Microbiology Spectrum was initially launched in 2011 to provide authors who were publishing monographs with a PubMed indexed, citable publication. Because ASM made the strategic decision over the past five years to move away from publishing a large volume of monographs, the pipeline for monographs to populate Microbiology Spectrum immediately began to dry up. The last monograph-based issue of Microbiology Spectrum was published in December 2020. At the same time, the ASM Journals Committee appreciated that many authors, including ASM members, were leaving ASM’s journals after receiving a rejection and then publishing their work elsewhere. Our assessment was that, in many cases, the papers were sound but perceived by reviewers and editors as being of limited impact or novelty. Regardless, considering so many papers were leaving the ASM’s Journals Program, it was clear that we were not adequately serving the needs of the ASM community. Rather than retire Microbiology Spectrum and create another journal title, we saw an opportunity to rebrand Microbiology Spectrum as a "sound science" journal that emphasized the scientific rigor rather than the potential impact or significance of the manuscript. The new Microbiology Spectrum was launched in June 2021 under Christina Cuomo, PhD, as its new Editor in Chief  and as a resource to help reduce the “file drawer effect” common in scientific publishing  was written to stop the practice of attaching a measure of a journal’s impact with an individual scientist’s contributions . As a siMicrobiology Spectrum’s impact factor. Thus, journals are incentivized to publish more of this material to boost their impact factors. Second, it is biased toward journals that publish studies in popular areas and garner more citations , which are not necessarily the most important areas. Ten years ago, Zika virus and SARS were not seen as being impactful. Yet, ASM felt it was important to publish those papers to more fully represent the microbial sciences. Had we been concerned with optimizing impact factors, those papers would not have been published and our responses to those outbreaks would have been slower. Third, it allows journals to be far more selective in what they publish and how many papers they publish. Each year, a journal can publish 100 carefully selected papers from highly cited areas and garner a much higher impact factor than a journal that publishes 1,000 high-quality papers from a diverse swath of areas. We contend that the latter journal does a better job of serving the members of ASM and science in general.ASM’s reasons for signing the declaration and not publicizing impact factors are numerous. A few examples highlight the problems. First, the metric is not scientific. For example, it ignores the problem with calculating a mean rather than a median using data with a skewed distribution. It also ignores the significant number of papers that are never cited or that are only cited after a several year delay. It is also a metric that is easy to skew. For example, review articles are highly cited and so publishing more reviews can boost a journal’s impact factor without changing the quality or impact of the research they are publishing. Also, editorials and commentaries such as this are not counted as a citable item, but citations to them do count. So, if a reader cites this editorial, it will count to the numerator but not the denominator boosting Microbiology Spectrum without regard for its impact factor. By publishing papers that were specialized, confirmatory, or presented negative results, we expected fewer citations per paper than we would have seen at ASM’s other journals. By not publishing review articles, editorials, or commentaries, Microbiology Spectrum could not be accused of trying to game their impact factor. In July 2022, the journal’s final impact factor from the monograph-based scope was 9.043 . This was calculated using 2021 citations for the content published in 2019 and 2020. Now, in June 2023, using four papers published with the last year of the old scope and a year of papers with the new scope, the impact factor fell to 3.7. This is in the range of other journals publishing sound science articles, which will be the continued focus on Microbiology Spectrum.With these critiques of journal impact factors, we hope that it is clear why we relaunched de novo submissions. This higher proportion of direct submissions coincided with the period when Microbiology Spectrum had a higher impact factor. The drop in the 2022 impact factor had a significant impact on the number of submissions to the journal. Comparing the number of submissions in 2022 and 2023, the number of submissions to Microbiology Spectrum for the month of May increased by 12.1% and they decreased by 43.7% for July. These results of a natural experiment of relaunching a journal by radically changing its scope demonstrate a fundamental problem with impact factors and how scientists use them.We suspect that some authors were using the journal impact factors of ASM journals to determine where to submit their manuscripts. Between June 2021 and May 2022, 64% were transfers, and between June 2022 and May 2023, 44% of the papers the journal received were transfers from other ASM journals, and the remainder were Microbiology Spectrum authors feel that ASM did not do enough to maintain the journal’s impact factor. It is clear that these authors must not have considered the change in scope of the journal or the description of the journal’s mission (We are aware that a small fraction of  mission , ASM’s m mission . The quaMicrobiology Spectrum to stabilize. Among the three open access, general scope journals that ASM publishes, we anticipate that mBio, mSphere, and Microbiology Spectrum will have impact factors that follow that order. We are proud of what Microbiology Spectrum stands for. Our improved ability to provide more comprehensive coverage of microbiology under an open access license with the support of a society-based publishing model will allow ASM to better serve its members by promoting and advancing the microbial sciences (Over the next several years, we expect the impact factor and reputation of sciences .


PLOS Biology launched and how has it changed over the past 20 years? Three editors who have been at the helm of the journal reflect on its beginnings and evolution.Why was  In this Editorial, three editors who have previously been at the helm of PLOS Biology reflect on its beginnings and evolution as a journal. PLOS Biology 20th Anniversary Collection.This article is part of the PLOS Biology, we asked 3 editors who have led the journal to discuss the idea behind its launch and how it evolved throughout their tenures. Hemai Parthasarathy, Managing Editor 2003–2007, Theodora Bloom, Chief Editor 2008–2014, and Emma Ganley, Chief Editor 2014–2019, share their experiences below.This month, as we celebrate 20 years since the launch of PLOS Biology in service of that mission and of the scientific community.The Public Library of Science  was created to further the mission of open-access publishing. The argument was simple: in the digital era, when the cost of producing and sending one copy of a journal was infinitesimal, why could publication not be paid for up front, to release the fruits of publicly funded research for the benefit of the world? We created PLOS Biology did not have a Chief Editor at the outset. PLOS was a startup and PLOS Biology was our first product, so it was all hands on deck for that first issue [st issue . Not becScience, while Nature Publishing Group and Cell Press had short lists of titles one could easily memorize. None of them were open access. That is the world into which we launched PLOS Biology. We opened our digital doors with bated breath on October 13, 2003. It was as if we had spent months planning a party and now wondered if anyone would show up. We panicked when the servers crashed and then were pleased to report that it was the result of unexpectedly high traffic to our site. We printed copies of the journal for distribution at conferences, and I still aspire to travel to Borneo to see the miniature elephants that graced our first cover , and Gmail. In science publishing, AAAS had a single journal, st cover .PLOS Biology was launched, the PLOS founding team quickly diversified our efforts and created a structure to allow us to scale and launch other journals. I took on the role of running PLOS Biology and hired in a team of editors dedicated to just this journal. If I am honest, I did not really care if PLOS Biology would exist in 20 years. In fact, I rather hoped it would not, at least in its original incarnation. I hoped that peer-to-peer scientific communication would have moved on from transposing the 300+-year-old paper journal onto a digital platform. I imagined that the line between dataset and paper would be blurred and the lines between preprint, peer-review, and validation by the community would become similarly blurred to more honestly reflect the process of scientific discovery and validation. As we were launching PLOS Biology, we were already working on PLOS ONE with those aspirations in mind. We felt that it was already impossible to keep up with the scientific literature. Open access offered a way for machines to help us, which seems prescient now that large language models and machine learning advances are galvanizing changes in the way we scientists operate, hopefully freeing us to be more creative [Once PLOS Biology still produces high-quality content that is freely available to anyone with an internet connection and has helped to catalyze a world in which open-access publication is inevitable.I left scientific publishing more than 15 years ago to work with scientist entrepreneurs. Every startup founder I have supported has asked whether I could help them get access to subscription-based scientific publications, once they were no longer associated with a university. Insofar as the peer-reviewed, high-profile journal article continues to be valued, I am proud that PLOS Biology as Chief Editor in February 2008. The world was in the midst of a global financial crisis but PLOS was, according to its i990 forms, moving from dependence on grants to earning most of the revenue needed to cover its costs. At launch, PLOS Biology and PLOS Medicine had aimed to be prestige titles that would reassure authors who typically published in journals with one-word names and double-digit impact factors that open-access journals could deliver the same type of kudos and recognition. But that made them expensive to produce, rejecting a lot of research articles, and providing commentary and analysis in support of those articles that were published. Key to the switch in PLOS’s fortunes, therefore, was the launch of PLOS ONE in 2006, which became the first successful “mega journal” that aimed to publish all research that was sound, irrespective of editorial considerations of impact and importance to the field. Before joining PLOS, I had worked at BioMed Central, which had developed the idea of article processing charge (APC)-funded journals that focused solely on the soundness of the research, but had subdivided them by subject area. So, once again, PLOS showed that by changing just one aspect of publishing, it was possible to bring the community along a new path and demonstrate the feasibility of its approach.I joined PLOS Biology team of the 2000s had at its core a fabulous group of professional editors who had worked elsewhere in life sciences publishing before PLOS, supported by superb administrative and production staff. But it was hard to cover the whole of biology with a small group of editors, even with the help of a large editorial board, so a decision was taken to appoint Jonathan Eisen as Academic Editor in Chief, to act as “a community representative for the journal both inside and outside of PLOS.” In this role Jonathan—a prolific blogger, tweeter, and author—was able to anchor the editorial team in the academic community and provide invaluable outreach to help spread the word about PLOS and open access [The n access .PLOS Biology was celebrating its 10th anniversary, it could claim to be a mature journal and part of an ecosystem of journals published by an increasingly successful nonprofit open-access publisher. Questions were raised publicly about whether authors at PLOS ONE should be “subsidizing” the cost of rejections from PLOS Biology and PLOS Medicine. My recollection is that PLOS’s Board of Directors also struggled with this notion, sometimes deciding that PLOS Biology ought to be self-sustaining and at other times accepting that it served a different purpose in the PLOS ecosystem. This struggle was perhaps exemplified by the comments of PLOS Founder Mike Eisen at the anniversary party, that the best thing PLOS Biology could do in the next 10 years would be to cease to exist. That was a hard message to hear for a team who had worked to produce a distinctive journal that met its original goals and continues to play a key part in PLOS’s reputation and fortunes, as well as serving authors and readers globally.By the 2010s, when PLOS Biology, my hope might be that it would become even less focused on the USA and western Europe, even more concerned about equity and the difficulties of the APC model, and even better at including editors and authors from around the globe. It has come a long way since the days when a conference call meant clustering around a polycom phone with colleagues whose faces one never saw. I look forward to seeing how it develops next.If I were to look to the next 20 years for PLOS Biology during its infancy and teen years in 2 different stints as Associate Editor and Senior Editor working with both Hemai and Theo, respectively, it was a dream and a privilege to take the baton as Chief Editor, initially with a co-chief, Christine Ferguson, and then solo. My five-year tenure as Chief was jam-packed, working with an incredible team of professional and academic editors, colleagues across PLOS, and of course amazing researchers . There was never a dull day; it was a time of opportunity for PLOS Biology to delve deeper into the role of innovator.Having seen There was an increasing focus in the research community on accountability and internal review, and more “research into research.” The meta-research field blossomed, but accessible publishing options for resulting studies were limited, so we created a much-needed “Meta-Research Article” and added appropriate experts to our Editorial Board to accommodate these research efforts .PLOS Biology, acknowledging the importance of being second [Addressing researchers’ pain points was a general focus. Researchers wanted to publish initial preliminary findings, methods, and/or resources, and none of these fit under our existing Research Article rubric, and so “Short Reports” and “Methods and Resources” were added . Anotherg second .PLOS Biology, we devised an approach to publish manuscripts with contentious results that reviewers and editors could not agree on. After expert review, rejection due to contention made no sense; the authors would not get a better review process elsewhere, they would have to start from scratch, adding unnecessary delay, and the contentious issue would remain. We started to publish these studies with an Academic Editor’s note and a Primer from another expert to contextualize the contention, address limitations, and rationalize the decision. Alongside open peer review, this transparent publishing approach [During my tenure, cross-PLOS projects such as a bidirectional linkage between journal submission and preprint posting at bioRxiv and the roll-out of open peer review were launched. On approach  allows tOur “magazine” section also evolved, experimenting with new article types. Our in-house writer and editor, Liza Gross, collaborated widely and brought together some incredibly important public health and conservation-relevant collections ,9. BeforPLOS Biology can move towards more modular publishing, with research questions, methods, results, data, code, and interpretations available as independent but interlinked objects. I hope that PLOS Biology and PLOS can leverage technology to continue to innovate and explore possibilities, pushing the needle for what is considered the norm.Looking to the future, I’m interested to see whether, how, and if the publishable unit is further refined. While successfully switching from print to online, research publishing has clung to the same article format that has existed since the 1600s. Perhaps


There are a variety of costs associated with publication of scientific findings. The purpose of this work was to estimate the cost of peer review in scientific publishing per reviewer, per year and for the entire scientific community.Internet-based self-report, cross-sectional survey, live between June 28, 2021 and August 2, 2021 was used. Participants were recruited via snowball sampling. No restrictions were placed on geographic location or field of study. Respondents who were asked to act as a peer-reviewer for at least one manuscript submitted to a scientific journal in 2020 were eligible. The primary outcome measure was the cost of peer review per person, per year . The secondary outcome was the cost of peer review globally .A total of 354 participants completed at least one question of the survey, and information necessary to calculate the cost of peer-review was available for 308 participants from 33 countries (44% from Canada). The cost of peer review was estimated at $US1,272 per person, per year , or US$1.1–1.7 billion for the scientific community per year. The global cost of peer-review was estimated at US$6 billion in 2020 when relying on the Dimensions database and taking into account reviewed-but-rejected manuscripts.Peer review represents an important financial piece of scientific publishing. Our results may not represent all countries or fields of study, but are consistent with previous estimates and provide additional context from peer reviewers themselves. Researchers and scientists have long provided peer review as a contribution to the scientific community. Recognizing the importance of peer-review, institutions should acknowledge these costs in job descriptions, performance measurement, promotion packages, and funding applications. Journals should develop methods to compensate reviewers for their time and improve transparency while maintaining the integrity of the peer-review process.The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s41073-023-00128-2. Publishing scientific findings is a practice that dates back to 1665 and is the basis for advancing knowledge . After cAfter that work was completed, our research team noted that another understudied area was the wage-cost of peer-review for manuscripts submitted to academic journals. Merriam Webster’s dictionary defines peer-review as “a process by which something proposed (as for research or publication) is evaluated by a group of experts in the appropriate field”  and sincIn any case, while peer-review is a well-grounded practice, traditionally, peer-review has been an unpaid activity  that is Although we were able to find many opinion pieces on the cost of peer-review –8, we weth 2021). Participants provided passive consent by agreeing to take part in the study. The survey took approximately 5 min to complete (estimate) and no personal identifiers were retained. Multiple answers by the same respondent were not possible with this survey. Survey questions can be found in Additional file The Checklist for Reporting Results of Internet E-Surveys (CHERRIES) was used to report elements related to this open survey. A self-report electronic survey (Google Forms) containing 14 questions was sent using a snowball methodology via social media , emails, websites and blogs, and word-of-mouth. Social media was the main strategy used to recruit participants. The questions were developed by the authors of this paper and were based on our recent survey that estimated the cost of formatting in scientific publishing . The tarThe survey was only offered in English; however, there were no geographical limitations on who could answer the questions. There was no minimum or maximum age requirement to participate. There were no exclusions to start the study, or to answer questions related to occupation or salary. However, to proceed further with the survey, only participants who were asked to peer review at least one manuscript submitted in 2020 were able to continue the survey. The survey ended for the other participants.The primary outcome measure was the cost of peer review per person, per year . For the purpose of this work, reviewing was defined as all time related to reviewing manuscripts submitted to peer-reviewed, scientific journals. This included but was not limited to reading the manuscript, making notes, writing the review, proof-reading the review, and completing any forms or questions associated with the submission. Respondents were asked to only count time spent reviewing manuscripts, and not to count time spent reviewing documents for projects internal to their organization, grant proposals, or student theses.Time spent reviewing was calculated as 1) the time spent on initial review; and 2) the time spent on re-review. Participants were asked to convert their gross annual personal income to US dollars (US$) using an online currency converter . Severaln = 3). We also examined types of compensation received and changes in review practices due to COVID-19 in exploratory analyses.The global cost of peer-review was estimated as a secondary outcome. Global cost of peer review was calculated first by searching Scopus for all documents published in 2020. Since there was little descriptive information on document type, all documents that were plausibly peer-reviewed were retained for analysis. Number of peer-reviewed documents was multiplied by median wage-cost of an initial review, and re-review. For participants who did not provide an income category (selected the “Other” response item), it was estimated as the median income category for the occupation group with which they identified (www.dimensions.ai): (Number of submissions accepted x Average number of reviews accepted) + (Number of submissions rejected x Average number of reviews rejected). According to the Dimensions database, a total of 4,701,988 articles were published in 2020. Aczel and colleagues estimated at 21,800,126 the number of peer reviews for submitted articles in 2020. This number assumes a 55% acceptance rate of reviewed submissions and 45% of submissions that were reviewed but rejected. We then calculated the global cost of peer review by multiplying this number of peer reviews by 6 h for each peer review and by US$46.2 per hour to review .In order to better compare with Aczel and colleagues’ paper , we condTo our knowledge, this is the first study that calculates the wage-cost of peer-review for scientific publications by asking the researchers themselves. Our methods were based on a previous study conducted on the wage-cost of formatting . As withn = 19) of respondents reported that they had not been asked to review a manuscript in 2020, and were excluded from the primary analysis. A further 4.5% (n = 15) respondents reported that they did not agree to review any manuscripts in 2020, or did not provide an answer for the number of manuscripts reviewed (n = 6), or time it took to review (n = 6). Information on time for review was available from 308 respondents and this sample was used for the outcome variables. Table n = 140) came from Canada. The majority of respondents  reported working as a scientist/researcher . Approximately half were female and the median age was 40 years. The median annual income category was US$90,000.A total of 354 participants completed at least one question of the survey. A small proportion  reported that they never received any compensation for their review; some  reported that they rarely  receive compensation; and a small proportion  reported that they sometimes  receive compensation. Compensation was most often a discount on publishing fees for a specific journal, or access to journal libraries for specified time periods.Number of manuscripts reviewed by age groups, gender, and occupation are reported elsewhere . Number n = 2,514,881) and assuming two reviewers per paper and one re-review, the cost of peer-review is US$1,081,398,830 per year globally. If we take a somewhat less conservative approach and include documents tagged as articles , reviews , book chapters , short surveys , books  and data papers , and assume three reviewers and one re-review, the global cost of peer-review increases to US$1,716,627,885. It should be noted that our survey asked specifically about “manuscripts”, but this less conservative approach includes all documents that plausibly went through the peer-review process.Globally, Scopus results show 3,545,399 documents for the year 2020 . Taking According to the Aczel and colleagues’ formula , they esTo our knowledge, this is the first study that directly surveys reviewers to estimate the time and wage costs associated with peer-review in scientific publishing. Our results suggest that peer-review represents an important financial piece of scientific publishing, taking approximately 4 h for an initial review and 2 h for a re-review. Respondents reported they reviewed approximately 6 papers per year and re-reviewed 3 papers per year. Therefore, based on data reported to us, we estimate the cost of peer-review to be approximately US$1,272 per person, per year, and represents a cost of approximately US$1.1–1.7 billon dollars to the scientific community per year (conservative approach), or US$6 billion in 2020 when using the Dimensions database and including reviewed-but-rejected manuscripts.Our results of a wage-cost of US$179 per review is slightly lower than previous estimates of US$250–450 per review –16; howePeople generally complete numerous reviews (and re-reviews) per year, and each manuscript requires multiple reviews (and re-reviews), many times at numerous journals, before being published. So the problem is not just the cost of a single review, but the overall cost to the scientific community. According to the 2018 Global State of Peer Review by Publons [Our results suggest an average of six initial reviews, and three re-reviews per year. This results in a significant personal cost per year, and an astonishing cost of global peer-review annually. After consultation with a variety of sources , we were unable to find a very accurate number of published peer-reviewed papers in a single year. Web of Science (subscription based), 1science’s 1findr, Digital Science’s Dimensions, and Informa’s wizdom.ai provide estimates of annual scientific publications , but no It is clear that changes need to be made to make peer-review more equitable, more feasible, and more stable. We are not advocating for any one solution, but would like to provide some recommendations for individuals, institutions, funding agencies, and journals. These suggestions are aimed at improving the review process for individuals, and ultimately with improving overall quality and consistency of peer-review and associated academic outputs.n = 320) of our survey respondents reported that they have never received any type of compensation. A modest compensation  may entice reviewers to contribute more often [At the individual level, some have suggested a solution is to pay peer-reviewers for their time; however, 87.5% n = 3 of our sre often  and a rere often . This mare often . For exare often ? Compensre often . Howeverre often .Others have suggested to limit the number of articles a person reviews in a year. While this seems reasonable, the number of publications submitted for peer-review, and therefore the number of peer reviewers needed, is growing exponentially. In 2014, there was an annual increase of 8–9% in the number of publications, translating to a doubling of scientific output every nine years . More reInstitutions also play an important role in the peer-review process by setting realistic expectations for the number of peer-reviews done per year, the way in which they are handled, and the acknowledgement they receive . Job descriptions should clearly explain expectations related to peer-review and even provide recommendations appropriate for various employment situations . Funding agencies may add this item to grant applications through investigator biographies and acknowledge those who are contributing to their field. Funding agencies may also imbed peer-review training into their fellowship programs, to help develop best practices among early career scientists. Institutions and funding agencies could also set internal policies with clear recommendations for compensation for peer-review. For example, just as some funding agencies require that any resulting manuscripts be published in open access journals, they could also require that results be submitted to journals that enact best practices in compensation for peer-review.It is also important to note that we did not ask reviewers if they performed their reviews during working hours. Although peer review can be seen as a pro-bono/volunteer work for researchers as their contribution to the society and science, it is likely that the majority of researchers conduct peer reviews as part of their job. Considering that most reviewers are being paid for this work by their employees and therefore is part of their job, it would not be unreasonable to have this in the contract when universities hire professors/researchers. Based on our study, time to peer review is estimated at 30 h per year per researcher, the equivalent to almost 1 week of paid work.When estimating the cost of peer review, it is important to consider two interests whose logic is completely different. The first is to analyse the loss of earnings for researchers (or the savings made by publishers) if this activity were to be paid for. The second is to estimate the price of peer review, if this activity becomes remunerated in the future. The calculations carried out in this study are the product of the crossing between the time spent peer reviewing and the salary of the reviewers. However, if we were in a logic of remunerating reviewers in the future, only the time spent will be used in the calculation. The reason being that the quality of a reviewer’s report does not necessarily depend on their salary. Future analyses should also cross-reference the time spent peer reviewing and the number of words (or pages) written, because not all reviewers have the same productivity/efficiency. The time spent peer reviewing is not necessarily a good indicator of the quality of the reports produced.Journals and publishers need to think creatively to compensate reviewers, provide realistic expectations for reviews, facilitate the review process, ensure quality reviews and improve transparency. It is not uncommon for reviewers to be asked to review just before a major holiday and then a reminder 1 week later. It may also mean that journals keep track of how many times they have reached out to a reviewer and limit their invitations to only when the manuscript is a close fit to the reviewer’s area of expertise. Publishing houses may offer mentorship and training sessions to facilitate the review process, especially for those who have limited experience with completing a review. Napoliatani et al.  have wriAs with any study, this work has several strengths and limitations. We were able to recruit a relatively large sample across 33 countries; however, we did not collect any information on field of study, leaving us to wonder if peer-review habits vary across disciplines. Time devoted to peer review depends on the technicality of the papers and their discipline; this should be assessed in future studies. Further, 44% of our population came from Canada, which further limits the generalizability of our results. Future work should focus on establishing a sample that is more representative of the international publishing landscape. Based on the Publons Global State of Peer Review survey , reviewsIn summary, we estimate the cost of peer-review for scientific publication at US$1,272 per person, per year. Globally, this may account for between US$1.1–1.7 billion dollars annually (conservative estimate) or US$6 billion in 2020 when using the Dimensions database and including reviewed-but-rejected manuscripts. Our estimations only represent rough orders of magnitude given the snowball sample used and the many uncertainties in the data. However, we hope that this quantification will bring more attention to the costs associated with peer-review and that institutions, funding agencies, and publishers will support scientists to find more amenable solutions in the future. Recognizing the importance of peer-review, institutions should acknowledge these costs in job descriptions and performance measurement, and advocate for a more equitable partnership with academic publishers. Research agencies should account for this essential service in grant applications. Journals and publishers should develop methods for remuneration that both compensate reviewers for their time and maintain the integrity of the peer-review process.Additional file 1. Survey questions.


It is AI that allows the devices used day-to-day across people’s personal lives, working lives and in industry to better anticipate and respond to our needs. However, the use of AI technology comes with a range of ethical questions – including issues around privacy, security, reliability, copyright/plagiarism and whether AI is capable of independent, conscious thought. We have seen several issues related to racial and sexual bias in AI in the recent times, putting the reliability of AI in question. Many of these issues have been brought to the forefront of cultural awareness in late 2022, early 2023, with the rise of AI art programs (and the copyright issues arising from the deep-learning methods employed to train this AI), and the popularity of ChatGPT alongside its ability to be used to mimic human output, particularly in regard to academic work. In critical areas like healthcare, the errors of AI can be fatal. With the incorporation of AI in almost every sector of our everyday life, we need to keep asking ourselves— can we trust AI, and how much?Artificial Intelligence (AI) and machine learning are the current forefront of computer science and technology. AI and related sub-disciplines, including machine learning, are essential technologies which have enabled the widespread use ofArtificial Intelligence and Machine Learning  Gateway on F1000Research meets these needs. This Editorial outlines the importance of openness and transparency in the development and applications of AI to allow all users to fully understand both the benefits and risks of this ubiquitous technology, and outlines how the Findable,Accessible,Interoperable andReusable. In addition to Open data, to meet Open Science requirements, manuscripts should be published Open Access and underlying software or code utilised in producing the research output should be produced using an open-source option where possible.Many large-scale funding bodies have, or are moving towards, new Open Science mandates in their funding requirements, including the European Commission  and the GitHub,BitBucket or similar. For others, especially those with more industry-focused roles who are often working to achieve patents, Open Science, and in particular data sharing, may be a newer concept. Luckily, there are plenty of resources freely available to help prospective authors with the new requirements of their funding bodies, including F1000’s data policies , these concepts are not foreign – for example, the open-source operating system Linux  must be declared in the data availability statement along with any reason why it is unable to be shared. More available data is generally excellent news for researchers working in machine learning!Secondly, F1000Research has strictarticle types across the full research spectrum to be published. This means that valuable studies don’t have to wait until they’re ready to be turned into an original research article to start sharing data – methods articles, data notes and similar are all valuable ways that researchers can share their work prior to the final research article. The model also allows for versioning, which is great for researchers working in AI as it allows for updates to be made to articles as the field evolves, rather than requiring a full new article with only a minor improvement.Thirdly, the publication model for F1000Research allows for a huge range ofFinally, F1000Research employs Open Peer Review. This has several benefits to authors, readers and peer reviewers. For authors, it means that their work can be published online faster as peer review – typically the slowest part in the publication process – occurs after publication. For readers, it means that the full discussion about the article’s merits  is freely available to read, allowing them the autonomy to decide for themselves about the article’s quality. For the reviewers themselves, it means they receive full credit for the work they put into this extremely important part of the research publication process, as their review is also published online and can be read and cited.All these aspects are crucial for fostering an open, sharing research culture, essential to many new funder mandates and incredibly useful for AI researchers who often require a wealth of freely available data for quality machine learning.Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning Gateway.Artificial intelligence and machine learning will continue to be at the forefront of the development of new computer-based technologies for the foreseeable future. However, with the issues arising from unconsidered applications, like students using ChatGPT to write homework essays (The F1000Research model is particularly well-suited to facilitate the open, rapid dissemination of research works related to AI and related fields, and its applications.Firstly, following the high-level policy decisions made by many funders already, it is essential to have a publication venue that already complies with their new requirements, and has done for many years (Secondly, trustworthy data for AI is of utmost importance to ensure accurate and efficient machine learning strategies (Finally, most current publication venues are limited in publications to technical or applied research and excluding relevant contributions from the humanities and social sciences. The Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning Gateway has the scope and interdisciplinary nature required to foster important sociological and other humanities research as well, providing a space where important discussions can occur about the ethics, legality and social aspects of new AI-powered technologies.Therefore, the Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning Gateway will provide an Open Science space for interdisciplinary publications on all aspects of AI, bridging the many different communities to create open and thoughtful discussions. It can provide a useful resource and collaborative space to guide researchers, authors and industry professionals through this new era of artificial intelligence.


Human desire to communicate predates the written language by some 60 millennia . As a smEver eager to embrace the new technology, I have asked ChatGPT to generate information sheets on indications, benefits and potential complications of various surgical procedures. I rapidly learned that the output evolved with iterative refinement of my questions. However, I remain reticent to share such information with my patients for fear that I may have crafted the wrong question and precluded content that would be relevant to their needs. I understand that AI researchers are developing patient-specific risk profiling ; however[I have asked ChatGPT to generate systematic reviews, using ‘Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses’ (PRISMA) methodology . I have I have asked ChatGPT how AI is being used in hip preservation surgery. My question was:‘List ten ways in which AI can be used to support hip preservation surgery and list the most cited literature to support each example, provide the relevant references and number of citations. Exclude any work related to joint arthroplasty’. I ran the same query multiple times and, on each occasion, I received a different answer. On each occasion ChatGTP provided an impressive array of AI applications. These addressed topics such as planning and simulation of surgical procedures, image analysis and diagnosis, outcome prediction, surgical navigation, risk assessment and patient selection, rehabilitation and physical therapy, instrument tracking and optimization, data analysis and research, virtual coaching and education and patient communication. For each topic, I was provided a brief explanation of the research and a citation detailing the authors, journal, volume, issue and pages of the paper and also a citation count for the publication.All but one of the journals were real but not one had published an article by the listed authors or a paper with the cited title. All were synthetic, imaginary publications.In Issue 10.1, we can see how human scrutiny of world literature enables us to better understand the evolution of scientific research on a new surgical innovation. The paper by Peng et al. plots the rise in publications on surgical dislocation of the hip over the last two decades . Rather Another human strategy for the evaluation of opinion and research is achieved by bringing together experts and seeking consensus. In Issue 10.1, we publish the article titled ‘The 2022 International Society for Hip Preservation (ISHA) physiotherapy agreement on assessment and treatment of greater trochanteric pain syndrome (GTPS): an international consensus statement’ . There iMy third pick in Issue 10.1 is a case report by Kinsley and Safran titled ‘Medial approach for hip arthroscopy: a case report to access and treat osteoid osteoma of the medial femoral neck’ . One of I hope that all our human-produced papers prove to be of interest to you all and we look forward to receiving AI-derived work as this technology matures.


To establish the current peer-reviewed practices in the discipline of orthopaedic surgery and correlate these to the journal’s impact factor. Unfortunately, this is not receiving much attention and a critical literature gap in various disciplines; thus, determining the current practices in the discipline of orthopaedic surgery could provide valid insight that may be potentially applicable to other academic medicine disciplines as well.Orthopaedic surgery journals belonging to the Journal Citation Reports were queried, and the following was extracted: impact factor (IF) and blinding practices: single (SBPR), double (DBPR), triple (TBPR), quadruple (QBPR), and open (OPR) blinding review process and possibility of author-suggested reviewer (ASR) and non-preferred reviewer (NPR) options.Of the 82 journals, four were excluded as they allowed submission by invitation only. In the remaining, blinding was as follows: SBPR nine (11.5%), DBPR 52 (66.7%), TBPR two (2.6%), QBPR zero (0%), and OPR three (3.8%), and in 12 (15.4%), this was unclear. ASR and NPR options were offered by 34 (43.6%) and 27 (34.6%) journals respectively, whereas ASR was mandatory in eight (10.2%). No correlation between IF and any other parameter was found.The rules of the “game” are unclear/not disclosed in a significant number of cases, and the SBPR system, along with the ASR (mandatory sometimes) and NPR, is still extensively used with questionable integrity and fairness. Several recommendations are provided to mitigate potentially compromising practices, along with future directions to address the scarcity of research in this critical aspect of science.The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00264-023-05729-6. The peer review system can be tracked back to 1731 in the Royal Society, with the first peer review model being used as early as in 1752 where a knowledgeable group of peers reviewed the manuscripts, and their recommendations would later influence the decision of the editor-in-chief . , 4. 3, 4Another controversial issue pertains to reviewer suggestion (author-suggested reviewers (ASR)) or exclusion (non-preferred reviewers (NPR)) option by the authors during the submission process. ASR may offer reduced cost and increased speed of the review but may increase bias or introduce fraud as there been several cases of abuse with authors impersonating peer reviewers and reviewing their own work, a phenomenon called “fake peer-review”(FPR) , 9. ConvTo the authors’ knowledge, there has been no study of the aforementioned controversial issues in orthopaedic journals, and there is very limited literature on the subject looking at specific disciplines . This stIt is hoped that this manuscript will help contribute to addressing some of the potentially correctable flaws of our currently imperfect peer review system which definitely have an impact in its integrity, fairness, and equality that are relevant to all parties involved  in all fields of medicine.The authoritative Journal Citation Reports™ (JCR) database of Clarivate Analytics was queried in March of 2022. The journal category of “orthopaedics” belonging to the science-citation index expanded was selected, and the name of the journal, its ranking, and its 2020 impact factor (IF) were extracted . FurtherIf no answer was received after seven days, a reminder email was sent and then at regular intervals. If no answer was received after four total attempts, the type of peer review for the journal was marked as “unclear.” All journals were categorized in one of the four peer review types presented in Table Furthermore, a sample email account was created and registered in the electronic submission system of each journal in order to access the submission process and investigate whether the journal offers/mandates do not offer the options of ASR or NPR. The maximum number of allowed ASR or NPR was also recorded, and if it was ten or more, it was recorded as “no limit.” The IF of the journals, obtained as described, was compared with the acquired data to investigate for potential correlations with the ASR or NPR options .p values below 0.05 were considered statistically significant. The software used for the data analysis was IBM Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS®) version 26.A point-biserial correlation was made for the types of peer review of the journals in correlation with the journal’s IFs. Moreover, further analysis investigated potential correlations between the ASR and NPR practices and IF. Out of the 82 orthopaedic journals from the JCR query, four were excluded since they allowed submission only with invitation . The remaining 78 journals as categorized in the area of “orthopaedics” by the JCR were included for the data analysis and had a mean IF of 2.672 (range 0.500–7.000)  had a clear statement of their peer review type on the website. From the remaining 31 journals queried by email, 20 responses were received (64.5% response rate), with 19 accepted responses and one invalid response, with a total of 11 journals not responding at all after four attempts. Of the 78 journals, nine journals used SBPR (11.5%)  did not offer the ASR option, whereas 34 journals (43.6%) did, and for one journal, this was unclear. From the 34 journals that included the ASR, in 26, it was optional, whereas in eight, it was mandatory in order to proceed with the submission process (Table p = 0.071) for the option of ASR vs IF, but no statistically significant correlation was shown. Of the eight journals with mandatory-ASR, five required suggestions of at least two reviewers (62.5%), two required at least three reviewers (25%), and one required at least one reviewer (12.5%). There was no correlation between IF and the maximum number of ASR as well.A point-biserial correlation was performed with coefficient of 0.205 (p = 0.003) indicated a statistically significant positive correlation about offering the option to suggest non-preferred reviewers and the journals’ IF. However, no significant association was observed on point-biserial correlation between number of allowed non-preferred reviewers vs journal IF.Of the 77 journals only 27 34.6%) allowed the author to be able to suggest NPR during the submission process  prior to peer review; (2) After removing the authors’ names and institutions, it is logistically sometimes difficult and time consuming to remove all blinding information; for example, it may be difficult to truly blind all manuscripts in a way that does not hint the reviewer, including removing discriminative self-revealing phrases such as “we have shown that” [DBPR aims at eliminating the aforementioned biases, and this study found that it is the predominant system used by orthopaedic surgery journals (66.7%), which contrasts with some other medical disciplines . Taking wn that” , 20 and wn that” . To theown that” . Despitewn that” , and 80%wn that” . Based oIn DBPR, the editor still knows the authors’ identities, and therefore, this still carries a risk of bias. Therefore, theoretically, by automatically deidentifying this information during the submission process, additional blinding of the editor may be achieved through the so-called TBPR. The current study showed that this practice has only been implemented by two of the orthopaedic journals Table  (2.6%). In OPR, the identities of all the parties are known, and in some cases, all documentation of the entire peer review process, along with the names of reviewers, is fully available in the final published version of the manuscript . AdvocatThere is currently a peer review crisis , in whicNoteworthy, this study also found that 34.6% of the journals allowed NPR options for the submitting authors. The option of having NPR correlated positively with the IF of the journals. Although it seems to have noble motives in eliminating reviewers with potential conflicts of interest, it can also be used unethically to increase the chances of publication, by deliberately rejecting specific knowledgeable reviewers that are known for their strict judgment and would have reviewed the paper in a fair but negative manner . In turnThis study has some limitations: (1) The criterion for including an orthopaedic journal was its participation in the ISI Web of Science Journal Citation Reports which provides the journal information and official IF. The non-indexed journals were not evaluated. Nevertheless, this study gives a good idea of the baseline practices of those journals indexed in this prestigious database which could also be used to monitor any future changes. 2) Although correlations with the IF were made, and the journals were listed in decreasing IF ranking in Table  AlthoughThis study addresses serious issues in peer-reviewed practices in academic medicine that are not yet known for individual disciplines, let alone the fact that they have not yet been resolved. By investigating the paradigm of orthopaedic surgery, several alarming challenges are identified. Although currently two thirds of orthopaedic journals use DBPR, still one in ten uses less objective SBPR, and about four in ten allow ASR all of which may introduce bias and increase the potential for fraud. Unexpectedly, in 15% of cases, the model used is unclear, and the authors and reviewers may thus be unaware of the “rules of the game.” These findings may vary among disciplines, e.g., medical imaging ; howeverSupplementary file1 (DOCX 13 KB)Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.


Brain Communications.Our Scientific Editor discusses her role at   Brain Communications. In this editorial, I would like to shed light on the role of the Scientific Editor within our journal. I’m Dr Manuela Marescotti and I joined Brain Communications in 2019 in this role, being a neuroscientist by training and after spending more than 10 years as a bench-scientist.Welcome to Volume 5, Issue 4 of Publishing peer-reviewed articles is at the heart of scientists’ careers where the number of published papers in a CV is often used as a proxy for productivity.Brain Communications, aiming to provide you with a better understanding of the peer review process, to improve your experience in submitting papers, and to highlight a stimulating career option that might interest some readers.Within this scenario, scientists are usually familiar with what they see of this system: their involvement as either author or reviewer of these documents; but the backstage workings of the journals publishing their papers are often a mystery. Here, I will give you insights about the job of the Scientific Editor at 1 Within this context, the editors play a crucial role in collaboration with the reviewers to carefully check the content of the manuscripts before sharing it with the scientific community. The different editorial roles take care of different aspects.First, I’d like you to picture a peer-reviewed journal as a pipeline and with a constant flow of articles both coming in (submitted) and out (sent back to the authors with a decision).Brain Communications. At this stage, if the manuscript is not in scope for our journal or has major flaws that we think make it not in line with our standards of rigour and reproducibility, it is rejected. If it is not immediately rejected, members of the editorial team search for scientists (reviewers) with expertise as close as possible to the topic of the paper to examine it carefully. Next, the reviewers give their feedback and the Associate Editors make their recommendations based on those comments. Then, I or one of our Assistant Scientific Editors come into play and check if the data and analyses conform to the journal’s standard, since our journal aims to ensure a ‘high standard of rigour and transparency’ of data. This quality check is done at every round of revisions for each manuscript. We check things like reporting of the sex of subjects, appropriateness of statistical analyses, and that figures are of high quality.When a new paper is submitted to our journal, the Editor-in-Chief and Associate Editors check its suitability for Brain Communications, based on topics that may currently be a matter of debate, and, I often contribute to researching suitable reviewers to evaluate the papers the journal receives. Last but not least, I work towards promotion of transparency and career development through two initiatives that involve training of early career scientists as reviewers (Reviewer Academy), and increasing the transparency of Brain Communications’ modus operandi (Observers Programme).In addition, I commission commentaries about articles published in Overall, I feel this role is the natural development of my scientific career, as it requires both a critical and curious attitude that I developed while being a lab-based scientist. Moreover, reading articles covering different areas of neuroscience, different methodologies, and data analyses, I have the opportunity to keep myself updated and to learn every day.Brain Communications works and our journal’s initiatives, please, visit our website’s dedicated pages https://academic.oup.com/braincomms/pages/observers and https://academic.oup.com/braincomms/pages/reviewer-academy and follow our Twitter account @braincomms to be kept updated about active recruitment times for these programmes!If you would like to know more about how The cover of this issue comes from Professor Deb Pal (King’s College London) and shows a black swan to exemplify a fallacy of defective induction: ‘if all swans are white, black swans cannot be swans’, a conclusion that can result from weak assumptions.


With every new technology, there are benefits that come hand in hand with the potential for misuse. Currently, many researchers are already using large language models (LLMs) for tasks such as language editing and abstract generation, which is beneficial and time-saving. It is undeniable that in the near future, we will witness dedicated tools that facilitate the preparation of scientific manuscripts, including tasks like reviewing relevant literature and generating discussion sections. However, an obvious danger arises: the possibility of fabricating entire articles using LLMs without conducting any genuine research . It is iAs mentioned by Liu and Brown , the sciProvision of source data sets publicly. Authors should provide anonymized data sets with all subject information with the submission as a supplementary material. This measure can discourage researchers from submitting completely fraudulent papers.A meticulous review process. Respectable publishers should emphasize a quality review process by selecting and educating high-profile reviewers. Some kind of reviewer award system may boost the motivation of potential reviewers. In addition to the award system, a reviewer-ranking system could be implemented based on the quality of the review reports.Strict ethical regulations at the level of publishers. Questions related to the use of LLMs should be incorporated into the publishing ethics questionnaire.Strict ethical regulations at the level of academic institutions. Researchers should be motivated at the level of their institutions  to publish high-quality, genuine research in esteemed journals.Penalties for researchers who commit ethical misconduct. Researchers who are convicted of ethical fraud should be penalized. This could be carried out by a temporary or permanent ban from publishing with certain publishers, limiting indexing, etc.LLMs are dramatically transforming the landscape of academic writing. The scientific community should not resist the modern advances of generative AI but rather seek to accommodate them. Undoubtedly, this process will be tedious and challenging. We are pleased that our work  contribu


This is a peer-review report submitted for the paper “Finding Potential Adverse Events in the Unstructured Text of Electronic Health Care Records: Development of the Shakespeare Method”This concise manuscript  reports I have some minor comments for the authors to consider:Introduction section, it would benefit the reader if the authors could provide some justification for why the Shakespeare method might be useful, rather than simply stating “We hoped.”At the end of the The methods are well described and the results are straightforward.Discussion section, there are some missing details that should be added. In particular, it would be useful for researchers seeking to follow up on this work to know what lessons were learned during the course of conducting this research. This could take the form of a short limitations paragraph, and importantly, some recommendations to guide future research. Relatedly, some additional details concerning how this work could inform real-world applications would also be welcome.In the


Biochemical Society Transactions is the reviews journal of the Biochemical Society. Publishing concise reviews written by experts in the field it provides a timely snapshot of the latest developments across all areas of the molecular and cellular biosciences. Elevating authors’ ideas and expertise, each review includes a perspectives section where authors offer comment on the latest advances, a glimpse of future challenges and highlighting the importance of associated research areas in far broader contexts. As Biochemical Society Transactions celebrates its 50th birthday, the current Editor-in-Chief looks back on the journal's history, and looks forward to the next 50 years. Biochemical Society Transactions (BST). I am honoured to have been appointed as the Editor-in-Chief on such an auspicious occasion. I succeed Professor Colin Bingle, who has overseen the transition of BST from a journal whose content was tethered to Biochemical Society conferences to the reviews journal of the Biochemical Society where minireviews are sought from far and wide. We are grateful to Colin for his leadership of the journal over the past 8 years, and for leaving the journal in a position of strength.2023 marks the 50th birthday of BST has undergone an incredible evolution over the past 50 years. Initially, the journal was a venue to publish abstracts associated with Biochemical Society focused meetings, of which there were around 11 per year, in addition to book reviews of scientific texts, occasional obituaries, and transcripts of award lectures, which included figures and a photograph of the awardee. There is a rich history in the archives, which makes for entertaining reading. Abstracts were often several pages long and typically included a summary figure or table and thorough citation of the background to the scientific problem. Early authors included some of the most prominent figures of the time, including many Nobel Laureates. Max Perutz was published in the first issue in January 1973; Ernst Chain published many abstracts in the area of his focus later in his career — heart metabolism — in 1973 and 1974; César Millstein contributed on cell-free methods to produce antibodies; Edwin Krebs wrote on new phosphorylase kinase substrates, alongside Mildred Cohn, who wrote on paramagnetic probes to study kinases.BST was led by Managing Editors: R. Brian Beechey (1973–1976); David C. Watts (1977–1988); Catherine Rice Evans (1989–1992); Keith Snell (1993–2001); and John Wrigglesworth (2002–2004). The first Honorary Editor, David Richardson, was appointed in 2005 and was succeeded by Colin Bingle in 2015. Colin was appointed as the inaugural Editor-in-Chief in 2016. Each editorial transition is marked by innovations. In 1977, minireviews first appeared in BST in addition to Communications, which were brief summaries of presentations at Biochemical Society conferences. Minireviews became the currency of the journal at the end of 2002, when abstracts were no longer published. Perhaps Dr Hook and the Medicine Show were prognosticators with their obsession with journal covers in the Billboard hit, ‘The Cover of the “Rolling Stone”', 50 years ago; however, it was only October 2006 when BST first published cover art. The range of images over the years is timeless; the images of cells, proteins, network and pathway diagrams are as striking today as they were nearly 20 years ago , inclusion of perspectives on the field, an emphasis on literature from the past 3 years, and a word limit of ∼3000.For the first 31 years, ears ago . Since 2BST. Our multinational Associate Editor team has expertise across the breadth of biochemistry, ranging from signal transduction and structural biology , molecular machines and protein transport in bacteria (Vicki Gold), epigenetics in mammals (Marnie Blewitt) and plants (Jiamu Du), redox biology and cellular damage (Clare Hawkins), microscopy and cellular ultrastructure (Ivan Robert Nabi), systems biology (Johann Rohwer), genome stability and DNA repair in plants (Stefanie Rosa), enzymology and plant biochemistry (Grant Pearce), to mechanotransduction and the extracellular matrix (Alexandre Bruni-Cardoso). Our Associate Editors are practising researchers who seek to minimise the obstacles to members of our community publishing their work. There are no page charges to publish your work in BST, and many institutions have signed Read & Publish deals with Portland Press  to enable you to publish your work under a Gold Open Access licence at no cost to you. We thank all of our contributors for trusting us with publishing their work, we are grateful to our expert reviewers and editorial office staff for helping us maintain high standards in the journal, and we look forward to the next 50 years of innovative publishing at Biochemical Society Transactions.In 2023, we continue to welcome minireviews from members of the molecular biosciences community. We actively seek reviews from presenters at conferences all over the world and by monitoring for areas of high interest in the field, and are always available to discuss whether your review would be a good fit at The author declares that there are no competing interests associated with this manuscript.Read & Publish agreement with Portland Press and the Biochemical Society under a transformative agreement with CAUL.Open access for this article was enabled by the participation of University of Melbourne in an all-inclusive


International Journal of Molecular Sciences (IJMS), which was created towards the end of 2018 (the first article was submitted on 27 September 2018) and has experienced significant growth from 2018 to now. This section focuses on applying computational methods and information technology to understand molecular systems and their interactions.This is the first Editorial of the “Molecular Informatics” Section (MIS) of the In 2019, the MIS published 132 articles; by 2022, the number of published articles had more than doubled to 291. One of the key drivers of this growth has been the recent growth and development of new computational tools and methods for analyzing large datasets. For example, machine learning algorithms have been increasingly used in molecular informatics to predict the properties of molecules and understand their interactions with other molecules; molecular docking simulations, one of the key approaches of virtual screening, have been integrated with machine learning techniques to accelerate and enhance the screening process. Another notable achievement in this progress is the development of deep learning methods used to predict the activity of molecules in drug discovery. Deep learning has enabled the identification of more promising drug candidates with a higher probability of achieving clinical success by predicting the bioactivity of molecules at an unprecedented scale. These tools have allowed researchers to analyze vast amounts of data and identify patterns that would be difficult to detect through traditional experimental methods. Moreover, with the development of cloud computing platforms and the availability of powerful supercomputers, researchers can now perform complex simulations and analyses that were once impossible. Overall, the growth of MIS highlights the increasing importance of computational methods in molecular sciences. As these methods continue to advance, they are likely to play an increasingly critical role in understanding biological systems and developing new therapeutics and treatments.IJMS grew from 4183 to 6208, with an increase of just over 48%, placing the journal in the first quartile of the Biochemistry & Molecular Biology category and the second quartile of the Multidisciplinary Chemistry category. As befits a high-level journal, this growth has rightly translated into a better and more restricted selection of the articles published in terms of quality and novelty.From 2018, the journal impact factor (JIF) of The Editorial Board (EB) plays a critical role in ensuring the quality and transparency of the publication process for academic articles. The board oversees all stages of the publication process, from initial submission to final publication, and ensures that the highest standards are met.IJMS also encourage AEs to conduct an initial review of the submission to determine its potential suitability for publication. Once a submission has passed the pre-check process, the EB, always supported by the AEs, is responsible for selecting appropriate reviewers to assess the submission’s scientific quality and relevance. The board may consult with external experts to identify suitable reviewers and consider the author’s suggestions for potential reviewers. The EB is essential in ensuring the review process is transparent and fair. Reviewers are typically blinded to the author’s identity and the identity of other reviewers. The board is also responsible for ensuring reviewers provide constructive, respectful, and helpful feedback to the author.One of the primary roles of the EB is to ensure that all submissions undergo a rigorous pre-check process to ensure they meet the journal’s submission criteria. This filter was mainly operated by the pre-check decisions of the Academic Editors (AEs), who selected articles in terms of quality and relevance to the aims and scope of the journal and, in particular, of the MIS. Moreover, the work of the AEs includes checking that the submission is original, has not been published elsewhere, and meets the required formatting and style guidelines. The guidelines of To collect high-quality research articles in all fields of molecular informatics applied to the understanding of the intricate world of biology and molecular research, the Topical Collection, “Feature Papers in Molecular Informatics”, was created, and, looking only at 2022, 25 papers were published ,24,25. TFinally, it is noteworthy to mention the five papers that have received more than one hundred citations since the birth of the MIS: (i) “Molecular Docking: Shifting Paradigms in Drug Discovery”  , (ii) “AThe field of molecular informatics is expected to see significant progress in 2023. With the increasing availability of molecular data, advances in machine learning and artificial intelligence tools are expected to enable more accurate predictions of molecular behavior and improved drug discovery processes. Additionally, the development of blockchain technology is expected to provide a secure, decentralized system for managing and sharing molecular data, facilitating collaborations, and accelerating research. Integrating molecular informatics with other fields, such as genomics and proteomics, is also expected to lead to innovative approaches in healthcare, personalized medicine, and drug development. It is an exciting time for the field of molecular informatics, and we can expect to see many new breakthroughs in 2023.IJMS by pursuing the development of the following points:Encourage high-quality submissions: Ensure the journal clearly focuses on molecular informatics and that the published research meets high standards of originality, scientific rigor, and relevance to the field. This could be achieved by issuing a call for papers to solicit high-quality submissions and inviting leading researchers to submit manuscripts to the journal.Increase the quality of published papers: The journal must implement a more rigorous peer-review process that includes multiple rounds of review by subject matter experts to improve the quality of published papers. Additionally, the journal could provide more detailed feedback to authors on areas for improvement to help them enhance the quality of their work. Another possibility may be using a double-blind review process to ensure further fairness.Increase collaboration and interdisciplinary research: Encourage collaboration between molecular scientists, computer scientists, mathematicians, and bioinformaticians. This will promote interdisciplinary research to advance the field and increase the journal’s impact. Additionally, establish collaborative partnerships with relevant conferences, research organizations, and societies to increase visibility and reach within the research community.Provide strong editorial guidance: The journal should have a solid ET to guide and mentor authors and reviewers. This involves identifying areas where the journal should focus, providing clear review criteria, and maintaining high publishing standards.Encourage open access at low costs: Open-access publishing is the future of scientific publishing, providing greater visibility and ensuring that research reaches a broader audience. Authors could be encouraged to submit to open-access journals through waiver policies, sponsorships, or partnerships with funding agencies.Prioritize quality over quantity: While increasing the number of publications is essential, it should not come at the expense of quality. Prioritize quality over quantity to maintain the journal’s reputation and impact.Increase the number of publications: The journal could consider publishing more Special Issues or thematic series on topics related to the MIS to increase the number of publications. This could attract a broader range of authors and readers and encourage more submissions.Increase visibility: The AE could promote the MIS through targeted marketing and social media campaigns to increase the journal’s visibility. Additionally, the journal could consider partnering with relevant scientific societies or organizations to promote the journal and its contents.Increase impact factor: The editor could aim to attract high-quality research that has the potential to be cited by other researchers in the field.Foster a strong community: The journal could host regular webinars, virtual conferences, or networking events focused on topics related to molecular informatics to build a strong community of authors and readers. This could help foster collaboration, knowledge-sharing, and innovation in the field.Despite this progress, there is still much to be achieved regarding the MIS; personally, and with the help of the entire Editorial Team (ET), in 2023, I will strive to improve the scientific quality, performance, number of publications, and visibility of the MIS as well as the JIF of IJMS. This progress of IJMS is mainly due to the proper functioning of the entire ET responsible for ensuring transparency and keeping all parties informed of the status of each submission. This includes regularly updating the author on the submission’s progress, encouraging reviewers to provide their feedback and decision timely, and making the publication process straightforward and transparent; this is what we will focus on, starting now, in the future.In conclusion, great strides have been made in the progress of the MIS, which are crucial to improving With the growing focus on using artificial intelligence and machine learning in molecular computing research, further advances should automatically occur in the coming years.


Molecular Horticulture (MHort). On behalf of the distinguished Advisory Board and Editorial Board of the journal, we would like to warmly welcome you to visit the MHort webpage and read the first batch (and more to come) of articles of high quality and impact.It is our great honor and pride to announce and celebrate the launch of Why is this new journal needed? The word horticulture derives from two Latin terms, hortus (meaning “yard” or “garden”) and cultura (meaning “cultivation”), and Horticulture has been conventionally a practice- or application-oriented discipline. The utilization of molecular biology and related techniques in horticulture research has led to the new frontier or branch of horticulture – Molecular Horticulture – and much related research has been performed, resulting in the significant increase in research papers. For example, the improvement of sequencing technology, especially the single molecular real time sequencing approach (SMRT)-based third generation of sequencing (such as the Nanopore sequencing), with drastically reduced costs, has made it possible to have genomes of more and more horticultural plants sequenced. In 2007, only one horticultural plant’s genome was sequenced; in contrast, 42 horticultural plants’ genomes were sequenced in 2017 alone. Some other examples include the cutting-edge mass spectrometry (MS) and single cell techniques that have also significantly transformed and advanced research at the molecular level in horticultural plants.The increasing use of the molecular genetic tools and related techniques has rapidly increased the number of related publications, for instance, from ~ 3000 in 2002 to ~ 12,000 in 2012 resulting from the application of genomic technologies, and the increase in the number is believed to be accelerating. Although several new horticulture journals have recently been started, the current journals cannot meet the needs of the molecular horticulture research output. MHort has now launched to fulfill the high demand . On the other hand, there are increasingly high-quality researches on horticultural plants that deserve publication in prestigious journals, but there are only few such high-impact horticulture journals. MHort has now launched to meet the needs. It is our hope that MHort will become the premier horticulture journal with the most profound impact on horticulture field.What does the journal publish? As you will find from the Scope, the topics covered by MHort are very broad, from (eco) physiology, biochemistry, and cell biology, to synthetic biology, (epi) genetics, and multi-omics of horticultural plants. Horticultural plants are also loosely or inclusively defined and include medicinal plants. In addition, the journal will also publish research articles involving model plants that reveal mechanisms/principles readily applicable to horticultural plants. The journal also welcomes resources and methodology articles that significantly facilitate or revolutionize horticultural research.Who runs the journal? MHort is run by scientists. Specifically, the journal is guided by the distinguished Advisory Board consisting of preeminent, world-class academics, and is edited by the distinguished international Editorial Board comprised of outstanding scholars. It is highly expected that the board will be expanded and dynamic. Our board members are very excited about and ready to help you in publishing your excellent manuscripts in MHort. Most importantly, the journal is also run by you, our very authors and dear readers! We sincerely hope that you will help the journal to excel by submitting your excellent research and review articles, by serving as reviewers and by becoming a frequent reader of MHort.Why should you consider publishing in MHort? In addition to reasons mentioned above, MHort is Open Access (OA) yet free of charge. Briefly, in partnership with Springer Nature, MHort is made fully Open Access so your articles can be readily accessed by as many readers as possible worldwide. In addition, no fee will be levied on the authors of MHort for the first three years for sure.MHort is ready to take off! And we are very much looking forward to having you on board as an author, a reviewer, and/or a reader!


However, with the increased usage of preprints in scientific research, there is a growing concern about potential risks associated with this practice. Despite the advantages that preprints offer, such as facilitating rapid dissemination of research findings that contributes to promoting transparency, it is vital for the users to recognize the associated risks. Moreover, and importantly, with the emergence of advanced technologies like artificial intelligence (AI) and large language models such as Chat Generative Pre-Trained Transformer (ChatGPT)  models such as ChatGPT, Google Bard, Perplexity AI, has the potential to exacerbate these risks. It has been reported that ChatGPT, a powerful language model, can generate highly convincing summaries and analyses of medical research . As modConsidering that ChatGPT remains an algorithm driven by machine learning, susceptible to errors and biases, it becomes imperative for readers to approach preprints with a discerning eye and engage in critical evaluation. It is advisable to seek supplementary sources of information, such as peer-reviewed publications and expert commentary, to form a well-rounded understanding of a particular topic. In the interest of prioritizing reliability and accuracy, it may be prudent for individuals to exercise caution and, whenever possible, abstain from relying solely on preprints when making decisions.Supplementary Table 1 presents an overview of the three recommended actions aimed at mitigating the risks associated with preprints and AI technologies like ChatGPT. By implementing these actions, we can work to ensure the responsible and effective utilization of preprints and AI technologies, thereby promoting scientific progress while minimizing potential errors and risks. Furthermore, platforms that incorporate AI-generated content, should establish safeguards to guarantee the accuracy and reliability of the generated content. This may involve fact-checking procedures and human supervision to verify the information produced by the AI. It would be favorable to witness the inclusion of an "automatic generated accuracy index" alongside any AI-generated content in the future, providing readers with prior awareness of the content's reliability. Additionally, the exclusion of preprints from NLP databases like ChatGPT may reduce the generation of misleading information. Furthermore, it is crucial for researchers and journalists to receive appropriate training in the responsible use of AI technologies and to be cognizant of the associated potential risks and limitations. All stakeholders involved in the dissemination and consumption of preprints and AI-generated content bear a paramount responsibility to actively address and counteract the spread of misinformation, thus safeguarding public health.As an alternative to preprints in academic writing, one solution is the use of a “rapid submission option” in prestigious scientific journals, but this again relies on competent and available reviewers, whose number is decreasing. This option entails editors making a preliminary decision on the manuscript within 48 hours and engaging only committed reviewers to review the manuscript within another 48 hours, for instance. However, as reviewers are not typically paid or rewarded in any way, this seems a difficult solution to implement within the current peer review framework. Therefore, compensating reviewers may serve as a motivator for them to not only accept, but complete reviews promptly. This approach offers comparable benefits to preprints and may even have some advantages. For example, published articles are likely to receive more attention and views than preprints. Additionally, the involvement of reviewers helps ensure the accuracy and transparency of the presented information. Overall, this alternative approach could be an effective means of enhancing the quality and promptness of academic writing.Additionally, our team has proposed a reconsideration of ideas and policies, specifically suggesting a ban on citing preprint articles. To enhance efficiency and propose effective solutions, we recommend limiting access to preprint articles exclusively to journal editors and the editor-in-chief. Authors would be required to submit articles to established preprint depositories such as ChemRxiv, medRxiv, Preprints.org, Research Square, and others. From there only journal editors would have privileged access to these articles and could initiate contact with corresponding authors for potential submission. This approach is designed to achieve three primary objectives. First, it aims to expedite the publication process for authors, eliminating the delays commonly associated with the initial decision-making phase, which can range from 5 to 40 days. Second, by restricting access, we aim to reduce the occurrence of publicly facing papers containing misleading information or those generated by AI technologies like ChatGPT. Finally, this approach helps to address the shortage of papers required to complete special or regular journal issues, thereby promoting the growth and advancement of scientific journals. Ultimately, the implementation of these measures has the potential to significantly contribute to progressing the scientific field.(i) Peer-reviewers are currently the only means of detecting AI-generated text during the publication process , and (ii) Preprints do not undergo any type of peer review, reconsidering preprint policies is becoming urgent and mandatory to maintain the integrity of academic research. This proposal presents its challenges. Indeed, some researchers may argue that preprints are an essential tool for the rapid and open dissemination of scientific knowledge, and a complete policy reconsideration may take time and would impede innovation and progress. Nevertheless, it is essential to weigh the significant risks associated with preprints. We believe that the potential harm to public health and the scientific community far outweighs any potential benefits.Considering that To conclude, while preprints offer many benefits, the misuse of AI technologies like ChatGPT only adds to the great risks associated with their use. Therefore, it is critical that all parties involved in medical research take a more cautious and responsible approach to the use of preprints. We suggest a complete reconsideration to the framework for publishing preprint articles. By doing so, we could ensure medical research is conducted and shared while benefiting society and minimizing the risks of “fake science” arising from the use of preprints in scientific publications.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. ID, KC and HBS: conception and designID, HBS, JMG and KC: analysis and interpretation of the dataID, HBS, JMG and KC: drafting of the paperID, HBS, JMG, MBA, NG, and KC: revising it critically for intellectual content.All authors gave their final approval to the version that will be published.Open access provided by EXCLI Journal.


Natural Products and Bioprospecting (NPB) got the first impact factor of 4.7. This is another milestone in the journal’s efforts to expand its academic influence. Natural Products and Bioprospecting is currently indexed by several prominent databases, including the Emerging Sources Citation Index (ESCI), the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), PubMed Central, and Scopus. The 2022 Citescore of the journal is 7.5, ranking at Q1 of Plant Science and Food Science, Q2 of Analytical Chemistry, Biochemistry, Organic Chemistry, Pharmacology, and Toxicology. The journal has a yearly downloads of more than 326k, and a yearly Altmetric mentions of over 350.Academic journals are vital for the dissemination of scientific knowledge, the encouragement of scholarly discussions, and the advancement of research across various disciplines. The impact of a journal, measured by its influence on academic and professional communities, is a key indicator of its success. In the latest Journal Citation Report (JCR) released by Clarivate in June 2023, The question of ‘When NPB will have the first impact factor’ was often raised by research community since the journal was officially launched in 2011. It is generally recognized that the Impact Factor is one of key metrics in evaluating a journal’s quality and performance, however, the editorial team of NPB has been paying great attention to unlock journal’s potential from all angles.Initially, to enhance the experience for authors, the editorial team and the publisher have made efforts towards reducing the turnaround time for peer review, editorial decisions, and production. In 2022, NPB’s median turnaround time from submission to first decision was 12 days, from submission to final accept decision was 49 days; the average production turnaround time was 18 days.Secondly, the editorial team recognizes the significance of fostering diversity in both the submissions received and the published content. This includes not only diverse topics but also contributions from a wide range of geographic locations. Over 90% of the submissions and around 40% of the published content in 2022 were from outside of China.Thirdly, the editorial team prioritizes the quality of each accepted article. According to Clarivate’s 2022 Journal Citation Report, more than 80% of NPB’s research articles and reviews published in 2020 and 2021 contributed citations to its 2022 Impact Factor. This notable statistic indicates that the quality of NPB’s published content is relatively average. However, it is worth mentioning the articles that have received high citation counts.Nat. Prod. Bioprospect. 2021, 11: 5–13) has been cited 61 times.These are the 2022 Top 10 frequently cited NPB papers published in 2020 and 2021  is a fully open access journal that sponsored and supported by Kunming Institute of Botany, Chinese Academy of Sciences, and published in partnership with Springer Nature. It serves as an international forum for essential research on the science of natural products. NPB publishes original research articles, reviews and short communications, aiming to rapidly disseminate research results of timely interest, and comprehensive reviews of emerging topics in all the areas of natural products. NPB adopts a continuous publishing model, which allows for the immediate publication of articles as soon as they are ready.


The WHO issued the first World Report on Vision in October 2019. According to this report, at least 2 billion people are living with vision impairment or blindness. Ophthalmic disease and vision impairment have created a significant global disease burden that continues to increase. Ophthalmologists worldwide face on-going challenges in the diagnosis and management of complex eye diseases. It is therefore critical that we share information and join global efforts to expand our clinical and applied research knowledge to protect visual health.Due to the unique structure and intricate visual pathways of the eye, ophthalmic research is inevitably integrated with the principles and techniques of other related disciplines. These include materials science, tissue engineering, biomechanics, neuroscience, medical imaging, computer techniques, etc. With the rapid development of ophthalmology in recent years, many novel and innovative technologies, cutting-edge discoveries, and interdisciplinary research have emerged.Advances in Ophthalmology Practice and Research (AOPR), has been launched to help meet these needs.Ophthalmologists and basic scientists need an advanced, accessible, academic platform that integrates these multiple disciplines and encourages in-depth academic communication. A new journal, AOPR is an international peer-reviewed open-access scientific journal, which is co-published by Elsevier and Zhejiang University Press on behalf of Zhejiang University and the Second Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University, School of Medicine. The Journal will publish clinical and basic research articles in various subspecialties of ophthalmology, vision science, related interdisciplinary and translational medicine fields, and advanced eye-related technologies and research findings. Its goal is to provide an academic communication platform for ophthalmic clinicians and scientists to promote the development of ophthalmology-related scientific research, as well as publish advancements in clinical diagnostics and therapeutics in ophthalmology,. Ultimately, it is hoped that this new information will contribute to the improvement of overall ocular health. The journal will publish a variety of article types, including original research, review articles, short communications, practice guidelines, opinions, editorials, comments, correspondence, and meeting reports.AOPR is committed to providing a forum for innovative research in ophthalmology and other related disciplines, as well as providing a platform for the development of emerging technologies and theories. The editors and members of the editorial board enthusiastically welcome original research and clinical insights from our global colleagues and will share your outstanding work through our Journal with colleagues from around the world.The successful launch of AOPR is dependent on the commitment and hard work of many people. We would like to acknowledge the hard work of all the editors, members of the editorial board and the staff of both Zhejiang University Press and Elsevier. We will continue making every effort to build AOPR into a world-class academic journal by providing a trusted, high quality international academic platform that promotes the advancement of ophthalmic science and related technology.aopr@zju.edu.cn).We look forward to receiving your contributions to AOPR, and welcome your comments and ideas on how to make this an outstanding journal. We can be reached through the Editorial Office (


Writing from London, some of us are recovering emotionally from failing to stop Brexit. Let's hope the damage being done is short lived. Evolutionary human scientists have certainly made good use of the European Research Council, to give just one example of many useful things the UK may now lose (€95 million of research funding). We don't know if there will be any more of these grants after the end of next year. A couple of nights ago I was at an ‘End of 2019’ drinks party with some of the neighbours; what with Brexit and a long list of other disasters elsewhere in the world, the conversation was perhaps not as jolly as it should have been. One neighbour muttered gloomily ‘It's the end of the world really’. That might be overly pessimistic. I gather the UK is self-sufficient in cucumbers, so at least my pet tortoise will be fine. Let's hope 2020 gives us some reasons to cheer up.I am actually very happy with how the journal is going. Since we started just over a year ago, we have had 89 submissions. Most are research articles, some are reviews, and we have recently opened a new category, methods papers. Some special collections are brewing. So far, 17 of those papers have made it into print. Don't panic – that does not mean we have an 80% rejection rate. Many more manuscripts are in various stages of review, revision or production, and some are registered reports so the science is underway. As I hoped, submissions have ranged right across the evolutionary human sciences spectrum, from the evolution of punishment, language, cognition, medical or various other cultural practices, to tracking migrations of East Asians using archaeology, linguistics and ancient DNA. We learnt, amongst many other things, that primate culture may be more widespread than we thought; Agta hunter-gatherers have extreme male-biased sex ratios at birth but natural mortality means that the bias is gone by adulthood; ultra-marathon runners pick their niche in line with Allen's rule, with the taller, thinner athletes more likely to compete in hot climates than in cold, and more likely to finish in hot conditions; people living in well-educated neighbourhoods are more helpful. I am delighted that you have trusted us with your work.on ne saurait faire d'omelette sans casser des oeufs.We want to be as author-friendly as possible, looking for reasons to accept rather than reject. Some papers are of course rejected . The peer review process frequently improves papers dramatically, but sometimes it can feel like censorship. Crossing disciplinary boundaries can present challenges; an anthropologist, an economist and a biologist may all be interested in the same topic but have different ideas about the best way to do research. The peer review system is, like democracy, not perfect but hard to improve upon. We do our best to balance keeping all parties happy whilst promoting good science, but as I already knew from previous editorial experience, it seems Do suggest reviewers when you submit papers and we will try to use at least some of them . Think twice before recommending ‘big names’; they may do their fair share of reviewing but can be bombarded with requests, so are less likely to be available. Think about recommending early-career researchers that editors may be less familiar with.We aim for our science to be open and reproducible. I hope authors can make data and code available, when it is practicable. I do not usually expect reviewers to reanalyse the work . Open science just means being transparent about your methods and your data. We are of course happy to publish ‘negative’ results if the hypothesis is of interest. Editorial judgement is still needed about which non-significant results to publish if the method or hypothesis is weak. Reanalysis, meta-analyses, pre-registration are all trying to raise the bar. A failure to replicate an erroneous conclusion hopefully redirects researchers to more fruitful avenues. However, it is rarely that simple; there are several vampire hypotheses that are seemingly impossible to kill. Often it may be the theory that is the problem. Biased data are another thorny issue that cannot easily be resolved by reanalysis. Science surely self-corrects in the end, and this journal will try to help that process, but there is no panacea. Thoughtful new ways of testing interesting hypotheses (new or old) are still needed just as much now as they ever were.EHS will continue to not charge for one more year, and after that authors will pay, hopefully supported by their institutions or research funders. EHBEA members will get a good discount when we do eventually charge. Meanwhile make the most of 2020 to publish your work with us for free!Open access publishing is becoming increasingly popular. It does not mean publication is cost free, however. At present Cambridge University Press is paying for the production of the journal (and editors and reviewers are giving their time mostly for free – thank you!). I look forward to meeting some of you online or in person on my travels over the coming year, many of you hopefully at EHBEA in Krakow in April. I wish you a Happy New Year, 新年快乐, Bonne Anné, and I hope it brings you all good things.