Ponderings on peer review. Part 2. Manuscript critiques.

In part 1 of this Perspective, I discussed general principles of scientific peer review in the biomedical sciences aimed at early-stage investigators (i.e., graduate students, postdoctoral fellows, and junior faculty). Here in part 2, I share my thoughts specifically on the topic of peer review of manuscripts. I begin by defining manuscript peer review and discussing the goals and importance of the concept. I then describe the organizational structure of the process, including the two distinct stages involved. Next, I emphasize several important considerations for manuscript reviewers, both general points and key considerations when evaluating specific types of papers, including original research manuscripts, reviews, methods articles, and opinion pieces. I then advance some practical suggestions for developing the written critique document, offer advice for making an overall recommendation to the editor (i.e., accept, revise, reject), and describe the unique issues involved when assessing a revised manuscript. Finally, I comment on how best to gain experience in the essential academic research skill of manuscript peer review. In part 3 of the series, I will discuss the topic of reviewing grant applications submitted to research funding agencies.

The Rapid Growth of Mega-Journals: Threats and Opportunities.

This Viewpoint examines the increase in "mega-journals" (prolific publishers of medical articles) and both the opportunities and threats to scientific research they present.

Comparison of Availability of Trial Results in ClinicalTrials.gov and PubMed by Data Source and Funder Type.

This study examines the dissemination of trial results by data source (ie, ClinicalTrials.gov and PubMed) and funder type (ie, industry and nonindustry).

Incomplete reporting of complex interventions: a call to action for journal editors to review their submission guidelines.

Reporting of intervention research has been inadequate for many years. The development and promotion of freely available checklists aims to address this problem by providing researchers with a list of items that require reporting to enable study interpretation and replication. In this commentary, we present evidence from a recent systematic review of 51 randomised controlled trials published 2015-2020 that inadequate intervention reporting remains a widespread issue and that checklists are not being used to describe all intervention components. In 2022, we assessed the submission guidelines of 33 journals that published articles included in our review and found that just one at the time encouraged the use of reporting checklists for all intervention components. To drive progress, we contacted the editors of the other 32 journals and requested that they update their submission guidelines in response. We conclude by highlighting the waste associated with current practices and encourage journals from all fields to urgently review their submission guidelines. Only through collective action can we build an evidence base that is fit for purpose.

Linguistic gender congruity differentially correlates with film and novel ratings by critics and audiences.

The film and publishing industries are fraught with gender disparities, with men overpowering nearly every sector of these domains. For instance, men are not only paid more than women in the film industry, but they also outnumber women in positions such as director, screenwriter, and lead acting roles. Similarly, women often resort to assuming gender-neutral or male pseudonyms to increase their prospects in the publishing industry. This widespread gender inequality in the film and publishing industries raises the question of how writers' gender relates to gendered language and narrative receptions. Two archival studies examined whether gender-linked language relates to film (N = 521) and novel (N = 150) ratings, and whether those associations differ as a function of writer gender or the expertise of the rater (professional critics and lay audience members). Results demonstrated that female screenwriters and novelists used a more feminine style of writing, whereas male screenwriters and novelists used a more masculine style of writing. Lay audiences gave more positive ratings to films and novels by writers who used a more gender-congruent writing style, in contrast with professional critics, who gave more positive reviews to films by writers who used a more gender-incongruent writing style. Our findings substantiate past research regarding the differing tastes of lay audiences and professional critics in addition to lending insight into subtle social dynamics that may sustain gender biases in the film and publishing industries.

Correction of scientific literature: Too little, too late!

The Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has highlighted the limitations of the current scientific publication system, in which serious post-publication concerns are often addressed too slowly to be effective. In this Perspective, we offer suggestions to improve academia's willingness and ability to correct errors in an appropriate time frame.

Tracking changes between preprint posting and journal publication during a pandemic.

Amid the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, preprints in the biomedical sciences are being posted and accessed at unprecedented rates, drawing widespread attention from the general public, press, and policymakers for the first time. This phenomenon has sharpened long-standing questions about the reliability of information shared prior to journal peer review. Does the information shared in preprints typically withstand the scrutiny of peer review, or are conclusions likely to change in the version of record? We assessed preprints from bioRxiv and medRxiv that had been posted and subsequently published in a journal through April 30, 2020, representing the initial phase of the pandemic response. We utilised a combination of automatic and manual annotations to quantify how an article changed between the preprinted and published version. We found that the total number of figure panels and tables changed little between preprint and published articles. Moreover, the conclusions of 7.2% of non-COVID-19-related and 17.2% of COVID-19-related abstracts undergo a discrete change by the time of publication, but the majority of these changes do not qualitatively change the conclusions of the paper.