Against "silent" retractions in neuroscience.

When an academic paper is published in a journal that assigns a digital object identifier (DOI) to papers, this is a de facto fait accompli. Corrections or retractions are supposed to follow a specific protocol, especially in journals that claim to follow the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines. In this paper, we highlight a case of a new, fully open access neuroscience journal that claims to be COPE-compliant, yet has silently retracted two papers since all records, bibliometrics, and PDF files related to their existence have been deleted from the journal's website. Although this phenomenon does not seem to be common in the neurosciences, we consider that any opaque corrective measures in journals whose papers could be cited may negatively impact the wider neuroscience literature and community. Instead, we encourage transparency in retraction to promote truthfulness and trustworthiness.

Peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance clove oil.

The conclusions of the EFSA following the peer review of the initial risk assessments carried out by the competent authority of the rapporteur Member State, Malta, for the pesticide active substance clove oil 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 for the amendment of approval were reached on the basis of the evaluation of the representative use of clove oil as a preharvest nematicide on tomatoes and cucumbers (permanent greenhouse use). The representative use evaluated for the renewal of approval of clove oil was as post-harvest fungicide and bactericide on apples, pears and peaches (indoor uses). The reliable endpoints appropriate for use in regulatory risk assessment are presented. Endpoints not relevant to the scope of the proposed amendment of approval conditions will be addressed in the context of the renewal of approval procedure of clove oil running in parallel (AIR IV, EFSA Q-2016-00809). Missing information identified as being required by the regulatory framework is listed. Concerns are reported where identified.

Elements of successful NIH grant applications.

Is there a formula for a competitive NIH grant application? The Serenity Prayer may provide one: "Grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the ability to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference." But how to tell the difference? In this Perspective, we provide an inclusive roadmap-elements of NIH funding. Collectively, we have over 30 y of peer review experience as NIH Scientific Review Officers in addition to over 30 y of program experience as NIH Program Officers. This article distills our NIH experience. We use Euclid's 13-book landmark, The Elements, as our template to humbly share what we learned. We have three specific aims: inform, guide, and motivate prospective applicants. We also address ways that support diversity and inclusion among applicants and young investigators in biomedical research. The elements we describe come from a wide range of sources. Some themes will be general. Some will be specific. All will be candid. The ultimate goal is a competitive application, serenity, and hopefully both.

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.

[Reliability of peer review-like dialogue in the German statutory quality assurance program]. / Reliabilität des Strukturierten Dialogs in der gesetzlich verpflichtenden Qualitätssicherung.

BACKGROUND: Quality measurement in the German statutory program for quality in health care follows a two-step process. For selected areas of health care, quality is measured via performance indicators (first step). Providers failing to achieve benchmarks in these indicators subsequently enter into a peer review process (second step) and are asked by the respective regional authority to provide a written statement regarding their indicator results. The statements are then evaluated by peers, with the goal to assess the provider's quality of care. In the past, similar peer review-based approaches to the measurement of health care quality in other countries have shown a tendency to lack reliability. So far, the reliability of this component of the German statutory program for quality in health care has not been investigated. METHOD: Using logistic regression models, the influence of the respective regional authority on the peer review component of health care quality measurement in Germany was investigated using three exemplary indicators and data from 2016. RESULTS: Both the probability that providers are asked to provide a statement as well as the results produced by the peer review process significantly depend on the regional authority in charge. This dependence cannot be fully explained by differences in the indicator results or by differences in case volume. CONCLUSIONS: The present results are in accordance with earlier findings, which show low reliability for peer review-based approaches to quality measurement. Thus, different results produced by the peer review component of the quality measurement process may in part be due to differences in the way the review process is conducted. This heterogeneity among the regional authorities limits the reliability of this process. In order to increase reliability, the peer review process should be standardized to a higher degree, with clear review criteria, and the peers should undergo comprehensive training for the review process. Alternatively, the future peer review component could be adapted to focus rather on identification of improvement strategies than on reliable provider comparisons.

How Long Does Contouring Really Take? Results of the Royal College of Radiologists Contouring Surveys.

AIMS: The success and safety of modern radiotherapy relies on accurate contouring. Understanding the time taken to complete radiotherapy contours is critical to informing workforce planning and, in the context of a workforce shortfall, advocating for investment in technology and multi-professional skills mix. We aimed to quantify the time taken to delineate target volumes for radical radiotherapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Royal College of Radiologists circulated two electronic surveys via email to all clinical oncology consultants in the UK. The individual case survey requested anonymous data regarding the next five patients contoured for radical radiotherapy. The second survey collected data on respondents' usual practice in radiotherapy contouring. RESULTS: The median time to contour one radiotherapy case was 85 minutes (IQR = 50-131 minutes). Marked variability between and within tumour sites was evident: paediatric cancers took the most time (median = 210 minutes, IQR = 87.5 minutes), followed by head and neck and gynaecological cancers (median = 120 minutes, IQR = 71 and 72.5 minutes respectively). Breast cancer contouring required the least time (median = 43 minutes, IQR = 60 minutes). Radiotherapy technique, inclusion of nodes and 4D CT planning were associated with longer contouring times. A non-medical professional was involved in contouring in 65% of cases, but clinical oncology consultants were involved in target volume delineation in 90% of cases, and OARs in 74%. Peer review took place in 46% of cases with 56% of consultants reporting no time for peer review in their job plan. CONCLUSION: Contouring for radical radiotherapy is complex and time-consuming, and despite increasing involvement of non-medical professionals, clinical oncology consultants remain the primary practitioners. Peer review practice is variable and time is often a limiting factor. Many factors influence the time required for contouring, and departments should take these factors and the need for peer-review into account when developing job plans.

Updated peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance dichlorprop-P and variant dichlorprop-P-2-ethylhexyl.

The conclusions of the EFSA following the peer review of the initial risk assessments carried out by the competent authorities of the rapporteur Member State, Ireland, and co-rapporteur Member State, Poland, for the pesticide active substance dichlorprop-P and the variant dichlorprop-P-2-ethylhexyl and the assessment of applications for maximum residue levels (MRLs) are 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 uses of dichlorprop-P as a herbicide on cereals, grassland and grass seed crops and of the variant dichlorprop-P-2-ethylhexyl as a plant growth regulator on citrus. MRLs were assessed in mandarin and lemon. The conclusions from 2018 were updated in 2024 following the request from the European Commission with regard to the endocrine-disrupting properties. The reliable end points, appropriate for use in regulatory risk assessment and the proposed MRLs, are presented. Missing information identified as being required by the regulatory framework is listed. Concerns are reported where identified.

The Peer Review Process.

The purpose of peer review is to evaluate the scientific merit of the submitted work and to assess suitability for publication. This process is intended to provide an unbiased, independent critique to ensure publication of high-quality manuscripts that demonstrate validity and reliability. Reviewers are subject-matter experts who volunteer their time to participate in peer review. A proper review provides constructive and helpful feedback in a timely manner that authors can use to improve both current and future work. When given the opportunity to revise, authors should carefully consider all comments and adequately address all concerns. This paper provides guidance to clinicians for both aspects of the peer review process: participating as a reviewer and responding to reviewer feedback.

Balancing best practice and reality in behavioral intervention development: A survey of principal investigators funded by the National Institutes of Health.

Preliminary studies play a prominent role in the development of large-scale behavioral interventions. Though recommendations exist to guide the execution and interpretation of preliminary studies, these assume optimal scenarios which may clash with realities faced by researchers. The purpose of this study was to explore how principal investigators (PIs) balance expectations when conducting preliminary studies. We surveyed PIs funded by the National Institutes of Health to conduct preliminary behavioral interventions between 2000 and 2020. Four hundred thirty-one PIs (19% response rate) completed the survey (November 2021 to January 2022, 72% female, mean 21 years post-terminal degree). Most PIs were aware of translational models and believed preliminary studies should precede larger trials but also believed a single preliminary study provided sufficient evidence to scale. When asked about the relative importance of preliminary efficacy (i.e. changes in outcomes) and feasibility (i.e. recruitment, acceptance/adherence) responses varied. Preliminary studies were perceived as necessary to successfully compete for research funding, but among PIs who had peer-reviewed federal-level grants applications (n = 343 [80%]), responses varied about what should be presented to secure funding. Confusion surrounding the definition of a successful, informative preliminary study poses a significant challenge when developing behavior interventions. This may be due to a mismatch between expectations surrounding preliminary studies and the realities of the research enterprise in which they are conducted. To improve the quality of preliminary studies and advance the field of behavioral interventions, additional funding opportunities, more transparent criteria in grant reviews, and additional training for grant reviewers are suggested.

Initial testing of behavioral interventions can provide valuable information about the methods of the intervention and whether it is effective. However, recommendations that provide researchers with guidance on how to best conduct pilot studies assume ideal circumstances. The mismatch between what can be realistically accomplished in a preliminary study, and what researchers expect from preliminary studies creates confusion. As a result, it is difficult for researchers to judge the quality, relevance, and potential of preliminary studies. This study suggests more research funding opportunities, clearer rules for reviewing grant applications, and more training for the people who review these applications could help improve preliminary studies and create more effective health behavior programs.

A structured, journal-led peer-review mentoring program enhances peer review training.

BACKGROUND: Peer review is essential to the advancement of knowledge. However, training on how to conduct peer review is limited, unorganized, and not well studied. Thus, we sought to determine if a structured mentored peer-review program improved peer review training as measured by multiple quantitative and qualitative assessments. METHODS: This pre-post intervention study enrolled 55 mentees across 5 cohorts from 2020 to 2023. Each cohort completed pre-program evaluations, participated in 2 mentored reviews, and completed post-program evaluations over 6 months. Mentors and mentees completed pre-program demographic and review experience questionnaires. Outcome measures included (1) total and sub-scores on the modified Review Quality Index (mRQI) applied to the same pre-selected research manuscript reviewed by mentees both pre and post intervention, (2) mentee self-perceived comfort with and understanding of the review process using a custom questionnaire, and (3) mentor satisfaction surveys. Pre- and post-program measures were compared using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. RESULTS: Post-program total modified RQI score (median (IQR) = 31 (26.3-35.8)) was higher than pre-program total score (26.6 (19.7-29.7)) for the 42 mentees who completed both pre- and post-program reviews. Mentees reported improved perception of review (median (IQR) pre = 4 (3-4), post = 5 (4-5)) and editorial processes (pre = 3 (2-4), post = 4 (4-5)) as well as self-perceived confidence in completing an independent review of both scientific (median (IQR) pre = 2 (2-3), post = 4 (4-4)) and non-scientific (pre = 3 (2-4), post = 4 (4-5)) manuscripts following program participation. p < 0.0001 for all scores noted. Mentors reported high scores for enjoyment (median (range) 5/5 (3-5)) and interest in repeat participation (5/5 (2-5)). CONCLUSIONS: A 6-month structured mentored-review program including 2 mentored reviews improves peer review training as measured by the modified RQI as well as participant self-perceived understanding of publication science with high mentor satisfaction.

Journals must expand access to peer review data.

Empirical studies on peer review bias are primarily conducted by people from privileged groups and with affiliations with the journals studied. Data access is one major barrier to conducting peer review research. Accordingly, we propose pathways to broaden access to peer review data to people from more diverse backgrounds.

Peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance quinolin-8-ol.

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, Spain, and co-rapporteur Member State, the Netherlands, for the pesticide active substance quinolin-8-ol are 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 quinolin-8-ol as a fungicide and bactericide against soil-borne pathogens in tomato cultivation in permanent greenhouses applied by drip irrigation. 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.

Blinding reduces institutional prestige bias during initial review of applications for a young investigator award.

Organizations that fund research are keen to ensure that their grant selection processes are fair and equitable for all applicants. In 2020, the Arnold and Mabel Beckman Foundation introduced blinding to the first stage of the process used to review applications for Beckman Young Investigator (BYI) awards: applicants were instructed to blind the technical proposal in their initial Letter of Intent by omitting their name, gender, gender-identifying pronouns, and institutional information. Here we examine the impact of this change by comparing the data on gender and institutional prestige of the applicants in the first four years of the new policy (BYI award years 2021-2024) with data on the last four years of the old policy (2017-2020). We find that under the new policy, the distribution of applicants invited to submit a full application shifted from those affiliated with institutions regarded as more prestigious to those outside of this group, and that this trend continued through to the final program awards. We did not find evidence of a shift in the distribution of applicants with respect to gender.

Major mistakes in scientific medical writing based on manuscripts' reviews.

INTRODUCTION: Peer review is a crucial process in ensuring the quality and accuracy of scientific research. It allows experts in the field to assess manuscripts submitted for publication and provide feedback to authors to improve their work. AIM: To describe mistakes encountered while peer reviewing scientific manuscripts submitted to "La Tunisie Médicale" journal. METHOD: This was a bibliometric study of research manuscripts submitted to "La Tunisie Médicale" and reviewed during 2022. The data collected included the type of the manuscripts and the number of reviews conducted per manuscript. The study also identified variables related to writing mistakes encountered during the peer review process. RESULTS: A total of 155 manuscripts (68% original articles) were peer reviewed and 245 reviews were delivered, by two reviewers. Out of 62 mistakes detected, 21% concerned the results section. In 60% of the manuscripts, the keywords used were not MeSH (Medical Subject Headings) terms. The introduction lacked in-text citations in 30% of the reviewed manuscripts, while the method section did not have a clear study framework (27%). The two major mistakes detected in the results section were the misuse of abbreviations in tables/figures, and the non-respect of the scientific nomenclature of tables/figures with respectively 39% and 19% of manuscripts. CONCLUSION: This study identified 62 mistakes while reviewing scientific manuscripts submitted to "La Tunisie Médicale" journal. Scholars can benefit from participation in scientific writing seminars and the use of a safety checklist for scientific medical writing to avoid basic mistakes.