RESUMEN

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Academic writing is essential to achieve success for doctoral students and is often linked to their academic identity, which could provoke negative emotions leading to the risk of burnout and dropping out of their studies. Although academic writing is a substantial part of doctoral students' learning journey, there are no existing recommendations to guide the provision of effective support addressing nursing and midwifery doctoral students' needs in academic writing. This review aims to identify the key considerations that could facilitate education facilities and educators to provide effective support for academic writing among nursing and midwifery doctoral students, fostering a supportive environment for guidance and development. DESIGN: The review team was co-led by two doctoral students and two academics with all the team members being doctoral students at the School of Nursing and Midwifery in a research-intensive university. Seven databases were searched in February 2022 with an updated search conducted in July 2023. This review was guided by the methodological framework for scoping reviews: PRISMA for Scoping Review Checklist and Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Manual for Evidence Synthesis. A narrative synthesis was conducted to analyse the data. RESULTS: A total of 11 papers were included. Six key considerations for developing effective academic writing support were identified including modes of delivery; barriers to writing; accountability and productivity; building group identity, collegiality and a sense of community; peer review, and behavioural change in writing practice. CONCLUSIONS: Findings highlighted that both face-to-face and online writing support groups enhance doctoral students' motivation and confidence in writing. The opportunity of active engagement, sharing writing commitments and short bursts of writing practice is pivotal in promoting doctoral students' writing productivity and satisfaction resulting in a higher on-time completion rate. Future studies should focus on the nursing and midwifery students' educational needs in academic writing.

RESUMEN

microPublication Biology (micropublication.org) is a non-profit, community-focused, peer-reviewed journal dedicated to publishing small (single-figure) reports of data, methods and software related to a variety of model organisms. A workshop on microPublications at the Faculty for Undergraduate Neuroscience (FUN) conference in Summer 2023 focused on 1) publishing data-especially student research experiences, and data gathered through course-based research, and 2) using the microPublication platform and article template in teaching and learning. In this article, we further describe the microPublication platform and workflow and how PI's can use this venue to publish student work. We also provide examples of how the microPublication format can be adapted and adopted as tools for undergraduate teaching and learning.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Background: The process of preparing a scientific manuscript is intricate, encompassing several critical stages, including pre-writing, research development, drafting, peer review, editing, publication, dissemination, and access. Among these, the peer review process (PRP) stands out as a pivotal component requiring seamless collaboration among editors, reviewers, and authors. Reviewers play a crucial role in assessing the manuscript's quality and providing constructive feedback, which authors must adeptly navigate to enhance their work and meet journal standards. This process can often appear daunting and time-consuming, as authors are required to address numerous comments and requested changes. Authors are encouraged to perceive reviewers as consultants rather than adversaries, viewing their critiques as opportunities for improvement rather than personal attacks. Methods: Opinion article. Aim: To equip authors with practical strategies for engaging effectively in the PRP and improving their publication acceptance rates. Results: Key guidelines include thoroughly understanding and prioritizing feedback, maintaining professionalism, and systematically addressing each comment. In cases of significant disagreement or misunderstanding, authors have the option to refer the issue to the editor. Crafting a well-organized and scientific "response to reviews" along with the revised manuscript can substantially increase the likelihood of acceptance. Best practices for writing an effective response to reviews include expressing gratitude, addressing major revisions first, seeking opinions from co-authors and colleagues, and adhering strictly to journal guidelines. Emphasizing the importance of planning responses, highlighting changes in the revised manuscript, and conducting a final review ensures all corrections are properly documented. Conclusion: By following these guidelines, authors can enhance their manuscripts' quality, foster positive relationships with reviewers, and ultimately contribute to scholarly advancement.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

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.

RESUMEN

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.

RESUMEN

Although publication in scholarly peer-reviewed journals remains the gold standard for communication of findings in the life sciences, the gold has been debased in the digital age by various impurities, including (a) reviewer fatigue, (b) fraud, paper mills, and the perils of artificial intelligence, (c) predatory journals, (d) the ongoing use of journal impact factor as a proxy for individual article quality, and (e) salami-slicing and other unethical practices. In this article, I present a detailed overview of these problems, as well as solutions proposed and implemented to counter them. Finally, I suggest that these are all symptomatic of a wider problem, namely the culture of 'publish or perish' and ongoing issues with how researcher performance is evaluated for grant, hiring, and promotion decisions. Only by working towards a global shift in the way scientists view the purpose of publication can we finally remove the impurities and refine the gold.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Adequate and transparent reporting is necessary for critically appraising published research, yet ample evidence suggests that the design, conduct, analysis, interpretation, and reporting of oral health research could be greatly improved. Accordingly, the Task Force on Design and Analysis in Oral Health Research, statisticians and trialists from academia and industry, identified the minimum information needed to report and evaluate observational studies and clinical trials in oral health: the OHStat guidelines. Drafts were circulated to the editors of 85 oral health journals and to Task Force members and sponsors and discussed at a December 2020 workshop attended by 49 researchers. The guidelines were subsequently revised by the Task Force writing group. The guidelines draw heavily from the Consolidated Standards for Reporting Trials (CONSORT), Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology, and CONSORT harms guidelines, and incorporate the SAMPL guidelines for reporting statistics, the CLIP principles for documenting images, and the GRADE indicating the quality of evidence. The guidelines also recommend reporting estimates in clinically meaningful units using confidence intervals, rather than relying on P values. In addition, OHStat introduces seven new guidelines that concern the text itself, such as checking the congruence between abstract and text, structuring the discussion, and listing conclusions to make them more specific. OHStat does not replace other reporting guidelines; it incorporates those most relevant to dental research into a single document. Manuscripts using the OHStat guidelines will provide more information specific to oral health research.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

The dissemination of discipline-focused educational scholarship advances theory and stimulates pedagogical application. The aim of Advances in Physiology Education is to publish manuscripts that advance knowledge and inform educators in the field. This primer is tailored for individuals new to manuscript reviewing, early in their careers, or experienced in reviewing research but not educational manuscripts. Peer reviewing for basic and applied science is akin to evaluating research questions and rigor in teaching and learning studies, with differences in approach and analysis similar to those between biophysics and molecular physiology or cell and integrated physiology. Our purpose is to provide an overview of the review process and expectations. The submission and peer review process involves several steps: authors submit a manuscript, the Editor assigns an Associate Editor, who then assigns peer Reviewers. Reviewers are contacted via email and can accept or decline the invitation. Reviewers evaluate the work's strengths and weaknesses, then independently submit comments and recommendations to the Associate Editor. After review, the Associate Editor collects and weighs Reviewers' comments, sometimes garners additional reviews and input, to make a recommendation to the Editor. The Editor reviews the process, comments, and recommendations to render a final decision. Both authors and Reviewers receive an email with the decision. The editorial staff assist with communication and help track the overall process. Peer review is integral to scientific publishing, ensuring quality and rigor, and reviewing is both a privilege and a responsibility of all in the scientific community.

RESUMEN

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.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

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.

RESUMEN

The peer review process is used throughout science but has often been criticized for being inconsistent, with decisions dependent on the peers who did the reviewing. Much of the decision inconsistency arises from the differences between reviewers in terms of their expertise, training and experience. Another source of uncertainty is within reviewers as they must make a single recommendation (e.g. 'Accept'), when they may have wavered between two (e.g. 'Accept' or 'Reject'). We estimated the size of within-reviewer uncertainty using post-review surveys at three journals. We asked reviewers to think outside the recommendation they gave (e.g. 'Accept') and assign percentages to all other recommendations (e.g. 'Major revision'). Reviewers who were certain could assign 100% to one recommendation. Twenty-three per cent of reviewers reported no uncertainty (95% confidence interval 19-27%). Women were associated with more uncertainty at one journal, and protocol papers were associated with more uncertainty at one journal. Reviewers commonly experience some uncertainty when peer-reviewing journal articles. This uncertainty is part of the variability in peer reviewers' recommendation.

RESUMEN

Description The HCA Healthcare Journal of Medicine would like to thank those behind the scenes who make this publication possible. Our journal would not be possible without the assistance of our peer reviewers, authors, and board members.

RESUMEN

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.

RESUMEN

Conservation literature addresses a broad spectrum of interdisciplinary questions and benefits. Conservation science benefits most when a diverse range of authors are represented, particularly those from countries where much conservation work is focused. In other disciplines, it is well known that barriers and biases exist in the academic publishing sphere, which can affect research dissemination and an author's career development. We used a discrete choice experiment to determine how 7 journal attributes affect authors' choices of where to publish in conservation. We targeted authors directly by contacting authors published in 18 target journals and indirectly via communication channels for conservation organizations. We only included respondents who had previously published in a conservation-related journal. We used a multinomial logit model and a latent class model to investigate preferences for all respondents and distinct subpopulations. We identified 3 demographic groups across 1038 respondents (older authors from predominantly middle-income countries, younger authors from predominantly middle-income countries, and younger authors from high-income countries) who had published in conservation journals. Each group exhibited different publishing preferences. Only 2 attributes showed a consistent response across groups: cost to publish negatively affected journal choice, including authors in high-income countries, and authors had a consistent preference for double-blind review. Authors from middle-income countries were willing to pay more for society-owned journals, unlike authors from high-income countries. Journals with a broad geographical scope that were open access and that had relatively high impact factors were preferred by 2 of the 3 demographic groups. However, journal scope and open access were more important in dictating journal choice than impact factor. Overall, different demographics had different preferences for journals and were limited in their selection based on attributes such as open access policy. However, the scarcity of respondents from low-income countries (2% of respondents) highlights the pervasive barriers to representation in conservation research. We recommend journals offer double-blind review, reduce or remove open access fees, investigate options for free editorial support, and better acknowledge the value of local-scale single-species studies. Academic societies in particular must reflect on how their journals support conservation and conservation professionals.

Comprensión de las elecciones de los autores en el entorno actual de publicaciones sobre la conservación Resumen La bibliografía sobre conservación aborda un amplio espectro de preguntas y beneficios interdisciplinarios. La mayor parte de ella representa una gama diversa de autores, sobre todo de países en los que se centra gran parte del trabajo de conservación. Es bien sabido que en otras disciplinas existen barreras y sesgos en el ámbito de la publicación académica que pueden afectar a la difusión de la investigación y al desarrollo de la carrera de un autor. Usamos un experimento de elección discreta para determinar cómo afectan siete atributos de las revistas sobre conservación en la elección de los autores sobre en cuál publicar. Nos dirigimos directamente a los autores y nos pusimos en contacto con quienes publicaban en 18 revistas objetivo e indirectamente a través de los canales de comunicación de las organizaciones de conservación. Sólo incluimos a los encuestados que habían publicado anteriormente en una revista relacionada con la conservación. Usamos un modelo logit multinominal y un modelo de clases latentes para investigar las preferencias de todos los encuestados y de las distintas subpoblaciones. Identificamos tres grupos demográficos entre los 1038 encuestados (autores de más edad de países con predominancia de ingresos medios, autores más jóvenes de países con predominancia de ingresos medios y autores más jóvenes de países con ingresos altos) que habían publicado en revistas de conservación. Cada grupo mostraba preferencias editoriales diferentes. Sólo dos atributos mostraron una respuesta coherente en todos los grupos: el costo de la publicación afectaba negativamente a la elección de la revista, incluidos los autores de países con ingresos altos, y los autores tenían una preferencia coherente por la revisión doble ciego. Los autores de países con ingresos medios están dispuestos a pagar más por las revistas pertenecientes a la sociedad, a diferencia de los autores de países de ingresos altos. Dos de los tres grupos demográficos prefieren las revistas de ámbito geográfico amplio, de acceso abierto y con un factor de impacto relativamente alto. Sin embargo, el alcance de la revista y el acceso abierto fueron más importantes que el factor de impacto. En general, los distintos grupos demográficos tenían preferencias diferentes en cuanto a las revistas y su selección se veía limitada por atributos como la política de acceso abierto. No obstante, la falta de encuestados procedentes de países con bajos ingresos (2% de los encuestados) destaca las barreras generalizadas para la representación en la investigación sobre conservación. Recomendamos que las revistas ofrezcan revisiones doble ciego, reduzcan o eliminen las tarifas de acceso abierto, investiguen opciones de apoyo editorial gratuito y reconozcan mejor el valor de los estudios de una sola especie a escala local. Las sociedades académicas, en particular, deben reflexionar sobre la forma en que sus revistas apoyan la conservación y a los profesionales de la conservación.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Now in my fifth year as editor, I have gained insights into the publishing process that I was not fully aware of as an author. I would like to share some of these insights and suggestions for prospective authors considering s.

Asunto(s)