Artificial Intelligence for Oncology Nursing Authors: Potential Utility and Concerns About Large Language Model Chatbots.

Artificial intelligence is a revolution in the computing and data scientist era that has led to excitement and controversy in many fields, including research and publishing. As we move further into the artificial intelligence.

Saving time and money in biomedical publishing: the case for free-format submissions with minimal requirements.

BACKGROUND: Manuscript preparation and the (re)submission of articles can create a significant workload in academic jobs. In this exploratory analysis, we estimate the time and costs needed to meet the diverse formatting requirements for manuscript submissions in biomedical publishing. METHODS: We reviewed 302 leading biomedical journals' submission guidelines and extracted information on the components that tend to vary the most among submission guidelines (the length of the title, the running title, the abstract, and the manuscript; the structure of the abstract and the manuscript, number of items and references allowed, whether the journal has a template). We estimated annual research funding lost due to manuscript formatting by calculating hourly academic salaries, the time lost to reformatting articles, and quantifying the total number of resubmissions per year. We interviewed several researchers and senior journal editors and editors-in-chief to contextualize our findings and develop guidelines that could help both biomedical journals and researchers work more efficiently. RESULTS: Among the analyzed journals, we found a huge diversity in submission requirements. By calculating average researcher salaries in the European Union and the USA, and the time spent on reformatting articles, we estimated that ~ 230 million USD were lost in 2021 alone due to reformatting articles. Should the current practice remain unchanged within this decade, we estimate ~ 2.5 billion USD could be lost between 2022 and 2030-solely due to reformatting articles after a first editorial desk rejection. In our interviews, we found alignment between researchers and editors; researchers would like the submission process alignment between researchers and editors; researchers would like the submission process to be as straightforward and simple as possible, and editors want to easily identify strong, suitable articles and not waste researchers' time. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the findings from our quantitative analysis and contextualized by the qualitative interviews, we conclude that free-format submission guidelines would benefit both researchers and editors. However, a minimum set of requirements is necessary to avoid manuscript submissions that lack structure. We developed our guidelines to improve the status quo, and we urge the publishers and the editorial-advisory boards of biomedical journals to adopt them. This may also require support from publishers and major international organizations that govern the work of editors.

Effect of an educational intervention on the knowledge, attitudes, and practices of healthcare workers at King Hussein Cancer Center towards predatory publishers.

AIMS: We explored the effect of an educational intervention on the knowledge, attitudes, and practices of healthcare workers (HCWs) towards predatory publishing. METHODS: A retrospective pre-post quasi experimental design was implemented on HCWs within King Hussein Cancer Center (KHCC). Following a 60-min educational lecture, a self-administered questionnaire was completed by participants. Pre- and post-intervention scores for familiarity, knowledge, practices, and attitudes were compared using the paired sample t-test. Multivariate linear regression was used to identify predictors of mean differences (MD) of knowledge scores. RESULTS: A total of 121 respondents completed the questionnaire. The majority of participants demonstrated underwhelming awareness of predatory publishing and average levels of knowledge of their characteristics. Furthermore, respondents did not take the necessary precautions to avoid predatory publishers. The intervention (i.e. the educational lecture) improved familiarity (MD: 13.4; 95%CI: 12.4 - 14.4; p-value < .001), knowledge of predatory journal's characteristics (MD: 12.9; 95%CI: 11.1 - 14.8; p-value < .001), awareness and perceived compliance to preventive measures (MD: 7.7; 95%CI: 6.7 - 8.6; p-value < .001), and positively influenced attitudes towards open access and safe publishing (MD: 0.8; 95%CI: 0.2 - 1.5; p-value = 0.012). Females had significantly lower familiarity scores (p-value = 0.002). Moreover, those who had published in open access journals, received at least one predatory e-mail, or had more than 5 published original articles had significantly higher familiarity and knowledge scores (all p-value < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: An educational lecture proved effective in improving awareness of KHCC's HCW's to predatory publishers. Nonetheless, the mediocrity of pre-intervention scores raises concerns on effectiveness of the predatory covert practices.

scRNASequest: an ecosystem of scRNA-seq analysis, visualization, and publishing.

BACKGROUND: Single-cell RNA sequencing is a state-of-the-art technology to understand gene expression in complex tissues. With the growing amount of data being generated, the standardization and automation of data analysis are critical to generating hypotheses and discovering biological insights. RESULTS: Here, we present scRNASequest, a semi-automated single-cell RNA-seq (scRNA-seq) data analysis workflow which allows (1) preprocessing from raw UMI count data, (2) harmonization by one or multiple methods, (3) reference-dataset-based cell type label transfer and embedding projection, (4) multi-sample, multi-condition single-cell level differential gene expression analysis, and (5) seamless integration with cellxgene VIP for visualization and with CellDepot for data hosting and sharing by generating compatible h5ad files. CONCLUSIONS: We developed scRNASequest, an end-to-end pipeline for single-cell RNA-seq data analysis, visualization, and publishing. The source code under MIT open-source license is provided at https://github.com/interactivereport/scRNASequest . We also prepared a bookdown tutorial for the installation and detailed usage of the pipeline: https://interactivereport.github.io/scRNAsequest/tutorial/docs/ . Users have the option to run it on a local computer with a Linux/Unix system including MacOS, or interact with SGE/Slurm schedulers on high-performance computing (HPC) clusters.

Beware 'persuasive communication devices' when writing and reading scientific articles.

Authors rely on a range of devices and techniques to attract and maintain the interest of readers, and to convince them of the merits of the author's point of view. However, when writing a scientific article, authors must use these 'persuasive communication devices' carefully. In particular, they must be explicit about the limitations of their work, avoid obfuscation, and resist the temptation to oversell their results. Here we discuss a list of persuasive communication devices and we encourage authors, as well as reviewers and editors, to think carefully about their use.

Cardiovascular research at the Heart of Clinical Science.

Clinical Science was originally established as the journal Heart in 1909 by Sir Thomas Lewis and Sir James Mackenzie. Heart was an influential journal publishing cardiovascular research and was renamed Clinical Science in 1933 to attract broader research interests. Nevertheless, cardiovascular research contributions remain a foundational part of the journal to this day. This editorial provides historical perspective on the journal's cardiovascular origins and includes data related to cardiovascular publications from the past decade. Clinical Science is committed to publishing leading cardiovascular research from the field and looks forward to receiving your submission.

Open Science in Health Psychology and Behavioral Medicine: A Statement From the Behavioral Medicine Research Council.

Open Science practices include some combination of registering and publishing study protocols (including hypotheses, primary and secondary outcome variables, and analysis plans) and making available preprints of manuscripts, study materials, de-identified data sets, and analytic codes. This statement from the Behavioral Medicine Research Council (BMRC) provides an overview of these methods, including preregistration; registered reports; preprints; and open research. We focus on rationales for engaging in Open Science and how to address shortcomings and possible objections. Additional resources for researchers are provided. Research on Open Science largely supports positive consequences for the reproducibility and reliability of empirical science. There is no solution that will encompass all Open Science needs in health psychology and behavioral medicine's diverse research products and outlets, but the BMRC supports increased use of Open Science practices where possible.