Editor-in-Chief articles of choice and comments from January to June 2024.

As the Editor-in-Chief of the World Journal of Gastroenterology, I carefully review all articles every week before a new issue's online publication, including the title, clinical and research importance, originality, novelty, and ratings by the peer reviewers. Based on this review, I select the papers of choice and suggest pertinent changes (e.g., in the title or text) to the company editors responsible for publication. This process, while time-consuming, is essential for assuring the quality of publications and highlighting important articles that readers may revisit.

Enhanced head and neck radiotherapy target definition through multidisciplinary delineation and peer review: A prospective single-center study.

This study evaluates the benefit of weekly delineation and peer review by a multidisciplinary team (MDT) of radiation oncologists (ROs), radiologists (RXs), and nuclear medicine (NM) physicians in defining primary and lymph node tumor volumes (GTVp and GTVn) for head and neck cancer (HNC) radiotherapy. This study includes 30 consecutive HNC patients referred for definitive curative (chemo)-radiotherapy. Imaging data including head and neck MRI, [18F]-FDG-PET and CT scan were evaluated by the MDT. The RO identified the 'undeniable' tumor as GTVp_core and determined GTVp_max, representing the maximum tumoral volume. The MDT delineation (MDT-D) by RX and NM physicians outlined their respective primary GTVs (GTVp_RX and GTVp_NM). During the MDT meeting (MDT-M), these contours were discussed to reach a consensus on the final primary GTV (GTVp_final). In the comparative analysis of various GTVp delineations, we performed descriptive statistics and assessed two MDT-M factors: 1) the added value of MDT-M, which includes the section of GTVp_final outside GTVp_core but within GTVp_RX or GTVp_NM, and 2) the part of GTVp_final that deviates from GTVp_max, representing the area missed by the RO. For GTVn, discussions evaluated lymph node extent and malignancy, documenting findings and the frequency of disagreements. The average GTVp core and max volumes were 19.5 cc (range: 0.4-90.1) and 22.1 cc (range: 0.8-106.2), respectively. Compared to GTVp_core, MDT-D to GTVp_final added an average of 3.3 cc (range: 0-25.6) and spared an average of 1.3 cc (0-15.6). Compared to GTVp_max, MDT-D and -M added an average of 2.7 cc (range: 0-20.3) and removed 2.3 cc (0-21.3). The most frequent GTVn discussions included morphologically suspicious nodes not fixing on [18F]-FDG-PET and small [18F]-FDG-PET negative retropharyngeal lymph nodes. Multidisciplinary review of target contours in HNC is essential for accurate treatment planning, ensuring precise tumor and lymph node delineation, potentially improving local control and reducing toxicity.

Peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance Bacillus subtilis strain RTI477.

The conclusions of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) following the peer review of the initial risk assessments carried out by the competent authority of the rapporteur Member State the Netherlands for the pesticide active substance Bacillus subtilis strain RTI477 are reported. The context of the peer review was that required by Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council. The conclusions were reached on the basis of the evaluation of the representative uses of B. subtilis strain RTI477 as a fungicide for the control of soil-borne diseases in greenhouses (permanent) and walk-in tunnels and field crops; by drip and drench irrigation on lettuce, cucurbit and solanaceous vegetables; field application by treating tubers whilst laying in furrow on potato; seed treatment application on maize, sunflower, sugar beet and winter oilseed rape. The reliable endpoints, appropriate for use in regulatory risk assessment, are presented. Missing information identified as being required by the regulatory framework is listed. Concerns are reported when identified.

Duplicated phrases in peer review draw scrutiny.

Hundreds of papers bear signs of reviewers using templates for personal gain.

Peer Review Is Primary: Presentations, Publications, Promotions, and Practice.

Peer review is primarily thought of as the process used to determine whether manuscripts are published in medical or other academic journals. While a publication may be one outcome of peer review, this article shares a model of 4 Ps to remind faculty of some important additional applications of peer review. The 4 Ps are publication, presentation, promotion, and practice. The medical literature offers few reasons why faculty should get involved in peer review. In this article, we define peer review, illustrate the role of peer review in four important processes, describe how the volume of material to review has changed over time, and share how participation in these processes promotes career advancement. Understanding the peer review process and its benefits can encourage professionals to participate in peer review in any of the four Ps as they recognize the benefits to their discipline and their career.

Peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance amidosulfuron.

The conclusions of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) following the peer review of the initial risk assessments carried out by the competent authorities of the rapporteur Member State, Finland, and co-rapporteur Member State, Croatia, for the pesticide active substance amidosulfuron and the assessment of confirmatory data following the Article 12 MRL review are reported. The context of the peer review was that required by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 844/2012, as amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 2018/1659. The conclusions were reached on the basis of the evaluation of the representative uses of amidosulfuron as a post-emergence herbicide on winter cereals, spring cereals, flax and grass/pasture (all field uses). The reliable end points, appropriate for use in regulatory risk assessment are presented. Missing information identified as being required by the regulatory framework is listed. Concerns are reported where identified.

A Faculty Growth Perspective on Peer Review of Teaching: An Institution-Wide, Customizable Approach to Peer Review.

As academic medical centers have moved away from using learner ratings of instruction as a demonstration of quality teaching in the promotion process, Indiana University School of Medicine sought to create a peer review of teaching system. We created our system in 2010 and have engaged in continuous quality improvement since. In these efforts, we sought to answer the question, "How can we create a system of peer review of teaching that provides high-quality feedback to faculty and encourages autonomy and growth?" Our peer review of teaching system includes a website, with a brief introduction to the concept of peer review, as well as a series of customizable forms that allows faculty and peer reviewers to choose items for observation and feedback based on teaching setting. This system, called the Peer Review Form Builder (PRFB), combines interactive technology with evidence-based faculty development and is innovative in structure and scope. On the macro level, departments and programs have seen success with the tool by engendering conversations on the values and effectiveness of teaching and education efforts. This systematic, tailored system of peer review of teaching has advanced the stature, quality, and innovation within all aspects of teaching throughout the institution. Further, we have incorporated these values into promotion and tenure documents, by encouraging consistent, systematic peer review as a primary source of evidence to demonstrate teaching effectiveness.

Peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance Bacillus velezensis RTI301.

The conclusions of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) following the peer review of the initial risk assessments carried out by the competent authority of the rapporteur Member State The Netherlands for the pesticide active substance Bacillus velezensis strain RTI301 are reported. The context of the peer review was that required by Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council. The conclusions were reached on the basis of the evaluation of the representative uses of B. velezensis strain RTI301 as a fungicide for the control of soil-borne diseases in greenhouses (permanent) and walk-in tunnels (non-permanent) and field crops; by drip and drench irrigation on lettuce, cucurbit and solanaceous vegetables; field application by treating tubers whilst laying in furrow on potato; seed treatment application on maize, sunflower, sugar beet and winter oilseed rape. The reliable endpoints, appropriate for use in regulatory risk assessment, are presented. Missing information identified as being required by the regulatory framework is listed. Concerns are reported when identified.

Reviewer Experience Detecting and Judging Human Versus Artificial Intelligence Content: The Stroke Journal Essay Contest.

Artificial intelligence (AI) large language models (LLMs) now produce human-like general text and images. LLMs' ability to generate persuasive scientific essays that undergo evaluation under traditional peer review has not been systematically studied. To measure perceptions of quality and the nature of authorship, we conducted a competitive essay contest in 2024 with both human and AI participants. Human authors and 4 distinct LLMs generated essays on controversial topics in stroke care and outcomes research. A panel of Stroke Editorial Board members (mostly vascular neurologists), blinded to author identity and with varying levels of AI expertise, rated the essays for quality, persuasiveness, best in topic, and author type. Among 34 submissions (22 human and 12 LLM) scored by 38 reviewers, human and AI essays received mostly similar ratings, though AI essays were rated higher for composition quality. Author type was accurately identified only 50% of the time, with prior LLM experience associated with improved accuracy. In multivariable analyses adjusted for author attributes and essay quality, only persuasiveness was independently associated with odds of a reviewer assigning AI as author type (adjusted odds ratio, 1.53 [95% CI, 1.09-2.16]; P=0.01). In conclusion, a group of experienced editorial board members struggled to distinguish human versus AI authorship, with a bias against best in topic for essays judged to be AI generated. Scientific journals may benefit from educating reviewers on the types and uses of AI in scientific writing and developing thoughtful policies on the appropriate use of AI in authoring manuscripts.

Peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance flufenacet.

The conclusions of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) following the peer review of the initial risk assessments carried out by the competent authorities of the rapporteur Member State Poland and co-rapporteur Member State France for the pesticide active substance flufenacet are reported. In addition, the assessment of the confirmatory data following the Article 12 maximum residue limit (MRL) review of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 is also reported. The context of the peer review was that required by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 844/2012. The conclusions were reached on the basis of the evaluation of the representative use of flufenacet as a herbicide on winter cereals. Confirmatory data following the Article 12 MRL review were assessed. The reliable end points, appropriate for use in regulatory risk assessment and the assessment of confirmatory data following the Article 12 MRL review, are presented. Missing information identified as being required by the regulatory framework is listed. Concerns are reported where identified.

40-Gene expression profile test predicting metastatic risk in localized, high-risk cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma for peer review.

This case study investigates the use of a 40-gene expression profile to independently predict the risk of metastasis in an immunocompromised 75-year-old male patient with cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma of his left cheek. The patient's previous medical history included non-melanoma skin cancer. Traditional staging methods, such as those from the American Joint Committee on Cancer 8th edition and Brigham and Women's Hospital, suggested a high risk of metastasis for this patient. However, the 40-gene expression profile test identified the patient as having a low risk (Class 1 result) of metastasis within 3 years. The patient successfully underwent Mohs surgery, and pathology was notable for positive perineural invasion of large caliber nerves. This case highlights the potential of the 40-gene expression profile as an independent predictor in assessing metastatic risk compared to traditional staging methods.