Research and its associated publications have had a considerable impact on the care and monitoring of the patients since evidence-based medicine became standard for modern medicine during the 1990s . If the In previous decades, the world of scientific publishing has changed enormously with an explosion in the number of publishers and journals. Therefore, there has been an exponential increase in the number of scientific papers published . The wayThere are pros and cons to open access format, which are not going to be discussed here as they are outside the scope of this paper. However, from an individual's point of view, this is an interesting evolution, enabling readers to keep up to date with scientific research without having to take out a subscription.In recent years, another phenomenon that has been developing is also having an increasing impact on research: preprints. The preprint is a version of a scientific paper that precedes the peer review process, and the article is freely available without any form of control by the editor or reviewers. Furthermore, most preprints receive a digital object identifier (DOI). Authors can, therefore, reference them in their bibliography or grant applications. Subsequent revisions are time-stamped, and anyone can read and comment on the paper. This collaborative aspect is often put forward by the proponents of this model.Initially developed in the field of physics and economy , this practice is now spreading to the medical world and other domains of research. Preprints were the fastest-growing of all types of research output (around 30%) in 2016–2018, compared with article growth of 2–3% .Although preprint publishers have a legal obligation to indicate, in the article, that it is a draft that has not been peer-reviewed, the recent COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the ambiguity raised by this practice in medicine.In this paper, we discuss the impact of preprints on the general population, the media, and research more generally from the researchers' and publishers' points of view. We also present different solutions to improve the current publication model that ensure the authorship of innovation while guaranteeing the quality and accuracy of publications.Before going further, it must be said that the COVID-19 pandemic is an exceptional situation that was unprecedented for the general population at large. This crisis has highlighted the role of dissemination of research to the general public but has also demonstrated some limitations of the current research model or, at least, the dissemination of the results.With maximum media coverage, and in the absence of effective treatment, journalists were on the lookout for the slightest piece of information, verified or not. The information contained in preprints has been spread to the general public by both official and unofficial media, without reference to their distinction from peer-reviewed papers. Preprints and media are not the only ones to blame as numerous publication scandals have erupted during this crisis which, in the context of fake news and misinformation, has certainly not helped the recognition of research  and the Lancet , and the financial impact.New England Journal of Medicine or Science, view draft preprints as prior publications  and, thus, they are unacceptable as new manuscript submissions  have their own preprint repository, allowing for better synchronization between the preprint and final versions of the paper. Ideally, preprints should be removed once the article has been accepted or rejected.Concerning the financial impact, we noticed that preprints often stay online, which represents a potential loss of income for the publishers and can be confusing if the final version of the published paper contains substantial changes compared with the first (preprint) version. On the other hand, we have seen that papers with a preprint have more citations that papers without preprint , which rAs a scientist, the increasingly widespread use of preprints is an excellent opportunity to question the current limits of the peer review process. Publication scandals are not uncommon, even in high impact factor journals  . SolutioBetween financial interests, on the one hand, and personal stakes  on the other, the publishing world is a key factor in research. It would, therefore, be utopian to promote the end of preprints, especially since we have seen that it increases the visibility and citations of papers, which is good for both researchers and publishers. Rather than abolishing preprints, we are instead advocating a stricter framework for this practice, and better information to the public and the media on the differences between preprints and peer-reviewed papers.We suggest that preprints are published only once the manuscript is under review in one journal, indicating that it has at least been screened and checked by an editor, and that it is indicated in the preprint in which journal the paper has been submitted.By doing so, the authors retain the advantage of the preprint—speed of publication and previous tracing in cases of conflict —as well as saving time and money by avoiding duplication, with at least a first control by the journal and the editor.After the review process, the preprint should be removed in the case of acceptance in order to leave only the final version online. Scientific literature is already so prolific that it is necessary to avoid having to take duplicates between preprints and published papers into account. In the case of rejection, the preprint should also be withdrawn, since the reviewers felt that the paper could not be published for various reasons .Finally, we do not think that preprints should receive a DOI, or at least, that it should not be used for grant submission. It is certain that this aspect of preprints leads to the most abuse and ultimately undermines the quality and reputation of research.By applying these few recommendations, the positive aspects of preprints are preserved for the authors, and the quality of the published papers will be preserved without creating ambiguity in the general public.BB wrote the manuscript.The author declares that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.


Technological innovations often occur and make an impact on many industries. In academia, Visual Abstracts have been a trend and represent a creative and dynamic way to disseminate scientific knowledge. Although still rare in Brazil, more than 15 journals already use Visual Abstracts worldwide. This brief paper intends to present the concept and discuss the potential effectiveness of this innovative tool. In a constantly changing world, many fields deal with disruptive innovations and sectoral rearrangements. The academic world is no exception. In 1994, a simple and elegant model was proposed to describe the five basic functions of scientific journals. They are, in order of importance, according to the author herself: building a collective knowledge base, disseminating information, validating research quality, distributing rewards, and building scientific communities.Although traditional and sometimes stagnant, the academic publishing industry is undergoing profound changes. To reduce production and distribution costs, some scientific journals have opted in recent years to publish papers online only. The open access mode, which allows free access to the manuscript without the need to purchase, is also increasingly common. There are around 10,000 open access journals available.,VA is indeed a trend among world scientific journals. More than 15 journals currently use this tool, including the Journal of the American Society of Nephrology (JASN), Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology (CJASN), Annals of Surgery, New England Journal of Medicine, Journal of Vascular Surgery and Kidney International. Most medical journals have adopted VA only in the last four years; Annals of Surgery was a pioneer, having started VA publication in July 2016, while CJASN began shortly thereafter in 2017. Although only recently disseminated, VAs have been used in one-off initiatives for just over a decade; the open access journal of chemistry Molecules, for example, has been using this tool since 2008.,In Brazil, the journals that incorporated this tool are still rare. The Brazilian Journal of Nephrology (BJN) was a pioneer in this regard and began using VAs in its quarterly volumes since the first issue of 2019. In 2018, it published some VAs on time on the Scielo in Perspective blog and its social media.While some journals encourage the authors themselves to submit a VA associated with the accepted paper, others have exclusive editors responsible for the creation of the VA, such as CJASN and BJN.The main goal of VA is to summarize the core idea or key results from the study in a single graph with concise information. Thus, the journal aims to draw attention to the paper and disseminate knowledge to readers in a more accessible way and in a shorter period. Perhaps, more important than understanding VA is define what this tool is not. It is definitely not intended to be a substitute for the traditional written summary or for reading the paper itself. The reader should avoid reaching conclusions through the VA alone, as it is intended only to assist in deciding whether to read the full paper. A single slide could not accurately represent the complexity of the paper, as it is impossible to include all the important information in it.,The process of making the VA is variable and depends on the profile and skill (inspiration) of each VA Editor. There are manuals online to help prepare the VA in its various stages, with examples and the use of audiovisual aids.Each journal has specific VA-related guidelines, which define the format and layout, with the logo, as well as where and how mandatory elements such as the paper reference, and title should be included. Therefore, we see distinct styles between journals; "colorful" VAs from the New England Journal of Medicine’s have a very different style and pattern than those published in the CJASN, which bears more detailed information, or than those more concise VAs from Annals of Surgery.In addition to content and design, choosing the media is also important, and there are a few options. It may be available on the magazine’s website, along with the paper’s link, or on the journal’s social media such as Twitter and Facebook. The power of social media is significant, even among academics. Many journals already have Social Media Editors in their editorial staff, although the roles and responsibilities of this group are not well defined.A 2017 study published in the Annals of Surgery demonstrated the impact of VAs on the dissemination and visibility of scientific papers on Twitter. According to this study, each tweet containing the paper’s title had an average of 3,073 impressions (number of times people saw the tweet) and 11 retweets. When the same papers were published with VAs, each tweet averaged 23,611 impressions  and 92 retweets . In addition, tweets with only the paper’s title resulted in an average of 65.6 visits to the original paper, while VA tweets averaged 175.4 visits to the paper.Another 2017 study, which evaluated papers published in Molecules journal between March 2014 and March 2015; however, found different results. We evaluated 1,326 manuscripts published in the 13 volumes in the analyzed period, 760 without VA and 566 with a VA. Interestingly, papers published without VA performed better in terms of total downloads, summary views, and number of citations.Therefore, the effectiveness of VAs is not clear and there are already divergences in the still scarce literature on the subject. Notwithstanding the potential impact of this tool as an adjunct resource in the dissemination of scientific knowledge, VAs may have an intangible value as they represent a creative and innovative form of communication and interaction, reducing the formality of academia, and bringing younger readers closer to the journal. Clearly, further studies are needed to define the real effectiveness and the role of Vas; and certainly, some adjustments in form and content will be made in this process. Ancient folk wisdom says, “a picture is worth a thousand words.” If this proverb applies also in the academic context, we can expect new times in medical journals.


Pharmacology Research & Perspectives (PR&P) has experienced remarkable growth over the last several years. As a Gold Open Access collaborative journal between the American Society for Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics (ASPET), the British Pharmacology Society (BPS), and Wiley & Sons, PR&P provides a unique venue for the advancement of all aspects of pharmacological research. In 2019 alone, the journal had a 40% increase in total submissions and 125% increase in direct submissions. Additionally, online downloads for articles published in PR&P have increased 10‐fold since 2014. These metrics highlight the scientific interest and impact PR&P has generated in the global pharmacological research community.Author Guidelines. The new PR&PAuthor Guidelines are aligned with recently revised author guidelines for the other ASPET and BPS journalsPR&P. Importantly, the new Author Guidelines will be translated into Japanese, Korean, Mandarin, Portuguese, and Spanish to better assist scientists globally.In order to continue to build upon this success and to further enhance the impact of the journal for its readers and authors we announce the implementation of new Author Guidelines for PR&P have been developed to provide greater clarity and practical guidance for authors to communicate their science with enhanced transparency and rigor. Other new features include the implementation of an Authorship Responsibility form during the submission process, the Resource Identification Initiative (RII) for all key reagents and Data Sharing policy. The authorship responsibility form provides an important mechanism to ensure that all authors agree with and take full responsibility for all aspects of their published work. Both RII and data sharing policies are designed to foster research reproducibility and allow readers to better understand reagent and experimental design choices and analyses.The new The new guidelines also provide proscriptive instructions regarding the inclusion of methodological details, statistical analyses, and graphical data presentations. Authors should appreciate that there has been much debate regarding experimental design, statistical analysis and the reporting of research outcomes in recent years.PR&P called Short Reports. This new section of PR&P is designed to expedite the publishing original research papers that communicate exciting new research findings in all areas of pharmacology. Manuscripts considered for Short Reports must be no longer than 2,000 words, present a maximum of 2‐3 figures and/or tables inclusive, and have no more than 12 references. Only manuscripts submitted directly to PR&P will be considered for Short Reports and the publication charges for these articles will be discounted by 50%. The PR&P Editorial Board is committed to providing authors of Short Reports manuscripts with timely and constructive feedback. Authors can expect editorial first decisions within 7 days of submission. Revision invitations will be limited to minor corrections only. Short Reports are intended to provide authors a venue to communicate key datasets that form part of a larger research project or represent an important milestone in a topical area of pharmacological research.In addition to the Author Guidelines, we announce here a new feature in PR&P to be of value.We hope that readers and prospective authors will find these new features of


Animal Models and Experimental Medicine (AMEM) journal. On behalf of AMEM, I would like to wish you a Happy New Year and all the best!At the first issue of the year 2021, I would like to extend my sincere gratitude for your continued support and attention to AMEM is an international, open access academic journal dedicated to establish an international platform for academic exchange in the field of experimental animal sciences. AMEM is jointly founded by Chinese Association for Laboratory Animal Sciences (CALAS), Asian Federation of Laboratory Animal Science Associations (AFLAS), the International Council for Laboratory Animal Science (ICLAS) and Institute of Laboratory Animal Sciences (ILAS), Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College. Since its first publication in 2018, it has now entered into its fourth year.AMEM has published four issues in 2020. Thirty‐nine papers were published on different contents, including animal models creation, experimental animal biotechnology, experimental animal welfare ethics, as well as infectious diseases, cardiovascular disease, neuroscience, and surgery in experimental animal models, drawing wide attention and citation. I would like to express my heartfelt thanks to all the readers, authors, and reviewers for their support and contribution, and to the editorial board and editing team for their efforts.The year 2020 has been an extraordinary year, as the world, countries, and society have come together to face the global pandemic of COVID‐19. COVID‐19 is both a challenge and an opportunity, especially in the field of animal models and experimental medicine. Animal model studies are integral part of the scientific research, drug, and vaccine development for COVID‐19, as an important foundation for the treatment and prevention of the disease. Based on animal models, according to Koch's postulates, COVID‐19 pathogens and route of transmission were confirmed, rendering the virus infection, invasion, immune, and transmission process, which promotes the international scientific understanding of the disease. With the help of animal models, the effectiveness of various vaccines and medicines were evaluated, and it was also confirmed that antibodies produced after the first infection could protect the body from secondary infection.AMEM has published a series of animal models and experimental medicine studies on COVID‐19 under the precondition of strict review and rapid processing.Together with experts and authors, AMEM has 7 Editor‐in‐Chief and executive Editor‐in‐Chief, 14 associate editors, and more than 40 experts in editorial board from China, the United States, Brazil, Israel, France, Australia, India, Thailand, and other countries, specialized in basic and clinical research studies in animal models and experimental medicine. We welcome more experts to join us to enhance academic integration and cooperation, and to put more impetus into the development of animal models and experimental medicine.At present, In 2021, we will continue to adhere to the original intention of animal models and experimental medicine research with a rigorous attitude of scientific research, efficient mode of operation, continue to promote research, communication and understanding of animal models, and experimental medicine.Thank you once again for your support and trust. Looking forward to more communication and cooperation. I sincerely wish you a Happy New Year!


BMC) is a type of peer review where the names of authors and reviewers are disclosed and reviewer comments are published alongside the article. A number of articles have been published to assess peer reviews using quantitative research. However, no studies exist that used qualitative methods to analyse the content of reviewers’ comments.Peer review is at the heart of the scientific process. With the advent of digitisation, journals started to offer electronic articles or publishing online only. A new philosophy regarding the peer review process found its way into academia: the open peer review. Open peer review as practiced by BioMed Central  was undertaken of manuscripts reporting qualitative research submitted to A total of 107 manuscripts submitted to nine open-access journals were included in the FMRS. The frequency analysis revealed that among the 30 most frequently employed themes “writing criteria” (dimension II) is the top ranking theme, followed by comments in relation to the “methods” (dimension I). Besides that, some results suggest an underlying quantitative mindset of reviewers. Results are compared and contrasted in relation to established reporting guidelines for qualitative research to inform reviewers and authors of frequent feedback offered to enhance the quality of manuscripts.This FMRS has highlighted some important issues that hold lessons for authors, reviewers and editors. We suggest modifying the current reporting guidelines by including a further item called “Degree of data transformation” to prompt authors and reviewers to make a judgment about the appropriateness of the degree of data transformation in relation to the chosen analysis method. Besides, we suggest that completion of a reporting checklist on submission becomes a requirement. British Medical Journal (now the BMJ) was a pioneer when it established a system of external reviewers in 1893. But it was in the second half of the twentieth century that employing peers as reviewers became custom  how did the investigators ensure that they were objective in their analysis – objectivity and trustworthiness?”Article #22.Similarly, another reviewer wanted to know from the authors how they ensured that the qualitative analysis was done objectively.“The main question and methods of this article is largely qualitative and does not seem to have significant implications for clinical practice, thus it may not be suitable to publish in this journal.”Article #45.Furthermore, despite the fact that the paradigm wars have largely come to an end, hostility has not ceased on all fronts. In some reviewers the dominance and superiority of the quantitative paradigm over the qualitative paradigm is still present as the following comment illustrates:Finally, one reviewer apologised at the outset of the reviewer’s report for being unable to judge the data analysis due to the absence of sufficient knowledge in qualitative research.Overall, in this FMRS we found that reviewers maintained a respectful and affirmative rhetoric when providing feedback. Yet, the positive feedback did not overshadow any key negative points that needed to be addressed in order to increase the quality of the manuscript. However, it should not be taken for granted that all reviewers are as courteous and generous as the ones included in our particular review, because as Taylor and Bradbury-Jones  observedA key finding of this FMRS is that reviewers are more inclined to comment on the writing rather than the methodological rigour of a manuscript. This is a matter of concern, because Altman  – the orWhen reviewers did comment on the methodological aspects of an article, issues frequently commented on by reviewers were in relation to sampling, data analysis, robust/rich data analysis as reflected in the findings and themes/sub-themes that are insufficiently supported. Considerable work has been undertaken over the past decade trying to improve the reporting standards of qualitative research through the dissemination of qualitatively oriented reporting guidelines such as the ‘Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research’ (SRQR)  or the ‘Similarly, lack of in-depth data analysis has been identified as another weakness where uninterpreted (raw) data were presented as if they were findings. However, existing reporting guidelines are not sharp enough to distinguish between findings and data. While findings are researchers’ interpretations of the data they collected, data consist of empirical, uninterpreted material researchers offer as their findings . Hence, Besides that, some reviewers put forward comments that we refer to as aligning with a ‘quantitative mindset’. Such reviewers did not appear to understand that rather than aspiring to statistical representativeness, in qualitative research participants are selected purposefully for the contribution they can make towards the phenomenon under study . Hence, The majority of issues that reviewers picked up on are already mentioned in reporting guidelines, so there is no reason why these were omitted by researchers. Many journals now insist on alignment with COREQ criteria, so there is an important question to be asked as to why this is not always happening. We suggest that completion of an established reporting checklist  on submission becomes a requirement.In this FMRS we have made judgements about fellow peer reviewers and found their feedback to be constructive, but also, among some, we found some lack of grasp of the essence of the qualitative endeavor. Some reviewers did not seem to understand that objectivity and representative sampling are the antithesis of subjectivity, reflexivity and data saturation. We acknowledge though, that individual reviewers might have varying levels of experience and competence both in terms of qualitative research, but also in the reviewing process. We found one reviewer who apologised at the outset of the reviewer’s report for being unable to judge the data analysis due to their absence of sufficient knowledge in qualitative research. In line with Spigt and Arts , we apprBased on our findings, we have a number of recommendations for both researchers and reviewers. For researchers reporting qualitative studies, we suggest that particular attention is paid to reporting of sampling techniques, both in the characteristics and composition of the sample, and how participants were selected. This is an issue that the reviewers in our FMRS picked up on, so forewarned is forearmed. But it is also crucially important that sampling matters are not glossed over, so this constitutes good practice in research reporting as well. Second, it seems that qualitative researchers do not give sufficient detail about analytic techniques and underlying theoretical frameworks. The latter has been pointed out before , but botOur recommendation for reviewers is simply to be honest. If qualitative research is not an area of expertise, then it is better to decline to undertake the review, than to apply a quantitative lens in the assessment of a qualitative piece of work. It is inappropriate to ask for details about validity and generalisability and shows a lack of respect to qualitative researchers. We are well beyond the arguments about quantitative versus qualitative . It is tSince we had only access to reviewer’s comments of articles that were finally published in open access journals, we are unable to compare them to types of comments related to rejected submissions. Thus, this study was limited to manuscripts that were sent out for external peer review and were finally published. Furthermore, the chosen study design of analysing only reviewer comments of published articles with an open system of peer review did not allow direct comparison with reviewer comments derived from blind-review.FMRS provides a snap-shot of a particular issue at one particular time . To thatA limitation is that we reviewed open access journals because this was the only way of accessing a range of comments. The alternative that we did consider was to use the feedback provided by reviewers on our own manuscripts. However, this would have lacked the transparency and traceability associated with this current FMRS, which we consider to be a strength. That said, there may be an inherent problem in having reviewed open access peer review comments, where both the author and reviewer are known. Reviewers are unable to ‘hide behind’ the anonymity of blind peer review and this might reflect, at least in part, why their comments as analysed for this review were overwhelmingly courteous and constructive. This is at odds with the comments that one of us has received as part of a blind peer review: ‘silly, silly, silly’ .This FMRS has highlighted some important issues in the field of qualitative reviewing that hold lessons for authors, reviewers and editors. Authors of qualitative reports are called upon to follow guidelines on reporting and any amendments that these might contain as recommended by the findings of our review. Humility and transparency are required among reviewers when it comes to accepting to undertake a review and an honest appraisal of their capabilities in understanding the qualitative endeavor. Journal editors can assist this by thoughtful and judicious selection of reviewers. Ultimately, all those involved with the publication process can drive up the quality of individual qualitative articles and the synergy is such that this can make a significant impact on quality across the field.Additional file 1 References of all manuscripts included in the analysis (n = 107).


Since the beginning of 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic has affected people's lives throughout the world. After Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) in 2003 , which i 2.146 as the impact factor of IJBMS for 2019.We are excited to announce that Thomson Reuters (ISI) issuedThis secured the journal’s position as one of the internationally prestigious scientific journals of Mashhad University of Medical Sciences (MUMS) . The upwAlthough the unprecedented COVID-19 pandemic circumstances led to some delays in the peer review process, no significant disruption in our regular editorial activities was encountered. We certainly tried to maintain our concerns and priority regarding the quality of research projects. Therefore, firstly we evaluated the submitted manuscripts for fitting the scope of the journal, the author guidelines, and the ethics and policies of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). It was followed by focusing on the methodologic and scientific soundness of all accepted papers to avoid the so-called "wasted research", which was discussed in our last year's editorial . Based oThe percentages of the number of submitted, rejected, and accepted manuscripts in 2020 are demonstrated in It should be noted that it was not possible without the great contribution of national and international reviewers, who play a crucial role in this process. The reviewers’ thoughtful comments and recommendations help the further development of the manuscripts and assist the editorial team to reach the final decision in the best possible time. We would like to take this opportunity to express our sincere appreciation for our reviewers' assistance and dedicating time out of their busy schedules through the COVID-19 pandemic to improve the quality and credibility of our journal. We wish our readers and colleagues a healthy and safe NEW YEAR. With encouraging prospects for COVID-19 vaccines , hopeful


In 2013, a journalist working for the journal Science launched a ‘sting’ operation to highlight perceived flaws in the peer-review processes operated by Open Access journals . BiologyPubPeer and Retraction Watch provide platforms that enable the scientific community to document and catalogue issues of concern with scientific publications, many of which can only be explained by the presence of falsified data. Moreover, the work of Dr Elisabeth Bik and colleagues has begun to expose the extent of fraud in scientific publishing , equivalent solutions for the detection of plagiarised data or data manipulation are less well developed. As exemplified by the efforts of the community of scientists who contribute to PubPeer and Retraction Watch, detection of fraud in scientific data is still best performed by scientists themselves. Thus, many publishers now employ data sleuths to examine manuscripts for evidence of potentially falsified data. There is a pressing need for technological development in this area.Despite employing scientists to evaluate the data, using plagiarism detection software, and ensuring best publishing practices are followed with respect to peer review, it is difficult for journals to protect themselves from those intent on committing misconduct. BiO, as with many other journals, seems to have fallen victim to this fraud.journal policies).The publisher of BiO – The Company of Biologists  – employs a Publishing Ethics Coordinator, whose role it is to investigate potential ethics issues, before and after publication, as well as older historical cases highlighted on sites such as PubPeer. All accepted articles on BiO are checked for text plagiarism using the iThenticate plagiarism detection software, which checks for plagiarism against cited journal content and 70 billion current and archived web pages. Although no assumptions of wrongdoing are made, any issues that are flagged are escalated to the Publishing Ethics Coordinator and, if necessary, to the journal Editor-in-Chief. COPE – The Committee on Publication Ethics – may also be consulted. Recruitment of independent experts has been undertaken when helpful. Particularly serious cases could lead to rescinding of the acceptance decision and escalation to the authors’ institutes. Post-publication issues could lead to the publication of an Expression of Concern and possible retraction, according to the guidelines recommended by COPE , must be disclosed.The splicing of multiple images to suggest they come from a single micrograph or gel is not allowed.Any grouping or consolidation of data  must be made apparent (i.e. with dividing lines or white spaces) and should be explicitly indicated in the figure legends.Figures represent a more significant challenge to detectives working to identify scientific misconduct. istopher  have ideistopher . Stock iistopher . This haIf any inappropriate figure manipulations are detected, again this is escalated to the Publishing Ethics Coordinator in the first instance. They will ask the authors for all the raw data underpinning the results and then conduct a forensic analysis. If problems are detected after acceptance, but before publication, the acceptance might be rescinded. For articles that have already been published, further steps could be taken as outlined above.For BiO, during 2019, pre-publication issues arose in 9% of accepted articles and four issues were raised post-publication . We published no Publisher's Notes/Expressions of Concern, no Corrections and no Retractions relating to potential ethics cases raised during 2019. In 2020 to date, we have published Expressions of Concern relating to two papers, as a result of concerns rasied by the Editor-in-Chief about the data presented. Our investigations are ongoing.BiO also strives to adopt best practices with regards to author contribution rules, management of conflicts of interest and reporting of experimental subjects. Peer review is a focus too. To prevent the problem of fake reviews, whereby authors attempt to manipulate the peer review process, reviewers are now required to provide institutional email addresses or ORCIDs .First Person interviews alongside research articles. BiO has created career development opportunities through our Meeting Reviews and Future Leader Reviews programme. BiO and The Company of Biologists will together continue to strive to ensure that the profits from the hard work of scientists inspire future scientific discovery and help develop the next generation of researchers.BiO publishes peer-reviewed original research in all areas of the biological and biomedical sciences. It is essential that the work addresses a clearly stated, non-trivial, biological hypothesis. It must, in the opinion of the Editor, enhance the literature and be of use to the community. One charge levelled at Open Access journals is that they are more likely to accept submissions regardless of the quality of the research, as that it how they become profitable. Unfortunately, there are numerous so-called predatory journals that do just that. However, the current rejection rate – 67% of articles submitted to BiO are rejected – should absolve BiO of any accusations of predatory practices. BiO and its research-active academic Editors are firmly focused on providing a service to the community by publishing rigorously conducted research. BiO also supports early-career researchers by publishing its hugely popular


Dear Reader,Acta Biomaterialia Odontologica Scandinavica, as one of the first international, open access journals within dentistry.Biomaterial Investigations in Dentistry (BIiD) was launched in mid-2014 under its former name, Open access publishing not only gives all ‘stakeholders’ free access to the research that they have, directly or indirectly, helped fund, but it also maximizes the impact of the research, while leaving the copyright with the authors.BIiD is owned by the non-for-profit organization Acta Odontologica Scandinavica Society and is a member of the Committee for Publication Ethics (COPE) and it follows the COPE guidelines. BIiD is indexed in PubMedCentral and therefore searchable in PubMed. Furthermore, the journal is included in the Open Access registry DOAJ and, as of this year in Publons, a reviewer recognition platform.We, the editors, work dedicatedly toward BIiD qualifying for an impact factor. Together with our international team of research-active editorial board members, we also strive arduously to ensure that all submitted manuscripts undergo an unbiased and impeccable peer review process, an approach that we believe is essential when striving to establish BIiD as a leading international and high-quality journal in the field of dental biomaterials.


Cells have checked this case and approved the retraction. Both readers have been informed about the retraction decision. The published paper [The Editorial Office and the authors have taken the decision to retract the published article . The imaed paper  will theMDPI is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics and takes its responsibility to publish only high-quality research seriously. We regret that this issue was not identified earlier and apologize to readers of the journal.


To generate an understanding of the communication practices that might influence the peer-review process in biomedical journals.Recruitment was based on purposive maximum variation sampling. We conducted semistructured interviews. Data were analysed using thematic analysis method.56 journal editors from general medicine (n=13) and specialty (n=43) biomedical journals. Most were editor-in-chiefs (n=39), men (n=40) and worked part time (n=50).Our analysis generated four themes (1) providing minimal guidance to peer reviewers—two subthemes described the way journal editors rationalised their behaviour: (a) peer reviewers should know without guidelines how to review and (b) detailed guidance and structure might have a negative effect; (2) communication strategies of engagement with peer reviewers—two opposing strategies that journal editors employed to handle peer reviewers: (a) use of direct and personal communication to motivate peer reviewers and (b) use of indirect communication to avoid conflict; (3) concerns about impact of review model on communication—maintenance of anonymity as a means of facilitating critical and unburdened communication and minimising biases and (4) different practices in the moderation of communication between authors and peer reviewers—some journal editors actively interjected themselves into the communication chain to guide authors through peer reviewers’ comments, others remained at a distance, leaving it to the authors to work through peer reviewers’ comments.These journal editors’ descriptions reveal several communication practices that might have a significant impact on the peer-review process. Editorial strategies to manage miscommunication are discussed. Further research on these proposed strategies and on communication practices from the point of view of authors and peer reviewers is warranted. The use of in-depth qualitative interviews has provided rich data and new insights into previously hidden aspects regarding the communication practices within the peer-review process.We followed rigorous methodological techniques throughout the six phases of thematic analysis to ensure trustworthiness in the analysis.While study participants were diverse in terms of characteristics related to the journals, we were unable to include more junior editorial staff.There may have been social desirability bias during the interviews that affected how participants described the communication practices in their journals.Individuals who declined to participate in the study may have had different experiences of the peer-review process in their journals compared with those who agreed to participate.The peer-review process in biomedical journals involves collaboration between authors, journal editors and peer reviewers, which aims to achieve the dissemination of high-quality research. Good communication practices between these actors are vital to achieve this aim. However, evidence suggests that there are numerous flaws within the peer-review process, with communication failures lying at the heart of the problem. For example, existing research suggests that an essential aspect of collaboration—the mutual understanding of stakeholders’ professional roles and tasks within the process—is not appropriately communicated. This is manifested in part through the inconsistent provision of journal guidelines for peer reviewers across biomedical journals.Miscommunication typically leads to misunderstandings, which in turn might have a negative impact on different aspects of the peer-review process. For example, a study that aimed to identify tasks that journal editors expect from peer reviewers who evaluate a manuscript reporting on a randomised controlled trial (RCT) found a substantial disconnect between the expectations of journal editors and peer reviewers. The tasks rated as important by peer reviewers were different from the tasks clearly requested by journal editors in their recommendations.Yet another study demonstrated unmet expectations caused by lack of communication that in turn influenced the willingness and motivation of peer reviewers to participate in the process. According to at least one survey, peer reviewers would like to receive feedback from journal editors about their reports and view other peer reviewers’ comments, which are often not provided.The studies mentioned above directly or indirectly report on misunderstandings and miscommunication in this field. However, to the best of our knowledge, thus far there have not been any studies that specifically explore communication practices within the editorial peer-review process in biomedical journals. In order to address this gap, we set out to generate an in-depth understanding of the peer-review process with the aim of capturing social aspects that underpin or influence the process. Given that we are specifically interested in the interaction between the key actors and wanted to capture salient social and subjective dimensions of the communication, we considered a qualitative research approach to be best suited for our study aim. We therefore set out to interview journal editors. Our decision to focus on the journal editors’ perspective stems from the fact that they are central figures who oversee the communication between, as well as communicate directly with, both authors and peer reviewers. Furthermore, they interact with editorial team members, publishers and readers of their journals and are therefore involved in all aspects related to communication in peer review. As indicated in the previously published study protocol,We adopted a qualitative study design and conducted semistructured interviews with biomedical journal editors. A detailed description of the study design and methodology is available elsewherePatients and the public were not involved in the design, conduct, reporting or dissemination of our research.BioMed Central and British Medical Journal publishing groups.We used purposive maximum variation sampling.Prospective interviewees were provided with a study consent form and an information sheet. Interviewees were asked to sign a written consent form. Before starting the interview, study objectives were reiterated and additional information provided where necessary.Since sample size is irreversibly linked to saturation, which in turn can only be operationalised during data collection,10.1136/bmjopen-2019-035600.supp1Supplementary dataWhile at the time of the interviews, KG was a PhD student, she has previously experienced the peer-review process in biomedical journals as an author and peer reviewer. She had training in conducting qualitative interviews prior to data collection. She was supervised by DH, who has extensive experience of the peer-review process in biomedical journals as an author, peer reviewer and journal editor.et al, which provides a detailed description of how to conduct a trustworthy thematic analysis, was followed.Interviews were transcribed verbatim and field notes were written up after every interview. All documents were then imported into NVivo V.12 and subjected to thematic analysis as described by Braun and Clarke10.1136/bmjopen-2019-035600.supp2Supplementary dataA total of 56 biomedical journal editors were interviewed . Of thesWe identified four themes from the analysis of the interview data (1) providing minimal guidance to peer reviewers, (2) communication strategies of engagement with peer reviewers, (3) concern about impact of review model on communication and (4) different practices in the moderation of communication between authors and peer reviewers. An overview of the themes and subthemes is presented in The theme ‘providing minimal guidance to peer reviewers’ described the way journal editors rationalised providing peer reviewers with vague guidelines and minimal guidance around their expectations. Their perspectives in this regard coalesced around two subthemes: (a) peer reviewers should know without guidelines how to review and (b) detailed guidance and structure might have a negative effect.As a general practice across most biomedical journals, journal editors’ expectations in terms of the roles and tasks of peer reviewers are communicated through the publisher’s submission system. An automated email invitation typically leads peer reviewers to the online submission system for the journal, where they are presented with a ‘reviewer form’ interface that may include guidelines for peer reviewers to follow. Only a few journal editors, notably those who work for non-commercial publishers, reported consciously engaging with the guidelines that are provided to peer reviewers by customising and updating them regularly. On the other hand, journal editors working with commercial publishing groups reported that publishers often ‘harmonise instructions and guidelines to authors and peer reviewers across their entire range of journals’ which usually results in the provision of ‘standard guidelines that are meant to generally fit all types of research articles’. Thus, editors described the guidance provided by publishers to peer reviewers as ‘rather vague’, ‘rough’ and ‘unspecific’ in terms of concrete expectations from peer reviewers. However, this lack of specificity and detail was not considered to be an issue of concern because journal editors predominantly regarded peer reviewers’ guidelines as being superfluous, indicating that peer reviewers—particularly experienced ones—are unlikely to engage with them:People just don’t read the instructions carefully enough. If they are experienced reviewers, they are definitely not going to read the instructions. Interviewees generally felt that written guidelines have little or no practical impact on peer reviewers’ understanding of their role within the process and the quality of their performance, since such understanding is mostly dependent on the peer reviewer’s experience as an author and concurrent peer-reviewing skills acquired over time:My feeling or my experience is that it might not matter that much what we write, because the good ones [peer reviewers] deliver good reviews anyway, and the bad ones deliver bad reviews anyway. Either you understand your role or you don’t. That is at least my experience. There was also a prevailing assumption that detailed guidelines and specific instructions are only useful for ‘inexperienced peer reviewers’, whereas ‘experienced peer reviewers’—described as prolific authors whose manuscripts have been reviewed, and who have reviewed manuscripts themselves, on numerous occasions—already know, or should know, what to do. Since experienced reviewers are preferred over inexperienced ones, the provision of detailed guidelines was not considered to be essential. Notably, interviewees would often speak interchangeably from both their perspective and experience as journal editors and peer reviewers in order to justify their views:They receive some guidance, however most of the time the reviewers who are selected are seasoned investigators themselves, and that is the reason why they are selected to review the manuscript. I have been reviewing papers for 30 years, so…we expect the reviewers to know most of the time what is involved. The ‘reviewer form’ interface often includes boxes to fill in, checklists to complete and space for a narrative report. The reviewer forms of journals whose journal editors we interviewed varied in their structure and detail according to journal editors’ preferences and the degree of customisation that was possible. To some extent, such forms prompt peer reviewers to comment on specific issues of interest and can therefore be considered an indirect form of guidance.Most journal editors reported having a semistructured form that consists of some open questions, some closed questions and request for a narrative report. All journal editors emphasised that they place a higher premium on the ‘free text’ element that provides the critical insight and reflection that they seek to aid their decision-making role. Thus, the majority of interviewed journal editors expressed a preference for having a few multiple-choice questions/boxes and more space for ‘free/narrative text’. Yet again, it was notable that journal editors referred to their own experiences as peer reviewers in order to support their views and justify the layout of the ‘reviewer form’ for their journal:The structured boxes, I find them kind of annoying actually when I have to fill them out for other journals. If there is too many boxes, some of these boxes become irrelevant and or I address the comments in another box and I have to put in see prior or see next box or so on, because these submission systems don’t allow you sometimes to leave a box blank. So it can be annoying to the reviewer. There needs to be a happy medium between structure and free flow. Journal editors were generally open-minded and flexible with regards to the content and style of the report they expect to receive, leaving it up to peer reviewers to decide how to structure their reports. Most editors considered highly structured forms and templates that ‘zoom into’ the different sections of manuscripts as ‘not necessarily informative’ and ‘not helpful’ to elicit high-quality reviewers’ reports. This is because excessive granularity may discourage some aspects of reviewers’ ‘narrative’ or ‘subjective opinion’—arising from their experience and expertise around the topics discussed—that editors are after. Journal editors also thought that a highly structured form could impede comments on issues that lie outside of the form’s list of items. Instead, journal editors prefer to let peer reviewers’ comment freely without prompt. Therefore, the majority of interviewed journal editors do not routinely share structured guidance with peer reviewers:We are very open and unstructured…when I reviewed for some other journals it is incredibly highly structured but not necessarily informative. I have noticed that you can have very structured peer review forms and that “makes sure” all bases are covered, but actually it is a little bit of a tick box exercise, and in our journal we simply ask reviewers to make their expert comments on all aspects of the paper that they feel they can comment on. We don’t have any of that sort of tight structure, we don’t ask for separate views on for instance different sections of the paper, we don’t ask for separate comments about methodology. Some editors require quite excessive levels of detail on their peer review form…. we very much take the view that we want a narrative review. Excessive structure and guidance were perceived to be prescriptive, with connotations of a ‘compulsory exercise’. Instead editors felt the need to give peer reviewers a degree of autonomy and ‘a feeling of freedom and creativity’ to keep them motivated. This was achieved by ‘non-communication’ (a form of indirect communication), through not giving a structure to peer reviewers.They can be anyway they want them to be. When I write a review I write it in paragraphs or I might say let me talk about the intro, let me talk about the discussion, let me talk about the results all the reviews are different. But I don’t think there is any problem with a free form review, not at all. I don’t want to dictate to a reviewer who is not paid to do this. This is purely voluntary so I don’t want to make it an onerous task. Most journal editors were also in favour of keeping the reviewer forms simple to reduce the risk of excessive ‘bureaucratisation’ of the process and avoid making it a ‘burdensome’ and ‘not enjoyable’ experience, which in turn could affect the willingness of peer reviewers to perform the review:I think the risk of using templates is that… it turns the review into more of a chore, and I don’t mean that it is actually correct, but just as a perception I think it might turn reviewers off. use of direct and personal communication to motivate peer reviewers to (continuously) participate in the review process and (b) use of indirect communication to avoid potential conflict that could discourage peer reviewers from participating in the review process.With the exception of editors from journals with high impact factor, most interviewees highlighted a general shortage of willing peer reviewers, so that they frequently find themselves having to act strategically to maintain their reviewing system. As part of this theme, our analysis revealed two distinct and opposite communication strategies that editors employed to handle peer reviewers: (a) The majority of journal editors reported increasing difficulties with recruitment of peer reviewers and expressed frustration with the high decline rate, often having to contact ‘numerous potential peer reviewers before finding someone who would agree to do the peer review’. Journal editors were particularly disheartened by peer reviewers who do not provide any kind of reply to invitations—‘not even decline the invitation’, an allegedly fairly regular occurrence. Several recruitment strategies are employed to overcome this challenge, most commonly the establishment of direct and personalised communication as opposed to the standard ‘faceless’ email sent through the submission system. Journal editors reported that making an effort towards a personal interaction, ideally leading to the development of a personal relationship with the reviewer, was key to establishing a ‘sense of responsibility’ for the reviewing task that leads to a desirable outcome:I think one of the important points in recruiting reviewers is to contact them … the first contact is important. When you send them an e-mail or call them, it makes it easy [and] they feel a responsibility to cooperate with your journal or to help you with your work…and fulfil the job within the time frame mentioned. Direct communication was also used by some journal editors to preemptively increase the likelihood of receiving a high-quality review report. For example, some journal editors reported customising their communication to peer reviewers in order to draw on their expertise and call specific aspects of the manuscript to their attention. Although such personalisation was described as being time-consuming and therefore not feasible for every submission, it is considered worthwhile as it leads to high-quality reports:I try to ask specific questions. I always say: “Any comment on this paper will be appreciated, but in particular…For example: Do you find that the western blots are valid? Do they really make the point that they say they are making?” If I have a very specific question I will ask it and I think that, that improves the quality of the review. Direct communication was also purposefully used as a retention strategy to ensure a sustainable relationship with peer reviewers who delivered high-quality reports. Journal editors reported sending personalised positive feedback to express their gratitude. This in turn has a positive effect on the motivation and engagement of peer reviewers:I give positive feedback but I don’t give negative feedback. I just have to choose my battles…for me peer reviewers are precious resource and I think that is true with any journal but it is particularly true at our journal, for some of the reasons I mentioned earlier in our conversation there is just a much smaller pool of people who can review the papers that we receive. And so, I want to make them feel good when they have done a good job. Indirect communication was used more generally as a way of maintaining a working relationship with peer reviewers, irrespective of the review report quality. This was explicitly manifested in the way editors dealt with inadequate reviewers’ reports. Although inadequacy in peer reviewers’ reports was perceived as highly frustrating due to the delay and additional work burden generated, journal editors consistently reported a preference for indirect communication in such instances because peer reviewers were seen as ‘precious resource’ that ‘need to be treated with care’. Thus, direct criticism/feedback on poor performance that was believed to result in a conflict, with the concomitant risk of establishing a negative relationship and losing potential reviewers altogether, is avoided. Instead, journal editors preferred to give reviewers the benefit of the doubt in the hope of receiving a better peer review in the future:…the trouble is you never ever want to put off a peer reviewer any more than you want to put off an author because you don’t know that when you next go back to them they may give you something sensible. And you definitely don’t want to have it so that they will automatically decline because they have taken against you. Therefore, journal editors preferred to ‘invest time’ in and establish positive relationships with ‘good’ peer reviewers, while generally ignoring peer reviewers who deliver inadequate reports. The most prominent strategy of dealing with poor-quality reports was to ‘discard’ and ‘ignore’ them and quickly move on to ‘seeking another reviewer’s report’. In some cases, non-communication (arguably a form of indirect communication) was employed to convey or express the journal editors’ displeasure. For example, journal editors reported ‘not even to send a thank you note’ and behaving in a ‘passive-aggressive’ manner by recording poor performance into their submission system for future reference or excluding peer reviewers from existing reward schemes where possible:I don’t give individual feedback. However, the submission system actually is asking us to rate the review. I can rate it as very useful, not so useful, below average, which I do because they get continuing professional development points and continuing medical education points from doing the reviews…if the review was really bad, if it was really non-informative, then they won’t get their points. At the same time, journal editors’ understanding of the primary goals and priorities of the peer-review process did not include improving peer reviewers’ performance or educating them to write better peer reviews. Instead, their priorities are to quickly reach an editorial decision on a manuscript, thereby ensuring a fast turnaround, and to help authors to improve the manuscript:Why we don’t give feedback? We don’t want to educate the reviewers…You are not trying to educate the peer reviewers, you would like to feel that the stuff that you send back to the authors is helping to educate your authors. Despite the lack of direct feedback on reviewer performance for educational purposes, it was standard procedure across journals to send peer reviewers a copy of the decision letter sent to authors  ‘so that they can see what the other reviewer thought of the paper and I think that is very useful feedback’. Notably, journal editors often ‘hoped’ that peer reviewers would read the decision letter and compare their own reports with that of other reviewers. This was considered to be an effective form of indirect feedback facilitated by journal editors. Concurrently, it is also a convenient way of indirectly offering reviewers an opportunity to learn from fellow reviewers:We also tried to train our reviewers in an indirect way that is when a decision was completed and when we send the decision letter to the author we usually carbon copy the decision along with the comments of all the reviewers to all the reviewers so that every reviewer can see and compare their own comments with the comments of other reviewers… and that would be a form of training for them. However, there was a degree of ‘uncertainty’ regarding the effectiveness of sharing the decision letters with peer reviewers. This form of indirect communication puts the onus of improving and learning on the ‘interested reviewer’, while obviating the need for journal editors to provide individual feedback to reviewers:But then I don’t tell bad things to reviewers; usually I tend to more often just say good things to good reviewers and then hope that some of the mediocre reviewers will just get better when they see the decision letter and how much more detailed and like expansive the comments were from one or two other reviewers. Finally, another perceived benefit of automatically copying reviewers in the decision letter sent to authors as an educational strategy is that journal editors thereby avoid explicitly voicing their own opinion regarding the adequacy (or lack thereof) of reviewers’ reports:If we do it in that way, then later the reviewers can have a look at the other reviewer’s opinion and they can learn from the other reviewer without us strongly stating that this is our opinion. This theme is centred around the preservation of anonymity as a way of facilitating angst-free communication and preventing potential biases. Most journal editors outlined why they are unwilling to commit to opening reviewer identities in their journals. Included under this theme were two interconnected categories: facilitation of critical and unburdened communication and mitigation of potential biases.Traditionally, many biomedical journals have employed a single-blind review model where authors are kept unaware of their peer reviewers’ identity. This was also the case for the majority of journals our interviewees worked for. Journal editors were not keen to change this set-up for several reasons. Their support for maintaining peer reviewers’ anonymity primarily stems from the fact that peer reviewers and authors are often either potential ‘competitors for grants’; ‘colleagues and/or collaborators’ or even both simultaneously. Given this situation, journal editors commented that anonymity allows peer reviewers to be ‘more frank’, ‘more open’ and ‘more critical’, and thus leads to ‘better quality reports’ than in situations where reviewers’ identities are potentially known by the authors. Journal editors gave examples from their own experiences and behaviours as peer reviewers within an open peer-review process to illustrate how they tempered their true opinions to avoid causing offence that might have future negative repercussions. One editor’s comment provides a good illustration of how the reviewer’s communication strategy is potentially adjusted in an open review model:I did a peer review just recently…I think that article should have been rejected. I didn’t dare suggest rejection because it was all open peer review and these were colleagues from the region, who knew me and I knew them you know and it was like ‘Oh-oh. What am I going to say?’ So yes, I tried to sort of be very I don’t know, be as educated as possible and say maybe it is not you know, maybe it doesn’t fit the article section. Journal editors’ opinions were strengthened by their experience of peer reviewers’ low uptake of the option to sign their reviews. They explained that remaining anonymous is a way for peer reviewers to ensure ‘self-protection’ and ‘avoid potential conflict’. A number of editors also hypothesised that a lack of anonymity might negatively affect peer reviewers’ review acceptance rate and curtail their ability to find peer reviewers, thus exacerbating existing recruitment difficulties:In a specific area like mine, you know the area is not that big, and - we have discussed this among the associate editors as well - we have never had any wish to have an open system regarding disclosure of the names of the reviewers. It would have been more difficult to find reviewers, I am quite sure. Editors of journals who employed the single-blind or open peer-review models shared the perception that there is little to be gained by implementing a double-blind review model because ‘it would be easy for everyone to figure out the identities’ of reviewers, particularly in the case of small and highly specialised fields.In contrast, while journal editors who employed a double-blind review model were aware that peer reviewers and authors might still suspect each other’s identities, they felt that implementing this model remained worthwhile to prevent biases based on authorship from affecting the quality of the peer reviewers’ report. For example, they referred to the potential for peer reviewers to alter their communication practices due to ‘prestige bias’—where peer reviewers’ judgement and objectivity are influenced by the authors’ affiliation—leading to ‘lenient’, poor-quality reports. Journal editors felt that anonymity helped to mitigate this type of bias:In my field we have the problem…let’s just say there are some prestigious groups that crank out a lot of papers, of variable quality. Sometimes reviewers would see that the papers were from these famous people and they would write really short superficial reviews that were praising this work when it didn’t deserve to be praised…So we just changed to blinded review and so that really solved the problem. There was a really noticeable change in fact sometimes, because I make a point of obviously sending all the decision letters to the reviewers and some people expressed interesting comments like oh my gosh I had no idea it was from this group. And some of them even went so far as to say I am glad it was blinded review…we found that whatever the case may be in the rest of the journal world for us it was better to have blinded review. In contrast, journal editors who employ an open identity practice by default felt that it increases accountability of all parties involved, opening up the ‘black box’ of editorial decisions:I think all peer review should be open and transparent. I just think it is a better way of doing things. It is more honest to the author in that the reviewer is given their name. It is honest to readers of the papers in that for example if, if two reviewers both feel the paper should be rejected, and say so quite forthrightly within their reviews then as an editor you are not going to publish that paper with reviews that are in effect available online saying the paper should have been rejected. In general, journal editors moderate all communication exchanges between authors and peer reviewers during the entire peer-review process. We found different practices in the way journal editors facilitated this exchange, particularly when handling peer reviewers’ comments prior to forwarding them to authors. Most commonly, journal editors regarded themselves as ‘curator of peer reviewers’ comments’. However, the operationalisation of this role varied considerably.Some journal editors considered ‘guiding authors through peer reviewers’ comments’ to be one of their key tasks. This would typically happen in consensus with other editorial members. After checking the peer reviewers’ reports and deciding on how to proceed with the manuscript, they then send back the peer reviewers’ comments to authors with specific guidance on how to address them together with any additional editorial comments. This practice was considered to act as a ‘safety net’ to screen out incorrect suggestions and provide any supplementary guidance:The role of the journal editor has to be to look at what comments from the reviewers are really important to improve the [manuscript] that authors should compulsorily follow. [But] others are not so important or maybe I might indeed think that there are wrong recommendations, so I have to advise the author that this is either an optional advice or even an advice that they don’t have to follow. We can say to the authors ‘please address explicitly the points number 1, number 3 and number 5’ and in doing this we are saying to the authors ‘don’t worry about the points 2 and 4’. So it is not so a big problem if the reviewer is not completely right from our point of view. In contrast, other journal editors practised an alternative, less hands-on method where peer reviewers’ comments are sent to authors without any editorial guidance, letting authors decide how to deal with them, including with any contradictory comments. They would then judge the comments and author replies together and make a final editorial decision. While there was some recognition that providing guidance to authors could be valuable, time constraints often prevented editors from doing so:Guiding authors through peer reviewer comments is something which would be certainly valuable but I have too many manuscripts to do that. It would be too much work. It is just not feasible and sometimes there are conflicting views so it is of the responsibility of the authors when they send back the revision to say “I couldn’t please both reviewers, and the reason why I chose to do this revision.” So I judge on that after but not before I send (it to authors). But, ideally it should be done beforehand but it is, honestly too much you know when you have so many manuscripts. This study is one of the first attempts to understand communication practices within the peer-review process in biomedical journals. Our findings illustrate how several communication practices that are employed in response to specific circumstances/challenges may also concurrently influence the peer-review process itself. In addition, while it is apparent that journal editors’ unique threefold experience as authors, reviewers and editors inevitably shapes their attitudes and perceptions towards peer reviewing, this is likely to be both a strength and a weakness. As was evident in their responses, journal editors may unintentionally project their own experience as peer reviewers, often not evidence based, onto the entire peer-review system, potentially limiting their ability to step outside of it and critically appraise their own narrative. This can lead to attitudes and behaviours antithetical to evidence, which is ironically often a threshold to publication required by journal editors.Many factors affect the communication between journal editors and peer reviewers. However, at the core of this interaction, certain basic principles apply. Some, such as communication of the roles and tasks that journal editors expect peer reviewers to take on and perform, might well serve as key starting points for the process. However, our study findings from the first theme indicate that journal editors do not find this transfer of information important, at least in the biomedical field. Existing literature that explores peer reviewers’ guideline content and provision practices across journals showed that these are often generic, non-specific and not readily available.Thus, given these findings, it is evident that further research around how guidelines can be made more appealing—in terms of formatting, layout and content—is warranted. We are not aware of existing empirical evidence on peer reviewers’ preferences regarding the structure of peer reviewers’ forms and guidance. Research on how the uptake of guidelines and guidance among peer reviewers can be improved is also warranted. A strong evaluative component is crucial for such research to promote meaningful improvement in peer reviewers’ practices. In the biomedical field, it is a well-established fact that physicians across all disciplines are resistant to adherence to clinical guidelines and there is research looking into the contextual factors around physicians and personal motivators for uptake, as well as the guidelines themselves, to understand enabling and disabling factors for uptake and implementation.Our results from the second theme showed that journal editors are well aware of the positive effects of direct communication and strategically use it for retention and reward purposes. This approach is in line with evidence suggesting that the establishment of personal relationships and the opportunity to network with journal editors is ranked highly among peer reviewers as a motive to participate in the peer-review process.Additional research to assess whether this could be a missed opportunity is warranted: investing time to send peer reviewers’ personalised and constructive criticism might reap dividends, whereas the current preference for indirect, impersonal communication simply perpetuates the status quo.However, there are several barriers that might prevent the implementation of an approach that gives due importance to feedback in peer review. First, the accounts of journal editors revealed a prevalent lack of time—the vast majority of editors in biomedical journals work part time for a purely symbolic remuneration while juggling many other additional professional roles. Therefore, journal editors preferred to ‘invest time’ in educating authors , while generally ignoring peer reviewers who deliver inadequate reports. While there is evidence that peer reviewers decline review requests due to a lack of time,Second, journal editors are part of the wider scholarly system; they are often researchers who compete for grants and authors who submit their manuscripts to journals. It is possible that they might fear the consequences of providing feedback. This could be perceived as unsolicited criticism of peer reviewers’ work, potentially leading to conflict and far-reaching professional consequences ranging from being disadvantaged when applying to grants to unwillingness of peer reviewers to re-engage with the journal.A third barrier is the general lack of evidence around the domain of ‘quality’ in peer review,Finally, it is important to keep in mind that journal editors are not omniscient by default. For example, a study on the completeness of reporting of randomised trials published in biomedical publications highlighted that a proportion of editors did not correctly identify RCTs, suggesting that there is need for journal editors to enhance their knowledge around identification of a randomised trial and the appropriate reporting guideline (extensions) required.Our analysis of the third theme showed that editors have diverse views on the existing peer-review models and their potential influence on communication practices in their journal. The majority of our study participants employed a peer-review model that does not display review identities by default.They felt that maintaining anonymity would facilitate better communication practices among peer reviewers leading to high-quality reports while protecting peer reviewers from potential conflicts. This attitude reaffirms the existence of bias in the peer-review processThe last theme revealed starkly divergent practices in the way journal editors performed their own role. In our study, this notion was exemplified by the moderation of communication between authors and peer reviewers. While some journal editors actively interjected themselves into the communication chain to guide authors through peer reviewers’ comments, others prefer to remain uninvolved—forming their own opinion and decision after viewing the exchange between authors and peer reviewers. A passive approach to the moderation of communication between authors and peer reviewers is a missed opportunity to contribute to the improvement of the peer-review process and is not in line with editorial best practices recommended by professional associations. The World Association of Medical Editors stipulates that journal editors should make it clear to authors, which revisions are essential and which are optional and provide active guidance in the case of contradictory comments.Our recruitment approach and predominant contact with editors-in-chief during the recruitment phase gave rise to a relative homogeneity of our study sample. This could have led to selection bias, which is a key limitation of this study. The limited representation of other editorial staff members typically involved in the peer-review process (such as junior editors) may limit the generalisability of our results. Therefore, there is a need to explore whether the involvement of editorial staff in other positions would have produced different and/or more nuanced findings.In conclusion, our study showed that there are a number of issues related to communication practices that might have a significant impact on the peer-review process and its outcomes. In the absence of effective communication among the key stakeholders, poor transfer of critical information may ultimately lead to reviewers’ dissatisfaction and dissemination of low-quality research. Less visible communication failures due to embedded organisational practices and unprofessional behaviours remain a challenge. Therefore, it is important to keep the broader context in mind when attempting to enact changes the system at the organisational and individual levels. Further research into communication practices from the point of view of authors and peer reviewers will broaden our understanding of existing editorial practices and evolving communication strategies for managing miscommunication.


Dr Nicolas Mano is a Senior Researcher at Centre de Recherche Paul Pascal, France. His research interests include (bio)electrochemistry, biosensors, biofuel cells, enzymes engineering, and the use of carbonaceous materials for electrodes. His aim is to develop approaches where biochemical fuels can be converted into electricity and applied into bioelectrochemical applications. In this conversation, he is discussing the advancements in the field of biofuel cells in the past ten years and look ahead at future developments. How did you get into the field of electrocatalysis/biofuel cells? Why did you want to pursue this research area?2 biofuel cell which was about to be stopped due to the lack of stable cathodic enzymes in the presence of chloride and neutral pH. And while Prof Heller hired me to work on DNA sensors, this topic captivated me and I pursued the work on biofuel cells using a different cathodic enzyme, which was just reported by Prof Ikeda at the University of Tokyo. Back in France, I first launched research projects on molecular biology to produce enzymes and be able to control their purities/activities and on materials chemistry to elaborate/ optimize electrodes materials and surfaces. Since then, I have been working on various subthemes of electrochemistry with a special emphasis on bioelectrochemistry. This is a fascinating and challenging field of research requiring interdisciplinary knowledge ranging from molecular biology, modelling to material science.I was trained as an environmental chemist and discovered electrochemistry and electrocatalysis during my master’s and Ph.D. under the supervision of Prof Alexander Kuhn at the University of Bordeaux. At that time, I had my first glimpse at bioelectrochemistry while working with enzymes. It was exciting to work with enzymes, and I realized the many possibilities that opened up using them. At that point, I knew it would be my major field of research. Afterward, I moved to the University of Texas at Austin and had the chance to work with Prof Adam Heller. There I learned much more about bioelectrochemistry, glucose biosensors, and the challenges associated with the connection of redox centers of enzymes to electrode surfaces to design efficient biosensors. While I was at UT Austin, I discovered the work of glucose/OCould you briefly summarize the work in this paper “Engineering hybrid nanotube wires for high-power biofuel cells”In this work, we described a strategy to assemble and align carbon nanotubes (CNTs) into porous microwire electrodes. We tested these new microwires for the enzymatic reduction of oxygen. Compared to conventional carbon fibers, the new design exhibited tenfold higher performances. Used in glucose/oxygen biofuel cells (BFCs), it permits increasing the power densities four times compared to BFCs made with carbon fibers. Such characteristics result from the unique features provided by these microwires. The porosity allows increasing the specific surface, maximizing the number of immobilized enzymes and therefore the current density. The cylindrical geometry maintains the geometric surface as small as possible. Both features allow overcoming mass transport limitations encountered in physiological media, where the diffusion coefficient and concentration of substrates are low. The size and the electrical properties of carbon nanotubes enhance the electron transfer while favoring better wiring of enzymes. Finally, the orientation of the CNTs reinforces the structural stability of the entire system.What motivated you to submit your work in newly launched Nature communications?The editorial team of another Nature journal offered us the opportunity to transfer our manuscript to a new journal. At that time, we knew nothing about Nature communications. But we had no hesitation. Nature journal have excellent reputations and there was no doubt in our minds this would be a selective journal. In addition, we were not limited by the number of pages allowing us to explain in detail the rationale behind our work.In a collaborative project, how do you decide where to publish?For interdisciplinary work, for example gathering biologists, physicists, and materials scientists, I feel there is always a compromise between the journal core expertise/reputation and the primary audience to be reached. But a paper well written will ever come to its intended audience and excite the curiosity of others.How do you feel the field of electrocatalysis and fuel cells has changed in the past decade since you published your article with us?2 production from solar-based systems, or CO2 reduction in green solvents, for example. Because the efficiency of those systems depends on many interrelated parameters, we also witnessed the use of combined analytical techniques.In the last decade, we observed the emergence of electrochemical systems of higher complexity and sophistication. For example, electrodes are becoming more sophisticated bearing hierarchical porosity and being more flexible, bendable, and stretchable. We also noted the appearance of self-healing electrodes. With the aim to provide for a sustainable future, we have seen a dramatic increase in papers on biophotoelectrochemistry for solar energy harvesting using photosynthetic proteins, HFrom your point of view, where do you see the field of electrocatalysis in the next 5 years?Our world is addicted to fossil fuels. “I feel that electrocatalysis is still underrated and I would not be surprised if its applications spread in the next few years to shift from an “oil-based world” to a “bioresource-based world”. I can see (bio)-electrochemistry/electrocatalysis playing a key role in manufacturing useful and environmentally benign molecules, sustainable materials, or in clean energy. Electrocatalysis should also drive progress in the emerging field of sustainable catalysis where bioelectroenzymatic synthesis in aqueous media bears a great promise. All this without compromising the quality of life in the year to come. Besides, the use of electrocatalysis will also be accelerated by developing new multidisciplinary approaches.What advice would you give to early career researchers looking to publish papers in a selective journal?First, I would say we are too often evaluated on the number of papers we published in selective journals. One can make excellent science and have a tremendous impact on a community without publishing in selective journals.Then, to publish in a selective journal, I feel the work should address an important scientific topic of interest for various scientific communities and show clear scientific advances of the field. Data should be carefully analysed and compared/discussed with the existing literature. But good science also need to be effectively communicated.  Therefore, the writing has tremendous importance to convey a good message and present data clearly and concisely. This is challenging as it requires experience and skills. I would suggest reading tutorials, getting help from senior scientists, and follow suggestions provided by the journal’s editors.The interview was conducted by Team Manager & Senior Editor Dr. Prateek Dongare.


This presentation will emphasize the importance of plain, good writing. Editors of high impact journals read 10 or more manuscripts per week, and are under pressure to reject 80-90% of them. Regardless of scholarly quality, if the point and contribution are not clear in a quick scan of the paper, it likely will not be reviewed favorably. I will provide tips for strong scientific writing that are commonly violated in manuscript submissions, and provide references for additional writing support. I will also discuss some common publication ethics issues that arise during the review process, including author contributions and embedding your scholarship in the context of prior work.


Open science will make science more efficient, reliable, and responsive to societal challenges. The European Commission has sought to advance open science policy from its inception in a holistic and integrated way, covering all aspects of the research cycle from scientific discovery and review to sharing knowledge, publishing, and outreach. We present the steps taken with a forward-looking perspective on the challenges laying ahead, in particular the necessary change of the rewards and incentives system for researchers (for which various actors are co-responsible and which goes beyond the mandate of the European Commission). Finally, we discuss the role of artificial intelligence (AI) within an open science perspective. Horizon Europe, the new EU Framework Programme for Research and Innovation, will promote open science in the full meaning of open scholarship. In this vein, Von Schomberg  has shifted the prime focus of researchers away from publishing toward knowledge sharing.Open science in essence refers to the transformation that science is undergoing due to globalization and ICT—just like any other sector in society—and it is therefore very likely that in the long term, the adjective sine qua non for reproducibility and scientific progress. Open data speed up the research process by facilitating re-use and enriching datasets . This includes making open science practices rewardable and fundable as well as the employment of specific indicators for researchers' engagement with open science. A change of the reward and incentive system can only be stakeholders-driven, and it has to be bottom-up. This change also includes changing mind-sets of researchers to open up and share data and “seduction” to make open science easy, useful, and affordableTo make sure that Europe's scientific eco system will be fit for the new modus operandi of open science, the European Commission in a co-design and co-development mode with the key scientific stakeholders developed a holistic policy to promote the changes needed for making open science a European realityIt also inspired other continents to issue similar policies of statements, for instance, the calls for the research community to work together to realize “open science by design”  of the Commission for Research and Innovation, RJ Smits, wanted the Commission to lead by example by makingvia the repository within 6 months of publication or 12 months in case of the social sciences and humanities. Repositories will continue to play a key role in the Commission's policy on open access in Horizon Europe.Open access to publications is already mandatory in Horizon 2020. Researchers need to deposit a copy of the published version or final peer-reviewed manuscript in a repository of their choice at the latest on publication and ensure open access to the publication After 1 January 2020, scientific publications resulting from research funded by public grants provided by national and European research councils and funding bodies must be published in compliant Open Access Journals or Platforms.”In 2018, the Commission decided to support Plan S' ambitions to move forward toward open access. Plan S was launched in September 2018 under the auspices of the president of Science Europe, Marc Schiltz, and former DG Robert-Jan Smits, with the aim that “As a supporting organization, the Commission is committed to accelerating the full transition toward open access to scientific publications and will continue to work in a concerted effort with cOAlition S members (research funders committed to Plan S) to ensure a consistent approach. Actions are now ongoing to complete the transition to open access in line with Plan S. In Horizon 2020, the Commission is enforcing its mandate on open access and supporting Plan S implementation without making legal changes . The implementation of Plan S in legal texts will be in Horizon Europe (Regulation/MGA), including Plan S principles, such as Intellectual Property Rights retention, open licenses, immediate open access, or the further requirements for repositories and OA venues.The Commission has also moved beyond open access to promote and advance open science. Open science practices will be embedded in selected Horizon Europe work programs, depending on the scientific discipline and their particular focus. Incentives will include eligibility of costs for practices such as early sharing of work or sharing research output beyond publications and data. The Commission is already exploring ways to ensure that researchers engaging in open science practices will be rewarded for that, and new-generation metrics such as data citation may be introduced to provide a more nuanced understanding of the wider impact of research publicly funded by the EC.Despite the many advantages of having open research data, there seems to be less awareness of what the data science revolution will imply in terms of costs for implementing measures that would facilitate the change. Governments support building new research infrastructures, but the resources for maintenance including the growth of data exponentially growing needs for data hosting and stewardship are not aplenty  “FAIR Data Maturity Model” Working GroupEurope indeed faces considerable problems of non-interoperable services and research data and limited cross-disciplinary access to these research data. It is difficult for researchers to organize and store their own data so that it is usable for themselves at a later date, let alone usable for other researchers in the long term. Notwithstanding these challenges, the elements needed to create a “commons for scientific research data” are already in place, but they are lost in fragmentation across member states and across different scientific communities , all that happens on the globe and beyond will become somehow a data point and therefore fit for research. Today, it is quasi-standard practice to use TDM technologies for data analytics and processing on the cloud. Online collaborative tools (Pascu et al., AI will push again the frontier of getting knowledge and making meaning out of it (Elsevier, ,AI has already shown potential to accelerate the data discovery and data analysis and to extract knowledge out of research artifactsThe single most important challenge remains whether AI could have a key role in determining the originality of research, one of the cornerstones on which science is built. Reproducible research makes for more efficient and reliable science. Evidence points to the fact that over 70% of researchers fail to reproduce other peers' researchThe Ebola case of public health emergencies provides an inspiring model for how global research collaborations can help address the societal challenges of our times. Such cases should not be an exception but the norm. However, to make open science the norm, as the dramatic cases of Ebola and Zika illustrate, open science policies that relate to the core of the work of researchers need to be implemented, addressing the necessary change of the rewards and incentive system for researchers. This implies as the case of emerging public health emergencies illustrate that the importance of publishing in major scientific journal will be relativized in the context of a full operational open science, and other research outputs as open data, open software, and so forth will become important. Open research outputs will be available prior to publication rather than postpublication.AI technologies have the potential to foster an inclusive science community. But a good AI is dependent on the variety and quality of data. Open data can play a key part for AI algorithms and machines to function and produce good outcomesTransition to open science is a multidimensional and multistage process. There is value and risk of being a first mover, but there is higher risk of being a follower. The European Commission has taken various steps in initiating this transition, but all stakeholders must get on board to take mutually reinforcing steps to advance open science policy and its implementation (Euroscientist, All authors listed have made a substantial, direct and intellectual contribution to the work, and approved it for publication.The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.


The panelists include Dr. Jeffrey Kenkel, Associate Editor of ASJ and ASJ Open Forum, Dr. Laurie Casas, Featured Operative Techniques Section Editor, Dr. Graeme Southwick, Editorial Board member, and Dr. Tracy Pfeifer, ASAPS member-at-large. They share their viewpoints on open access publishing and highlight the benefits to potential authors of publication in ASJ Open Forum. Key discussion points include a detailed description of the new journal, what article types may be submitted, who can access the published content, and the ease of submission via the cascade process from ASJ.We are pleased to present this roundtable discussion (available online as Supplementary Material at Dr. Kenkel received research grants from Bellus Medical and Venus; and an educational grant and support for a cadaver course from Galderma. The other authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and publication of this article.The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and publication of this article.


Antibiotics Editorial Office has taken the decision to retract the paper with the consent of the authors. The authors assert that the findings, that vanillic acid exerted a significant antibacterial activity against carbapenem-resistant Enterobacter cloacae (CREC), are nevertheless reliable [The authors have been made aware that two figures were published in two papers: Figure 5A in paper  is duplireliable .Antibiotics Editorial Office and authors apologize to the readers of Antibiotics for any inconvenience caused.The Editor-in-Chief has checked the case and communicated with the authors. The decision to retract has been taken in agreement with the authors of the paper . The AntTo ensure the addition of only high-quality scientific works to the field of scholarly publication, this paper  is retra