The Peer Review Process: Past, Present, and Future.

The peer review process is a fundamental aspect of modern scientific paper publishing, underpinning essential quality control. First conceptualised in the 1700s, it is an iterative process that aims to elevate scientific literature to the highest standards whilst preventing publication of scientifically unsound, potentially misleading, and even plagiarised information. It is widely accepted that the peer review of scientific papers is an irreplaceable and fundamental aspect of the research process. However, the rapid growth of research and technology has led to a huge increase in the number of publications. This has led to increased pressure on the peer review system. There are several established peer review methodologies, ranging from single and double blind to open and transparent review, but their implementation across journals and research fields varies greatly. Some journals are testing entirely novel approaches (such as collaborative reviews), whilst others are piloting changes to established methods. Given the unprecedented growth in publication numbers, and the ensuing burden on journals, editors, and reviewers, it is imperative to improve the quality and efficiency of the peer review process. Herein we evaluate the peer review process, from its historical origins to current practice and future directions.

Impact of Open Access Policy on Brazilian Science and Global Trends.

Open access (OA) publishing provides free online access to research articles without subscription fees. In Brazil, absence of financial support from academic institutions and limited government policies pose challenges to OA publication. Here, we used data from the Web of Science and Scopus to compare with global trends in journal accessibility and scientific quality metrics. Brazilian authors publish more OA articles, particularly in Global South journals. While OA correlates with quality for global authors, it had no impact on Brazilian science. To maximize impact, Brazilian authors should prioritize Q1 journals regardless of OA status. High-impact or Global North journal publication seems more relevant for Brazilian science than OA. Our findings indicate that the present open access policy has been ineffective to improve the impact of Brazilian science, providing insights to guide the formulation of scientific public policies.

Trends in Gender Authorship of Abstract Presentations at Plastic Surgery the Meeting: A Decade Long Analysis.

ABSTRACT: Current literature fails to examine gender differences of authors presenting abstracts at national plastic surgery meetings. This study aims to assess the ratio of female to male abstract presentations at Plastic Surgery The Meeting (PSTM).The gender of all abstract presenters from PSTM between 2010 and 2020 was recorded. The primary outcome variable was authorship (first, second, or last). Trends in gender authorship were assessed via Cochran-Armitage trend tests. Chi-square was utilized to evaluate the association between author gender and presentation type and author gender and subspecialty.Between 2010 and 2020, 3653 abstracts were presented (oral = 3035, 83.1%; poster = 618, 16.9%) with 19,328 (5175 females, 26.8%) authors. Of these, 34.5%, 32.0%, and 18.6% of first, second, and last authors were female, respectively. The total proportion of female authors increased from 153 (20.4%) in 2010 to 1065 (33.1%) by 2020. The proportion of female first, second, and last authors increased from 21.8% to 44.8%, 24.0% to 45.3%, and 14.3% to 22.1%, respectively, and demonstrated a positive linear trend ( P < 0.001 ). The proportion of female first authors in aesthetics (23.9%) was lower than that for breast (41.8%), cranio/maxillofacial/head & neck (38.5%), practice management (43.3%), and research/technology (39.4%) ( P < 0.001 ).Our study demonstrates a significant increase in female representation as first, second, and last authors in abstract presentations at PSTM within the last decade, although the absolute prevalence remains low.

COVID-19 Pandemic and Impact on Research Publications in Critical Care.

OBJECTIVES: The COVID-19 pandemic precipitated a significant transformation of scientific journals. Our aim was to determine how critical care (CC) journals and their impact may have evolved during the COVID-19 pandemic. We hypothesized that the impact, as measured by citations and publications, from the field of CC would increase. DESIGN: Observational study of journal publications, citations, and retractions status. SETTING: All work was done electronically and retrospectively. SUBJECTS: The top 18 CC journals broadly concerning CC, and the top 5 most productive CC journals on the SCImago list. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: For the top 18 CC journals and specifically Critical Care Medicine (CCM), time series analysis was used to estimate the trends of total citations, citations per publication, and publications per year by using the best-fit curve. We used PubMed and Retraction Watch to determine the number of COVID-19 publications and retractions. The average total citations and citations per publication for all journals was an upward quadratic trend with inflection points in 2020, whereas publications per year spiked in 2020 before returning to prepandemic values in 2021. For CCM total publications trend downward while total citations and citations per publication generally trend up from 2017 onward. CCM had the lowest percentage of COVID-related publications (15.7%) during the pandemic and no reported retractions. Two COVID-19 retractions were noted in our top five journals. CONCLUSIONS: Citation activity across top CC journals underwent a dramatic increase during the COVID-19 pandemic without significant retraction data. These trends suggest that the impact of CC has grown significantly since the onset of COVID-19 while maintaining adherence to a high-quality peer-review process.

Scholarly analytics for nurse practitioners.

ABSTRACT: Nurse practitioners who publish contribute to the profession's body of knowledge. Today's digitally inclined environment easily allows for the tracking of contributing to knowledge and impact. Four popular measures for tracking include Altmetric, Google Scholar, Scopus, and Web of Science. Authors should understand each tracking source's purpose, process, and value. The strengths and limitations of the tracking sources are reviewed. Awareness of the tracking sources and knowing how to influence the tools will bring additional attention to the authors.

A quantitative analysis of publication trends in Iranian medical ethics and a comparison with EMRO countries.

BACKGROUND: Evaluating publication trends in a research area helps assess organised scientific efforts in the particular academic field. This study aims to evaluate and compare trends in medical ethics publications in the Eastern Mediterranean Region (EMRO) countries. METHODS: A scoping review was conducted to identify publication trends of Iranian and EMRO medical ethicists. Databases were searched, including Web of Sciences, Scopus, and PubMed for English language articles, which were published by countries in the World Health Organization EMRO regions. Iranian articles were searched in Persian and English language databases. The search strategy for the bioethics filter created by the Kennedy Institute of Ethics. Duplicate entries, tertiary publications and grey literature were excluded. All retrieved articles were categorised into ten main groups. Citavi software® was used for categorising and extracting articles' information. RESULTS: A total of 1835 English and Persian articles were obtained. Most (1211, 66%) Iranian publications in medical ethics were in Persian, and the rest (624, 34%) were in English. Most (306, 64.42%) of the published English articles in the EMRO region were authored by Iranian scholars, followed by those from Saudi Arabia (52, 10.95%), Oman (40, 8.42%), Pakistan (28, 5.89%), Lebanon (13, 2.74%), and Egypt (12, 2.53%). CONCLUSION: The results of this study show that the trend of publication of EMRO countries, especially Iranian publications, is insufficient to respond to national demands in medical ethics. A concept map has been presented to determine research needs in medical ethics. Focusing on national and regional research potentials could synergistically affect medical ethics progress in the EMRO region.

A Comparison of Plastic Surgery Authorship Trends Under Single Versus Double-Blinded Review.

INTRODUCTION: Research is key to academic advancement in plastic surgery. However, access to publication opportunities may be inequitable as seen in other fields. We compared authorship trends of plastic surgery manuscripts that underwent single-blinded review (SBR) versus double-blinded review (DBR) to identify potential disparities in publication opportunities. METHODS: Publications from two plastic surgery journals using SBR and two using DBR from September 2019 to September 2021 were evaluated. Name and institution of the article's first and senior author and journal's editor-in-chief (EIC) were recorded. Chi-squared and Fisher's exact analyses were used to compare author characteristics between SBR and DBR articles. RESULTS: Of 2500 manuscripts, 65.7% underwent SBR and 34.3% underwent DBR. SBR articles had higher percentages of women as first authors (31.9% versus 24.3%, P < 0.001) but lower percentages of first (50.7% versus 71.2%, P < 0.001) and senior (49.6% versus 70.3%, P < 0.001) authors from international institutions. First (26.0% versus 12.9%, P < 0.001) and senior (27.9% versus 18.0%, P = 0.007) authors of SBR articles tended to have more plastic surgery National Institutes of Health funding. Journals using SBR tended to have higher rates of authorship by EICs or authors sharing institutions with the EIC (P ≤ 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: While associated with greater female first authorship suggesting potential efforts toward gender equity in academia, SBR of plastic surgery articles tends to favor authors from institutions with higher National Institutes of Health funding and disadvantage authors from international or lower-resourced programs. Careful consideration of current peer-review proceedings may make publication opportunities more equitable.

Emerging global trends and development in forensic toxicology: A review.

This study conducts a comprehensive analysis of forensic toxicology research trends, publication patterns, author's contributions, and collaboration. Utilizing the Scopus database, we scrutinized 3259 articles across 348 journals spanning from 1975 to 2023. Analysis employed diverse software tools such as VOSviewer, RStudio, MS Excel, and MS Access to dissect various publication aspects. We observed a notable surge in publications post-2007, indicating heightened research interest. Leading contributors included the United States, Germany, and Italy, with Logan B.K. emerging as the most prolific author. Forensic Science International stood out as the primary journal, publishing 888 articles and accruing significant citations. Keyword co-occurrences such as "forensic toxicology," "forensic science," and "toxicology" underscored core thematic areas in the field. Moreover, extensive research collaboration, especially among Western nations in Europe, was evident. This study underscores the imperative for enhanced collaboration between developing and developed nations to foster further advancements in forensic science. Strengthened partnerships can catalyze innovation, facilitate knowledge dissemination, and address emerging challenges, thereby propelling the field of forensic toxicology toward new frontiers of discovery and application.

Publication trends of the Journal of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry: A bibliometric analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The Journal of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry (JERD) stands out as one of the most prominent international journals publishing research in esthetic dentistry. This study analyzed articles published by JERD since the year 2000 through bibliometric analysis. METHODOLOGY: The search was conducted in January 2024 using Scopus. The following data were extracted from the articles: citation count, year, language, access type, funding agency, study design, theme (general and specific), country, institution, authors, and keywords. The VOSviewer software was used to generate collaborative network maps among the data. Dimensions were consulted to measure altmetric data. Google Trends was used to investigate the global popularity of JERD research. RESULTS: A total of 1394 articles were included in this analysis. Citation count ranged from 0 to 625 (average: 16.9). Articles were published between 2000 and 2023. Laboratory studies were more prevalent (n = 850), with the most investigated general theme being restorative procedures (n = 882), and the highlighted specific theme being the use of composite resin (n = 327). The United States had the highest number of articles (n = 640), with the diverse distribution among other countries. The most common keyword was "cad/cam" (n = 63). VOSviewer demonstrated high collaboration among countries. Intense mentions were identified primarily on Facebook. According to Google Trends, Egypt was the country that searched for JERD the most. CONCLUSIONS: JERD exhibited significant growth in the number of published articles and their diversity by topics, types, origin (country), number of citations, and impact factor. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The JERD is a journal that publishes studies influencing clinical practice. Identifying the key characteristics of this journal is essential for charting future paths.

Trends in authorship in the Journal of Cutaneous Pathology, 1981-2020.

BACKGROUND: The increase in authors per scientific article in many different medical and scientific disciplines has raised concerns over ethical authorship. Trends in authorship in dermatopathology are unknown. METHODS: Cross-sectional study of a random sample of 200 articles from the Journal of Cutaneous Pathology (1981-2020). RESULTS: The number of authors per article increased by an estimated 96% between 1981 and 2020 (2.7-5.3), while the relative citation ratio decreased by an estimated 56% during the same period (1.19-0.52). Higher author counts were not associated with higher relative citation ratios (p = 0.2349) or analytic study designs (p = 0.2987). Higher relative citation ratios were associated with analytic study designs (p = 0.0374). CONCLUSIONS: There has been significant growth in authorship credit at the journal without a corresponding increase in research impact or study rigor. Remedial measures to stem authorship inflation and promote more impactful studies may be necessary.