Open access to known literature is critical for creating a harmonious society across continents on planet earth. However, this objective is not simple. Therefore, itis of interest to document the challenges and linked features in promoting open access to bioinformation literature over about 2 decades. Access to available literature for advancement through the application of science for the society is secretly sensitive yet sacred. The quote from BOAI "the promisewas that removing access barriers would allow the world to "accelerate research, enrich education, share the learning of the rich with the poor and the poor with therich ... and lay the foundation for uniting humanity in a common intellectual conversation and quest for knowledge" explains everything as described elsewhere .Thus, tIt is the responsibility of all stakeholders and beneficiaries especially the scientific community (advanced teaching and research) to make all reports available forthe general public (tax payers (direct or indirect)). Please be informed that all the about 8 billion  people pScience for service in a society is the success story of scientists with serenity as described elsewhere . The comBiology is a complex subject with many unknown facts. So there is a need to expand the scientific community across continents. Therefore, liberal engagement ofscientific views across continents through open access publishing models is highly pertinent in the modern socio economic setup.We quote "It is the principle that communication and expression through various media, including printed and electronic media, especially published materials, shouldbe considered a right to be exercised freely. Such freedom implies the absence of interference from an overreaching state; its preservation may be sought throughconstitutional or other legal protections" as described elsewhere .Role of government should be neutral by upholding freedom of the press (expression and human rights) and natural justice as per article 10 of the constitution of UKor article 19 of the constitution of India. Governments or representatives of governments should stay away from blocking Freedom of the Press (expression). Governmentnotifications in any form in relation to as hindrance to the freedom of the press are unwarranted. It is often biased to certain parties and it is unconstitutional innature. It should be noted that all publications are classified as New Papers under the GST schedule. Hence, biased notifications favoring certain parties in commerceare unwarranted. It should be noted that science for service in a society is the success story of scientists with serenity as described elsewhere. Hence, It should be informed that academic freedom is an integral part of an academy where views and opinion of academicians should be entertained in a free and fair manner.This will accelerate discovery and innovations with improved service having optimal checks and balances where required with transparency. Members of the academy have toolssuch as the RTI and the Honorable ombudsman  in all kIt should be noted that everyone is working or providing service or rendering their skills for a price in a social democracy with pride, equality, freedom and liberty.The authors declare that they adhere with COPE guidelines on publishing ethics as described elsewhere . The autThis is an Open Access Journal which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. This isdistributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License .The journal adheres to COPE guidelines on publishing ethics as described elsewhere . It is tManuscripts are processed immediately within hours from the time of submission so as to make a final decision within 14 days after rigorous checking and editorial(and/or) peer reviews.Writing should be highly critical, concise, coherent, precise, specific and direct to the context.Each statement (except for the last 1 or 2 statements) made under background needs a valid and a closely relevant reference where possible. Please refrain (meaningavoid) from making general statements.Conclusion should be simple and direct in not more than 2-3 statements. Statements should be coherent (connect with one another).The journal uses several available search (TEXT Pattern Matching AND (OR) Natural Language Processing (NLP)) tools (COMMERCIAL and (or) FREE) enabled withrepresentative databases. This is in addition to manual  screening through reading for adequate validation where possible. Please be informed that"inappropriate text recycling" in Abstract, Background, Results, Discussion, Conclusion, Table Captions and Figure Legends are NOT ALLOWED.All manuscripts submitted to BIOINFORMATION  are procThis is very important. Peer review is done on a voluntary basis thanks to the peer reviewers who entertain such services in the interest of data quality. Peerreview should be fair, just and timely. Databases such as Publons in Scholar One   help scrThe role of editors is critical in journal publishing. This does not just remain in handling the manuscript by sending to two reviews and making a decision based ontwo reviews. This may not be justifiable in most cases. The role of editors is to help edit the manuscripts towards improvement and engage the scientific community.Editors usually have dual jobs. Their main role is academia where they draw their salary. Editor’s role is often voluntary and inclusive in nature. The degree of justicein such scenario is debated. Very few editors are 100% dedicated as editors in journal publishing. Reading is easy, writing is difficult and editing is noble.The journal welcomes comments, letter to the editors and post publication reviews as comments from readers.BIOINFORMATION is open access (GOLD).Open access (OA) contribution: An open access (OA) contribution  a final decision is made for FREE. However,withdrawal is not automatically possible after an initial and (or) a final decision is made. These cases will be referred to the board (meets on a monthly basis) for adetailed discussion to take such decision where possible. It should be noted that a minimal processing fee is applicable for using the ScholarOne online software orother third party tools in such cases where the petition is not absolutely fair and (or) justified. Please be informed that this is not applicable for rejected manuscripts.The journal is fully open access. We take all possible steps to comply with publishing ethics as per COPE guidelines . HoweverAuthors are advised to check their manuscript for any unacceptable degree of TEXT recycling using tools as described elsewhere -15 and Discount offer is available for authors who provide self plagiarism check report using tools as described elsewhere -15 duriThe SCOPUS database  is a proEBSCO  is an inSpringer Nature   publications  while practicing publishing through freedom of the Press. It should be notedthat a weak publication will vanish itself in an open access publishing model where contents are made available for free on the WWW. The fundamental question in thiscontext is the definition of host and predator. The second question is the type  and subsequent measure of effect of the predator on the host.Detailed discussion on this issue or any other related issue is welcomed under the freedom of the Press yet conclusion on it will be often biased and is clearlyunwarranted. The parties aware of such concerns should write to the publisher (with address for communication) to take such action within such time to stand corrected.Please be informed that ISSN  is uniquWe thus document the challenges and linked features in promoting open access to bioinformation literature over a period of about 2 decades.Pandjassarame Kangueane  is a sciSenkuttuvan Pavithra received her Bachelor of Commerce (2016) and Master of Commerce (2018) from Pondicherry University, Union Territory of Pondicherry (a Frenchcolony of pre independence India), India. She is an alumni of the alma mater Saradha Gangadharan College, Pondicherry 600 5004 which is affiliated with PondicherryUniversity. She serves as production director at Biomedical Informatics (P) Ltd since 2018.


Contemporary debates about scientific institutions and practice feature many proposed reforms. Most of these require increased efforts from scientists. But how do scientists’ incentives for effort interact? How can scientific institutions encourage scientists to invest effort in research? We explore these questions using a game-theoretic model of publication markets. We employ a base game between authors and reviewers, before assessing some of its tendencies by means of analysis and simulations. We compare how the effort expenditures of these groups interact in our model under a variety of settings, such as double-blind and open review systems. We make a number of findings, including that open review can increase the effort of authors in a range of circumstances and that these effects can manifest in a policy-relevant period of time. However, we find that open review’s impact on authors’ efforts is sensitive to the strength of several other influences. One of science’s strengths is that its institutions and methods are revised in response to experience and analytical criticisms. Today, there are many proposals for reforming various institutions within scientific disciplines. These are partly stimulated by the discovery of the Replication Crisis, in which research in a number of fields—like social psychology and medical research—replicates at a far lower rate than expected  players. To represent the strategy choices of these players, we explore the model’s evolutionary dynamics under several strategy revision algorithms. The first is standard best response dynamics  A logit choice rule assigns a probability to each considered strategy, and the probability is based on its relative performance in previous rounds of the game. The considered strategies with the highest historical average payoff are assigned the highest probability of being selected by the player. Yet the rule also assigns a smaller—but positive—probability to considered strategies with lower-than-maximum historical average payoffs. Thus, each strategy revising player has a nonzero probability of choosing every considered strategy. The analysis of the author-reviewer games that were generated by our choices of parameter values revealed that none of these games were potential or near-potential games.8We also used logit response dynamics Blume,  to modelexogenous noise – a small probability of a strategy-revising player temporarily abandoning their decision rule (whether best response or logit choice) and choosing the next strategy randomly. This stochastic feature may be interpreted as a means of incorporating unpredictable exogenous factors that might incentivise or disincentivise effort expenditures by authors, such as whether an author is approaching a tenure decision. However, authors are still myopic payoff maximisers, because we are interested in identifying the effects of parameter values and institutional settings (such as different review systems) on the players’ strategic choices. Similarly, for reviewers, we incorporate a small probability that reviewers will adopt a less historically successful threshold as their standard. This stochastic element in reviewers’ behaviour can be interpreted as capturing a variety of random exogenous factors that could affect reviewers’ methodological standards. It is another reason for our choice of simulation methods over a purely analytical study. See Sect.  Additionally, as we explain below, our model yields author-reviewer games with multiple Nash equilibria in pure strategies. Therefore, simulations offer a useful tool for exploring the properties of the model by providing its evolutionary dynamics  which would not be derivable from an analytical study. Since logit response dynamics is a smooth approximation of best response dynamics, simulations of logit response dynamics and its comparison with best response dynamics provided an unusually appealing approach towards the analysis of the convergence of populations under logit response dynamics.We explain our model as follows: (1) the base game that schematises a particular author-reviewer interaction and (2) our agent-based model that studies how the strategies in the author and reviewer populations evolve over time under different initial conditions, i.e. parameters and institutional settings. Finally, we detail our simulation process and its outputs.Au denoting an author and a player Re embodying a reviewer. We assume that, in order to pass the editorial desk and enter a peer review process, the author’s effort level must be equal or higher than the minimum threshold Au’s set of strategies is a finite set of effort levels Au. Notice that the maximum possible effort which the author could choose is 1.The base game is a two player Re’s strategies is a set R’s definition in two steps. Firstly, Re. Secondly, Re’s response function which assigns, to every effort-threshold pair a (recommendation to accept) if Au’s incentives in such a way that there are both costs and benefits to expending effort on their research. Au’s base payoff from acceptance of the paper is 1, while rejection yields a base payoff equal to 0. The acceptance base payoff represents the pure reputation bonus from publishing in a good journal, while the rejection base payoff represents the absence of this bonus. In addition, Au receives payoff bonuses which depend on Au’s effort level and Re’s acceptance threshold. The author’s effort level is important for their career, because it is a proxy for article quality, which tends to positively impact an author’s reputation, and because it is costly. The reviewer’s acceptance threshold determines, for a given author effort level, whether the article is accepted, as any author effort level that exceeds the reviewer’s threshold will be published, and otherwise the author’s paper is rejected.We model Au’s effort is costly and the cost is proportional to the invested effort: higher effort is associated with a higher effort cost than lower effort. Formally, Au’s effort cost will be defined as Au’s time, funding, energy, and so on.Au’s expected benefits from effort expenditures. They are also constraining in that the benefits (and costs) from publication are represented by bounded variables. Therefore, there is always a point where the costs of effort expenditure exceed the benefits; we do not assume that Au has an infinite capacity or willingness for effort.Au gets a reputation boost represented by a payoff bonus Au’s chosen effort level and Au obtains from their article. We assume this bonus to be proportional to Au’s effort level. If Au’s payoff from acceptance is sufficiently high, then the author has an incentive to invest above average effort independently of reviewer behaviour. Our interest is when reputation incentives for author effort are insufficient to guarantee high author effort – it is under such circumstances that peer review has an important role of incentivising effort. Given the effort and threshold values that we investigated, we found in simulations that the separation of reviewer behaviour and author effort occurred when In case of acceptance, Au’s final payoffs with a payoff function Au receives positive utility from acceptance, quantified by the positive terms at the top-right of the payoff function, from which their effort level is subtracted to give their overall utility outcome. In the case of rejection, they receive no boost, but suffer the same negative utility from their expenditure of effort.By combining all the aforementioned incentives, we can define Re’s base payoff from accepting or rejecting Au’s paper is 1. We also take Re’s effort costs into account. To incorporate these costs into the model, Re’s final payoff is affected by Au’s effort and Re’s own acceptance threshold. We assume that higher review standards are more costly for the reviewer than lower standards: this reflects the fact that higher review standards will tend to require that a reviewer investigates more questions about the paper’s details. Therefore, by choosing a strategy Re incurs a cost of Re’s chosen acceptance threshold. However, Re also gets a payoff bonus from accepted higher quality papers. This bonus is defined as Au’s chosen effort level, such that Player Re’s final payoffs with a payoff function Re’s utility is affected by the effort they save due to reviewing a paper that clearly exceeds their acceptance threshold.By combining the aforementioned incentives, we can define We now consider the consequences of institutional environment on the structure of the game. We define players’ “community” as the people whose opinion constitutes the reputation of a player. For example, this could include the people reading notifications about new papers in a scientist’s sub-field, but also grant committees and appointment committees who are surveying the scientist’s CV. For reputation, we assume a simple model in which publishing in quality journals has a ratchet effect for players: among papers that can pass the desk at a high quality journal, a player can ratchet up their reputation (beyond their simple publication count) insofar as they can publish papers with above-average effort. This enables their research to “stand out” within their sub-field. Of course, in the real world, there are diminishing marginal utilities for new high effort publications: for instance, a single notable paper means more for a young scientist pursuing tenure than for a world-famous superstar scientist. On the other hand, top academics also face reputational pressures to maintain their reputation by continuing to publish at a high level. The strengths of these effects are not obvious. For our exploratory purposes and our focus on population level tendencies, we can simplify without obvious loss by assuming that each player has the same bonus for standing out from their peers.Au’s accepted work, but also Re’s review of Au’s accepted paper. In this case, the community can take a more active role in evaluating the quality of the peer-review process and awarding a reputation bonus to authors and reviewers who promote above average effort standards. Under open review, Au and Re receive a reputation bonus from acceptance if Re adopts an acceptance threshold that is higher than the average of possible threshold levels. For Au and Re, this reputation bonus is defined as Re, and Re obtains a reputation bonus under open review if they are shown to have high requirements for author effort, relative to the average for reviewers in the sub-field. Similarly, Au receives a reputation bonus if they are seen to have successfully convinced a tougher-than-average reviewer to recommend their paper for acceptance. By separating the reputation boost from the article  authors must consider a wide range of information, including both their own experiences and those of their peers. To incorporate this situation into our model, we use an agent-based model in which authors can update their strategies. The model represents the interaction between a population of authors and a population of reviewers who are repeatedly matched to play the author-reviewer game. In our simulation game, we assume that In our model, players always have a discrete set of strategies to pick from. What if we allow them to pick from a continuous set of strategies? This setting would have some advantages for obtaining general analytical results about the Nash equilibria of the considered games. It could be an interesting topic for future research. However, this approach would have some disadvantages with respect to our current objectives. Firstly, a discrete set of strategies aides the realism of our model. We want to incorporate the imitation of successful peers by authors and reviewers, and it is unrealistic to suppose that imitators could make infinitely fine-grained discriminations between peers’ effort levels. It is also implausible that researchers have infinitely fine-grained control over their own effort levels. Secondly, we want to assume that researchers are boundedly rational, and so we use best response and logit choice protocols for strategy choices, as we detail below. In non-potential games, these approaches require a finite set of strategies. With logit response dynamics in particular, any meaningful convergence results within a finite number of simulation rounds can only be expected with a limited number of strategies in the initial population state.and its convergence tendencies.Additionally, while analytic proofs of equilibrium have their advantages, they have some limitations for studying policy changes, such as a journal’s change from double-blind reviewing to open review. An equilibrium analysis of the game is not sufficient to identify its evolutionarily and stochastically stable population states. By contrast, analytic methods can be used to study stochastically stable states in potential games, as well as evolutionarily stable states. Yet simulations have an additional advantage of revealing the convergence trajectories from the initial population states to the evolutionarily or stochastically stable states, and thus allows us to study convergence in our finite population games with multiple evolutionarily or stochastically stable states. In addition, simulations allow us to both study the evolutionary dynamics in games that do not have evolutionarily stable states and to evaluate the population convergence speed under different dynamics. Suppose that open review has a preferable evolutionarily or stochastically stable state. It is possible that convergence to a stable population state might take an extremely long time – potentially longer than the existence of the human species. If the benefits of the policy change take too long to manifest, then editors are likely to revert to the more familiar system. Additionally, if they revert or the benefits do not manifest in a practically relevant period of time, then editors will have made the adjustment costs without obtaining the benefits of the preferable system. A simulation-based approach has the advantage that we can obtain information about both the evolutionarily and stochastically stable properties of the model n candidates which includes In the initial population state, each strategy and effort level is assigned to 300 agents. This is done to eliminate any artificial bias which may act in favour of certain types of agents. We use a probabilistic strategy revision procedure: in every round of the game, there is a 0.122 probability of each agent being assigned a strategy revision opportunity. This number means that, on average, around 219 agents have the opportunity to revise strategies in each round. The strategy revision procedure is imitative. Once the agent has an opportunity to revise their strategy, the agent compiles a list of hth row of the record is a pair hth observation. If a strategy revising agent chooses from finite set of strategies b is in the set of candidate strategies with the highest average payoff record, then the player sticks to strategy b. If the set of strategies with the highest average payoff record contains multiple strategies but does not contain a player’s strategy b, then the player makes a uniformly randomized choice among the strategies in that set.Each candidate plays the agent-reviewer game against every type of opponent, and the strategy revising agent observes the average payoff obtained by each candidate. The strategy revising agent thus obtains a candidate record The logit choice protocol defines the probability of agent switching to strategy We set a low logit noise level For simulations, we used the ABED simulation package for NetLogo developed by Izquierdo et al. . Each siPrior to the simulations, for each combination of the values of mentclass2pt{minimmentclass2pt{minimP for the 6 strategies we considered. In all simulations, the final goal was to compute the expected value of authors’ effort levels asAfter the Nash equilibria check, we ran simulations for the set number of rounds for each payoff matrix, and we assessed a discrete probability distribution We report the expected values for the logit dynamics case with noise and with mentclasspt{minimaFor the logit dynamics case with noise, we provide graphical comparisons of the strategy distributions for authors and reviewers in Figs. not mean that authors are expending low levels of effort on their papers, because all the papers that we model have at least enough effort to “pass the desk” at good journals. However, it does mean that authors are choosing the lowest possible effort levels given the constraints posed by the editorial desk. When We shall begin by summarising the impact of the player variables in our model: The general tendencies of In the subsections below, we shall explain our results under the wide range of variations that we studied. For each value of solely from having published at all in a good journal (and reviewer’s reports under open review) rather than assessments of their effort in papers. Put another way, in that case, journal reputations and reviewer reports are always used as proxies for assessing authors’ efforts. Under double-blind review  Reputation bonuses for author effort, represented by An example of an institutional move in this direction is a feature of the UK government’s Research Excellence Framework (previously “Research Assessment Exercise”) which is a regular governmental assessment of the UK’s departments with respect to their suitability for receiving future research funds REF, . Individ(5) Methodologically, we found that simulations were a suitable tool for evaluating the peer review systems’ effects on effort. Normally, in mechanism design, we can assume considerable control by the designer (or those whom they are advising) over the system being studied. However, in our study’s field of inquiry, journal editors, publishers, and other powerful figures within scientific publishing can choose among peer review systems, but not the evaluations of authors’ contributions by the scientific community. Thus, the reputation effects fall outside of designer’s control, and so optimal solutions of the model have no practical interest. This uncertainty also means that, instead of determining what will happen given a change of peer review system from double-blinding to open review, we must consider several plausible reactions by the community and simulate the consequences within our model.(6) One concern that some scientists and editors have for open review is that early career researchers will be timorous with useful criticisms, especially when reviewing the research of more senior researchers. One possible system for dealing with this concern is “transparent peer review”, where reviewers are anonymous but the reports for accepted papers are published alongside the articles  With respect to the preceding points, it is important to recognise the limitations of our study. We have only considered one dimension of the peer review system: its role in encouraging author effort. Consequently, there are many aspects that our model does not capture, such as the fairness of the system. Some of these aspects might be tractable in future work. For instance, a very demanding peer review system might lead to reviewers and/or authors dropping out. Incorporating that possibility into our model would require very fundamental changes, including tracking players’ utilities and expanding their choice sets. Peer review is a complex social system that cannot be fully represented within any particular model, but we hope to be able to explore these further dimensions of peer review in future research.i that determines their reputation bonus from investing that effort into a published article. In the real world, the An important proviso to all these points is that our model might not reflect the relevant realities of peer review. Nonetheless, it is helpful as a means of generating hypotheses for empirical investigation, identifying strategic possibilities, and enabling greater clarity in the formulation of different claims about the interactive effects of choices by authors and reviewers. Consider valarias , Parchomvalarias , Smaldinvalarias , and Tiovalarias .We have demonstrated how game theory can help us to think about peer review institutions and how they affect research effort. Although we have utilised simulation methods, we have not sought to advance simulation methods at a technical level. Yet this familiarity is a strength, because our topic is so new that it would be risky to combine both novel methods and a novel domain. Our use of well-grounded tools removes this risk. Simulations proved to be useful methods for our study, due to multiple Nash equilibria, stochastic elements, and their graphical displays of the model’s evolutionary dynamics.Considering our model as a whole, there is always a trade-off between tractability and detail. If we added many more variables, it would become extremely difficult to isolate the effects of changing any specific part of our model. However, to model double-blind and open review, we had to include enough variables to demarcate the primary effort differences in these systems’ incentive structures. Another aspect is relevance. Each variable proved to be important under some circumstances. For the variables There are several exciting areas in which our research can be extended. Firstly, editors are absent in our model, except insofar as we assume that they have already filtered out low-effort papers. Since their decisions affect those of authors and reviewers, it would be interesting to incorporate them into the model.


Brain Communications and our sister journal Brain are put back into the translational neuroscience community.Two members of our Editorial Board discuss how the proceeds from article processing charges from   Brain Communications. In this editorial, we will try to convince you that publishing in academic-led, community-oriented journals like ours is a better use of your hard-earned grant money than publishing in for-profit journals. Where to send papers for publication can be a difficult choice and one that often leads to heated debates amongst authors. We all want to find the right ‘home’ for our research, to publish it in journals visible to our peers. For many, this is synonymous with high-impact journals, especially since publications in high ‘impact’ journals are still considered by some institutions to be important for promotions and grant success.Welcome to Volume 5, Issue 5 of However, the impact of the paper is not determined by the impact factor of the journal in which it is published, but rather, by whether the science it presents is impactful and whether the right audience is targeted.Brain and Brain Communications to support fellowships, meetings, and travel grants to attend conferences or to do pro-bono work in low-income countries (see https://guarantorsofbrain.org/). The Guarantors of Brain have funded over 50 fellowships in the past 4 years to support both clinical and non-clinical neuroscientists early in their careers (see https://guarantorsofbrain.org/brain-fellows/). In a very satisfying full-circle, several of these fellows have published their work in our journals, see for example Sheybani et al. 1 and Ruffle et al.2Perhaps, another important factor to consider in choosing where to send papers, which may not always come to mind, is where the money earned by the journal goes. For the society or charity-owned journals like ours, the surplus funds raised beyond the costs associated with publishing are put back into the scientific community. In our case, The Guarantors of Brain charity uses money raised by European Journal of Neuroscience which supports the Federation of European Neuroscience, Brain and Neuroscience Advances which supports the British Neuroscience Association, the Journal of Neuroscience which supports the US Society for Neuroscience, and Science which supports the American Association for the Advancement of Science.Similar society journals in the neuroscience space that we are also fans of are the Nature journals) have come under fire for charging what some scientists see as exorbitant fees for publications to raise their already high-profit margins.4 In our case, our publishing partner, Oxford University Press, is also a not-for-profit department of the University of Oxford, whose mission is to further excellence in research, scholarship, and education .While all charity journals support the aims and values of their societies, some still use publishing partners that make a profit like Wiley and Elsevier. Elsevier and Springer-Nature (the publisher of the Brain Communications may remember we wrote our thoughts on the use of impact factor as a metric for papers in an editorial last year.5 In the meantime, our journal has been bestowed an impact factor by Clarivate. We are proud that our papers are being read and cited by the community, but we are equally proud of our ethos to value replication studies and de-emphasize the need for novelty, so we are not widely promoting our impact factor, although it is on our website if you want to see it.We are of the view that such considerations, which are key to building a more inclusive scientific community, should take precedence over that of the impact factor of the journal. In our view, it is the responsibility of all of us when acting on hiring and promotions committees and grant panels to deflate the undue weight put on the impact factor of the journal where a work has been published and add more value to the strength of the work instead. Avid readers of The cover image of this issue shows a piece of donated cortical brain tissue received at autopsy before processing for high-resolution imaging and molecular studies in Professor Tara Spires-Jones’ lab. This heart-shaped piece of tissue reminds authors of the generosity of our brain donors and their families who made the research possible.


A frequent complaint of editors of scientific journals is that it has become increasingly difficult to find reviewers for evaluating submitted manuscripts. Such claims are, most commonly, based on anecdotal evidence. To gain more insight grounded on empirical evidence, editorial data of manuscripts submitted for publication to the Journal of Comparative Physiology A between 2014 and 2021 were analyzed. No evidence was found that more invitations were necessary over time to get manuscripts reviewed; that the reviewer’s response time after invitation increased; that the number of reviewers who completed their reports, relative to the number of reviewers who had agreed to review a manuscript, decreased; and that the recommendation behavior of reviewers changed. The only significant trend observed was among reviewers who completed their reports later than agreed. The average number of days that these reviewers submitted their evaluations roughly doubled over the period analyzed. By contrast, neither the proportion of late vs. early reviews, nor the time for completing the reviews among the punctual reviewers, changed. Comparison with editorial data from other journals suggests that journals that serve a smaller community of readers and authors, and whose editors themselves contact potential reviewers, perform better in terms of reviewer recruitment and performance than journals that receive large numbers of submissions and use editorial assistants for sending invitations to potential reviewers. No question, just the thought of having to come up with the names of 40 suitable reviewers is not something that even the best-networked editor looks forward to!When I talk to other editors, they frequently complain about increasing difficulties to find reviewers for evaluating submitted manuscripts. These comments are often supported by anecdotes like “I recently had to invite Although I haven’t seen numbers as large as 40 among the Editorial Board of the Journal of Comparative Physiology A, in some (rare?) instances it is, indeed, necessary to approach an unusually large number of potential reviewers. Recently, I had to invite 19 colleagues to receive two reviews for a manuscript. However, how well do ‘gut feeling’ and ‘anecdotal evidence’ reflect the actual situation at a given journal and at scientific journals in general? Has it really become more difficult over the last few years, including the years dominated by the COVID-19 crisis, to find reviewers who accept the editors’ invitation and (!) deliver their reports, hopefully within the agreed time frame? And along similar lines: Has the recommendation behavior of reviewers—whether they recommend rejection, acceptance, or revision of manuscripts—changed over these years?To address some of the myths frequently expressed about peer review in scientific publishing, I analyzed data collected during editorial processing of manuscripts submitted to the Journal of Comparative Physiology A between 2014 and 2021. Like erroneous beliefs about reviewers suggested by authors Zupanc , the resFor the analysis, reviewer invitation data were collected over the period between January 1, 2014, and December 31, 2021. Throughout these 8 years, Editorial Manager  was used by the Journal of Comparative Physiology A as its online platform for submission, peer review, and editorial processing of manuscripts. Since Editorial Manager had become the Journal’s management platform on July 1, 2013, editors were (presumably) familiar with its peer-review functions by January 1, 2014, when the analysis for the present Editorial started. On the other hand, as SNAPP (Springer Nature’s Article Processing Platform) replaced Editorial Manager in February 2022, and the peer-review functions of these two systems differ considerably, I decided to not extend the analysis beyond December 31, 2021, to avoid possible data distortion.Statistical data for each of the 8 years were compiled using the Journal Accountability Report function in Editorial Manager. For statistical analysis, one-way ANOVA was conducted in IBM SPSS Statistics, version 28.0.0.0 .During the period of 2014–2021, 1097 new manuscripts  were submitted to the Journal of Comparative Physiology A via Editorial Manager. During the same period, a total of 3776 reviewers were invited and 2304 reviews were completed. These numbers include reviews of original manuscripts and possible revised versions of the reviewed manuscripts. Revised manuscripts were, according to the standard editorial processing protocol, reviewed by the same reviewer(s) who evaluated the original submission. On the other hand, editors of the Journal of Comparative Physiology A avoided inviting reviewers excessively. This is indicated by the fact that the average reviewer completed just 2.2 reports over the entire 8 years analyzed.p = 0.992).To address this myth, I determined the number of invitations sent out per submission for every year between 2014 and 2021. This ratio fluctuated between 3.0 and 4.1 .To address this myth, I determined the mean time (in days) between sending out an invitation and receiving a response from potential reviewers. This response time has been remarkably constant, varying between 1.9 and 2.3 days during 2014–2021   and did not change significantly over the period examined (VA) Fig. c.p = 0.191, one-way ANOVA)  , the average number of days late reviewers submitted their reports late increased significantly over this period   submitted their reports earlier than agreed, whereas others (approximately one-third) were late. These fractions did not change significantly over the years   of the reviews was completed later and later might, indeed, reflect such reduced time availability. At the same time, it is notable that the proportion of late reviews versus early reviews did not change; and the number of days that punctual reviewers submitted their reports early was highly constant over the period analyzed.Apart from the significant trend in the time it took for late reviewers to complete their reviews, how can the mismatch between the widely perceived and generalized difficulty of finding reviewers for manuscripts, and the lack of empirical evidence in support of this notion at the Journal of Comparative Physiology A, be explained? Perhaps, the simplest explanation is that editors do not behave differently from ‘ordinary’ people when it comes to drawing unwarranted conclusions on the basis of one or a few instances. While it is true that in a few instances an excessive number of invitations is required to secure reviews for a manuscript, the claim that it has become more difficult to find reviewers in recent years is simply the result of a hasty generalization fallacy, like many other claims made in daily life.Despite important implications for peer review and scientific publishing in general, little empirical data have been published on recruitment and performance of reviewers at other journals. An analysis of six journals in the areas of ecology and evolution over the period of 2003–2015 found that the proportion of review invitations that led to submission of review reports had decreased steadily for four of these journals, yet no decline was evident for the other two journals (Fox et al. It is frequently assumed that reviewer fatigue caused by too many review requests is the driving force behind the increases seen in the number of reviewers declining the editors’ invitations. However, no convincing evidence has yet been presented in support of this claim. Further analysis of the data collected for Acta Ophthalmologica, and the four journals in ecology and evolution that had experienced a decline in the reviewers’ willingness to evaluate submissions, showed that the average number of reviews per individual reviewer, or the number of review requests per potential reviewer, had not increased over the examined time frame (Fox et al. The above empirical evidence, as limited as it may be, indicates that trends over recent years in recruitment and performance of reviewers differ among different journals. Yet, it is less clear what causes this difference. Fox et al.  have speAnother factor that might play a role in the reviewers’ response is the size of the community that a journal is serving. Journals that receive well over 1000 submissions per year, such as the Acta Ophthalmologica, need to rely on large databases and on search algorithms to identify suitable reviewers whom the editors, in many cases, do not personally know. By contrast, the community served by the Journal of Comparative Physiology A is much smaller. Many of the potential reviewers who are invited to evaluate manuscripts are known personally to the editors, and a substantial portion of them have authored papers that have appeared in the Journal. Each member of the current Advisory Board—a main source for reviewer recruitment—has published in the Journal of Comparative Physiology A, and over 20% of them have authored 10 or more articles. This has created a sense of belonging to the loyal community of readers, authors, and reviewers. Nevertheless, the editors never take the service of the reviewers for granted. On behalf of the Editorial Board, I would like to express our gratitude to all of them for volunteering their time to advise us and to improve the quality of the articles that are submitted and eventually published.


In August 2023 I will be honored to begin as the Editor-in-Chief of Advances in Nutrition. This journal, although relatively young, having started only 13 years ago, has had a remarkable course in becoming an important home for the highest quality review articles covering the field of nutritional sciences. Under initial Editor-in-Chief John Suttie and more recently Katherine Tucker, the journal has thrived and earned a central role in the nutrition field. It has become a place of discussion, perspective, and insight into the nutrition field of value to scientists, dietitians, physicians, and the public.We are excited to announce that our journal will move to a monthly publication model in January 2024. This change allows us to increase both the number of journal issues published and the rate at which we present the research you conduct to the public and the scientific and medical communities. We will be introducing editorials related to a few review articles in upcoming issues. This allows an additional independent perspective on topics of importance and the field of research being reviewed.Advances in Nutrition moved to a gold open access format in 2023. This allows its articles to be available without cost throughout the world but also requires publication fees. The open access model is a critical and positive step forward and we are excited that it enhances our goals of equity and global dissemination of nutritional research. However, we recognize the challenges this poses for some submitting authors, especially those with limited funding, and will do our best to assist authors who need assistance. Please feel free to contact me or ASN for any questions regarding our policies in this regard.Advances in Nutrition is in excellent shape due to the hard work and skill of its editors and the American Society for Nutrition (ASN) staff to develop its mission and maintain excellence in the articles it publishes. Moving forward I hope to maintain this commitment to a high level of integrity and scientific rigor and push forward in several areas. First, it is critical that the journal serve to support diversity, equity, and inclusion in the field of nutritional science and publications of scientific research. We are committed to this and will strive to ensure that our authors, reviewers, and editors are cognizant of these perspectives and the critical importance of inclusion of all segments of the global population. Our publication will ensure a full understanding of the important cultural aspects of food and nutrition in society. We plan to broaden the editorial board and associate editor group to increase representation from differing areas of the world and population groups. We welcome articles that review issues related to nutritional diversity and public policy in support of a healthier world and social justice in ensuring safe and equitable food for all individuals.The journal should also serve as an educational vehicle for trainees in the fields of nutrition and medicine. We encourage submissions by trainees and review of submitted articles by trainees with guidance by faculty and other supervisors. We welcome the opportunity to provide direct feedback to trainees on their submissions to enhance their interaction with the publication of science and communication of scientific findings to the public. This includes providing information via social media and podcasts as is appropriate.th edition of the Nutrition Handbook (Yellow book) published by the AAP. I have served in a variety of federal policy roles, including being a member of the 2015 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC) and now the 2025 DGAC.By way of personal background, I am a pediatrician who is an academic faculty member at the University of Texas at Austin. I continue to practice clinical medicine as a neonatologist. My research has focused on the nutritional needs of infants and children. I am involved and committed to engaging in national and global health policy discussions regarding the critical role of nutrition in the development and health of infants and small children. I served as a member and later chair of the Committee on Nutrition of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and am co-Editor of the upcoming 9rd editor-in-chief of Advances in Nutrition and would be delighted to directly speak or correspond with members of the nutrition community about the journal. You may email me at sabrams@nutrition.org with your thoughts and suggestions.Once again, I’m grateful for this opportunity to become the 3


The prospect of a medium-term approval of physician-assisted death in Portugal raises relevant ethical and deontological issues that need to be addressed, namely the framework of psychiatric assessments in this process. Such assessments are undermined by the lack of scientific precision in the methods used to determine decision-making capacity, making it possible for the final decision to be affected by psychiatrists’ personal beliefs. As such, outlining scientific evidence and legislation pieces defining the psychiatrists’ role and scope is of utmost importance to frame this debate.To synthetize the accumulated evidence worldwide regarding the psychiatrists’ involvement in the global process of physician-assisted death requests by reviewing scientific literature, published protocols, official reports and international promulgated or amended legislation related to hasten death practices.PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, PsycInfo and Google Scholar electronic bibliographic databases will be searched for eligible articles, as well as grey literature, using the following search terms: Psychiatry AND (Euthanasia OR (Suicide AND Assisted)). Official governments’ and countries health authorities’ websites will also be searched for relevant reports and legislation documents, as well as right-to-die organizations and akin associations. No language, date of publication, or geographical restrictions will be applied. The full text of potentially relevant results will be retrieved from the different sources for review after screening titles and abstracts. This two-stage process will be conducted independently by two researchers. Outcomes of interest will be the descriptions of psychiatric role in the process of physician-assisted death requests, assessment methods, and measurement techniques used.Given the fact that physician-assisted death is legalized only in a few jurisdictions, we believe the number of eligible results will be limited. Data will be extracted and a descriptive summary of the evidence will be provided. We anticipate finding a significant variability, but also to identify points of consensus. The findings will be published in a peer-review indexed journal and presented at national and international conferences.To our knowledge, this is the first review of both, scientific published literature, and international legislation on the role of psychiatrists in physician-assisted death requests. We hope to provide an international overview to frame the public debate by pinpointing the most consensual assessment methodology, allowing to design an optimized assessment protocol before the implementation of the law in Portugal.None Declared


There is growing recognition that animal methods bias, a preference for animal‐based methods where they are not necessary or where nonanimal‐based methods may already be suitable, can impact the likelihood or timeliness of a manuscript being accepted for publication. Following April 2022 workshop about animal methods bias in scientific publishing, a coalition of scientists and advocates formed a Coalition to Illuminate and Address Animal Methods Bias (COLAAB). The COLAAB has developed this guide to be used by authors who use nonanimal methods to avoid and respond to animal methods bias from manuscript reviewers. It contains information that researchers may use during 1) study design, including how to find and select appropriate nonanimal methods and preregister a research plan, 2) manuscript preparation and submission, including tips for discussing methods and choosing journals and reviewers that may be more receptive to nonanimal methods, and 3) the peer review process, providing suggested language and literature to aid authors in responding to biased reviews. The author's guide for addressing animal methods bias in publishing is a living resource also available online at animalmethodsbias.org, which aims to help ensure fair dissemination of research that uses nonanimal methods and prevent unnecessary experiments on animals. This guide is created by the Coalition to Illuminate and Address Animal Methods Bias to help authors avoid the negative impacts of reviewers’ preference for animal‐based methods. Intended for researchers who use nonanimal methods, including in vitro models and primary human tissue, it contains resources and information regarding study design, preregistration, manuscript preparation and submission, and reviewer communications. Preliminary evidence of this bias indicates that some researchers perform animal‐based experiments solely in anticipation of reviewer requests for them. It has also been shown that reviewers sometimes ask authors to add animal experimental data to studies that otherwise had no animal‐based component, a request that authors often feel is scientifically or ethically unjustified. The source of this bias may be attributed to the research enterprises’ reliance on animals and/or a lack of awareness or trust in appropriate innovative nonanimal methods, both of which may result in reviewers’ preferences for animal‐based methods and thus incentivize the use of animals where they are not necessary.Within scientific publishing, peer review is intended to serve as a mechanism by which manuscripts can be assessed and improved to assure the rigor of published research. However, the system also introduces biases that can affect the likelihood of a manuscript's publication, result in the undertaking of additional experiments, or alter the authors’ communication of their findings to readers.1 We r Reviewers who request validation of findings in an animal model are often basing this request on the presumption that animals are the gold standard in biomedical research, failing to consider that human data or human‐specific models like organ chips may be better suited. Furthermore, a reviewer's prescription of a particular method may be inappropriate; while it is often fair to request more evidence, limiting how that evidence is to be gathered can cause unnecessary pressure or stifle innovation. Animal methods bias not only has ethical, time, and cost implications, but it may also contribute to the poor translatability of findings from animal experiments to human clinical outcomes. It can also have career consequences for researchers who use nonanimal methods, causing delays in publication, forcing authors to publish in lower‐impact journals, or leading early‐stage researchers to pursue animal methods because of the impression that they must do so in order to publish and progress their careers. It is therefore important for researchers who use nonanimal methods to understand how to avoid reviewer animal methods bias and address it if necessary.Researchers may choose to use nonanimal experimental models for a variety of reasons, including 1) their ability to reliably mimic human biology and clinical responses, 2) their potential advantages over comparable animal‐based approaches, such as microenvironmental control, longitudinal monitoring, high‐throughput capacity, and patient‐specificity, and 3) their lower resource and ethical burdens.3, 4 Members of the COLAAB created this guide to help authors avoid and overcome animal methods bias at various stages throughout the manuscript preparation and submission process. It is intended for life sciences and biomedical researchers who use nonanimal, human‐specific, in silico, or in vitro methods. It contains the following measures, resources, and tools that authors can use before and during manuscript submission, as well as after receiving potentially biased peer reviews:A comprehensive bibliography of pertinent resources and references that authors can use at any stage of research;Recommendations for authors to design their studies using human‐based models and datasets as validation, to preregister their research plans, and to properly frame and report their findings to prevent reviewers from providing biased reviews;Recommendations for determining the best journal for submission and for suggesting suitable reviewers; andA step‐by‐step guide for responding to biased reviews in a variety of different scenarios that authors may find themselves, including when reviewers make unsubstantiated critiques or requests for animal experimental validation of findings.Following an April 2022 workshop that gathered stakeholders from publishing, academia, industry, government, and non‐governmental organizations to discuss animal methods bias in scientific publishing, a coalition of scientists and advocates formed the Coalition to Illuminate and Address Animal Methods Bias (COLAAB) to build evidence and develop mitigation strategies.6 MembThis guide is also available online at animalmethodsbias.org as a living resource that will be updated regularly by members of the COLAAB. While this guide is primarily intended for authors, editors and reviewers may also find it useful.2Because animal methods bias can result in publication delays or even manuscript rejection, authors who use nonanimal modeling systems should take preventive steps to avoid these negative outcomes. The following resources and recommendations aim to help authors avert animal methods bias prior to submission, from the study design stage onwards. A comprehensive bibliography of resources presented as a shared Zotero library may be useful for authors during any stage of research, from study design to manuscript preparation to responding to reviewers. See Section 2.1Animal research policy and legislation across several governing regions;Literature about preparing manuscripts, publishing biases, and peer review;Scholarship about animal model validity and translatability; andReviews, methods papers, and examples of successful applications of nonanimal modeling systems.This bibliography consists of a variety of resources, including:Any author can access this library, and any researcher or advocate can contribute to the library by applying for contributing access.https://www.zotero.org/groups/4803770/animal_method_bias_mitigation_group/library.The bibliography, which is formatted as a shared Zotero library, can be accessed here: 2.2The first step to counter animal methods bias in publishing is to anticipate its potential to occur. When preparing a manuscript for a nonanimal‐based study, authors should discuss the inadequacies of animal experimentation and the availability of suitable nonanimal method alternatives in the relevant field of research. Authors should also consider performing additional nonanimal experiments to corroborate findings. These measures can proactively counter downstream reviewer bias.Table In addition, Table 72.3 It can improve research quality, transparency, and reproducibility, potentially increasing the likelihood of a final manuscript's acceptance. Preregistration enables researchers to demonstrate their goals and justify their methods before data is collected or analyzed and allows early input from peers. It is already mandatory for clinical trials.Preregistration is the process of specifying a research plan before conducting the study and submitting it to a registry or as a registered report to be peer‐reviewed and published in a journal.8 It c Preregistration's effect on research quality, transparency, and reproducibility makes it particularly beneficial in the context of nonanimal methods as trust continues to build in these novel approaches. Furthermore, because it strengthens the justification for a study's design prospectively, preregistration can bolster a nonanimal‐based study against unjustified reviewer critiques about the methods used. It may even prevent peer reviewers from requesting animal experiments to validate findings as it establishes a complete research plan to which authors can refer. Preregistration allows a more complete scientific record of a study, whereby sharing and publishing negative results is encouraged. Historically, negative results have been disfavored by the publishing system and missing in published scientific literature. Reporting negative results is of immense value during subsequent studies when authors must justify experiments and make the case for not performing or repeating animal experiments for further validation. See Section Table Because nonanimal methods are relatively novel compared to animal‐based approaches, confidence in their ability to model human biology and clinical characteristics is still being established within the scientific community.11 Pre2.3.1https://www.cos.io/initiatives/preregCenter for Open Science information about preregistration: https://help.osf.io/article/158‐create‐a‐preregistrationHow to submit preregistration to the Open Science Framework registry: https://www.cos.io/initiatives/registered‐reportsCenter for Open Science information about registered reports: https://www.cos.io/initiatives/registered‐reports)Journals that offer the registered report article type: the Center for Open Science Registered Reports database . Details such as the number of replicates, blinding procedures, temperatures, times, reagents used, and many more are crucial for authors to include. Adherence to these guidelines may not be a requirement for a particular study, but their implementation can enhance a study's quality and make the results more reliable and credible to the broader scientific community and reviewers.Authors must ensure that other researchers can replicate their study procedures and findings by being fully transparent and detailed with methodological procedures and data. This is especially important for studies that employ nonanimal methods as scientific confidence in these approaches is still being built.11 AllOverselling findings and overstating facts can lead to flawed reproducibility and false claims. Conclusions must be drawn accurately from the data and evidence provided. New and exciting methods can tempt researchers to overstate the power of the method used and may draw criticism or even rejection from editors and reviewers. Overstating could also lead to requests for further validation experiments, especially validation in animals. Along the same lines, it is also important for authors to adequately address the limitations of their study, which can be framed as areas of future investigation.3At the editorial and peer review stages, when animal methods bias manifests, it may result in a lengthy revision period or ultimately rejection if authors fail to comply with requests for animal experiments. To minimize these undesirable outcomes, the COLAAB has compiled the following resources for use during manuscript submission, including a list of journals with a track record of publishing nonanimal studies for consideration upon submission, as well as recommendations for suggesting reviewers.3.1Submitting to an appropriate journal may not guarantee a total avoidance of the effects of animal methods bias, but it can reduce them. Choosing the right journal is important for other reasons, like maximizing the study's reach and impact. To determine if a journal is the right fit, it is important to check the study fits within its scope, and recent issues should also be checked for articles that contain a similar methodology as the study ready for submission. Considering the journal's audience is also crucial to this decision.) ahead of journal peer review. Among other benefits, open peer review may improve the quality, transparency, and reproducibility of research, and it may prevent or mitigate biases, including animal methods bias. Improving academic publishing and the peer review process is a hotly contested issue, though. The effect of open review on animal methods bias has not yet been investigated or demonstrated, and it may introduce other biases, such as racial, gender, or seniority biases. These are all important factors when considering where to submit.Other compelling journal characteristics may also be considered, such as open access, open peer review, and how likely the journal is to accept negative results Table . Open pe16) ahTable The journals listed in Table There are useful tools that can also help to find a good potential match for a manuscript. Table 213.2Authors are often provided an opportunity to suggest reviewers for their manuscript. Authors should take advantage of the opportunity to suggest reviewers because 1) finding peer reviewers is increasingly difficult for editors; 2) having appropriate reviewers with the expertise and capacity to objectively evaluate a study is beneficial to authors; and 3) avoiding animal‐biased reviewers can save time, energy, and resources.not use reviewers they suggest; however, this may be unfounded. While there is no guarantee that editors will use the suggested reviewers, there is little evidence demonstrating that editors actively avoid them. If given the opportunity to provide suggested reviewers in the cover letter, authors are encouraged to explain in one or two sentences why they were chosen. In Section Some authors might fear that an editor will purposefully 3.2.13.2.1.1Try to suggest 3–6 reviewers to provide to editors when you submit your manuscript.every area of your study; it is fine to suggest reviewers with expertise in a part of the study, like the experimental system or the tissue or disease type.The most important characteristic of a suggested reviewer is appropriate expertise. Look for experts in the same field or methodology. A good place to start is to look for authors in your manuscript's reference list. You may not find researchers who have expertise in Look for experts who understand the value of nonanimal methods. You may wish to look specifically for researchers who do not use animals, but it may be more important to look for researchers who have been explicit about the benefits of nonanimal methods and the limitations of animal‐based methods. Check the introductions and methods of their recent papers for this sort of evidence. The inclusion of diverse peer reviewers is important for addressing structural racism, sexism, and other forms of oppression in biomedical research and academia and may improve the quality of reviews. Early‐career reviewers may be more likely to say yes to review, and they may be more likely to provide a high‐quality review. An effective way to find early‐career reviewers is to look within the lab or among the collaborators of a more prominent, senior researcher.Look for demographic, global, and career‐stage diversity. Diversity improves the quality and impact of science.23 TheDo not suggest reviewers at your institution or who you have worked with in the last two years. This would present a serious conflict of interest.Do not contact the reviewers; that is the editor's job.4Every peer review is different and there is no one‐size‐fits‐all response to reviews. Nonetheless, the following guidelines can help authors to identify biased reviews and address them confidently. More detailed scenarios and guidelines for responding are provided in Figure A reviewer's animal methods bias can manifest in a variety of ways, including 1) the use of biased language Section ; 2) reco26 Mor1 In addition to perpetuating biases, peer reviewers’ language can harm researchers. Peer reviews can sometimes contain condescending or excessively opinionated language. Reviews containing insulting comments or ad hominem attacks are unprofessional and authors should report these to journal editors.Language that seems to be objective, free from prejudice, or stating plain facts may still perpetuate bias and harm against non‐human animals used in research. For example, the term “animal model” could be seen as reductionist language portraying sentient beings as products from a biomedical catalog. The following phrase, “a cancer mouse model was produced using CRISPR/Cas9,” conveys a scientific methodology in a straightforward way, but it hides the fact that the mice were genetically altered in utero and born to develop severe tumors that cause them pain, immobility, and lack of appetite and playfulness. Being aware of language's hidden harms can begin to shift the narrative from laboratory animals as mere inanimate resources to one that recognizes their sentience and moral status.27 In To adequately respond to reviewers, authors must assess reviews for clarity, relevance, and feasibility. The flowchart in Figure First, authors should ensure that the purpose of a reviewer's request is well understood. If the review is unclear, authors should ask for clarification and further explanation  concerns without using animals and instead using resources such as human‐based models and datasets .As previously mentioned, ensuring the reproducibility of nonanimal methods, especially newly developed techniques, can enhance their reliability and credibility within the broader scientific community. Therefore, we encourage authors to consider publishing detailed protocols within the original manuscript , in a repository such as figshare,30 or Bias mitigation is not straightforward. Nevertheless, there has been no previous set of recommendations for authors to mitigate the negative effects of animal methods bias, and the tools provided herein serve as an important starting point. This guidance document is also presented as a living resource online at animalmethodsbias.org where it will be updated periodically as relevant information evolves. The COLAAB welcomes any suggestions to add to, remove from, or amend this guidance. We encourage researchers to contact the corresponding author with such suggestions. The COLAAB also intends to explore ways of building a community around animal methods bias, particularly for authors to share experiences or reviewer communications and provide peer‐to‐peer support. While this guide may be useful for editors and reviewers, interventions that are more tailored to their responsibilities will likely be more effective. The COLAAB aims to continue to explore these and other mitigation strategies.As much as animal methods bias can be prevented and addressed on the part of the authors, it is a systemic issue that will require systemic solutions. These include actions on the part of publishers to implement guidelines and bias training for editors and reviewers and on the part of funding agencies to prioritize research and infrastructure in nonanimal approaches.6 WhilThe authors declare no conflict of interest.Supporting InformationClick here for additional data file.


Individual articles are available in full HTML, PDF, and ePUB format, adapted for consultation on different devices. Full issues are also available in a “flipbook” format. In fact the PDFs of accepted articles are also available ahead-of-press, in a pre-publication state.Last November, we announced some important changes for the Journal of Extra-Corporeal Technology. The moment has arrived! As of this issue, JECT is now Open Access! All new articles are now immediately available to all readers as soon as they are published on our brand-new website  copyright ; 2) new processes to support efficient pre-print publication online after manuscript acceptance; 3) guidance to authors to use linked public data repositories for supplemental data and 4) new disclosure declaration requirements at the end of the article to comply with best practices and meet demands by indexation databases .There are many people to thank for shepherding this huge transition for the journal. Firstly, I thank the AmSECT board of directors and the journal leadership team for initially greenlighting the efforts to modernize our journal and to ultimately approve our new publication partnership. Secondly, I thank AmSECT’s Management Company, Smithbucklin and Riverwinds Consulting whose members were critical in guiding us through the considerations of our new needs and the vetting process. Last but not least, I am most grateful to the team at our new publication partners, EDP Sciences who have diligently ensured that all the needs for the transition are being addressed, both the flashy (with creative help from their web design and marketing teams) and the mundane (policies). Even though our new partners are based a continent away in France, I am happy to report that communication has not been an issue and we have been collaborating efficiently and smoothly!In this issue, Lohbusch, et al.  reports Our first issue in this new era is not too lengthy as we transition, but we look forward to advancing our journal on all fronts as we execute on positioning all the proper pieces in place.Raymond K. Wong at The University of Arizona.https://www.arizona.edu/about#land-acknowledgment.


Brain and Behavior.I am very honored to have been selected as the new editor‐in‐chief for Brain and Behavior was created in 2011 as an open‐access, multidisciplinary journal, poised to take advantage of the wide reach of the Internet for rapid publication  pandemic. As with other journals, this unprecedented increase posed a challenge to our editorial board, as there was no in‐kind increase in editorial staff, and members were dealing with their own unique challenges as we navigated the early stages of the pandemic. Yet, our board rose to the occasion, and we oversaw a 60% increase in the number of published articles. As an associate editor, it was a privilege to support Dr. Sharma, and I wish her every success in her future endeavors.Brain and Behavior continues to grow as a valued resource in the open science community. One of our plans is to promote special issues on topics well aligned with our journal's scope. These are excellent opportunities to highlight areas of research that are rapidly evolving or are underexplored in the literature. We would also like to welcome contributions by early career researchers and provide opportunities for junior guest editor roles that would enhance their professional development and help grow their networks. Second, while the submission rate has stabilized, we are still experiencing significant challenges in the review process due to the overwhelming number of submissions relative to the size of our editorial board. Over the coming months, we plan to add new members to our editorial team and expand the editorial board, which will help to process manuscript submissions more efficiently and provide a smooth author experience. Finally, we will continue our support of ethics in publishing and explore new ways to combat fraudulent research. There is often the misperception that open‐access journals engage in less stringent reviews. This is untrue, as we engage in the same rigorous standards as hybrid and subscription journals to ensure manuscripts adhere to good science, with a clear description of the methods and a thoughtful discussion of the study outcome. Our dedicated ethics team meets regularly to identify and prevent potential threats to the scientific literature.As editor‐in‐chief, it is my responsibility to build upon the advances of my predecessors and to ensure that Brain and Behavior’s goals to promote sound science.I look forward to my evolving role and continued work to support https://publons.com/publon/10.1002/brb3.2967.The peer review history for this article is available at


With this change in platform comes a host of economic and ethical transformations. This development leads those involved in publishing to re‐evaluate the meaning of journal impact factors (JIF), the value of open access (OA), and the budgetary consequences of these changes. We must also consider how we can still incorporate equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) into our scientific publishing process. This editorial will discuss some of the history of these topics and describe the implications for JACMP.2Science in which he proposed a methodology for tracking and assessing scientific publications.Nature, the New England Journal of Medicine, and Cancer are publications with some of the highest JIFs depending on the year. Journals routinely display their high impact factors proudly, hoping to invite submissions based on this number alone, implying enhanced benefit and reward to authors. Criticisms of JIF are multiple: it can encourage self‐citation, it can be skewed by a highly cited article,Nature. Even retracted articles can be cited and contribute to JIF. From an EDI perspective, articles that have been circulated in English or written by an author with an English‐sounding name receive more citations.TM) are included, which are predominantly English language journals published in the United States.Nature critiques its own self‐assessment of value using JIF and JIF embraces known, scientifically proven biases, should not the community at large not heed the cry for alternatives?In 1955, Eugene Garfield published a paper in h‐index, which was developed to quantify an individual's research output, rather than a journal's.Altmetric, which includes the media's response to publications, incorporating social media mentions including Twitter, Facebook, and Reddit. Indeed, a recent publication of the author's own work in February of 2023 in JACMP was tweeted and had over 6000 views at the time of this writing, which is quite impressive considering her meager following. Wiley reports the full text views at the time of this writing was 1800 with an Altmetric score of 10 (very high for a recent publication). Currently, the number of citations of the work is 0, exemplifying that citations in the modern era are no longer an accurate measure of article viewing or use and do not take into account timing and article publication cycles. Moving away from JIF and towards other metrics allows authors to self‐promote and provide access to their work without self‐citation to the benefit of all. That said, most journals are still using the JIF (including the JACMP) and it is not disappearing any time soon. Furthermore, many researchers are attracted to so‐called “mega journals,” which are characterized by being OA, high publication fees, and distribute more than 2000 articles in a given year.If the JIF needs replacement, what are other alternatives? One is the The Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA) was constructed in 2012 to address the concerns and offer alternatives on JIF. It calls for the elimination of journal‐based metric evaluation (including JIF) for scientist funding, appointments, and promotions.3While earlier examples existed, the boom of open access (OA) publication models started around the year 2003. The Berlin declarationgold model, the authors will pay a fee to make their work available to an OA journal, called an Article Processing Charge (APC). This is the fee model adopted by the JACMP. A hybrid model allows the author to pay extra to have their article OA in a conventional subscription journal.The most often touted benefit of OA publications is access to “all”—anyone with an internet connection can access the millions of publications on the web (and at the JACMP) without cost. Unfortunately, almost 3 billion people in the world (∼37%) have never used the internet.Another advantage of OA is notoriety and publicity. According to a 2021 report from Wiley, OA articles were downloaded three times as much as subscription articles. Hybrid OA articles were downloaded four times as many. Both methods resulted in twice the citation rate compared to subscription articles and OAs received 4.5 times the Altmetric score.Nature charges $11690 for Gold OA. There are alternatives outside of the Thomson Scientific (ClarviateTM) community, however, that serve the Global South, including the previous host of JACMP, the Public Knowledge Project or PKP.While reading an OA article is free, publishing in this model is not. Academic publishing can be a business of high profits—the industry generates over 20 billion dollars per year. Elsevier has a profit margin approaching 40%.Furthermore, while not an issue for reputable publishers, there exists a pervasive issue of predatory journals vying for OA APC fees. Not only is the author done a financial disservice, but predatory journals lack quality control and cause harm by disseminating misinformation. In a stunning sting operation, John Bohannon submitted a fake article to 304 separate OA journals.4Reimagining peer reviewWith the current issues and challenges faced by academic publishing, what will the next decade look like? A few relevant topics are discussed below.The adoption of PreprintsPeer review is currently thought of as one of the most important components of high‐quality scientific publication.The use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and ChatGPTPreprints are a free method of sharing research articles prior to publication without peer review. Each submission receives a Digital Object Identifier (DOI), which makes them instantly citable and provides a permanent link on the internet. Authors can make their work public and receive comments or feedback on their article. Rapid turnaround on articles  can allow dissemination of information in a time of need. For example, the most highly read article on preprints.org at the time of this writing is on adoption of cloth masks during the COVID‐19 pandemic.Automated tools may help journals streamline their review and publication processes. As described by Schulz et al., automated pre‐screening may help with improved reporting prior to review, or enhancing the peer review process.The use of automated query and response tools such as ChatGPTThere are many challenges faced by publishers and scientific journals by the wide‐spread use of the internet and the development of open access. It is not a perfect system, and many criticisms are valid. Reviews take a long time and are subject to bias. Reviewers are unrewarded for their efforts. Journal impact factors are becoming archaic, but no metric is perfect. New tools are being developed but editors are not yet sure how to incorporate them into the process. All of these challenges will be faced by the JACMP and other open access journals. On an aspirational note, in 2018, the European Commission and European Research Council launched “cOAlition S,” an initiative (Plan S) that supports worldwide open access for research funded by public grants.


Quarterly Reviews of Biophysics (QRB) and on my 4th year as Editor-in-Chief, it is with pleasure that I announce the new open access journal from Cambridge University Press will provide an outlet for exciting new discoveries in the burgeoning field of biophysics.On the 51st anniversary of Quarterly Reviews of Biophysics (QRB), is now upgraded and relaunched as a journal on its own right. The launch of QRB Discovery, which coincided with the annual conference of the Biophysical Society, promises those working in the field a fast, transparent way to publish cutting edge results. The focus for QRB Discovery will be on biological phenomena that can be described and analysed from a molecular angle.The section called Discovery, which was tested in previous years as part of Biophysics applies approaches and methods traditionally used in physics and maths to study the living world, from molecules and cells right up to populations of animals and plants. This interdisciplinary approach has a huge number of applications and has the potential to address some of the biggest challenges facing our species and our planet. It is vital that discoveries with the potential to benefit society are published quickly and transparently.QRB Discovery will seek to fill.The field has been missing a dedicated place to publish ground-breaking results – ‘discoveries’ – that point towards an exciting direction, rather than presenting of a traditional comprehensive study. This is the gap Authors are encouraged to elaborate on the potential consequences and wider impact of their discoveries. If the research is of high quality and it is a sound result that points in an exciting direction – even if it is speculative – we will publish.This transparency is further extended by publishing open peer review reports. This will, expectantly, promote a more constructive type of review for authors but it will also contribute to the recognition of reviewers.I look forward to see what exciting research will be submitted next!


INPLASY® provides an online database in which the protocols are maintained as permanent public records and can be accessed on its website (www.inplasy.com).INPLASYWe described the database features and registered information of all records published since the launch of the registry on March 31, 2023. Additionally, we analyzed the website statistics dataset to explore user experience and promote data transparency.®, and more than 94% of the protocols were published within 24 h. Most of the submissions were from China, followed by Portugal, Taiwan, Malaysia, and Brazil. The INPLASY® website received 386,395 page views from 64,568 visitors during the first three years. The accesses were obtained from 170 countries. Most of the accesses were from China, followed by the US, the UK, and Portugal. The review status “completed and published” was observed in 898 protocols, and these studies were published in 372 different scientific peer-reviewed journals. The features of INPLASY® include the following: (i) INPLASY® identifier, a unique protocol number; (ii) the digital object identifier (DOI) number, the URL of the protocol linked to a specific DOI; (iii) ORCID update, INPLASY® automatically updates authors' ORCID page, including their protocol; and (iv) search tools, the protocols are freely accessible on www.inplasy.com.Four thousand six hundred fifty-eight records were registered in INPLASY® has several practical and useful features that should be considered when planning the registration of a systematic review protocol. Furthermore, the sharp increase in the number of protocols registered in INPLASY® in the first three years and the database statistics demonstrate that INPLASY® has become an important source of systematic review protocols. Therefore, authors should access INPLASY® before planning a future review study to avoid unintended duplication of efforts and to obtain timely registration.INPLASY The registration of systematic review protocols is crucial to avoid duplication of systematic reviews and improve transparency , and submissions from the UK were prioritized during the registration process. In contrast, INPLASY® does not prioritize protocols based on the nationality of authors, providing the same registration time for all submissions. Furthermore, INPLASY provides other relevant features, such as a digital object identifier (DOI) number to easily cite each protocol and an automatic update system connecting the protocol with the final published article.INPLASYAn important difference between PROSPERO and INPLASY is that PROSPERO does not accept systematic reviews without an outcome of clear relevance to human health. Conversely, INPLASY does not impose any such restrictions, and other review projects, such as scoping reviews, are accepted for registration.® registry. Additionally, we collated a website statistics dataset to explore user experience and promote platform transparency.We aim to describe the important features of the new international database and summarize the information from all records published in the database since the launch of the INPLASYinplasy.com from its inception until March 31, 2023: (i) the type of review protocol described in the title, such as systematic review, scoping review, overview of reviews, meta-synthesis, mapping review, rapid review, meta-analysis, or network meta-analysis; (ii) study phase at which the protocol was registered (prospective or retrospective registration); (iii) the country of the corresponding author; and (iv) the number of versions of each protocol.We collected the following data from all protocols published on ® website statistics were retrieved to quantify the following: the total number of protocols registered by month; the number of user subscriptions; the number of protocols registered by month; the number of user subscriptions by month; the number of website accesses; the number of website accesses by month; the number of protocol views; and the countries of visitors accessing the INPLASY® website.The INPLASY® protocols was checked on the website to describe the list of protocols completed and published in peer-reviewed journals. Electronic libraries, including MEDLINE via PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase, were examined to identify peer-reviewed protocols containing the INPLASY® unique registration number published in different indexed journals. The search strategy used to find these protocols was [(INPLASY*) OR ] AND (protocol[Title]). The total number of protocols published as a stand-alone peer-reviewed article registered in INPLASY® was collected.The review status of all INPLASY® website pages were explored to list the main features of the platform. These included the types of studies accepted for registration, registration requirements, costs, the tracking system version, the platform's funding model, processing time, and the search structure used to locate a record on the INPLASY® website.Finally, the INPLASY® from inception to March 31, 2023 , which were published in twelve scientific journals , Trials, International Journal of Surgery Protocols, Annals of Palliative Medicine, BMJ Open, European Journal of Integrative Medicine, Evidence-Based Complementary Alternative Medicine, Integrative Medicine Research, and Journal of Pain Research Protocols).Three thousand nine hundred fifty-seven protocols were registered prospectively (84.9%), and 701 protocols (15.1%) were registered retrospectively. The review status “completed and published” was observed in 898 protocols, published in 372 different scientific journals. ® provides a unique registration number for each protocol, which can be used to identify the review protocol in the final manuscript. Additionally, all protocols registered on inplasy.com have a DOI, and the URL in which each protocol is hosted is permanently linked to a specific DOI.INPLASY® accepts all types of systematic review protocols, including systematic reviews of interventions, diagnostic accuracy, prognostic factors, epidemiological characteristics, and preclinical studies. Systematic reviews assessing sports performance as outcomes are also accepted. Authors can submit scoping review protocols using a standard systematic review form or a specific form developed exclusively for scoping reviews (https://inplasy.com/scoping-reviews/), using the JBI manual for evidence synthesis .INPLASYFour thousand six hundred fifty-eight published protocols were analyzed to determine the period between protocol submission and publication. Ninety percent of the records were published within 24 h, whereas < 1% of the records took over 48 h to be published because of technical issues in the platform or failure during the submission process.® update form. We identified 4,333 protocols with a single version, 288 protocols with two versions, 29 protocols with three versions, and eight protocols with four versions. All previous versions of the protocol were permanently maintained on the protocol page to allow for a full audit trial in case of any modifications within the record.Authors can update their protocols using the INPLASY® updates the author's ORCID page using the Crossref interface. Alternatively, authors can manually update their ORCID pages using the DOI number of the protocol. This feature was used in 589 (12.64%) protocols in which at least one of the authors of the registered protocol included ORCID details.INPLASY® was created by a for-profit organization to provide an online public platform on which researchers could register systematic review protocols. The publication fees as of June 2023 were $20 to register a protocol and $9 to update it. During the first 3 years, INPLASY® did not receive funding from government agencies, universities, or other institutions. Therefore, publication fees were the only source of financing during this period. Although a for-profit organization operates the platform, there is an ongoing process involving the public ministry of Distrito Federal Brazil to create a non-profit company for controlling the INPLASY registry. With this transformation, a significant change in the origin of resources for the platform's maintenance is expected by 2023, eliminating any potential conflicts of interest in the for-profit model.INPLASY® platform offers a simple search tool where records can be found according to the unique identifier number or using free text terms. By June 2023, the Boolean operators  could not be used on a search page.The INPLASYThe INPLASY platform conducts a basic review to certify that a protocol is eligible for registration on the platform. The INPLASY records are not peer-reviewed or assessed for methodological quality. This is the responsibility of authors. The methods or content registered on INPLASY do not constitute an endorsement of methods that are solely those of authors. Additionally, INPLASY does not guarantee the accuracy of the English and is not responsible for errors arising from the text.® in March 2020, the number of records has increased progressively, reaching 4,658 protocols in 63 countries by March 31, 2023. After 3 years of operation, INPLASY® has become the second-largest specific database for the registration of systematic reviews, behind PROSPERO in terms of the number of protocols  during the first 3 years . The list of all peer-reviewed articles registered in INPLASY® is updated daily and available at https://inplasy.com/published-articles/.Andersen et al.  reportedi et al. , which w® were published in peer-reviewed journals, confirming that most systematic review protocols have not yet been peer-reviewed.High-quality protocols can be obtained by submitting records to peer-reviewed journals after registration. Several journals, such as PLoS ONE, BMJ Open, and Systematic Reviews, have published systematic review protocols as stand-alone peer-reviewed articles. The advantage is that the methods proposed in the protocol are critically appraised, thereby increasing the quality of the report and preventing potential flaws that may compromise the validity of the study. However, most systematic reviews do not refer to peer-reviewed protocols. Only 14.85% of all protocols registered in INPLASYOverall, the present findings indicate that the INPLASY platform has many desirable features and should be considered a reliable and fast platform for registering systematic review protocols.® provides an option to register other evidence synthesis protocols, such as scoping, methodological, and rapid reviews. The sharp increase in the number of protocols registered in INPLASY® in the first 3 years and the database statistics demonstrate that it has become an important source of systematic review protocols. Therefore, authors should access INPLASY® before planning a future review study to avoid unintended duplication of efforts and to obtain timely registration.Additionally, INPLASYinplasy.com/projects.Publicly available datasets were analyzed in this study. This data can be found at: JC: conceptualization, data curation, formal analysis, investigation, writing—original draft preparation, supervision, and finally reviewed the manuscript. FR: data curation, formal analysis, validation, visualization, and writing—original draft preparation. AR and EA: visualization and writing—review and editing the manuscript. GF: data curation, investigation, validation, and writing—review and editing the manuscript. CF: data curation, validation, and writing—review and editing the manuscript. MV: formal analysis, supervision, and writing—review and editing the manuscript. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.