Bibliometric Network Analysis and Visualization of Research Trends in Gingivectomy.

Background: Gingivectomy has been the preferred method since the findings in 1884. It evolved from "blind" subgingival scaling to "the excision of the soft tissue". The use of these techniques is no longer mandatory in clinical situations; therefore, researchers have searched for numerous publications that have been registered regarding gingivectomy. This research aims to fill the niche area by assessing more about gingivectomy and it's trend among the periodontology topic of discussion. Methods: Descriptive and analytical observation by evaluating the result of the VOS viewer mapping and calculation throughout the bibliographic data from publications obtained from SCOPUS in July 2022. Results: There are 660 publications from six types of publication. Related keywords are compiled and visualized by network mapping. There is a significant gap among the contributing countries in the number of documents and number of citations per journal. However, a minimal gap is seen in other objectives, such as authors, journals, and institutions on their contribution towards the publication of gingivectomy topics. Conclusion: A total of 660 of 1914 articles were included in the analysis after the filtering process, and these articles were cited 5910 times, with an average of 9 citations per article.

How to be a good reviewer: A step-by-step guide for approaching peer review of a scientific manuscript.

Objectives: The peer review process is critical to maintaining quality, reliability, novelty, and innovation in the scientific literature. However, the teaching of scientific peer review is rarely a component of formal scientific or clinical training, and even the most experienced peer reviewers express interest in continuing education. The objective of this review article is to summarize the collective perspectives of experienced journal editors about how to be a good reviewer in a step-by-step guide that can serve as a resource for the performance of peer review of a scientific manuscript. Methods: This is a narrative review. Results: A review of the history and an overview of the modern-day peer review process are provided with attention to the role played by the reviewer, including important reasons for involvement in scientific peer review. The general components of a scientific peer review are described, and a model for how to structure a peer review report is provided. These concepts are also summarized in a reviewer checklist that can be used in real-time to develop and double-check one's reviewer report before submitting it. Conclusions: Peer review is a critically important service for maintaining quality in the scientific literature. Peer review of a scientific manuscript and the associated reviewer's report should assess specific details related to the accuracy, validity, novelty, and interpretation of a study's results. We hope that this article will serve as a resource and guide for reviewers of all levels of experience in the performance of peer review of a scientific manuscript.

The Utility of AI in Writing a Scientific Review Article on the Impacts of COVID-19 on Musculoskeletal Health.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: There were two primary purposes to our reviews. First, to provide an update to the scientific community about the impacts of COVID-19 on musculoskeletal health. Second, was to determine the value of using a large language model, ChatGPT 4.0, in the process of writing a scientific review article. To accomplish these objectives, we originally set out to write three review articles on the topic using different methods to produce the initial drafts of the review articles. The first review article was written in the traditional manner by humans, the second was to be written exclusively using ChatGPT (AI-only or AIO), and the third approach was to input the outline and references selected by humans from approach 1 into ChatGPT, using the AI to assist in completing the writing (AI-assisted or AIA). All review articles were extensively fact-checked and edited by all co-authors leading to the final drafts of the manuscripts, which were significantly different from the initial drafts. RECENT FINDINGS: Unfortunately, during this process, it became clear that approach 2 was not feasible for a very recent topic like COVID-19 as at the time, ChatGPT 4.0 had a cutoff date of September 2021 and all articles published after this date had to be provided to ChatGPT, making approaches 2 and 3 virtually identical. Therefore, only two approaches and two review articles were written (human and AI-assisted). Here we found that the human-only approach took less time to complete than the AI-assisted approach. This was largely due to the number of hours required to fact-check and edit the AI-assisted manuscript. Of note, the AI-assisted approach resulted in inaccurate attributions of references (about 20%) and had a higher similarity index suggesting an increased risk of plagiarism. The main aim of this project was to determine whether the use of AI could improve the process of writing a scientific review article. Based on our experience, with the current state of technology, it would not be advised to solely use AI to write a scientific review article, especially on a recent topic.

Issues in and solutions to writing investigator-initiated clinical research protocols from a scientific eval-uation perspective / 现代医院

The number of investigator initiate trials(IIT)is increasing,and a detailed scientific clinical trial protocol is an important prerequisite for ensuring the success of clinical trials and obtaining reliable and accurate results.In this study,132 scien-tific research projects taken by the researchers of a tertiary hospital were reviewed to summarize and analyze the issues in the re-search designs.It was found the issues in common consisted of five aspects:research background,types of design,inclusion and exclusion criteria,outcomes,and sample size.Meanwhile,the causes of these problems were discussed and the countermeasures were proposed aimed at improving the efficiency of scientific review work and promoting the high-quality operation of IIT projects.

Analysis of the current situation, advantages and difficulties of standardized management of Investigator Initiated Clinical Trials / 中华医学科研管理杂志

Objective:To assess the current situation, advantages, and difficulties of standardized management in Investigator-Initiated Clinical Trials (IIT).Methods:This article summarized the requirements and policies for clinical research management, the development of clinical research domestically and internationally, the achievements and advantages of clinical research management development in China, and the main problems and difficulties with the standardized IIT management in China, and compiled the experiences and models of several medical institutions in IIT management.Results:While China has a large number of clinical medical publications and is ranked high in the world, the quality of the publications needs to be further improved. Domestic management requirements for IIT were gradually improving, providing a basis for medical institutions to implement standardized management throughout the lifecycle of IIT, and achieve certain progress. However, there were still challenges in the departmental divisions, the unification of management standards, whole-process management and quality control, the scientific review, high-risk project management, and registration.Conclusions:Drawing on the excellent experience of domestic medical institutions, measures including identifying a primary responsible department, establishing unified supervision and inspection standards, and implementing a whole life cycle management may help overcome the challenges in IIT management and improve the quality and efficiency of IIT management.

How to limit uninformative trials: Results from a Delphi working group.

To be justifiable, clinical trials must test novel hypotheses and produce informative results. However, many trials fail on this score. A Delphi process was used to establish consensus on 35 recommendations across five domains related to the role of scientific review in preventing uninformative trials.

Mission Creep or Mission Lapse? Scientific Review in Research Oversight.

BACKGROUND: The ethical use both of human and non-human animals in research is predicated on the assumption that it is of a high quality and its projected benefits are more significant than the risks and harms imposed on subjects. Yet questions remain about whether and how IRBs and IACUCs should consider the scientific value of proposed research studies. METHODS: We draw upon 45 interviews with IRB and IACUC members and researchers with oversight experience about their perceptions of their own roles in reviewing the quality and value of scientific protocols. Interview transcripts were memoed to highlight specific findings, which were then used to identify key themes through an iterative process. RESULTS: IRB and IACUC members expressed broad trust in the need for and value of research, and they often assumed that protocols had social value or that prior review, especially when associated with funding, affirmed both the rigor and merit of those protocols. Some oversight members also took an explicit stance against scientific review by stating that such review is not within the regulatory mandates governing their parts in the oversight system. Yet other interviewees expressed uneasiness about the current paradigm for evaluating the quality and overall value of science, suggesting that IRB and IACUC members perceive gaps in the oversight systems. CONCLUSIONS: These findings reveal many similarities in how IRB and IACUC members understand the roles and limitations of their respective oversight committees. We conclude with a discussion of how the lack of a clear mandate regarding scientific review within US federal regulations may undermine ethical engagement of whether human and animal research is scientifically justified, resulting in a "mission lapse" wherein no organizational body is clearly responsible for ensuring that the research being conducted has the potential to advance science and benefit society.

A Step-by-Step Guide to Writing a Scientific Review Article.

Scientific review articles are comprehensive, focused reviews of the scientific literature written by subject matter experts. The task of writing a scientific review article can seem overwhelming; however, it can be managed by using an organized approach and devoting sufficient time to the process. The process involves selecting a topic about which the authors are knowledgeable and enthusiastic, conducting a literature search and critical analysis of the literature, and writing the article, which is composed of an abstract, introduction, body, and conclusion, with accompanying tables and figures. This article, which focuses on the narrative or traditional literature review, is intended to serve as a guide with practical steps for new writers. Tips for success are also discussed, including selecting a focused topic, maintaining objectivity and balance while writing, avoiding tedious data presentation in a laundry list format, moving from descriptions of the literature to critical analysis, avoiding simplistic conclusions, and budgeting time for the overall process.

Understanding the update of application materials for initial ethics review of human life sciences and medical research / 中华医学科研管理杂志

Objective:To sort out the new requirements for the initial ethical review application materials put forward by the Measures for the Ethical Review of Life Science and Medical Research Involving Humans that issued in 2023, to explore the ethical considerations behind these new requirements, and to put forward feasible suggestions on the key details and practical operations that should be paid attention to in the preparation of various initial ethical review application materials, so as to provide a certain reference for researchers, ethical review committees and institutions to standardize and promote ethical review.Methods:Compared with the relevant provisions of the 2016 Measures for the Ethical Review of Biomedical Research Involving Humans, this paper discusses the frontier hotspots of ethical theory and the practice of ethical review.Results:The preparation of application materials for initial ethical review should be based on an accurate understanding of the Measures, emphasize compliance, and avoid formally implementing regulatory requirements and increasing unnecessary burdens.Conclusions:It is the responsibility of researchers to prepare high-quality ethical review application materials, but institutions and ethical review committees must provide corresponding support, including clarifying the latest requirements of policies and regulations, updating the standard operating procedures of ethical review of their institutions, and ensuring timely and continuous ethical training and ethics consultation for researchers. The standardization and improvement of ethical review work requires a more comprehensive perspective and systematic planning to strengthen the responsibility of all parties.

Lessons Learned From Presumptive Condition Lists in Veteran Compensation Systems.

Presumptive condition lists formally accept connections between military factors and veteran health conditions. An environmental scan of such lists and their evidentiary basis was conducted across four veterans' administrations to inform other administrations considering the development of such lists. Information on included conditions, qualifying military factors, and scientific processes was obtained through targeted internet searches and correspondence with veterans' administrations. The content of presumptive condition lists across jurisdictions varied by conditions included, as well as military eligibility requirements (e.g., service in particular conflict, context, or time period). Scientific review processes to develop lists also varied across jurisdictions. Findings indicate that evidence and experience may be leveraged across compensation systems (veteran and civilian). Ongoing research to understand links between military exposures and veteran health is recommended.

IJED support for eating disorders research in the time of COVID-19.

This editorial reports on an anonymous survey question posed to eating disorders researchers about changes the International Journal of Eating Disorders (IJED) should implement to support the eating disorders research community affected by COVID-19. The editorial accompanies an IJED article that details responses to the larger survey focusing more broadly on COVID-19-related research disruptions. Survey invitations were sent to editorial board members of eating disorders journals, members of eating disorder scientific organizations (e.g., Eating Disorders Research Society), and individuals who provided at least three IJED reviews in the prior 12 months. We reviewed the responses of 187 participants and identified three categories of changes that: (a) had already been implemented by the journal, (b) cannot be implemented because they fall outside the scope of IJED, or (c) will be implemented in coming weeks or months. The latter category includes publishing topical COVID-19 papers, making some COVID-19-related content available open access, revising statistical guidelines, and issuing author guidance on reporting protocol changes caused by COVID-19-related disruptions. IJED recognizes the disruptive impacts that COVID-19 has on all activities in our field, including clinical work, teaching, and advocacy, and is committed to supporting authors during this difficult time while striving to publish high-quality research.

Scientific Review Committees as part of institutional review of human participant research: Initial implementation at institutions with Clinical and Translational Science Awards.

INTRODUCTION: Scientific quality and feasibility are part of ethics review by Institutional Review Boards (IRBs). Scientific Review Committees (SRCs) were proposed to facilitate this assessment by the Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) SRC Consensus Group. This study assessed SRC feasibility and impact at CTSA-affiliated academic health centers (AHCs). METHODS: SRC implementation at 10 AHCs was assessed pre/post-intervention using quantitative and qualitative methods. Pre-intervention, four AHCs had no SRC, and six had at least one SRC needing modifications to better align with Consensus Group recommendations. RESULTS: Facilitators of successful SRC implementation included broad-based communication, an external motivator, senior-level support, and committed SRC reviewers. Barriers included limited resources and staffing, variable local mandates, limited SRC authority, lack of anticipated benefit, and operational challenges. Research protocol quality did not differ significantly between study periods, but respondents suggested positive effects. During intervention, median total review duration did not lengthen for the 40% of protocols approved within 3 weeks. For the 60% under review after 3 weeks, review was lengthened primarily due to longer IRB review for SRC-reviewed protocols. Site interviews recommended designing locally effective SRC processes, building buy-in by communication or by mandate, allowing time for planning and sharing best practices, and connecting SRC and IRB procedures. CONCLUSIONS: The CTSA SRC Consensus Group recommendations appear feasible. Although not conclusive in this relatively short initial implementation, sites perceived positive impact by SRCs on study quality. Optimal benefit will require local or federal mandate for implementation, adapting processes to local contexts, and employing SRC stipulations.

[Scientific and ethical evaluation of projects in data-driven medicine]. / Wissenschaftliche und ethische Bewertung von Projekten in der datengetriebenen Medizin.

The generation and usage of extensive data from medical care aims at answering crucial medical research questions. Buzzwords in this area are learning health system, data-driven medicine and big data. In addition to classical biostatistical methods, machine learning approaches are frequently applied for analysis.In the evaluation of projects from data-driven medicine by research ethics committees, the question arises of how to assess the benefit-risk ratio and the scientific and social value. Which knowledge is required for that purpose? How can research ethics committees prepare for these challenges? Scientific approaches from the area of observational studies and the consideration of agreed-upon ethical aspects (consent, validity, justice, benefit-risk ratio and transparency) can help to answer the above-mentioned questions. One has to bear in mind that data-driven medicine is no paradigm shift that in principle challenges the established scientific and ethical evaluation procedures. Nevertheless, the evaluation of projects from data-driven medicine requires enhanced specialisation and comprehensive methodical expertise from the areas of machine learning and observational studies.Empirical research of the progression and governance of data-driven medicine will support the development and continual adaptation of effective strategies for evaluation by research ethics committees. Training and networking of experts will enable us to meet the challenges of data-driven medicine.

Independent Scientific Review under the Endangered Species Act.

The directive from Congress in the Endangered Species Act obliging the US Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service along with other federal agencies to use the best available scientific information in their determinations-and calls from stakeholder communities to show that they have done so-have led the federal wildlife agencies to seek external, expert review of their determinations with increasing frequency over time. In the present article, we survey the agency determinations that may be subject to independent science review and the technical tasks embedded in those determinations that can benefit from such review. We go on to identify common failures in scientific review that compromise the quality and reliability of agency determinations and then describe the attributes of independent scientific reviews that enable the agencies to discharge their statutory duties while seeking to conserve threatened and endangered species and the ecosystems on which they depend.

Otolaryngology Resident Reviewer Development Program: Lessons Learned from Cohort 1.

OBJECTIVE: To implement a quality improvement project addressing the knowledge gap in the otolaryngology resident and fellow scientific peer review process. METHODS: The creation of the Resident Reviewer Development Program, cohort 1 outcomes, and subsequent lessons learned from the inaugural class are outlined using the plan-do-study-act model. Interested otolaryngology residents were paired with seasoned reviewers and conducted a minimum of 3 mentored peer reviews followed by an independent review test if competency was determined. RESULTS: Twenty-five residents (postgraduate years [PGYs] 2-5) were actively enrolled in cohort 1. At 24 months, 18 (72%) graduated, 6 remained actively enrolled, and 1 did not successfully complete the program. The median number of practice reviews prior to testing was 3 (range, 3-6). The median independent review score was 83 (overall journal mean = 78). Cohort 1 graduates continued on to review 130 articles with a mean score of 85. Five (28%) graduates achieved Star Reviewer status. DISCUSSION: The inaugural cohort demonstrated that the PGY-3 and PGY-4 class is ideal for enrollment given that completion of the program could take up to 24 months. Three mentored reviews were identified as the ideal minimum requirement for education. The accelerated achievement of Star Reviewer status (28%) and mean postgraduation score of 85 demonstrate successful and sustainable outcome measures. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: With appropriate mentorship and administrative support, scientific peer review can be formally incorporated into an educational program. Lessons learned during the educational program are sustained long term as demonstrated by review scores and Star Reviewer status.

Exploring the potential role of community engagement in evaluating clinical and translational science grant proposals.

INTRODUCTION: This study explored the effects of integrating community members into the evaluation of clinical and translational science grants. METHODS: The University of California, Irvine Institute for Clinical and Translational Sciences (ICTS) engaged 21 community reviewers alongside scientific reviewers in a 2-stage process of evaluating research proposals. In Stage 1 reviewers scored proposals, and during Stage 2 two study sections convened: one a mix of community reviewers and scientific reviewers, and one only engaging scientific reviewers. In total, 4 studies were discussed by both study sections. RESULTS: Comparisons of reviews revealed little difference between ratings of community reviewers and those of scientific reviewers, and that community reviewers largely refrained from critiquing scientific or technical aspects of proposals. CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest that involving community reviewers early in the grant cycle, and exposing them to the entirety of the review process, can bolster community engagement without compromising the rigor of grant evaluations.

The National Institutes of Health Oversight of Human Gene Transfer Research: Enhancing Science and Safety.

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) oversight of human gene transfer research, which is defined as the deliberate transfer of recombinant and/or synthetic nucleic acid molecules to humans, originates with the NIH Guidelines for Research Involving Recombinant or Synthetic Nucleic Acid Molecules (NIH Guidelines). The NIH Guidelines, which were first published in the Federal Register almost 40 years ago, have been amended numerous times to remain responsive to scientific progress and to clearly define the responsibilities of NIH, the Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee (RAC), investigators, and institutions. Human gene transfer trials conducted at clinical sites in the United States (USA) are subject to the NIH Guidelines if they are conducted at, or sponsored by, an institution that receives any support for recombinant or synthetic nucleic acid research from the NIH. Human gene transfer trials conducted either in the USA or abroad are also subject to the NIH Guidelines if the investigational agent was developed with NIH funds and the institution that developed the investigational materials sponsors or participates in these projects. Trials are registered with the NIH Office Biotechnology Activities (OBA) and there are ongoing reporting requirements. Each new trial is reviewed by the RAC, and those that are novel or raise unique ethical or social issues are selected for review at quarterly public RAC meetings. The RAC also advises the NIH on policy and other matters relating to clinical gene transfer research and biosafety.

Research and its governance in health research institutions in sub-Saharan African countries: results of a questionnaire-based survey.

SUMMARY: Objective: To describe governance and stewardship of research in health research institutions in the World Health Organization (WHO) African Region. Design: A structured questionnaire was used to solicit information on governance and stewardship from health research institutions. Setting: Forty-two Member States of the WHO African Region. Participants: Key informants from the respondent health research institutions in the respondent sub-Saharan African countries. Main outcome measures: Institutions' participation in setting the national health research agenda. Institutional research priorities, scientific reviews and governance structure. Results: During the previous 12 months, the heads of 49% of respondent health research institutions participated in the setting or coordination of national research priorities. The most frequently cited priorities for contributing to or performing research were improving health programmes, producing new knowledge, influencing health policies and conducting operational research. For 78% of respondent institutions, scientific review was required for research funded directly by the institution, and for 73% of respondent institutions, scientific review was required for research not funded by the institution. However, most respondent institutions did not have written policies or guidelines, either for the scientific review of proposals (70%) or regarding conflict of interest on scientific review committees (80%). Conclusions: Some health research institutions demonstrate good practice in terms of the establishment of structures and processes for governance and stewardship, many others do not. There is a need for the strengthening of the stewardship capacity of research institutions in the Region.

Diagnóstico da pesquisa em ecologia de paisagens no Brasil (2000-2005) / Analysis of the research on Landscape Ecology in Brazil (2000-2005)

A Ecologia de Paisagens busca entender a influência da heterogeneidade espacial do meio em processos ecológicos, enfatizando as ações do homem sobre o meio, ou o contexto espacial sobre as populações. É uma ciência recente, que ainda está solidificando conceitos, mas que se utiliza fortemente dos avanços tecnológicos em sensoriamento remoto e sistemas de informação geográfica. Com o objetivo de verificar os principais temas, abordagens metodológicas e técnicas de análise que estão sendo seguidas em Ecologia de Paisagens no Brasil, bem como as instituições de pesquisa envolvidas, fizemos um levantamento analisando os resumos de trabalhos científicos em Ecologia de Paisagens apresentados nas principais reuniões científicas nacionais que abordaram esse assunto, realizadas entre 2000 e 2005, e também analisamos os resumos das dissertações e teses produzidas entre 2000 e 2004. Os resumos foram classificados conforme a temática (7 temas), abordagem metodológica (7 abordagens) e técnicas de análise utilizadas (5 técnicas). Dos 226 resumos de congressos e 222 dissertações e teses analisados, a maioria tratou da descrição de padrões espaciais, da relação entre padrões e processos e de planejamento ambiental. Predominou a abordagem observacional-descritiva e o uso de técnicas qualitativas ou quantificações simples (medições e porcentagens). Menos de 20 por cento dos estudos utilizaram técnicas quantitativas, numa abordagem observacional-experimental, contudo, houve uma tendência crescente ao emprego de abordagens quantitativas. Foi notada uma baixa correspondência entre as instituições de pesquisa onde as dissertações e teses foram produzidas, as instituições representadas nos congressos e aquelas catalogadas nos grupos de pesquisa do CNPq. Constatamos também que a participação brasileira na produção científica mundial em Ecologia de Paisagens ainda é muito pequena, provavelmente devido ao caráter predominantemente descritivo...

Landscape Ecology seeks to understand the influence of environmental spatial heterogeneity on ecological processes, emphasizing human actions on the environment or the spatial context on biological species. It is a new science still consolidating concepts which makes strong use of technological improvements in remote sensing and geographical information systems. Aiming at verifying the main themes, methodological approaches and techniques that are being used in Landscape Ecology in Brazil, as well as the research institutes involved, we carried out a survey and analyzed the abstracts on Landscape Ecology researches submitted to the main national scientific meetings where this subject was discussed (years 2000-2005), and the abstracts of MSc and PhD theses produced from 2000 to 2004. The abstracts were classified according to 7 themes, 7 methodological approaches and 5 techniques of analysis. We analyzed 226 congress abstracts and 222 theses abstracts, from which most dealt with the description of spatial patterns, the relationships between patterns and processes, and environmental planning. A descriptive approach and the use of qualitative techniques or simple quantifications (measurements and percentages) prevailed. Less than 20 percent of the studies used quantitative techniques under an experimental approach, but a growing tendency on the use of quantitative procedures was verified throughout the years. Comparing both the research institutes where the theses were produced and those represented in the meetings with the research institutes which appear in the CNPq research groups database we noticed a low correspondence among them. We also verified that the Brazilian contribution in the Landscape Ecology scientific production worldwide is still very small, probably due to the prevailing descriptive nature of the current researches. We believe that the growth of Brazilian research in Landscape Ecology must go beyond the description of...