalysts for infodemic spread, with 93.5% citing gatekeepers as barriers to accurate information. Eroding trust in media, fueled by unethical practices, harms both media credibility and effective public health interventions. Discussion: The study underscores the necessity for a collaborative approach among public institutions, academia, and media, focusing on responsibility, regulation, and sanctions against the infodemic. The research advocates for a balanced approach that prioritizes health rights and press freedom within a stakeholder-driven framework, highlighting that legislation alone cannot fully enhance the digital information ecosystem.

Single-author publications among neurosurgeons in the United Kingdom.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to examine factors that may affect UK neurosurgeons' ability to publish single-author papers. These include demographic factors (e.g. gender, skin colour), biographical factors (e.g. whether they obtained a PhD or the ranking of the university from which they graduated or with which they are currently affiliated), and name characteristics. METHODS: Names of all neurosurgeons working in the UK in May 2023 were obtained from the Specialist Info website. Scopus was used to obtain bibliometrics. Publicly available online sources were used to obtain biographical and demographic information. RESULTS: Approximately 1 out of 3 neurosurgeons had published at least one single-author paper. Of the 398 single-author papers published by the whole group of 384 neurosurgeons, 69 were open access, 44 were reviews, 64 were editorials, 71 were articles, and 219 were classified as 'other'. Their first single-author paper was published on average 15.2 years after medical school graduation and on average 9 years after their first publication (any author position). In 13 neurosurgeons their first-single author paper was a review, in 14 it was an editorial, in 24 an article, and in 57 it was classified as 'other'. The impact factor of the journal in which they published their first single-author paper was on average 11.1 (Median = 2.4). Single-author papers do not differ in number depending on gender or skin colour. However, there were more single-author publications among full professors, neurosurgeons who graduated from a top university for their medical degree, those who had a PhD, and those who are currently affiliated with a university. More senior neurosurgeons had more single-author publications. Neurosurgeons with more popular forenames, whose full name's perceived ethnicity was UK/Irish or had longer consonant sequences in their surname had more single-author papers. CONCLUSION: This is the first study to thoroughly examine single-author publications in a group of medical professionals and examine whether they are associated with certain socio-demographic and name characteristics.

The South-South Dimension in International Research Collaboration.

In this paper, we looked at the collaboration publishing patterns for groups of Global South countries (Latin America, Africa, ASEAN, Asian, BRICS), as well as publishing parameters. We looked at financing and the relationships between these groups and the Global North. Data from 2002 to 2021 was collected from InCites ® (Web of Science, Clarivate Analytics) and SciVal® (Scopus Elsevier). The impact was lower for BRICS, while Latin America and Asean countries tended to have a higher Field Weighted Citation Impact. Good Health and well-being (SDG 3) dominates South-South Collaborations. Asian countries showed a higher percentage of Affordable and Clean Energy (SDG7), while Africa and Latin America had a higher rate of Zero Hunger (SDG1). Each region shows different production profiles, but collaboration with the Global North is necessary for all regions. Intra-regional shows a lower impact than inter-regional financing, calling attention to the increasing influence of China in all regions, except for Latin America. The data analysed can be used for orienting South-South scientific Collaboration programs, focusing on pre-existent synergies and on where policy changes and results can be maximised.