In the Writer’s Craft section, we offer simple tips to improve your writing in one of three areas: Energy, Clarity and Persuasiveness. Each entry focuses on a key writing feature or strategy, illustrates how it commonly goes wrong, teaches the grammatical underpinnings necessary to understand it and offers suggestions to wield it effectively. We encourage readers to share comments on or suggestions for this section on Twitter, using the hashtag: #how’syourwriting?personal. We were left feeling deflated, belittled, and irritated—not exactly the optimal frame of mind for retooling a rejected paper.We recently had a manuscript rejected from a journal following peer review. That in itself is an occurrence neither unusual nor tragic. We all experience rejection, and often the peer review process improves our work so that we can resubmit and contribute more convincingly to the scholarly conversation. But this time the experience felt different. This time it felt Peer review can sting. It is intended as a collegial, respectful enterprise, but the popular “Reviewer 2” meme in social media suggests that it often feels otherwise , 2. ReviReviews exemplifying such characteristics are hard to take and can have a number of negative consequences for the authors, the journal, and the field. Reviewer 2 can push the imposter syndrome button for both novice and more experienced writers, causing them to doubt their scientific abilities. They can consign papers with good potential to a desk drawer for eternity. They can cost journals future submissions and the field future knowledge. And perhaps most disturbingly, they can disproportionately harm underrepresented groups. A 2019 study found that intersectional groups such as women of colour and non-binary people of colour were most likely to report direct negative impacts on scientific aptitude, productivity, and career advancement after receiving an unprofessional peer review . In an ePeer review is voluntary, unpaid, and often unrecognized and unrewarded work by busy academics and clinicians. We’re squeezing this work in on evenings and weekends, and perhaps feeling resentful as we do about the time stolen from our own writing projects . But peeThe author and the journal’s editor need different things from your review, and so the risk that someone will be disappointed—or disheartened—is high. The author hopes for feedback that will strengthen their scholarship, while the journal wants an assessment of the paper’s quality and suitability for publication. How can we reconcile the sometimes-competing purposes of our reviews to ensure they are meaningful? Let’s consider some helpful writing strategies.The authors do not sufficiently explain themselves in the Methods section, which is jargon-filled.Treat the feedback-forward parts of the review as a conversation, writing as though you were sitting down with the author(s) to talk about their work. The second person, used rarely in academic writing, works well here to build rapport and create a sense of intimacy. For example, notice how the third person approach creates distance and evokes a sense of a harsh judgment:I stumbled over some of the jargon in your Methods section; I’d suggest that you adopt more plain-language explanations to reduce the risk of losing your reader.Perhaps you felt defensive just reading that line! In contrast, an approach that uses first- (“I”) and second-person (“you”) pronouns feels more like a conversation with a colleague:“There is a vast literature on this topic that the authors have ignored.” If the Discussion fails to revisit one of the Introduction’s core concepts, call that out explicitly. Instead of “The Discussion is underwhelming and fails to show how the study has moved the needle in this domain”, try something more directive, such as “I’d suggest returning more clearly in the Discussion to the issue of patient-centred care and how this study challenges some of its core principles, given the prominence of that line of argument in the Introduction.”Remember that effective feedback should be specific and actionable . Don’t lThe authors seem oblivious to the extensive existing literature on this subject in the field of higher education, and thus claim their discoveries as original when they are not.Meaningful feedback also targets the task and not the person . Steer cThe paper’s claim to originality is weakened by its lack of reference to similar work done in the field of higher education.Take a breath—and consider revising in a way that redirects the feedback away from the “oblivious” authors and toward a piece of work that could be strengthened. While the version below remains unmistakably critical, its critique is directed at the paper and not at the author(s):You’ll also notice that this comment deliberately deviates from the use of the second person to achieve this redirect.Such redirection is a form of hedging, which refers to a toolbox of linguistic and rhetorical moves that allow us to express caution, uncertainty, and politeness. Hedging is necessary and abundant in scientific writing , 9, and The authors have done a rigorous piece of work that addresses a pressing question in health professions education. While I have identified a number of opportunities for the paper to be strengthened, I find it a compelling piece of work that represents a novel contribution to the literature on this issue, and I look forward to seeing it in print.While it’s helpful to think of the review primarily as a conversation with the author, remember that the journal’s editors (chief and/or associate) will be listening in. Every line of your review need not be construed as feedback for the author. From time to time, you need to ensure that the editor will hear your concerns clearly, understand how much weight you assign to those concerns, and appreciate the rationale for your ultimate recommendation. Most journals ask reviewers to start with a few comments reflecting their overall impression of the paper, and these comments are as much for the editor as for the authors. Here’s your chance to say something like:This opening salvo lets the associate editor know that you think the paper is strong and that the journal would do well to publish it. With that context in mind, the associate editor need not try to read between the lines of your recommendation. They will understand—even if you suggest a significant revision—that any subsequent critiques are not fatal flaws, but rather opportunities for improvement. Many journals also include a confidential comments box that reviewers can use to flag up issues to the editor. Reviewers may use this box in a variety of situations, such as when they’re worried about ethical or methodological issues, uncertain about the decision they’ve recommended, or compelled to contextualize their review comments. Be careful, though, that you’re not contradicting your reviews in this space, or using it for critiques that your bland, uncritical reviews avoid mentioning. Editors are in a tough spot when the reviewer comments don’t support a final decision that was prompted by confidential comments.While this Introduction is well written, I struggle to identify the gap in the literature that this study seeks to fill. The literature review is comprehensive but rather uncritical, creating the impression that we already know everything there is to know about this problem. This issue contributes to my main concern about this paper: I’m just not persuaded that the work is sufficiently original to merit publication.The first few sentences of your review of each section of the paper might similarly contain messages for the associate editor that reflect your judgment and the intensity of your feeling. For example:rather uncritical”, “not sufficiently original”). And the use of “I struggle” and “I’m not persuaded” reminds us that a review is, after all, opinion and not universal truth.Here, the issues raised are clearly weighty and threaten the paper’s acceptability for publication. The associate editor will no doubt get the message. At the same time, hedging strategies soften the blow for the authors. The concerns are directed at the product  rather than at its producers. Positives (“well written” and “comprehensive”) balance the critiques, and modifiers allow for some uncertainty in the judgments that are offered  to streamline your comments and focus on hitting the high points. If your reviews regularly take more than a couple of hours, it is possible that you are overstepping your role. You are not the authors’ supervisor or thesis advisor, and while it may feel instinctive to take an educational approach, it may not actually be helpful for the authors or editors.Another strategy to help the authors and editors interpret your comments is to carefully distinguish between your reflections and your requests. Reflections are nice, as they show the authors that you are deeply engaging with their work. But keep these reflections brief. We have seen reviews that run longer than the paper they are commenting on, which in turn require similarly lengthy responses back from the authors: this can put both authors and editors in a difficult position, especially if word limits are an issue. In the end, what matters are your suggestions for revision: actionable requests for more, less, or different material in certain parts of the paper. It may be helpful to demarcate these two sections clearly, so the authors know specifically what to respond to.Finally, we offer a few quick tips to help you avoid some of the pitfalls of peer review commentary.You may wish the authors had conducted another study. They didn’t. So don’t request it. Certain peccadillos may bother you, but don’t fixate on them or allow yourself to view them as fatal flaws. Consider what can be fixed with clearer writing and what cannot—for example, poor study design or low response rates cannot be corrected at this stage. If these flaws are dealbreakers, point that out honestly to the authors and the editor. But there are relatively few fatal flaws, and things like an incomplete description of a coding process or insufficient explanation of a theory rarely count as such. Remember that the editors and readers will also cast a critical eye on the work; you needn’t see yourself as the last word on the study.As our discussion of hedging suggested, feedback is more effective if it isn’t personal. That goes for the feedback writer as well as the feedback recipient. Frustrated that your work didn’t make it onto the author’s citation list? Let it go. Self-citation requests abound in peer review and may be a questionable practice. One study reported that 44% of requests for additional citations were self-citations . If the Reviews can be blinded, meaning the reviewers do not know who the authors are, and anonymous, meaning authors don’t know who their reviewers are. Identifying yourself puts you in the rhetorical position of talking to the writer, which ought to trigger the same diplomacy skills you’d use when standing up to ask a question following a conference presentation.  In an effort to improve the quality and tone of reviews, some journals now offer “open peer review” in which reviewers can opt  to sign their reviews. There are power issues to be considered here: reviewers earlier in their career may fear the consequences of unblinded reviewer comments, particularly for work written by senior members of the community.Some journals now share with all reviewers both the editor’s decision and the full set of reviews. Not only does this make reviewers more publicly accountable for their remarks, but it also affords them the opportunity to read other reviewers’ comments. We have found this approach quite educational. We get to see when other reviewers respond differently than we did, which reminds us that interpretation is key. We note that other reviews have perceived different problems and strengths than the ones our review focused on. And sometimes we pick up turns of phrase that are particularly effective, and we unashamedly steal them for future application when we need to make difficult peer review feedback more digestible.Peer review can be thankless work. But imagine that it wasn’t. Imagine that you are writing a review that the author will genuinely thank you for. Maybe not today … but someday. If the paper is accepted, you want to feel that you’ve played a small role in helping to strengthen it, and the author should feel a bit prouder of their work. And even if the paper is rejected, you’d like the authors to feel they have gained something of value. For some authors, the idea that a reviewer really engaged with and took their writing seriously is affirming, even if the decision is to reject. So don’t be a Reviewer 2 who leaves writers disillusioned and discouraged. Be that reviewer who engages and encourages. That reviewer who, a year hence, might get invited for coffee at a conference as gratitude for the role you played in strengthening the author’s manuscript.


Research in many different areas of medicine will benefit from new approaches to peer review and publishing. The urgent need to understand and control COVID-19, and to effectively treat people with the disease, has mobilized global scientific and medical communities like nothing in human history. It has also ushered in a new era in medical publishing. Notably, the desire to share results rapidly, widely and openly has led to an explosion of submissions to the preprint server medRxiv.But even as the pandemic has demonstrated the potential for rapid, author-driven publication to democratize access and accelerate research, it has exposed the challenges of this model of scholarly communication. With intense public appetite for information about the virus and pandemic, there has been a real danger that individuals and institutions will act hastily on information about risks, mitigation strategies and treatments before it is adequately scrutinized. Such opportunities and challenges, best illustrated during the pandemic, lie ahead as medicine moves towards the goal of providing evidence-based care to patients no matter where they live. This trajectory also opens up real opportunities for speed, transparency and rich evaluation across peer review in medicine.Medicine section will offer a whole new approach to publishing in medicine, including public health and health policy. We will apply our system of editorial oversight by practicing clinicians and clinician-investigators, and rigorous, consultative peer review to produce public reviews of preprints with significant potential to impact clinical practice. Our goal is to transform unrefereed manuscripts posted on medRxiv into refereed preprints that provide readers and potential users with a detailed assessment of the science, comments on its potential impact, and perspectives on its use. In essence, by providing rich and rapid evaluation of preprints, we hope that refereed preprints become a currency of trust in medicine.We are therefore excited to announce that eLife’s reinvigorated We will continue to operate like a traditional journal, providing authors who submit their preprints to us with feedback from the reviewers and editors, and we will select a subset of papers for formal publication in eLife. Our scope is broad, covering all areas of the health sciences ranging from cellular and murine models of disease, to human genetics and genomic sciences, to therapeutic discovery, to all phases of clinical investigation, to population health outcomes, to health policy and clinical decision making.eLife was launched in 2012 by three funders – Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Wellcome Trust and Max Planck Society, later joined by the Knut and Alice Wallenberg Foundation – who were eager to take a more active role in promoting best practices in scientific and medical publishing. Founding Editor-in-Chief Randy Schekman focused on improving the culture of peer review, pioneering a consultative approach in which reviewers and editors come together to discuss their assessments, reach a collective decision on whether the strengths of the work merit publication in eLife and which, if any, weaknesses need to be addressed before publication. The authors are then provided with a clear and concise decision letter that is free of the conflicting opinions and recommendations often found in reviews.Since 2019, with one of us (MBE) as Editor-in-Chief, eLife has moved to embrace and encourage the growth of preprints even more strongly in all areas of science and medicine, and has developed a new concept of 'publish, then review' to serve readers and users, as well as authors . This neWhile eLife has traditionally focused on basic science, many of our editors are practicing clinicians who run research groups that cross the proverbial line between basic and clinical research. We have published papers in early translational research, but over the past few years have received many requests to bring our innovations in peer review and preprint review into the full spectrum of research in medicine.Senior Editors that includes accomplished women and men from around the globe. These Senior Editors in turn have the responsibility of overseeing the review process through our Board of Reviewing Editors, which has also been greatly expanded (and will continue to expand) to include clinicians, public health specialists, and basic, translational and clinical researchers spanning a wide range of disciplines. In building the team, we have emphasized not only clinical expertise, scientific excellence and intellectual breadth, but also equity, diversity and inclusion, in order to ensure that we address patient-centered research for everyone.To answer these calls, and to ensure we do so successfully, we have recruited two Deputy Editors in Medicine (DMH and MZ) and a group of The result is an editorial board that can truly aim to cover all areas of modern biology and medicine, with the ability to handle any paper in any discipline, especially those that span and knit together work from fields whose practitioners do not traditionally publish in or read the same journals. For example, we are now well equipped to evaluate all aspects of papers whose topics range from behavioral sciences and social determinants of health to clinical genetics, structural biology, drug discovery and early–stage efficacy studies. We are equally equipped to handle papers describing new COVID-19 virus mutations, their coverage by vaccines, and modeling future infections in different population settings.In keeping with our desire to tackle the most difficult issues in publishing, we have also created a new Ethics Committee – a think tank of ethicists and individuals with long-standing experience in different aspects of science, medicine and publishing – to provide guidance on issues including, but not limited to, publishing, medical and animal ethics, biosecurity and biosafety, environmental justice, competing interests, data availability, and issues surrounding studies with minority populations in the developing world. These issues are of growing importance across both biology and medicine.Over the past few years we have received many requests to bring our innovations in peer review and preprint review into the full spectrum of research in medicine.We are also aware that the pipeline for the young physician-scientist is extremely leaky with most medical graduates who enter science being drawn into private medicine, whether or not they obtained a doctoral degree . We willMedicine section will cherish the support of the physician–scientist community around the globe.In all, eLife's ambitions in medicine are broader than just becoming a new open-access medical journal. This is a larger effort underscoring a cultural change to emphasize the importance of preprints and reviewing preprints; to focus on transparency, not just on open access but also on open data and open methods; and to encourage responsible behaviors in medical publishing – elements that are necessary for the translation of meaningful scientific investigation to the betterment of human health. Towards this aspiration, eLife’s reinvigorated


Journal indexing by global bibliographic databases has numerous implications for research and development in the era of digitisation. Researchers and authors employ bibliographic searches to comprehensively and systematically analyse relevant articles in their research and reviews. They consult lists of indexed sources at multidisciplinary and specialist databases to target relevant journals offering global visibility and dissemination of their own work. Research and academic institutions are also concerned with bibliographic records of their affiliated faculty and strive to expand indexing of their own periodicals to achieve and maintain ranking in the global competition.1 To better serve their contributors’ and readers’ interests, editors should better organise their work and regularly consult experts with interest in bibliographic databases. Professional advice on instructions for authors, publication ethics statements, internationalisation, and digitisation pave the way toward expanded indexing.2 Such advice is particularly helpful for prioritising editorial tasks and applying to bibliographic databases in an organised way, when certain indexing criteria are met.3 The sequence of journal applications to information aggregators, digital repositories, and bibliographic databases is critically important. Failure to realise the importance of planning relevant activities may result in 2 to 4-year application embargos imposed by databases. Initial archiving by PubMed Central and listing by information aggregators such as EBSCO often allows garnering citations and acquiring journal metrics required for the coverage by prestigious abstract and citation databases such as Scopus.3 Over the past decade, Scopus has gained immense importance because of its constantly improving functionality, expanded coverage of quality sources, and scrutinised selection and deselection criteria. Launched in 2004 as an Elsevier database, Scopus has succeeded in outperforming many other indexing systems, with 22,794 active titles and more than 78 million bibliographic records.4 Equipped with advanced analytical tools and integrated with the social-media aggregator Plum Analytics, Scopus offers enriched scientometric and altmetric data at the level of individual articles. Scopus searches allow mapping science dynamics across academic disciplines and synthesising new scientific evidence. Accordingly, experts advise its inclusion in search strategies of narrative and systematic reviews.6 To ensure independent and comprehensive evaluation of journal application, the Scopus Content Selection and Advisory Board was established in 2009. The Board chairs monitor the multi-step evaluation procedure that facilitates acceptance of trustworthy sources with established quality controls, digitisation, and recognition by the international community. Re-evaluation mechanisms are also in place to analyse and delist sources with skewed metrics, un-ethical publishing practices, and diminishing value for the scientific community. Unsurprisingly, academic ranking systems such as the Times Higher Education (THE) and QS World University Rankings currently process Scopus data,7 motivating academic institutions to set goals for improved performance on this highly reputable database. Scopus coverage immediately boosts a journal’s influence on other indexed sources’ citation metrics. As such, validating and formatting article reference lists is crucial for entering and maintaining in the database. The indexing itself facilitates comprehensive and transparent impact calculation and journal ranking in a relevant subject category. Scopus-based metrics are publicly available on the database and the SCImago Journal & Country Rank platforms. Since June 2020, Scopus displays improved CiteScore values that cover a 4-year indexing window and distinguish journals with fast citation growth.8 All newly indexed journals with a publication history of 1 year have their monthly updated CiteScore values.9 In 2018, annual CiteScore values were available for 23,350 journals.9Improved understanding of the journal indexing and its implications for all stakeholders motivates authors and editors to draft, edit, and publish quality work.https://www.scimagojr.com/journalrank.php?-category=2745&page=1&total_size=64), including 16 in the highest quartile of the SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) with the most prestigious citations. The top 3 journals in this category are Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases (SJR 6.142), Arthritis and Rheumatology (4.113), and Nature Reviews Rheumatology (3.390). These flagship journals publish evidence-based articles of importance to the global community of rheumatologists and allied health professionals. Each of these journals has a long publishing history reflected in their h-index values of 228, 305, and 126, respectively. Such impressive metrics may stimulate editors of all other rheumatology journals to improve their adherence to the best standards in the field, solicit more evidence-based items such as practice guidelines, clinical trial reports and cohort studies, and gain more influence by attracting numerous relevant citations and the attention of respective professional communities.The SCImago Journal & Country Rank platform currently displays much-desired metrics of 64 rheumatology journals  for indexing, recognising the value of the new addition to the Scopus database and motivating the editorial team to achieve new highs. The acceptance for coverage is indeed a great achievement for the Journal editorial team, the Greek Rheumatology Society and Professional Association of Rheumatologists, and for the many rheumatology societies endorsing the Journal’s activities. Over the past few years, MJR has consistently upgraded its instructions and publication ethics statement, instituted posts for a Research Integrity Officer and Independent Statistician, internationalised its Board, expanded cooperation with numerous rheumatology societies, integrated with CrossRef and received Digital Object Identifiers (DOI), joined the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), and got archived by PubMed Central.10 Also, it signed the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA) and established a Social Media Coordinator post to diversify impact evaluation and accelerate dissemination of rheumatology research in the Mediterranean region and far beyond.In October 2020, the Scopus Content Selection and Advisory Board accepted the The indexing status is yet another major milestone for the MJR. With this and previous achievements in mind, the Editorial Team, supported by numerous authors, reviewers, and readers, anticipates an increased flow of great submissions and publication of truly influential articles of interest to all stakeholders.


According to the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), authorship should be offered based on fulfilling four criteria. Honorary authorship (HA) is a term used for authors enlisted who did not fulfill these criteria. The objective of this study was to determine the proportion of HA in the field of oral and maxillofacial surgery.In 2020, a twenty-two question survey was sent to corresponding authors of four high-impact journals in the field of oral and maxillofacial surgery. The survey covered (1) demographics, (2) awareness of authorship guidelines and decision-making of authorship, and (3) honorary authorship.The response rate was 24.8%. Of the respondents, 81.1% was aware of the issue of guidelines on authorship, while 56.3% was aware of the issue of HA. Yet, 15.5% of the respondents felt that one or more of their co-authors did not deserve authorship based on the ICMJE-guidelines.Based on the estimated proportions of HA, attempts should be made by universities, medical journals and individual researchers to further reduce authorship misuse. Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work; ANDDrafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content; ANDFinal approval of the version to be published; ANDAgreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved .”Authoring scientific publications can provide clinicians opportunities to further their clinical or scientific career. According to the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), authorship should be offered based on fulfilling four criteria :“1. SubsHonorary authorship (HA) is a term used for authors enlisted who do not fulfill these criteria. As HA gives inappropriate credit to authors, it is classified as scientific misconduct in the medical literature . It is uTherefore, the aim of the current study is to analyze the proportion of HA in different journals in various journals in the oral and maxillofacial surgery.In 2020, a twenty-two question survey was sent to corresponding authors of articles published in 2019 in four high-impact journals in the field of oral and maxillofacial surgery. Editorials, manuscript correspondence and articles with only one author were excluded. The survey covered (1) demographics, (2) awareness of authorship guidelines and decision-making of authorship, and 3) honorary authorship  honorary. The surIn total, 227 out of the 914 sent surveys were answered, leading to a response rate of 24.8% , followed by the first author (29.1%) and senior author (22.5%) deciding. The order of authors was mostly determined by the amount each contributed (42.9%).Overall, the proportion of self-perceived HA was 15.5%, which ranges from 5.5 to 21.3% among the journals surveyed, while the proportion ICMJE-defined HA was 49.8% ranging from 41.0% to 57.6%. Continent of employment and the journal surveyed were not associated with HA.Figure The present study shows that the vast majority of the respondents are aware of the ICMJE-guidelines and agree with them. Despite this awareness of authorship guidelines, the proportion of self-perceived HA was 15.5%, while the proportion of ICMJE-defined HA was 49.8%.Some limitations have to be acknowledged. First, the response rate is 24.8% which may introduce selection bias. Second, we surveyed corresponding authors. Corresponding authors might consist of more senior authors which can give a lower estimate of HA. Finally, recall bias could be introduced due to the retrospective nature of the survey. Previous published studies suggest some solutions to reduce the proportion of HA. For example, a solution might be the implementation of courses on publication ethics for researchers. Another solution might be the referral to and endorsement of authorship guidelines by medical journals. Furthermore, implementing a support system to discuss and resolve authorship disputes may also help reduce the proportion of HA .Based on the estimated proportions of HA, attempts should be made by universities, medical journals and individual researchers to further reduce authorship misuse. These attempts should not only focus on raising awareness of authorship guidelines but also on facilitating open discussions of authorship issues for both junior and senior researchers.The authors have no conflicts of interest.


Problems continue to exist with the reporting quality and risk of bias in search methods and strategies in systematic reviews and related review types. Peer reviewers who are not familiar with what is required to transparently and fully report a search may not be prepared to review the search components of systematic reviews, nor may they know what is likely to introduce bias into a search. Librarians and information specialists, who have expertise in searching, may offer specialized knowledge that would help improve systematic review search reporting and lessen risk of bias, but they are underutilized as methodological peer reviewers.BMJ and BMJ Open as the unit of randomization. Manuscripts that report on completed systematic reviews and related review types and have been sent for peer review are eligible. For each manuscript randomized to the intervention, a librarian/information specialist will be invited as an additional peer reviewer using standard practices for each journal. First revision manuscripts will be assessed in duplicate for reporting quality and risk of bias, using adherence to 4 items from PRISMA-S and assessors’ judgements on 4 signaling questions from ROBIS Domain 2, respectively. Identifying information from the manuscripts will be removed prior to assessment.This study will evaluate the effect of adding librarians and information specialists as methodological peer reviewers on the quality of search reporting and risk of bias in systematic review searches. The study will be a pragmatic randomized controlled trial using 150 systematic review manuscripts submitted to The primary outcomes for this study are quality of reporting as indicated by differences in the proportion of adequately reported searches in first revision manuscripts between intervention and control groups and risk of bias as indicated by differences in the proportions of first revision manuscripts with high, low, and unclear bias. If the intervention demonstrates an effect on search reporting or bias, this may indicate a need for journal editors to work with librarians and information specialists as methodological peer reviewers.Open Science Framework. Registered on June 17, 2021, at 10.17605/OSF.IO/W4CK2. The order of the items has been modified to group similar items  –23. For Methodological expertise is often recognized by journal editors as a necessity for reviewing complex aspects of research, such as statistical analyses –30. In fLibrarians and information specialists (LIS), who are experts in search methods, are an underutilized resource for methodological peer review. Like statisticians, LIS have highly specialized expertise that would enable them to provide a detailed methodological review of the search strategy. A thorough methodological review of the search strategy could enable authors to correct errors, improve reporting quality and reproducibility, and reduce the risk of bias in their systematic review by searching additional, recommended information sources or adding a wider range of search terms to increase sensitivity. LIS reviewers may also be able to identify searches with fatal flaws and reject poor-quality manuscripts that cannot be improved. A recent survey of 291 health sciences librarians found that while 22% had been invited to peer review at least one systematic review, an additional 74% would be interested or would consider peer reviewing systematic reviews for journals . This isThough LIS have expressed interest in being methodological peer reviewers, there have been no studies to test whether inviting LIS to participate as methodological peer reviewers improves the quality of reporting or reduces the risk of bias in published systematic reviews.The objective of the study is to evaluate the effect of adding librarians and information specialists as methodological peer reviewers on the quality of search reporting and risk of bias in systematic review searches.The study will be a pragmatic randomized controlled trial using submitted systematic review manuscripts as the unit of randomization. Submitted manuscripts of completed systematic reviews were selected as the unit of study to reflect the current rarity of both pre-search peer review and protocol registration or publication.The protocol is reported using the SPIRIT guidelines  as a fraThe study will take place in collaboration with the BMJ Publishing Group.BMJ and BMJ Open) from BMJ Publishing Group that each published at least 20 systematic reviews in 2020.Journals published by the BMJ Publishing Group are eligible for the study. We purposively selected two general medical journals (BMJ and BMJ Open), which the journal editor has decided to send out for peer review will be eligible for inclusion. Manuscripts will be accessed through these journals’ editorial systems, ScholarOne.All new manuscript submissions describing a systematic review submitted to participating journals (Use (or claim to use) a systematic review or related evidence synthesis methodology as its primary methodology. This includes scoping reviews, rapid reviews, and other evidence syntheses that use formal, explicit, and pre-specified methods to conduct the review.To be considered a systematic review manuscript, the manuscript must:Systematic review or related evidence synthesis method is not the primary methodology used .The manuscript is a meta-analysis that was conducted without a search component, such as the results from a prospective meta-analysis or a systematic review relying solely on clinical study reports.The manuscript is a study protocol.The editor chooses not to send the manuscript for peer review.The manuscript is a republication or an abridged version of a systematic review published elsewhere .It is a fast-track manuscript requiring immediate peer reviewer response.Manuscripts will not be considered if:Not applicable. This study was determined to not be human subjects research by the Institutional Review Board at the University of New Mexico Health Sciences Center.The BMJ Publishing Group’s Company Privacy Statement states that reviews and manuscripts may be used for quality improvement purposes. All authors of submitted manuscripts receive the following notice, customized to the journal: “We are constantly trying to find ways of improving the peer review system and continually monitor processes and methods by including article submissions and reviews in our research. If you do not wish your paper to be entered into our peer review research programme, please let us know by emailing [journal-specific email address] as soon as possible.” In addition, all peer reviewers invited to review by BMJ Publishing Group’s journals receive the following statement as part of their email invitation, customized to the journal: “We are constantly trying to find ways of improving the peer review system and have an ongoing programme of research. If you do not wish your review entered into a study please let us know by emailing [journal-specific email address] as soon as possible.”The comparator is usual practice at each of the participating journals. This was chosen to understand if adding a methodological peer reviewer to usual practice would result in differences in search reporting quality and risk of bias.Control group : Editors will invite peer reviewers using standard practices. Peer reviewers will receive automated, journal-specific standard emails per the journal’s usual practice.Intervention group: Editors will invite peer reviewers using standard practices. For each manuscript, an LIS reviewer will also be invited using standard practices. The LIS reviewer will receive an identical invitation and instructions when invited to peer review as the other invited peer reviews.Prior to the study’s commencement, LIS reviewers will be identified by MLR using the Librarian Peer Reviewer Database  and addeFor each manuscript randomized to the intervention, MLR will flag the manuscript (using a specific colored manuscript account flag visible to editors). MLR will have full access to ScholarOne and, for intervention manuscripts, will manually increase the quota for the number of reviewers required for the manuscript and then invite a flagged LIS reviewer to review alongside the peer reviewers. To avoid oversampling of individual LIS reviewers, MLR will track invitations to LIS reviewers and will not invite a LIS reviewer a second time until all LIS reviewers have been invited to participate in a review. The invitation for LIS reviewers will be the same standard email sent to peer reviewers. LIS reviewers will receive no special instructions.If the invited LIS reviewer declines the invitation to review a particular manuscript, an additional LIS reviewer will be invited until one LIS reviewer has accepted the review invitation for that manuscript. All reviewers, including the LIS reviewers, will receive automated, journal-specific standard emails per the journal’s usual practice.After peer review, manuscripts are either rejected or authors are asked to revise their manuscripts for further editorial scrutiny. All randomized manuscripts will be tracked to determine the editorial decision post review (reject or revise). The first revised version after initial peer review will be the version that is assessed for study outcomes relating to the quality of reporting and risk of bias.Not applicable. This study was determined to not be human subjects research by the Institutional Review Board at the University of New Mexico Health Sciences Center.All peer reviewers, including LIS reviewers, may receive automated, journal-specific reminder emails per the journal’s usual practice. No special instructions or reminders will be sent to LIS reviewers.Not applicable. This study was determined to not be human subjects research by the Institutional Review Board at the University of New Mexico Health Sciences Center.Not applicable. This study was determined to not be human subjects research by the Institutional Review Board at the University of New Mexico Health Sciences Center.Quality of reporting as indicated by differences in the proportion of adequately reported searches in first revision manuscripts between intervention and control groups. To be considered adequately reported, four key PRISMA-S  reportinRisk of bias as indicated by differences in the proportions of first revision manuscripts between intervention and control groups with high, low, and unclear bias in ROBIS  Domain 2The primary outcomes will be:PRISMA-S was developed as an extension to the main PRISMA reporting guideline to provide more specificity on the details of reporting the search component of a systematic review or related review type –8. BecauAssessors will respond “yes” or “no” when evaluating whether each of the four PRISMA-S items is adequately reported. For the quality of reporting primary outcome, all four PRISMA-S reporting items must be adequately reported for the search to be classified as adequately reported. Binary responses were selected because the presence or absence of the four selected PRISMA-S items does not require judgement; the components are either present, or they are not. Binary responses are commonly used in research on search strategy reporting when examining concepts similar to the selected PRISMA-S items , 12–15.ROBIS is a tool designed for assessing the risk of bias in systematic reviews in four domains: study eligibility criteria, identification and selection of studies, data collection and study appraisal, and synthesis and findings . Domain Each assessor will assess the four ROBIS signaling questions separately and use them to determine the primary outcome, the overall risk of bias. When evaluating the ROBIS Domain 2 items, the assessors will use the ROBIS instrument’s options. The assessors will respond to each signaling question with “yes,” “probably yes,” “probably no,” “no,” or “no information.” The “no information” category is used only if there is not enough detail to make a judgement. The ROBIS instrument also requests that assessors record notes to support their judgement.Using these judgements, assessors will then determine the overall bias in this domain as high, low, or unclear. All four questions must have “yes” or “probably yes” answers to receive an overall low risk of bias rating. If any questions are answered as “no information,” the overall rating will be unclear risk of bias. If one or more questions is answered as “probably no” or “no,” the overall rating will be high risk of bias.Differences in the proportion of papers rejected after the first round of peer review between intervention and control groupsDifferences in the proportion of papers requiring revisions not resubmitted after the first round of peer review between intervention and control groupsDifferences in the proportion of first revision manuscripts for PRISMA-S item 1 between intervention and control groups . At that point, MLR will randomize the manuscript to the intervention or control arm based on manuscript ID. Each manuscript in the intervention arm will be color flagged and labeled in the ScholarOne system for easy identification by editors, researchers, and administrators.Manuscript recruitment will complete when the desired sample size has been achieved.Manuscripts meeting the eligibility requirements will be randomized to the intervention or control group (1:1) soon after the first peer reviewer is invited to review. This will be indicated in ScholarOne when the number of “peer reviewers invited” variable is greater than zero. Manuscripts will be stratified by journal and randomized using permuted block randomization in blocks of four. The Study Randomizer app will be used to generate the sequence .If multiple eligible manuscripts are identified on the same day, the manuscripts will be randomized in the sequence of their time of submission.Each time a new manuscript meets eligibility criteria, MLR will go to the Study Randomizer dashboard to enroll a new manuscript by selecting the journal for stratification and entering the manuscript ID (supplied by the ScholarOne system). The randomization for that manuscript will be provided by the Study Randomizer tool .MLR will generate the allocation sequence using Study Randomizer , determiManuscript authors and co-reviewers will be masked to the intervention. Editors will not be blinded to the identity of the peer reviewers submitting reports and will be aware that a manuscript is part of the study.All manuscripts will be assigned a unique study identification number for masking. Outcome assessors will be blinded to the group allocation and will not have access to the ScholarOne system.Not applicable. Unblinding will not be required.https://osf.io/78ujt/The outcomes will be assessed independently by two blinded outcome assessors per revised manuscript. The outcome assessors have expertise in reporting the search component of systematic reviews as well as methodological expertise designing and executing searches for systematic reviews. Disagreements in assessments will be resolved through consensus or, if necessary, by inviting the third reviewer to help resolve disagreement. We will provide assessors with PRISMA-S guidance and ROBIS documentation prior to piloting data extraction forms using 5–10 sample systematic reviews from outside the study population. Any inconsistencies in interpretation will be discussed and the data extraction forms modified for clarity and usability. All variables that will be collected are in LibPeerRevDataCollectionTable2021-06-17.docx: The editorial decision (reject/revise) after the first round of peer review and final editorial decision (accept/reject) will be gathered by MLR using the ScholarOne systems and will not be blinded.Manuscripts will be randomized when submitted for peer review, but only manuscripts that have a first revision will be analysed. We will track manuscript rejection after the first peer review.Data from the journals’ editorial systems will be extracted (by MLR) and maintained on a secure, password-protected Google Drive folder hosted at the BMJ Publishing Group. The folder will be accessible only to MLR and SS; Google Drive complies with all General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) requirements. Assessors will access the anonymized study manuscripts through a separate secure, password-protected Google Drive folder hosted at the BMJ Publishing Group. Data collected from the assessors will be collected and stored using a Google Drive folder hosted at the BMJ Publishing Group to facilitate resolution of outcome assessment conflicts between assessors.Derived/aggregated anonymized data will be shared with the research community upon completion of the research using a publicly accessible data repository.BMJ and regularly undertakes research into the publication process. All outcome assessors will be subject to a confidentiality agreement before assessing blinded manuscripts. Access to personally identifiable information about librarian/information specialists in the Librarian Peer Reviewer Database is made accessible to any journal editor without restriction in order to facilitate the peer review process and is not subject to a confidentiality agreement.MLR and MZ will be given access to identifiable data from ScholarOne editorial systems for participating journals under a confidentiality agreement. SS is a full-time employee of Not applicable. This study does not collect biological specimens.We will begin by assessing differences between first revision manuscripts in the control and intervention arms by examining the proportions of adequately reported searches  in each group using chi-square tests or Fisher’s exact tests. We will also examine the proportions of adequate reporting of each of the four PRISMA-S items Table  to deterWe will use this same method to assess differences in the risk of bias demonstrated in the first revision manuscripts. The risk of bias assessment will be a global ROBIS Domain 2 rating . We will also use chi-square tests or Fisher’s exact tests to examine whether there are differences between intervention and control groups for each of the four signaling questions. We will calculate the effect sizes using Cramer’s V.Bivariate and multivariate logistic regression will be used to investigate potential associations between the global and individual PRISMA-S and ROBIS Domain 2 ratings and potential confounders. These include number of authors, journal the manuscript was submitted to, librarian/information specialist involvement in the systematic review, librarian/information specialist authorship of the systematic review, citation of the main PRISMA Statement or one of its extensions, the citation of an alternate reporting guideline or conduct guideline , or the citation of the PRESS Guideline. We will first conduct a series of bivariate logistic regressions for each predictor and then conduct a multivariate logistic regression by including all predictors in a single model. This will allow us to test the independent association of each variable as well as control for the others. We will report odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals for these analyses. We will conduct primary analyses using an intention-to-treat-model.We will also examine differences in the proportion of papers rejected after the first round of peer review. This analysis will be conducted using chi-square or Fisher’s exact tests. We will calculate the effect size using Cramer’s V.We will also assess the level of initial agreement between assessors using Cohen’s kappa .Not applicable. We do not plan to conduct interim analyses.We will conduct an as-treated sensitivity analysis if one or more manuscripts in the intervention group receive no review from invited LIS reviewers. In addition, it is possible that manuscripts could be sent to librarians or information specialists who are not flagged for the study, particularly in the control arm. If, upon examination, there are any librarian/information specialist peer reviewers invited who are not invited as part of the intervention, we will conduct sensitivity analyses.We will conduct primary analyses using an intention-to-treat-model. Missing data from outcome assessment will be returned to outcome assessors for completion.BMJ and BMJ Open provide pre-publication histories, including open peer review reports, manuscript versions, and editorial comments.Aggregate and/or anonymized data will be shared using the Open Science Framework. Peer review reports and manuscripts are subject to confidentiality agreements and will not be shared. Public accessibility of manuscripts and peer review reports is based on publication of a manuscript and journal editorial policy. Accepted publications in Not applicable. We do not have a coordinating center or a trial steering committee.Not applicable. We do not have a data monitoring committee.Not applicable. This study was determined to not be human subjects research by the Institutional Review Board at the University of New Mexico Health Sciences Center.Not applicable. No auditing or data monitoring is planned.The protocol will be updated as needed and amendments shared on the Open Science Framework project page for this study.The results of the study will be published as preprints and will be submitted for publication in open access peer-reviewed journals regardless of study outcome(s).We sought patient and public involvement to review the protocol, with special emphasis on assessing whether the outcomes are meaningful for patients and the public. We recruited individuals from amongst those who volunteer as patient and public peer reviewers for the BMJ Publishing Group. One individual agreed to participate. When the study is underway, the patient and public representative volunteer will be invited to participate in study team meetings to provide additional feedback during the conduct of the study.This is protocol version 1. Recruitment has not yet begun. We anticipate that it will begin in late 2021.


Together with the Editorial Office of AIMS Microbiology, I wish to testify my sincere gratitude to all authors, members of the editorial board and reviewers for their contribution to AIMS Microbiology in 2021.The manuscript submissions to our journal in 2021 increased significantly. We had more than 200 submitted manuscripts and 32 of them were accepted and published, of these 23 were research articles and 9 were review articles. The authors of the manuscripts are from more than 15 countries, about 50% of them from developed countries and the rest from developing countries. The data shows a significant increase of international collaborations on the research of microbiology.An important part of our strategy has been preparation of special issues. One special issue published more than five papers. AIMS Microbiology have invited 15 experts to join our Editorial Board in 2021. We will continue to renew Editorial Board in 2022.We hope that in 2022, with the support of all the members of the editorial board and reviewers, the journal can receive and collect more excellent articles to be able to publish. The journal will dedicate to publishing high quality papers by regular issues as well as special issues organized by the members of the editorial board. All these efforts will increase the impact and citations of the papers to significantly increase the academic rank and impact of AIMS Microbiology as much as possible.On behalf ofAIMS Microbiology Editorial Board2.2.1.The submissions of our AIMS Microbiology journal in 2021 increased. In 2021, AIMS Microbiology published 4 issues, a total of 32 articles were published online, and the category of published articles is as follows:Peer Review Rejection rate: 47%Publication time (from submission to online): 75 days2.2.The authors' country of origin distribution is shown below. It is pleased to see that so many diversified countries were represented among our authors.2.3.AIMS Microbiology has Editorial Board members representing researchers from 19 countries, which are shown below. We are constantly assembling the editorial board to be representative to a variety of disciplines across the field of microbiology. AIMS Microbiology has 81 members now, and 15 of them joined in 2021. We will continue to invite dedicated experts and researchers in order to renew the Editorial Board in 2022.2.4.Top 10 Cited Papers in last 2 years.2.5.2.5.1.In the recent two years, our journal has developed much faster than before; Our journal has been indexed in Web of Science, Scopus and PubMed databases. We received more than 200 manuscript submissions and published 32 papers in 2021. We have added 15 new Editorial Board members.2.5.2.In 2022, we expect to publish more and better articles to enhance the reputation of the journal. We will invite more experts in the field of microbiology to publish a review or research article. To set a goal, we would like to publish 40 high-quality articles in 2022. We hope Editorial Board members could help us invite some reputational scholars in your network to contribute articles to our journal. We also would like to invite our board members to try to increase the influence and impact of AIMS Microbiology by soliciting and advertising high quality articles and special issues.


On June 30, 2021, I was notified that the 2020 Journal Citation Ranking (JCR) had been published. The most striking feature was a new citation index, the Journal Citation Indicator (JCI). Szomszor [Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions (JEEHP) received a JCI value of 0.51. The manually calculated 2020 JIF of JEEHP from the Web of Science Core Collection was 1.254 (79/63). The number of citable articles published from 2018 to 2019 was 63, and the number of citations of all articles published from 2018 to 2019 in the 2020 Web of Science Core Collection was 79. This value corresponds to 34th place out of 44 (24.5%) SCIE journals in the category. The Pearson correlation coefficient between the 2021 JCR and JCI of the 43 SCIE journals in the category of scientific education was 0.9005 .Many scientific groups do not recommend evaluating articles in terms of journal-level citation indicators, including the JIF. The quality of an article itself reflects the essential value of the research. However, journal brands are easily recognized based on the JIF or other citation indicators, including the Eigenfactor score, Article Influence Score, CiteScore, Source Normalized Impact per Paper, SCImago Journal Rank, and Hirsch index . At manyJEEHP also has reasons to consider the citation frequency. Some submitters have inquired whether JEEHP is an SCIE journal. Although it has been indexed in international databases, including PubMed, PubMed Central, MEDLINE, Scopus, EMBASE, Web of Science Core Collection, and ESCI, the impact of being an SCIE journal is tremendous. Therefore, the editorial team has regularly checked JEEHP’s citation frequency through Crossref metadata. The 4 most frequently cited articles published from 2019 to 2020 and their citation frequencies as recorded by Crossref are as follows: an editorial on personal protection from SARS-CoV-2 (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2) infection, 78 citations ; a revieIt is difficult to estimate the likelihood that specific articles will receive many citations during the review and publication process. It was astonishing to view the citations of the above-mentioned editorial, which is a guideline for the self-protection of health personnel. The 2 review articles listed above were commissioned due to their importance for education in the future and the lack of freely accessible detailed guidelines. The research article was unsolicited. There is no other way to increase citations except by reviewing manuscripts meticulously for their scientific integrity and usefulness.In addition to publishing high-quality articles, JEEHP has maintained publishing policies that adhere to the guideline on transparency and best practice in scholarly publishing since 2018. However, some SCIE journals in Korea and other countries worldwide have still not complied with this best practice ,8. This https://doaj.org/). This new phenomenon of open-access journal publication may be a continuing trend in the scholarly journal market. Commercial publishing companies that only publish open-access journals have increased the number of journal titles. Traditional commercial publishing companies have also begun to publish open-access journals, upon recognizing that it is possible to operate companies on a commercially sustainable basis by receiving article processing charges from authors without library subscription fees. Out of 20 gold open-access journals in the 2020 JCR scientific education category, JEEHP is one of 8 diamond open-access journals, which means that the journal does not require an article processing charge. This policy aims to remove economic barriers to submission.As shown in JEEHP has also adopted a data-sharing policy. In 2019, 13 journals in Korea had adopted a data-sharing policy, and 10 of these journals framed this policy as only a recommendation. Two journals adopted an optional data deposit policy. Only 1 journal (JEEHP) adopted mandatory deposition and peer review of data [Although it is possible to calculate the impact factor of ESCI journals manually, the JCI serves as an official indicator of ESCI journals. Therefore, it provides an excellent opportunity to compare ESCI journals with other journals in SCIE and ESCI regardless of category, since its value is based on the mean CNCI for all articles and reviews. With an eye towards indicators such as the JCI, editors will increasingly focus on recruiting high-quality reviews and research articles.Of note, 150 out of the 163 total manuscript submissions (92.0%) to JEEHP from January to July 11, 2021 were from authors outside Korea. The editorial team will do its best to review manuscripts meticulously and rapidly and recruit informative articles. I appreciate the authors, reviewers, and readers for their devotion and advice with the goal of making JEEHP competitive. Their voluntary work and dedication made it possible for JEEHP to receive its first JCI. Since we are still in the COVID-19 (coronavirus disease 2019) pandemic era, I would like to extend my genuine wish for the journal’s readers, reviewers, and authors to be safe and healthy.


In these 60 years we have grown from a local institutional newsletter to a globally present scientific journal. It has been an amazing journey in which the high quality research presented in a reader-friendly up-to-date fashion has always been our priority. The journey is not over and we are looking forward to our next 60 years.It is our pleasure to announce the 60Providencia stuartii, or Saccharomyces cerevisiae, the power of mushrooms Coriolus versicolor, or Lignosus rhinocerus, or the production of wine and mead. Papers also deal with the antioxidants in food, novel technologies in food processing, and the functional properties of microalgae in Ricotta.In the first issue of volume 60 you can read papers covering different topics from microbial biotechnological production using Food Technology and Biotechnology is a so-called diamond open access journal. It means that its budget is provided by financial supports of public institutions like the Croatian Ministry of Science and Education, Croatian Academy of Science and Arts, Croatian Society for Biotechnology, as well as the publisher – Faculty of Food Technology and Biotechnology of the University of Zagreb. Diamond open access journals constitute a rather small share of scientific journals in science communication spectrum in which the financiers are neither readers , nor authors through article processing charges. Although the number of papers published in diamond OA journals is not high, they are often referred to as the publishing model of the future. The financial pattern in which journals are financed by public institutions, ministries or other state bodies like universities or professional associations avoids high charges imposed by private publishers, liberating more funds for direct research costs, or scientific infrastructure. The model is in line with the ultimate intentions announced by the cOAlition S and formulated in Plan S (As always, you can read these articles for free, with neither you nor your institution having to pay for their access. The authors did not have to pay for publishing their manuscripts either.


Journal of Experimental Botany, a year that brought unprecedented challenges for all of us due to the Covid19 pandemic. Nevertheless, despite these challenges, I am pleased to report that the Journal of Experimental Botany has weathered the storm and seen a substantial rise in our ClarivateTM Web of ScienceTM impact factor to 6.992, reflecting the high quality of the papers published by the journal.It is just over a year since I succeeded Christine Raines as Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Experimental Botany editorial office staff and members of the editorial board, who have kept the journal running smoothly through these uncertain and difficult times. In the past year, we have expanded the editorial board to broaden our coverage in all areas of plant science that we publish and diversify the board to better reflect the global plant science community we serve. I would also like to take this opportunity to thank all of the authors who entrusted their work to us for publication, and express our sincere gratitude to all the reviewers who generously gave their time and expertise to support the journal by helping our authors to achieve the full potential of their work in published form.This achievement is based on the strong global standing of the journal that was built up under Christine’s custodianship, and the dedication of the Journal of Experimental Botany was founded by the Society for Experimental Biology (SEB) in 1950 to publish high quality plant science, and remains a community-based journal under the aegis of the SEB to this day. We had planned to mark the journal’s 70th anniversary with a special symposium at the 2020 SEB annual meeting, but unfortunately had to postpone and scale back our plans when that meeting was cancelled due to the pandemic. However, with fantastic support from the SEB events team, we ventured into the brave new world of virtual meetings by holding an online mini-symposium in December 2020, on the theme of: ‘Photosynthesis in a Changing World’. The presenters and other invited authors also contributed to a special 70th anniversary issue of Journal of Experimental Botany on Plant Metabolism in a Changing World, which has just been published. Encouraged by the positive reception of the online symposium, we have initiated a series of JXB webinars together with the SEB, in which authors of selected Journal of Experimental Botany papers discuss the background and significance of their recently published work. Recordings of these webinars are freely available from the SEB website.The Journal of Experimental Botany. Reflecting a growing trend in submissions, we have added a new category of research paper – Technical Innovations and Community Resources – for authors to present new experimental methods or publicly available tools, databases or germplasm that will be of broad interest to the plant science community. In a related move, we no longer include the Materials and methods section in the manuscript word count, allowing authors to report a full description of their experimental work. In addition to research articles, Journal of Experimental Botany also publishes reviews, including our series of commissioned Darwin Reviews by eminent scientists, and we welcome suggestions from the community for potential review topics and authors. At the beginning of 2021, Journal of Experimental Botany moved to online-only publication, allowing greater efficiency in the publication of papers and better integration of data in non-traditional formats (e.g. videos). We thank the staff at our publisher, Oxford University Press, for helping to make this transition as seamless as possible. Papers are published online as soon as they are accepted, initially in manuscript form and then as corrected proofs, before final publication in one of our regular or special issues. We publish about ten Special Issues a year, often associated with a scientific meeting, and invite suggestions from the community for new topics.The last year has seen a number of changes in the format of the Journal of Experimental Botany has become affiliated with Plant Direct, an open access, sound science journal (impact factor 3.038). Plant Direct was jointly founded by the SEB and American Society of Plant Biologists to publish work that had been considered for publication by the societies’ senior journals and judged to have merit, but which did not meet all the criteria for publication in those journals. Following our link with Plant Direct, authors now have the option to transfer their manuscript, along with the peer reviews and editorial decision, directly from the Journal of Experimental Botany to Plant Direct, allowing a rapid decision by the Plant Direct editors. Authors can indicate at the time of submission if they wish their manuscript to also be considered for publication by Plant Direct. Alternatively, our editors may suggest this option if a manuscript is not accepted for publication in the Journal of Experimental Botany. We believe the Plant Direct option offers our authors a more efficient route to publication and will also be appreciated by our reviewers, as this process will maximize the value of their voluntary service to the community.Looking to the future, we have great pleasure in announcing that the


The world we live in is drastically different from previous decades in terms of digitalization expansion. Logically, one might expect that these changes modify the way we behave, our habits, the way we do tasks, communicate and access information  describes a pendulum-like approach to neuron interactions: this involves the rapid firing and restarting of the process and the clusters of neurons in circuits. A digital analogy is proposed through electroencephalogram (EEG) techniques to show frequency changes that are characteristic of different cognitive processes , group differences (highlighting the role of adolescents in this field), theories  and types of media.Lastly, Digitizing the human brain is still an open challenge, but two aspects are to consider. Firstly, the trap of technological determinism must be avoided (Moret-Tatay and Murphy, 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.All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.


Summary: The DMM Editor-in-Chief discusses the importance of accessibility to published research and outlines the implications of new Read & Publish agreements for the DMM community. The overall purpose of the initiative was to accelerate progress in international efforts to make Research articles immediately and freely available to all.Altmetrics: Altmetrics track the attention that Research articles receive online, including data from social media such as Twitter and Facebook, traditional media, blogs, and online reference managers such as Mendeley and CiteULike .Article processing charge (APC): to provide Open Access (OA), an APC fee is charged to the authors or funders of the research.Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ): the DOAJ is an online directory that indexes high-quality, OA, peer-reviewed journals. The DOAJ Seal is awarded to journals that demonstrate best practice in OA publishing. Around 10% of journals indexed in DOAJ, including DMM, have been awarded the Seal.Gold OA: different OA types can be described using a colour system. In the Gold OA model, the publisher makes all articles available for free immediately on the journal's website, usually under some form of Creative Commons license.Open Access (OA): “A set of principles and a range of practices through which research output is distributed online, free of cost or other access barriers.”Plan S: a funder initiative. Launched in 2018, the plan is supported by cOAlition S, an international consortium of research funders. Plan S requires that, from 2021, scientific publications that result from research funded by public grants must be published in compliant OA journals or platforms.Read & Publish agreements: these agreements, between publishers and libraries/consortia, generally offer unlimited ‘read’ access to subscription journals plus uncapped fee-free OA publishing of Research articles.In February 2022, the Budapest Open Access Initiative (BOAI) will celebrate its 20th anniversary. This important initiative offered the first definition of Open Access (OA) – creating “a statement of principle, a statement of strategy, and a statement of commitment”  in 2008 as a subscription journal, electing to make the transition to a fully OA journal in 2011. The Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) now lists more than 17,000 OA peer-reviewed journals, including DMM, which has the DOAJ Seal. DMM is a Gold OA journal, with costs covered by the authors or their funders paying an article processing charge (APC).For DMM, accessibility is one of the twin pillars underpinning its ethos . We belihttps://www.coalition-s.org/). Plan S offers a number of routes by which a journal can be compliant with its policies, including full (Gold) OA and transformative arrangements.For an increasing number of researchers, OA is very important or even essential to ensure that their research is read by their peers and has maximum impact in their field. The number of funders mandating OA publication will only continue to grow over the coming years. For example, cOAlition S, a coalition of 20+ (largely European) funders, implemented new OA mandates from January 2021 under an initiative called Plan S  OA journals such as DMM are required to offer APC waivers for authors from low-income economies and discounts for authors from lower-middle-income economies, as well as waivers and discounts for other authors with demonstrable needs. DMM has long held this policy, and indeed has a more generous policy in that authors from lower-middle-income economies are entitled to full waivers.https://journals.biologists.com/dmm/pages/transparent-metrics. Some of these metrics are required by Plan S, but we will, in time, add additional metrics that we think will be of interest to our community.A journal must also provide transparent metrics on both its pricing model and its editorial process. DMM already provides article-specific metrics on usage, citations and online attention (as measured by Altmetrics) for published articles. DMM now also provides other transparent metrics about what authors should expect when they submit to our journal, such as decision times, acceptance rates and speed to publication: these can be found at https://www.biologists.com/library-hub/read-publish/). These cost-neutral Read & Publish agreements also give institutions the usual subscription access for their readers to all subscription content from our sister journals Development, Journal of Cell Science and Journal of Experimental Biology.As well as our waiver option, since 2021, authors based at the University of California and Max Planck Society Institutes have been entitled to discounted or fee-free OA publication, respectively, in DMM, as part of Read & Publish agreements offered by The Company of Biologists . And we hope to see many more institutes signing up to our Read & Publish deals in the future , and check every accepted manuscript for both plagiarism and image manipulation. All these processes – alongside the platforms, partners and technologies needed to support them – help to ensure that the papers we publish conform to the high standards you should expect from a journal like DMM.The Company of Biologists is a not-for-profit publisher and a registered UK charity, so while our revenues do currently exceed our publishing costs, those profits are used to support the biological community worldwide. Each year, we provide hundreds of meeting grants and travelling fellowships to conference organisers and early-career researchers, respectively, as well as financial support to several academic societies. We organise workshops and meetings designed to share the latest research, bridge fields and foster collaborations, and we help to build networks of researchers across the world through our online community sites: the Node, preLights and FocalPlane.https://journals.biologists.com/dmm/pages/transparent-metricsPrice transparency framework – Meeting Grants – https://www.biologists.com/grants/https://www.biologists.com/travelling-fellowships/Travelling Fellowships – https://www.biologists.com/grants/dmm-conference-travel-grants/DMM Conference Travel Grants – https://www.biologists.com/workshops/ and https://www.biologists.com/meetings/Workshops and Journal Meetings – the Node – https://thenode.biologists.compreLights – https://prelights.biologists.comFocalPlane – https://focalplane.biologists.comAt DMM, we have always put the interests of our community at the heart of our publishing decisions – in terms of both providing valuable services to authors and ensuring that the income generated benefits the community through our charitable activities (for more details, see


During a pandemic, there are multiple concurrent clinical and scientific priorities, including the need to understand the pathophysiology of the disease, the different modes of transmission, how patient care can be optimized, as well as the need to develop mathematical models that can now cast and forecast the progression of infections within given populations and/or geographical regions.Frontiers journals, disciplines, and sections. This reflected the acute need for the scientific community to understand the many aspects of the pandemic.When the current SARS-CoV2 pandemic was declared a Public Health Emergency of International Concern by the World Health Organization, a formal declaration of its gravity, it became evident that there was an acute need to understand all of the above aspects. In doing so, by 11th February 2020, a special topic, entitled “Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19): Pathophysiology, Epidemiology, Clinical Management and Public Health Response,” was initiated with a dedicated team of handling editors to facilitate the timely peer-review and publication of relevant manuscripts .This special Research Topic captured the entire first wave in the northern hemisphere, from February to May 2020, and the intensity of the associated editorial work is evident by the reported numbers. Within 4 months, 194 abstracts were received; in total 851 manuscripts were submitted, of which 453 were rejected while 398 were published. From the scientific community perspective, by June 2020 the special topic achieved over 2 million views, by December 2020 over 4 million views, and by August 2021 over 8 million views. As an example of the breadth of subjects covered, manuscripts included the attempt by Struelens et al.). Similarly, it must be recognized that external validation of proposed solutions may not have been possible within the time-frame of the first wave of the pandemic, balanced with the need to rapidly communicate information that would facilitate an effective solution to end the pandemic.However, we must emphasize a note of caution, as some of the published manuscripts could have competing analytical approaches, idiosyncrasies in the reporting of their data, or differences in interpretation of some observations across the many different settings (Notwithstanding the above, this special topic reflects a substantial investment by the research community, the supporting editorial team, and the publishing house to facilitate scientific discovery in times of crisis. Thus, even though the special topic lasted for a short window of time, compared to the pandemic's overall duration, its impact should provide us with a renewed optimism that science can continue playing a prominent role in addressing the significant health challenges of our times.All authors listed have made a substantial, direct, and intellectual contribution to the work and approved it for publication.Where authors are identified as personnel of the International Agency for Research on Cancer/WHO, the authors alone are responsible for the views expressed in this article and they do not necessarily represent the decisions, policy or views of the International Agency for Research on Cancer/WHO.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.All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.


The peer-reviewed scientific literature is the bedrock of science. However, scientific publishing is undergoing dramatic changes, which include the expansion of open access, an increased number of for-profit publication houses, and ready availability of preprint manuscripts that have not been peer reviewed. In this opinion article, we discuss the inequities and concerns that these changes have wrought. The peer-reviewed scientific literature is the bedrock of science. However, scientific publishing is undergoing dramatic changes, which include the expansion of open access, an increased number of for-profit publication houses, and ready availability of preprint manuscripts that have not been peer reviewed. In this opinion article, we discuss the inequities and concerns that these changes have wrought. Scientific literature is a roadmap for the worldwide scientific endeavor. It is how scientists build on the findings of other scientists, even those from earlier times. The publication of rigorously vetted results and conclusions is how we mark scientific advancement.Peer review is the foundation of scientific publication. When it operates properly, peer review verifies that the conclusions are justified by the results shown and assesses the overall novelty and significance of the work. At its best, peer review stands as one of the few barriers between meaningful science and weak, misleading, or inaccurate reports.We are now in the midst of a sea change in scientific publishing, which unveils troubling inequities.Historically, scientific manuscripts were published in journals that lined library and office shelves. Nonprofit scientific societies provided the services of publication using dues and subscription fees  to cover much of the costs. Editors and peer reviewers were provided minimal, if any, financial support. The scientific community considered these roles essential responsibilities to the scientific endeavor and served them voluntarily, a tradition that remains to this day. Any excess funds realized from scientific publishing were contributed back to the sponsoring organization to support scientific meetings and professional activities. As a result of this business model, publication fees charged to authors  were designed only to cover costs.However, in recent years, there has been a major shift to electronic publication with the promotion of “open access,” in which publications are freely available to all. The motivation is clear. Science is truly the public’s product, and the public should have access to science without delay. However, despite the egalitarian aspects of open access, its business model is challenging. How can expenses be covered when the product is free?This question has been answered by the appearance of many new “for-profit” publication houses that use paid professional editors: make the authors pay. These entities are subsuming the traditional role of scientific societies. For these publishers, profit is the primary motive, sometimes at the expense of scientific quality or integrity. The reader is no longer the significant payer. Instead, authors are increasingly responsible for bearing the cost of open-access publishing.Nature is approximately $11,000. Springer Nature also proposes charging the authors a fee of approximately $2,000 for reviewing a manuscript for Nature, which, given the journal, has a strong probability of being rejected even when the premise and rigor of the study is strong.Some publishers , such asIncreasing profits by publishing houses has been a growing problem for years. As early as 2010, “Elsevier’s scientific publishing arm reported profits of £724 million on just over £2 billion in revenue. That is a 36% profit margin—higher than Apple, Google, or Amazon posted that year”  has seven “hybrid” journals, and each supports open access. ASM members are charged $90 per page for a non-open-access publication in one of the hybrid journals. Notably, free open access for such papers is provided after 6 months. If authors choose immediate open access, the charge is $2,500. There is no charge to review papers submitted to ASM journals.The more egregious problem posed by the for-profit business model is that it subverts science by engendering inequity. Scientists usually pay publication costs from grants intended to support research. Therefore, only highly funded scientists or those at elite institutions that cover publication costs will clear this new barrier to publication. More modestly funded investigators, often younger scientists, those at smaller colleges or universities, or those working in more resource-limited settings, will be in effect prohibited from publishing in such high-profile journals simply because it costs too much.Another troubling change concerns the increasing importance of impact factor in choosing a venue to publish or judging the quality of a paper. Impact factor reflects the yearly average number of citations for articles published in a given journal in the previous 2 years. It is often used as a proxy for the relative standing of a journal. Judgments about promotion, tenure, and field leadership are often, to the detriment of science, centered on the impact factor of the journals in which a scientist publishes. The inappropriate use of impact factor as a symbol of quality and prestige has much to do with the inequities in publication and the decline of submissions to society journals.The consequence of charging authors substantial fees for reviewing papers and open-access publication in prestigious journals is that it will slowly select against smaller labs and concentrate scientific funding and influence in the most well-supported labs, perhaps only the top 5 to 10%, leaving the rest to struggle.This path is not sustainable. Science has long benefited from rigorous experimentalists at all levels of academia and industry. The contributions of scientists working at smaller institutions or in fields that do not attract significant funding are as vital as contributions made by those employed at the wealthiest and most powerful institutions. That mission encompasses not only the science but extends to the training of the next generation of scientists. Science thrives when those from diverse backgrounds and perspectives are drawn to the endeavor. For publishers to benefit from large profit margins, while scientist struggle to keep labs open, is simply wrong.There are more changes afoot with the appearance of several online open-access sites for free posting of preprints: no peer review, no page changes, and no fees. Their appearance questions the purpose of journals. Does acceptance by a journal simply place a very costly stamp of approval on an already “published” preprint? Why bother with peer review? The posted preprint can be viewed, read, referred to, and used by other scientists just as easily whether it is reviewed or not.Financially beleaguered investigators may find it tempting to forgo the many benefits and improvements provided by peer review and simply post the preprint and circumvent expensive publication. Such action would sadly increase the number and availability of unvetted unsubstantiated reports, which is dangerous. The press and the public do not heed the difference between peer-reviewed publications and preprints. In this time of increasing misinformation, it is important that we rigorously assess and maintain quality and resist expediency or the false lure of impact.It is surprising that more rank-and-file scientists have not expressed concerns with the ramifications of this upheaval in publication. There is a parable of a frog in the kettle of slowly heating water. Initially the frog is comfortable, then things get progressively worse, and unless the frog jumps out, the frog is cooked. The changes in scientific publication should make scientists very uncomfortable. It is time to jump out and push back.What is the way forward? It is essential to maintain journalistic standards, integrity in scientific publishing, and access. The ability to publish meritorious science in any journal should not be deterred by cost. The perception that impact factor defines journal quality must be reconsidered. Society journals should be respected and supported as the bedrock of science. They offer a forum to evaluate science for its rigor and merit by other scientists, with editors who work with authors without undue regard for press appeal, all at an affordable price.