Birmingham Women’s and Children’s NHS Foundation Trust was formed in February 2017 following an acquisition. The Library and Knowledge Services (LKS) merged while operating across two hospital sites. A priority for the merged Library and Knowledge Service was to integrate e‐collections. A literature review identified six papers reporting health libraries that had merged and integrated e‐collections.A priority for the merged Library and Knowledge Service was to integrate e‐collections.To ensure equitable and cost‐effective access to an extended collection, an audit of pre‐existing e‐collections was conducted. Electronic licence agreements enabling cross‐site access were negotiated. A new OpenAthens ID was created.The integration of e‐collections enabled Trust staff access to a greater number of e‐journals and additional e‐content, and an overall cost‐saving was achieved.This case study supports existing literature stating that integrating collections increases the number of e‐journals. It further identifies cost‐difference in acquiring cross‐site access to e‐journals compared to databases providing full‐text e‐journals and additional e‐content.Integrating e‐collections enables equity of access and value. A national co‐ordinated approach to procurement of e‐collections will further support equity and best value throughout NHS LKS. To facilitate equity of access and best value, merged health libraries should integrate e‐collections.A journal audit is a valuable tool to identify information need and to integrate e‐collections.Health library managers should involve all team members in the integration process to ensure understanding, engagement and shared responsibilities.Cost and usage data analysis are important collection development decision aids and can be used for ongoing assessments of value.An integrating collections policy should prioritise information need, equity of access and value.Birmingham Women’s Hospital delivers care to more than 50 000 women, men and their families every year providing gynaecology, fertility, neonatal, maternity and foetal medicine services. It also accommodates a regional genetic laboratory. Birmingham Children’s Hospital is a specialist paediatric centre caring for children and young people up to 16 years of age, and also provides child and adolescent mental health services. Birmingham Women’s and Children’s (BWC) NHS Foundation Trust was formed in February 2017 following the acquisition of Birmingham Women’s Hospital by Birmingham Children’s Hospital. The merger of the two hospitals enabled more seamless care for women, children and families in Birmingham and the wider region.The Trust employs approximately 6000 staff with almost 3500 at Birmingham Children’s Hospital, 2000 at Birmingham Women’s and 500 in mental health services, and receives more than 641 000 patient visits per year. The two hospitals are teaching centres, and international centres for research and development working closely with the University of Birmingham, other NHS Hospitals and charitable organisations. In November 2019, the Care Quality Commission awarded the Trust an overall inspection rating of Good.The Library and Knowledge Services (LKS) also merged in February 2017 while continuing to operate across two hospital sites. Prior to the merger, each LKS had a Library Manager, an Information Specialist and a Senior Library Assistant. Around the time of merger, one Library Manager accepted redundancy and one Specialist left the organisation. Subsequently, two new posts were created: a Senior Library Assistant and a Library Apprentice. The revised cross‐site LKS structure consists of one Library Manager, one Information Specialist and a team of four operational staff. All team members work cross‐site, and since the merger staff training and team building has been a priority.The merger of the LKS provided impetus to develop a collections policy prioritising information need, equity of access and value while also providing strategic direction and organisational relevance. The integration of e‐collections of the two libraries was organised in line with subscription renewals of January 2018 with preparation starting 4 months earlier. Identifying specialist collections within departments was a challenging part of the process that highlighted the need for a policy statement guiding actions around departmental collections. The integration of e‐collections was a staged process involving all LKS staff to ensure understanding, engagement and shared responsibilities. Regular communication was an important part of the process. The regional OpenAthens Administrator provided advice and support.This case study starts with a literature review identifying merged health libraries that had integrated e‐collections; six relevant papers were identified. The focus of individual papers varied although each acknowledged that integrating collections and access management were important aspects. This case study also describes methods used to integrate e‐collections at BWC NHS Foundation Trust including an audit of journal holdings and an attempt to identify departmental subscriptions. A single collection was established based on the findings of the audit. This paper outlines processes completed to enable cross‐site access including negotiation of electronic licence agreements and OpenAthens for access management. The paper aims to support NHS LKS undergoing mergers and seeking to integrate e‐journal collections to enable equity of access and best value.embase, emerald, health business elite, health management information consortium, the kings fund, lisa, medline and google scholar. These databases were searched from inception to November/December 2018. Search terms used included health libraries and merger and e‐journals. Synonyms, acronyms and variations of these words were used. In addition, the reference lists of included papers were assessed for additional relevant studies. The search retrieved 95 articles with six meeting the inclusion criteria reporting merged health libraries that had integrated e‐collections. Three of these papers reported on merged health libraries in the United States, and the other three in Canada. No papers were located that reported on merged health libraries in the United Kingdom. The focus of individual papers varies from general impact of mergers to consolidating resources and change management. However, all papers acknowledge to some extent that integrating collections and access management are important aspects of library mergers.A search for literature reporting on merged health libraries that had integrated their e‐collections was conducted. Databases searched included Wos and Oddan  providesThe publication of McGowan’s article  and RegeAmong the long term benefits to the consolidation of the libraries are not only cost reduction but higher productivity and greater availability of combined resources to both campuses (2003: 51).Barnes  providesDavis, Shorr, Campbell, & McGowan  uses qua.… since electronic resource delivery is highly valued it makes sense to devote more time and funds to maintaining current electronic resources and teaching users how to utilise these for evidence based practice. Combining collections with one interface can result in increased electronic resources for all users The most recent publication is Kenefick and DeVito  that detKenefick and DeVito  also sugIn summary, Wos and Oddan  providesThis case study supports the findings of the literature review that mergers and integrating collections result in an increased number of journals. It also expands existing literature as it outlines the methods used to integrate collections, and provides details of obtaining electronic licence agreements and organising access management as well as detailing the cost implications of integration.Verify journal holdings of individual library sites reporting cost, supplier and usage dataIdentify departmental subscriptionsIdentify duplicate titles between library sites and departmentsReview usage data to identify titles providing good, fair and low value to inform re‐subscription, further promotion or cancellation of titleApprove a single collection of e‐journals.An audit of journal holdings was completed in order to integrate e‐journal collections. There were five stages to the audit:The first stage of the audit verified journal holdings of individual library sites. The scope was e‐journals including single titles and subject‐specific titles available through bibliographic databases. Print journals were outside of the scope of the audit although review of remaining print holdings is an ongoing project.Individual library sites held an inventory of titles in an Excel spread sheet. The inventories were combined to create a single list of e‐journals that included cost, supplier and usage data. Access to the titles was through an A–Z journal list accessible via the Intranet.The second stage of the audit identified departmental subscriptions. Communications Department sent a global email requesting Trust staff contact the library to discuss locally held subscriptions. Titles identified were added to the inventory.The third stage identified duplicate titles between holdings at Birmingham Women’s LKS, Birmingham Children’s, and individual departments.The fourth stage of the audit investigated usage data to identify titles providing value. A value threshold was decided based on cost per download compared to document supply cost that included LKS staff time; cost per download being less than document supply indicated good/fair value, whereas cost per download being more indicated low value. Good value permitted re‐subscription while low value provoked discussion between LKS staff and end‐user and informed promotion or cancellation of title.During the final stage of the audit, a single collection of e‐journals was established with reference to findings of stages 1–4 of the audit.Once the audit was completed, e‐licence and access management were arranged to enable Trust staff at both hospital sites authorised access the newly integrated collection.Journal suppliers were informed of the Trust merger and aim to integrate e‐journal collections, and e‐licence agreements recognising both sites as authorised users were obtained. The e‐licences provided use terms and conditions for access, downloading, document supply and storing. Purchase orders were completed quoting the NICE Electronic and Print Content Framework Agreement and new OpenAthens Organisation Identifier (org ID) recognising the newly merged Trust and certified cross‐site access.Existing access management of e‐journals at both sites was through OpenAthens with two separate org IDs in place. A new single org ID was created to identify the newly merged Trust. Prior to migrating users, a number of OpenAthens housekeeping tasks were completed including identifying and deleting duplicate and expired accounts. Following migration, journal holdings in the Link Resolver were combined.See Table The cost of enabling cross‐site access to a single database providing access to 600 + e‐journals, healthcare knowledge and additional e‐content was £11.5K; although this was considered to be a substantial increase, it was a negotiated cost that achieved a preferential outcome for the LKS. There was no additional cost to allow cross‐site access to the remaining 33 e‐journal titles. Overall, following the merger and integration of e‐resources, more Trust staff had access to more e‐journals, and a total cost‐saving of £3.8K was achieved.The audit was a valuable tool to identify and ensure holdings were being managed, and to integrate e‐journal collections. It also identified a departmental collection, and furthermore that departmental staff were unaware of cross‐site holdings. The LKS acquired management of the collection organising procurement and cross‐site access, and continues to work with the department to promote and seek good value. The audit came close to identifying a single departmental title but this was lost to follow‐up with no response to emails.Additional departmental subscriptions and/or small specialist collections may still exist but have proved challenging to identify. Therefore, LKS teams may benefit from working with finance and procurement departments to identify subscriptions through budget codes and purchase order systems. It is very worthwhile trying to identify departmental holdings as there are a number of advantages of library staff managing all holdings including widening and managing access, monitoring usage to ensure continued value, and supporting compliance with licences and copyright legislation. It is also in the interest of cost‐savings for individual departments and the Trust as a whole.Cost of cross‐site access to a database was £11.5K; indeed without the cost‐savings through cancellation of titles the LKS budget would have fallen short of meeting the increased cost. However, prior to purchase of a database providing access to health care knowledge including full‐text e‐journals and additional e‐content, an appraisal and cost‐effectiveness study including collection of accurate and meaningful usage data needs to be conducted, and value aligned to judgement of the subject needs of end‐user. The appraisal should include appropriateness of health care knowledge for UK practice, and its evidence base. In addition, the increasing availability of free articles via the Internet and social media, and open access should be considered together with document supply services and cost.The results of this case study as indicated in Table The integration of e‐collections following a hospital merger was a staged process that included an audit of e‐resources, and involved all LKS staff to ensure understanding, engagement and shared responsibilities. The integration resulted in Trust staff having cross‐site access to a greater number of e‐journals, health care knowledge and additional e‐content, and a cost‐saving was achieved. Promotion and evaluation is an ongoing project for the LKS at BWC to ensure continued value. The variance between cost of acquiring cross‐site access to e‐journals and databases needs consideration and options investigated following a pragmatic appraisal of need and value. Equally, progress with national procurement of e‐collections will enable LKS to further support equity and value.All authors have no conflict of interest.


Dear JBIC Reader, dear colleague:I am writing this Editorial in the middle of the Corona Crisis, like most of us working from my office desk at home. These are unprecedented times for most of us, who are lucky enough to never have experienced war, civil war, or similar hardships in our lifetimes. The virus has brought our scientific life to an almost complete shutdown, with labs closed all over the world, conferences canceled, travel suspended, exchange of students and researchers stalled, and research operations at large national and transnational facilities like synchrotrons being dramatically reduced. On the positive side, the need for serious, evidence-based science became painfully apparent to a public that would otherwise largely ignore, if not even joke about us. All of the sudden, scientists are regularly seen in evening news, and those governments that listen and follow their advice seem to fare better through the crisis. I am hoping that at least the respect for science will be long-lasting, as one of the possible positive outcomes of the crisis.JBIC welcomes submissions not only of original articles, but also of mini-reviews. A mini-review should be a critical summary of the current literature in a topical, not-too-specialized field of some general interest. It is typically between 5 and 15 printed pages in length, and has 50–150 references. A mini-review is not meant to be comprehensive, but rather a concise summary of the most important developments in the field. Highlighting current trends and including a critical perspective from the authors’ point of view is welcome. Mini-reviews can be submitted at any time without prior invitation, but you are most welcome to contact me informally to discuss scope and suitability of your intended submission. Of course, mini-reviews will undergo the same rigorous peer-review process as regular papers.For JBIC, it is acceptable to involve coworkers such as experienced PhD candidates or postdocs in reviewing assignments, provided that the PI offers mentoring throughout the process, and ultimately assumes full responsibility for the submitted review. Of course, no conflict of interest must exist and anonymity must be observed as usual. It is advised to indicate the name of the coworker who helped with the review in the “Confidential Comments to the Editor” field during review submission.We are very aware that many researchers face difficulties in meeting the timelines associated with revisions and the peer-review process during these times. Please contact me or your Associate Editor if you need additional time. The Editorial System will continue to send reminders automatically, but we promise to be flexible and try to accommodate your needs as good as possible.In these difficult times, JBIC continues operation as close to normal as possible. Not knowing how long regular research work in your labs will be suspended, I wish to highlight items from our editorial policy that may be particularly useful to remember:invited commentary, Robinson and Glasfeld pick up on the topic of an article that appears later in the Issue . Their commentary provides a background discussion on how metalloenzymes “pick” their metal, in a case where this is against the Irving–Williams series, and natural abundance. Generally, a commentary may refer to an article published in the journal. Or it may highlight important new methods or developments, or raise a discussion that is otherwise important for the Bioinorganic Community. Commentaries are short and opinions are welcome. I see them as an excellent way to engage the community in topical discussions in our field. Therefore, if you have a viewpoint or topic of general interest that you wish to share in the form of a commentary, please contact me directly and we will discuss the possibility.Finally, and also on the bright side, this Issue features a “first” for me: In an And as all newsworthy items, your commentary will be highlighted on our Twitter account —so follow the tweets. Enjoy reading!Nils Metzler-Nolte.April 2020.


Author reviews digital transformation of scholarly communication since 1990s and explains how COVID-19 is accelerating open science, with some analogy of chemical reactions. Discussing the current situation of preprint, the potential of peer review, and the essence of open science, developing additional services and balancing incremental and innovation in the transition state is crucial to foster new trust among stakeholders. Author reviews digital transformation of scholarly communication since 1990s and explains how COVID-19 is accelerating open science, with some analogy of chemical reactions. Discussing the current situation of preprint, the potential of peer review, and the essence of open science, developing additional services and balancing incremental and innovation in the transition state is crucial to foster new trust among stakeholders. Since the emergence of the world wide web, scholarly journals have been transformed practically into “online journals” and have developed many useful functions such as online submission, search, and connecting to various items beyond just citation linking for better scholarly communication. It has been a while since online journals became inevitable among the researchers of various fields. Still, the framework of journal publishing itself, especially the scheme of peer review, has not been changed for many years, although it has been improved partially or additionally by the use of online reviewing systems. Some radical challenges such as open peer review have been tried by publishers and others, but these attempts have failed or only succeeded in a small range so far. The current framework of journal publishing and peer review is very robust, and it looks like it’s too established to change drastically.However, COVID-19 is now changing academic publishing dramatically—changing the whole academic society just like it is changing our whole society, including industry. COVID-19 research is accelerating open science more rapidly than ever before. For example, preprints are helping researchers share their research outputs immediately, sometimes along with their datasets. In addition, like a physicist trying to analyze the COVID-19 dataset and proposing a model, cross-disciplinary communication is happening regularly. Here, data science is playing a significant role. Furthermore, trans-disciplinary communication between scientists and citizens is also happening to solve this crisis. At this point, we must recognize that such emerging communications are happening but are not closely related to the current established journal publishing scheme. Current established scholarly communication seems to be too slow to fit current emerging communications on emergency situations such as a global pandemic. These open and rapid communications also affect the analysis of science and technology trends. Since I majored in organic synthesis, I sometimes use the analogy of chemical reactions to explain the transformation of paradigm when I have a chance to explain open science to various stakeholders. One good example is using a concept of “activation energy” for paradigm shifting. Let’s recall the transformation of e-journals from paper journals. You may know or not, that publishers and learned societies consumed many resources  and energy (including passion) to move forward, which was more than they assumed in the earlier stage. We need much more activation energy for paradigm shifting than it apparently needs. Beyond just e-journals, we are entering the digital native paradigm that open science is foreseeing. I often change the phrase “publish or perish” to “share or perish” to communicate the image of the open science paradigm . We are 1Preprint first (at least for authors’ priority)2Data sharing as a common practice (like citations) and partially mandated 3Filtering with multidimensional views, which comes through more transparent methods, keeping established editorship and peer review for a trusted authorizationWhat will happen practically? From my view with this current situation, the below points will become a custom among scientists in general, not just specifically by field.These items are beneficial for both researchers and governments (funders). As far as I know, every policy development in open science or better research evaluation is keen on the rapid and transparent dissemination of publicly funded research outputs.1Re-framing or re-inventing peer review itself as a new digital native filtering process with preprints 2Establishing curatorship like an advanced version of editorship within the new scheme of peer review (the editor role would change or expand to find good papers on the web and in the preprint servers)3Developing “contributorship” beyond authorship, especially for research data, and ultimately for the whole research process Furthermore, these new customs would urge us to make a progress of the issues listed below.I should say most of these issues have been discussed many times and solutions have been fully or partially tested by some publishers or other initiatives. They have not been solved yet, as it is difficult to make these solutions common practice, despite the fact that the information and communication technology (ICT) for those schemes are ready to go. The things publishers and other publishing-related initiatives are now dealing with because of COVID-19, like expedited peer review, de facto open access, and data sharing, are things that they’ve been wanting to do in open dcience for a while. Then, we don’t have to create all the functions for open science from the beginning—we should gather, review, and arrange past challenges to redesign digital native scholarly communication within the current context strongly energized by COVID-19.I would like to introduce another chemical reaction to understand the current situation. We know that water normally freezes at 273.15 K , but it can be “supercooled” to its crystal homogeneous nucleation  being kept as liquid . During And now COVID-19 is unexpectedly but definitely triggering the crystallization from the past supercooled liquid state to change the whole scholarly communication framework rapidly in the 2020s. Once the framework is shifted, we cannot go back because it has already passed the theoretical tipping point. OA journals are already a de facto media in scholarly communication. So we—researchers, authors, reviewers, editors, publishers and librarians together—should enjoy exploring the new possibilities of scholarly communication with a lot of the assets and knowledge we have gained in the supercooling period. COVID-19 is the short, sharp shock that allows us to crystallize our supercooled water and make that state change happen for better scholarly communication.Nevertheless, one important point we learned from the history of digitization is that we cannot totally alter or abandon the current established scheme of scholarly publishing and peer review in a short time. It’s reasonable to think that we are going to have an “additional and vital layer of services” in the transition state for future scholarly communication. For example, the barriers to publishing preprint are so low that there would be a lot of faulty, biased, and misleading information out there. And it would be spread instantly if it is catchy, or if it confirms people’s biases. In addition, we don’t have any common methodology to evaluate huge numbers of preprints rapidly, except for applying the current scheme of (expedited) peer review afterward. Also, we should learn from the fact that some people in the 1990s dreamed of paperless online-only journals with HTML, but the whole publishing market practically selected print-based PDF files for online journals. The market does not accept just a new service but welcomes a “new and trusted” service. And again, I say we have been in the supercooling period to develop some disruptive media or platform, maybe with preprint or ambitiously with research data, while PDF is acquiring trust, as an incremental evolution, waiting for the trigger event. Therefore, the new developing layer for scholarly communications has been accumulated on the current established layer we have fostered over 350 years, starting from the beginning of print journal publishing. We should promote both incremental and disruptive change and also create a synergy for the rapid and healthier dissemination of scholarly communication with trust.The essence of open science is not in the technology itself, but in the formation of new practices and cultures by changing human behavior. It needs time to change the culture. Looking toward a digitally native science, we have already entered an era where new services are created and new trust is earned by new challenges on a current reliable foundation. And after the supercooling time I mentioned, COVID-19 drastically broke with the conventions of the past and forcibly evoked a new world, which is definitely an activation energy to pass the tipping point of transition toward new paradigm. Given that we have finally entered the era of developing a full-fledged digital native service, keeping the essence of scholarly communication, especially on peer review, is crucial and it will still take time to transform after we develop a future service. Balancing convention and innovation is still important for each stakeholder in these times. And what I am convinced of, even at this stage, is that data science helps to widely and deeply improve our current situation incrementally, make something happen, and convince stakeholders to earn their trust with data.


Peer review is embedded in the core of our knowledge generation systems, perceived as a method for establishing quality or scholarly legitimacy for research, while also often distributing academic prestige and standing on individuals. Despite its critical importance, it curiously remains poorly understood in a number of dimensions. In order to address this, we have analysed peer review to assess where the major gaps in our theoretical and empirical understanding of it lie. We identify core themes including editorial responsibility, the subjectivity and bias of reviewers, the function and quality of peer review, and the social and epistemic implications of peer review. The high-priority gaps are focused around increased accountability and justification in decision-making processes for editors and developing a deeper, empirical understanding of the social impact of peer review. Addressing this at the bare minimum will require the design of a consensus for a minimal set of standards for what constitutes peer review, and the development of a shared data infrastructure to support this. Such a field requires sustained funding and commitment from publishers and research funders, who both have a commitment to uphold the integrity of the published scholarly record. We use this to present a guide for the future of peer review, and the development of a new research discipline based on the study of peer review. Peer review is a ubiquitous element of scholarly research quality assurance and assessment. It forms a critical part of a research and development enterprise that annually invests $2 trillion US dollars (USD) globally  and prodAs a core component of our immense scholarship system, peer review is routinely and widely criticised –14. MuchAs such, there is a real danger that advocates of reform in peer review do not always appreciate the often-limited scope in our general understanding of the ideology and practice of peer review. Ill-informed generalisations are abound, for example, the oft-heard ‘peer review is broken’ rhetoric , 25, comThis makes inter- and intra-discipline and systematic comparisons about peer review particularly problematic, especially at a time when substantial reform is happening across the wider scholarly communication landscape. The diversity of stakeholders engaging with peer review is now increasing with the ongoing changes around ‘Open Scholarship’; for example, policymakers, think-tanks, research funders and technologists are increasingly concerned about the state of the art in research and its communication and role in wider society, for example, regarding the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. In this context, developing a collective empirical and theoretical understanding of the function and limitations of peer review is of paramount importance. Specifically available funding for such research is also almost entirely absent, with exceptions such as the European Commission-funded PEERE initiative , 31. ThiThis article aims to better explore and demarcate the gaps in our understanding of peer review to help guide future exploration of this critical part of our knowledge infrastructure. Our primary emphasis is to provide recommendations for future research based around the need for a rigorous and coordinated programme focused on a new multi-disciplinary field of Peer Review Studies. We provide a roadmap that highlights the difficulty and priority levels for each of these recommendations. This study complements ongoing and recent work in this area around strengthening the principles and practices for peer review across stakeholders .To identify gaps in our knowledge, we identified a number of core themes around peer review and peer review research. We then identified relevant literature, primarily based around recent meta-reviews and syntheses to identify the things that we do know about peer review. We then ‘inverted’ this knowledge and iteratively worked through each core theme to identify what we do not know at varying levels in a semi-systematic way. Part of this involved discussions with many colleagues, both in formal and informal settings, which greatly helped to shape our understanding of this project, highlight relevant literature, as well as identify the many gaps we had personally overlooked. We acknowledge that this might not have been sufficient to identify all potential gaps, which are potentially vast, but it should provide a suitable method for identifying major themes of interest for the main stakeholder groups.Within these themes, we have attempted to make clear those things about peer review which are in principle (and may likely remain) obscure, as well as those things which are in principle knowable but currently obscure practically due to a lack of data or prior attention. The consequence of this structural interrogation is that we can begin to identify strategic research priorities and recommendations for the future of peer review research at a meta-level . The assIn this section, we will discuss the limits to our knowledge of peer review in a general, interdisciplinary fashion. We focus on a number of core themes. First, we discuss the role of editors; issues surrounding their accountability, biases and conflicts of interest; and the impact this can have on their decision-making processes. Second, we discuss the roles of peer reviewers themselves, including the impacts of blinding, as well as notions of expertise in what constitutes a ‘peer’. Third, we discuss the intended purpose and function of peer review and whether it actually upholds these things as a quality control mechanism. Fourth, we consider the social and epistemic consequences of peer review. Finally, we discuss some of the ongoing innovations around [open] peer review tools and services and the impacts that these might have.Editors have a non-uniform and heterogeneous set of roles across journals, typically focused in some way around decision-making processes. Here, when we refer to ‘an editor’, we mean someone in such a position of authority at a journal, including editors-in-chief, managing editors, associate editors and all similar roles. Typically, by focusing on a binary outcome for articles (i.e. reject or accept), editorial peer review has become more of a judicial role than a critical examination , as the We currently only have patchy insight into factors such as the number of times a paper might have been rejected before final acceptance, and further critical insight is needed into the general study of acceptance rates –48. ThisEditors wield supreme, executive power in the scholarly publishing decision-making process, rather than it being derived from a mandate from the masses. Because of this, scholarly publishing is inherently meritocratic , rather than being democratic. Despite this, how editors attained their positions is rarely known, as are the motivations behind why some editors might start their own journal, write their own editorials or solicit submissions from other researchers. This is further complicated when conflicts might arise between the commercial interests or influence of a publisher  and editorial concepts around academic freedom and intellectual honesty and integrity. There are around 33,100 active scholarly peer-reviewed English-language journals, each with their own editorial and publishing standards , emphasiEditorial decisions are largely subjective and based on individuals and their relative competencies and motivations; this includes, for example, how they see their journal fit within the present and future research and publishing landscape as well as the perceived impact a paper might have both on their journal and on the research field. These biases are extremely difficult to conceptualise and measure and almost certainly always lacking in impartiality. Such editorial biases also relate to issues of epistemic diversity within the editorial process itself, which can lead to knowledge homogenisation, a perpetuation of the ‘Matthew effect’ in scholarly research , 53 and Journals and publishers can assist with these issues in a number of ways. For example, simply providing the name of the handling editor and any other editorial staff involved in a manuscript, including any other professional roles they have, any previous interactions they might have had with both reviewers and authors and the depth of evaluation they applied to a manuscript. However, such information could inadvertently lead to superficial judgements of research based more on the status of editors. Journals can also share data on their peer review workflows, including referee recommendations where possible . The relIt is known that, to various degrees, factors, such as author nationality, prestige of institutional affiliation, reviewer and nationality, gender, research discipline, confirmation bias and publication bias, all affect reviewer impartiality in various ways , with poThe potential range of biases calls into question of what defines a ‘peer’ and our understanding of ‘expertise’. Expertise and the status of a peer are both incredibly multi-dimensional concepts, varying across research disciplines, communities, demographics, career stage, research history and through time. Yet the factors that prescribe both concepts remain often highly concealed, and both can ultimately affect reviewer and editorial decisions, for example, how reviewers might select which elements of an article to be more critical of, and subjective notions of, ‘quality’ or relevance. It is unclear whether or not reviewers ‘get better’ through time and experience, and whether the ‘quality’ of their reviewing varies depending on the type of journal they are reviewing for, or even form of research .Journal of Open Research Software and Journal of Open Source Software clearly requiring code review as part of their processes. While there is also a general lack of rewards/incentives that could motivate reviewers to embark in rigorous testing or replications, some journals do now offer incentives such as credits or discounts for future publications for performing reviews. However, how widespread or attractive these are for researchers and the potential impact they might have remains poorly known. Editors and journals have strong incentives to increase their internal controls, which they often informally outsource this effort to often uninformed reviewers.Often, there is a lack of distinction between the referee as a judge, juror and independent assessor. This raises a number of pertinent questions about the role of reviewer recommendations, the function of which varies greatly between publishers, journals and disciplines . These eOnly recently, in the field of biomedicine, has there been any research conducted into the role and competencies of editors and peer reviewers , 67, 68.The only thing close to a system-wide standard, that we are aware of, in this regard is the ‘Ethical Guidelines for peer reviewers’ from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). At present, we have almost no understanding of whether or not authors and reviewers obligingly comply with such policies, irrespective of whether they actually agree with them or not. For example, how many reviewers sign their reports even during a blinded process and what the potential consequences of this (e.g. on reviewer honesty and integrity) might be or even the extent to which such anonymity is compromised . There iOne of the most critical ongoing debates in ‘open peer review’ regards whether or not blinding should be preferred as it offers justifiable protection, compared to the times when blinding encourages irresponsible behaviour during peer review , 70, 71.expect them to be more critical and objective rather than subjective during the review process itself, as transparency in this case imposes at least partial accountability. With this, it can be examined as to whether this leads to higher quality reviews, lengthier reports, longer submission times, influence on reviewer recommendations and the impact this might have on research quality overall; factors that have been mostly overlooked in previous investigations of this topic. Journals can use these data to assess the potential impact these have on the cost and time management for peer review.First, if reviewer identities are known in advance, we might typically Second, it means that some of the relationships and motivations of a reviewer can be inspected, as well as any other factors that might be influencing their decision . These can then be used to assess the uptake of and attitudes towards open identities, and whether there are systematic biases in the process towards certain demographics. More pragmatically for journals, these can then be compared to reviewer decline rates to streamline their invitation processes.Third, it means that if some sort of bias or misconduct does occur during the process, then it is easier to address if the identity of the reviewer is known, for example, by a third-party organisation such as COPE.There are also critical elements of peer that can be exposed by providing transparency into the identity of reviewers , 76. PrePeer review is now almost ubiquitous among scholarly journals and considered to be automatically required and an integrated part of the publication process, whether it is functionally necessary or not. There is a lack of consensus about what peer review is, what it is for and what differentiates a ‘good’ review from a ‘bad’ review, or how to even begin to define review ‘quality’ . This soarXiv and bioRxiv and their final published versions, for example, has shown that overall peer review seems to contribute very few changes and that the quality of reporting is similar  peer reviewAll of the research items in this roadmap can be explored in a variety of ways, and at a number of different levels, for example, across journals, publishers, disciplines, through time and across different demographics. Views on the relevant importance of these issues may vary; however, in our opinion, based on the weights we would assign to their relative difficulty to address and level of importance, it would make sense to focus particularly on the following issues:Taking a broad view, it is pertinent to tie our roadmap into wider questions surrounding reform in higher education and research, including ongoing changes in research funding and assessment. At present, peer review is systematically under-valued where most of it takes place—at academic institutions. Peer review needs to be taken seriously as an activity by hiring, review, promotion and tenure committees, with careful consideration given to any potential competitive power dynamics, particularly against earlier-career researchers or other higher risk demographics. Having it more valued at this level provides a strong incentive to learn how to do peer review correctly, while appreciating the deep complexities and diversity that surrounds the process. This includes establishing baseline knowledge and skills to form core competencies for those that are engaged in the review process so that they can fulfil their duties more appropriately . This opThere are several related elements to this discussion that we also elected not to discuss in order to maintain focus here. One of these is the issue of cost. Scholarly publishers often cite that one of the most critical things that they do is manage the peer review process—which is almost invariably performed as a voluntary service by researchers. Some estimates of the human time and cost do exist, with an estimate in 2008 putting the value of voluntary peer review services provided at around £1.9 billion per year  and thatThis article addressed unknowns within our current understanding of journal-coupled peer review. This represents a critical overview that is distinct from previous work, which has largely focused on what we can say based on the limited available evidence. Peer review is a diverse and versatile process, and it is entirely possible that we have missed a number of important elements. We also recognise that there are simply unknown unknowns (i.e. things we do not know that we do not know). Furthermore, the fact that peer review is not a mechanism isolated from the context but an essential part of a complex, evolving ecological system, which involves different entities interacting in the domain of scholarly research and communication, makes this challenge even more difficult. As such, there is scope for extending what we have done to other forms of peer review, including for grants and clinical trials , 112.We hope here to have presented researchers with both a call to action and a roadmap for future research to progress their own research agendas as well as our communal knowledge of peer review by shining some light into the peer review box. Our effort was aimed to stimulate a more rational, less ideological approach and create the conditions for developing collaborative attitudes between all stakeholders involved in the scholarly communication system , 113. InThis will help to ensure that state-of-the-art research employs similar vocabulary and standards to enable comparability between results within a cohesive and strategic framework. Substantial steps forward in this regard have recently been made by Allen et al. . Such prOur final wish is that all actors within the scholarly communication ecosystem remain cognizant of the limitations of peer review, where we have evidence and where we do not, and use this to make improvements and innovations in peer review based upon a solid and rigorous scientific foundation. Without such a strategic focus on understanding peer review, in a serious and co-ordinated manner, scholarly legitimacy might decline in the future, and the authoritative status of scientific research in society might be at risk.


Pharmacology Research & Perspectives (PR&P) on December 31, 2020. Under Andy's guidance, the journal has experienced remarkable growth over the last several years. Submissions to the journal including papers cascaded from supporting journals and direct submissions have increased by 155% over the last 3 years. Importantly, PR&P received its first Impact Factor of 2.052 earlier this year and ranks in the top three of pharmacology and pharmacy journals. Andy has also overseen the development of several PR&P Special Issues that highlight scientific advances from early career researchers as well as key topics including advances in research methodology, negative findings, and current perspectives and reviews in key areas of pharmacology. Additionally, PR&P contributed to several Joint Special Issues from other British Pharmacology Society and American Society for Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics journals on pain, diabetes and sex as an experimental variable. Andy has led efforts to broaden the scope of the science published in PR&P as evidenced by the increased representation of clinical pharmacology and clinical outcomes research papers in the journal. He was also instrumental in expanding the geographic reach of PR&P with the establishment of regional associate editors and expanding the diversity of the editorial advisory board. Andy has also worked diligently to increase the quality and timeliness of the peer‐review feedback to the authors. A reflection of these efforts is the fact that the authors frequently send thank you notes to the editorial staff for the efficient and constructive feedback they have received.Prof. Andrew Lawrence completes his tenure as the Editor‐in‐Chief of PR&P editorial board and management committee thank him for his collegiality, mentorship, and many valuable contributions as PR&P continues to serve the pharmacology research community.Andy is a tireless champion of the journal. The


Publishing articles in international scientific journals is the primary method for the communication of validated research findings and ideas. Journal articles are commonly used as a major input for evaluations of researchers and institutions. Few articles have been published previously about the different aspects needed for writing high-quality articles. In this manuscript, we provide an updated and brief guide for the multiple dimensions needed for writing manuscripts in the health and biological sciences, from current, international and interdisciplinary perspectives and from our expertise as authors, peer reviewers and editors. We provide key suggestions for writing major sections of the manuscript , for submitting the manuscript and bring an overview of the peer review process and  of the post-publication impact of the articles. Publishing articles in international scientific journals is the current primary approach for the communication of validated research findings and ideas. Scientific papers are commonly used as a major input for evaluations of researchers and institutions , 2. HoweFew articles have been published previously about the different aspects needed for writing high-quality articles –6. In thOne of the first steps before starting to write an article should be to read the main papers that have been previously published on the subject. The first search might be focused on the available literature reviews and meta-analyses, and key for a scientist, the technique of performing a proper literature review . ScienceIt has been suggested, when writing scientific papers, to keep it short, compact and simple, avoiding the excessive use of adjectives and adverbs . If you The success of an article depends on the quality of primary data and their analyses, on the way it is written and on the clearness of the tables and figures. It is fundamental to follow the current standards of research integrity (such as avoiding plagiarism and data manipulation) . Both neAuthors should keep in mind that scientific writing is a process that involves multiple steps, takes time, dedication and inspiration, and involves patience, motivation, analytical thinking and adherence to high-quality standards . Table 1Following international recommendations for the authorship of articles in the biomedical sciences, such as the ones from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), is a fundamental topic in scientific publications, in order to avoid ghost and gift authorship practices , 13. In There is a trend for the increase of the number of authors over the years , which iThe meaning of the order of the listed authors varies between fields. In many disciplines, the author order indicates the magnitude of the contribution, with the last author usually representing the principal investigator . It is pThe Title  and the The Abstract section should provide a brief description of the main sections of the manuscript, describing key methods, findings and conclusions. It is recommended that the abstract be specific, clear, unbiased, honest, concise, precise, stand-alone, complete, and scholarly . An impoAlthough the standards of the length of the Introduction vary between scientific fields , it is recommended that the introduction section should be concise, avoiding long reviews about the topics of the article. It has been proposed that the introduction section be designed as a cone or funnel, starting with the main points of the general topic, followed by a highlight of the existing knowledge gap, the hypothesis or main question of the article and ending with a brief overview of the approach of the current work .Another recommendation is to keep it simple, including three main paragraphs: the first paragraph explaining what is known, the second what is not known and the third what the objective of the study is and explain what it will add to the scientific knowledge. When stating what is known, it should not be a full review of the literature, but it should be the essential information needed to understand the background. Information from the introduction should not overlap with the discussion. The paragraph explaining what is unknown should be focused on helping the reader understand why the research is being performed. The last paragraph should state the research question or hypothesis . It is iThis section is essential and should be written to facilitate other researchers enabling them to replicate the study. This section has been compared to a recipe, which includes all the ingredients and how they need to be combined .Key details of methods employed, such as overall design of the study, inclusion and exclusion criteria, sample sizes and statistical power, should be described . AnotherThe Results section should provide an adequate and complete description of the main findings of the work carried out. It is suggested to avoid the repetition of the same exact content of the Tables or Figures and to leave the interpretation of the results of the findings to the Discussion section . The maip values should be presented and must always be shown together with the estimates and confidence intervals. There should be a consistency with the number of decimal places presented in the results section and in the tables. It is common to present one or two decimals places. Always present the absolute number of cases, in addition to relative measures (e.g. percentage was 22% -33/150-) [The results section should be seen as a mirror of the methods: for every method provided, there should be a corresponding result. Subheadings can be included and some suggestions might be: recruitment/response, characteristics of the sample, findings from primary analyses, secondary analyses and additional findings . Exact p33/150-) .Tables facilitate the detailed presentation of the results and they should be constructed adequately. Abbreviations are useful for avoiding repetitions of phrases and should be explained in the footnotes . Each tap values that are statistically significant can be presented in bold. In case of long or complex tables, it is helpful to provide them as supplementary files, leaving the key data in the tables of the main text. It is important to provide details of statistical significance in the table, in order to avoid going back and forth between the tables and the text to read key data.For tables where a lot of information is presented, the The creation of figures for scientific articles involves data visualization. A major element in the creation of figures is their focus on the representation of key findings without biases, avoiding the generation of overly complex figures. In addition, it is important to remove the repetition of the same data that is also presented as tables in the main manuscript. Description of key conventions should be provided in detail in the figure legends and it is important to avoid the misrepresentation of data , particuIt has been proposed that the general outline of the discussion can be seen as an inverted funnel. Thus, it has been suggested that the configurations of the introduction and discussion sections can have, together, the form of an hourglass  Fig. 1)1). The fIt is important to list the strengths and the limitations of the study. An explanation of the implications of those limitations should be included. An essential point is to include the needs and the perspectives for future studies. It can be stated that the results need replication or to highlight new questions that appeared after the analyses. This point can be of great guidance for future studies and can help the advance of science. It is highly advisable to avoid very long discussion sections and overstatements about the actual findings. The discussion section should not have results that were not described in the Results section. The last paragraph should include a conclusion that clearly states what the study adds to the knowledge.Although each journal usually has its own citation style, the Vancouver style is quite common in medical journals. There are several freely and commercially available programs  that facilitate the citations process and the generation of the bibliography, including the details for multiple citation styles. They can help to organize, store, download -and most importantly- format the references to the style requirements of the journal you want to submit to. By having the references in these programs, it is easy to reformat the style for any other journal in a matter of seconds.Always try to cite the original source behind a key statement, making sure that the reference you mention is not only mentioning another source. If you need to choose among several references, take into consideration the level of evidence, the year of publication and the quality of the work .It is important to verify that the bibliography includes all the publications cited and to check issues with names of authors or journals. Several journals have limitations in the number of citations for certain types of publications.Usually, the authors thank their funding agencies for their economical support for the studies carried out. In addition, it is possible to include acknowledgements to people who helped with the development of the work  or in the writing of the manuscript (such as corrections of use of the English language) . In seveWith modern high-throughput methods, the size of the analyzed datasets is becoming larger and larger. This means that there is a growing need to provide access to the large datasets as supplementary files (such as spreadsheets or pdf files) or to include them in publicly available repositories (such as OSF or figshare) . In addiThere are two main types of review articles: systematic reviews and narrative reviews. In the case of systematic reviews and meta-analyses there are important standards to follow, including the need for well-defined search strategies . For theIt is important to follow published guidelines for the reporting of studies in clinical research, such as STROBE for observational studies , STROBE-There are several aspects that the authors should take into account in the selection of a journal, such as local standards of publications, the visibility or impact of the journals and their affinities with the topics of the manuscripts. It is highly advisable to verify the indexing of the journals in key databases, such as PubMed, Scopus/Scimago (quartiles) and Journal Citation Reports (impact factor) , 67. FinIt is fundamental to follow the guidelines for authors of the selected journal. In addition to manuscript files, tables, figures and supplementary data, it is common that the authors provide a cover letter (highlighting the main contributions of the work) in their submissions. In the cover letter it is recommended to include: (1) Your request to submit your work (mentioning the title). (2) 2–3 sentences summarizing the significance of the work  (3) A statement of the relevance to the journal audience  (4) Any statement required from the journal, such as that the material has not been submitted/published elsewhere .There are differences in peer review practices between journals. In many cases, there are two or more peer reviewers in a single-blind approach (the authors do not know the identities of the reviewers). In other cases, there is an approach based in double-blind, in which the reviewers also do not know the identities of the authors. In recent years, there has been an increase in the implementation of open peer review, in which the identities and concepts of the reviewers are publicly available.When addressing the comments and questions of the peer reviewers do it in a new document. Copy/paste all comments and number them. For each comment briefly respond and indicate where the change was made in the manuscript. The response should be in present tense or past present .Make the changes in the paper with “track changes” or highlighting the change in another color. Be thankful and respectful to each reviewer and editor and take each comment very seriously. If you disagree with the comment, add solid evidence, adding references or key data .The process of providing adequate answers to peer reviewers and editors and of the incorporation of their suggestions into the revised manuscript is an important challenge  in the pInterest in Open Science practices has been growing in recent years, considering their advantages to facilitate the access to information and their potential to increase the reproducibility and the quality of research findings –80. It hCitation counts are one of the main ways to measure the scientific impact of publications, allowing the development of multiple metrics, such as the H index , to measThe quality of scientific publications is directly related to the careful revision by peer reviewers of the manuscript, in order to improve the submitted manuscript. This process means that receiving feedback is a constant process and that authors should have the resilience to receive rejections and recommendations for major changes . In addiThe writing of a scientific article is a work of art that is honed with experience. The more publications you have, the easier it is to write a manuscript. The collaboration between authors can be very enriching and give rise to new projects and new learnings. The contribution to science and to following generations comes with every single article one publishes. Therefore, one should always strive for the best.


Biomedical researchers have lamented the lengthy timelines from manuscript submission to publication and highlighted potential detrimental effects on scientific progress and scientists’ careers. In 2015, Himmelstein identified the mean time from manuscript submission to acceptance in biomedicine as approximately 100 days. The length of publication timelines in health professions education (HPE) is currently unknown.This study replicates Himmelstein’s work with a sample of 14 HPE journals published between 2008–2018. Using PubMed, 19,182 article citations were retrieved. Open metadata for each were downloaded, including the date the article was received by the journal, date the authors resubmitted revisions, date the journal accepted the article, and date of entry into PubMed. Journals without publication history metadata were excluded.n = 8) of the journals sampled. The publication histories of 4,735 (25%) articles were analyzed. Mean time from: (1) author submission to journal acceptance was 180.93 days (SD = 103.89), (2) author submission to posting on PubMed was 263.55 days (SD = 157.61), and (3) journal acceptance to posting on PubMed was 83.15 days (SD = 135.72).Publication history data were available for 55% (This study presents publication metadata for journals that openly provide it—a first step towards understanding publication timelines in HPE. Findings confirm the replicability of the original study, and the limited data suggest that, in comparison to biomedical scientists broadly, medical educators may experience longer wait times for article acceptance and publication. Reasons for these delays are currently unknown and deserve further study; such work would be facilitated by increased public access to journal metadata. JAMA Oncology found that results from phase III oncology trials have a median time to publication of 350 days and even longer if reporting negative findings [Researchers have criticized the lengthy timeline from the submission of a manuscript to its ultimate publication, highlighting its detrimental effects to the overall progress of science , 2. Thisfindings . Early cfindings .Nature News investigation and concurrent blog post reported that Himmelstein sampled over 3 million articles from 3,475 biomedical journals present in PubMed with publication metadata between 1965–2015 and found that the average time from submission of a manuscript to its acceptance was approximately 100 days (SD unavailable) [Several studies have investigated publication timelines across a variety of disciplines and publishing models  , 8. A reWe believe that lengthy publication timelines, if present, may be potentially problematic in HPE research; this underlies the impetus for the current study. Indeed, the cognitive, physical, and psychological challenges of learning medicine in demanding clinical environments should be met with timely, up-to-date, and evidence-based educational knowledge and instructional strategies . LengthyIn light of these concerns, we aimed to address the lack of data about publication timelines by replicating Himmelstein’s previous work to examine data in the HPE journals that openly provide this information. While Himmelstein’s work included articles published broadly in biomedicine from 1965–2015, we focus on HPE articles published 2008–2018. We believe this timeframe is appropriate to understand publication timelines in the rapidly growing field of HPE, as only two HPE journals provided publication history data prior to 2010. As such, Himmelstein’s prior work provides limited inclusion of HPE information. We believe these data could be a first step towards addressing potential publication delays in HPE and may spark conversations about publication timelines and ways to optimize them.Nature News by Himmelstein [To calculate publication timelines in HPE, we replicated the bibliometric approach reported in melstein , 9. We cmelstein , 8, 10, Academic Medicine, Advances in Health Sciences Education, BMC Medical Education, Canadian Medical Education Journal, Clinical Teacher, International Journal of Medical Education, Journal of Advances in Medical Education and Practice, Journal of Graduate Medical Education, Medical Education, Medical Education Online, Medical Teacher, Perspectives on Medical Education, Teaching and Learning in Medicine, and The Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions. These journals were included in Himmelstein’s original study if they provided publication history metadata between 1965–2015. Thus, this study extends and replicates his earlier work by adding three additional years of data, during which the number of HPE publications steadily increased.We conducted this replication study with a sample of 14 journals that have been previously identified as core HPE journals, namely , 14: AcaFollowing Himmelstein’s steps , 9, we qhttps://github.com/DNSchreiber-Gregory/Publication-Timelines/tree/DNSchreiber-Gregory-Publication-Timelines.We used SAS 9.4 for analysis and data management. We ran two 2‑sided, independent sample t‑tests to determine any potential differences in publication timelines based on funding source. To increase the transparency of our work and encourage further replication, we have deposited our dataset and corresponding computer code here: Advances in Health Sciences Education, BMC Medical Education, International Journal of Medical Education, Journal of Advances in Medical Education and Practice, Journal of Graduate Medical Education, Medical Education, Medical Education Online, and Perspectives on Medical Education). During the study period, these eight journals published 8,681 articles. Of these articles, publication history data were available and extracted from 4,735 (55%) articles.Over the course of the study period (2008–2018), 19,182 articles were published in the 14 HPE journals sampled. Of these journals, publication timeline metadata were available for eight of the journals . The mean acceptance time from author submission to journal acceptance was 180.93 days . The mean processing time from acceptance by the journal to posting on PubMed was 83.15 days . Tab. BMC Medical Education and the International Journal of Medical Education reported publication history data for 99% of articles published in the study period, whereas Perspectives on Medical Education provided publication timeline data for 25% of articles  making the data available for more than 50% of their articles  in contrast with meta-analyses, which had the longest publication time of 279.93 days .Articles represented a variety of publication types as indexed by the National Library of Medicine Tab. . Editorin = 1,011) with available publication timeline data reported receiving funding: 11.2% of articles reported receiving funds from the United States (US) government, of which 8.7% (n = 88) received funds from the National Institutes of Health; the remainder (92%) reported funding from non-US government sources. When considering these percentages, it is important to note that articles can and often do report multiple funders. When comparing funded versus unfunded research, we observed significant differences in processing time  and publication time , with unfunded projects having significantly longer timeframes in both (see Tab. p = 0.3074) between funded and unfunded projects.Twenty-one percent of articles , each of whom plays a role in decreasing (or extending) publishing timelines. Thus, the data are incomplete, and we are unable to draw detailed conclusions about what exactly occurs within our observed timeframes. However, despite these limitations, we believe our findings draw attention to the potential presence of publication delays and present an opportunity to spark conversation among authors, editors, reviewers and publishers in the HPE community.Similar to the original study , our repopen-access data and open-sourced data analysis [Furthermore, our findings support the need for all HPE journals to publish timeline data. Indeed, if there is power in data, there is even greater power in analysis , 16. UnfAwareness of accurate publication timelines in HPE education could benefit numerous stakeholders. For journal editors and publishers, analysis based on complete data would provide an opportunity for benchmarks within the field, critical reflection on their own timelines, and sharing of best practices from exemplars in the field. Journals that use this data to streamline their publication timelines may experience higher submission rates for higher quality articles from authors seeking a faster, more transparent publication process. At the program level, graduate programs in HPE increasingly require students to have publications accepted by peer-reviewed journals in order to graduate . KnowledWe believe that such transparency within the publication process is very important for authors. Currently, authors who submit manuscripts to HPE journals lack awareness of the timelines that govern the publication process. We believe this lack of information undermines authors’ ability to be critical about when and where to submit their manuscripts, a decision that may have real implications, especially for those authors facing funding or promotion deadlines or striving to publish contemporary research. Even more fundamental, we believe that transparency about publication timelines should be a basic courtesy afforded to all authors.While our data are incomplete and do not include data from several key journals in our field, they do suggest that publication timelines—from the journals for which we have meaningful data—are over twice as long as the 100-day benchmark published by Himmelstein , 9 and lWhile we await greater clarity in the scope and nature of this challenge, which will be aided by consistent data sharing from all our journals, we have identified potential, immediate solutions—at the researcher, editor, and publisher levels—that might be explored to improve existing publication timelines.While researchers are bound to the systems that govern publication of their research, they are not powerless to affect meaningful change in publication timelines. Aligning submissions with journals likely to publish them, submitting revisions in a timely manner, strategically avoiding suboptimal submission dates (e.g. prior to major holidays), and following up with journal editorial staff in the event of a delay are active measures researchers can take to facilitate expeditious publication timelines. Researchers might consider disseminating their work via alternate mechanisms while awaiting journal review; such outlets include preprint servers (e.g. bioRxiv or medRxiv) and presenting at professional meetings. That said, authors should be aware of ethical rules related to dual publication and should always disclose such dissemination efforts to editors in their cover letters. Further, when serving as peer reviewers, researchers should make every effort to complete their reviews on time.MedEdPublish utilizes allows authors to submit an article prior to peer-review, thus providing authors a platform for immediately sharing their research while waiting for invited reviewers to post comments. Alternately, Advances in Health Sciences Education now utilizes a “Fast Track” option [Perspectives on Medical Education offers “Take Two” [Journals and their editorial staff can also act to streamline publication timelines. By allowing—or even encouraging—submission of preprints , journal” option  and Persake Two” . These oFinally, publishers should consider making their meta-data for publication timelines freely available. For example, in order to inform potential authors eLIFE, a non-profit organization that operates a publishing platform for scientists, provides immediate and downloadable access to the platform’s submission volume and publication timeline data in their author instructions . AdditioIn this study, we used publicly available data to determine publication timelines in HPE journals that make this information available. Our data, while incomplete, suggest that HPE researchers may face longer timelines than their counterparts in the biomedical sciences. Perhaps more important than this finding was our ability to use Open Science and scientific replication to answer, albeit incompletely, an important question in HPE. As a next step, we call on all HPE journals to consider sharing their publication timeline data with transparency and completeness so that all stakeholders in the publication process can have access to accurate, open information.


The GSA publications team sponsors this annual symposium to assist prospective authors to successfully publish their gerontological scholarship in GSA’s high impact and influential journals. The first part of the session will include five brief presentations from the Editors-in-chief of Journals of Gerontology-Series B, Social and Psychological Sciences, The Gerontologist, and Innovation in Aging, plus one of GSA’s managing editors. We will integrate practical tips with principles of publication ethics and scholarly integrity. The topics will be as follows: (1) preparing your manuscript, including how to choose the right journal; (2) strong and ethical scholarly writing for multidisciplinary audiences; (3) transparency, documentation, and Open Science; (4) successfully responding to reviews; and (5) working with Scholar One. Following these presentations, we will hold round table discussions with editors from the GSA journals portfolio. At these roundtables, editors will answer questions related to the podium presentations and other questions specific to each journal. Intended audiences include emerging and international scholars, and authors interested in learning more about best practices and tips for getting their scholarly work published.


Cancer Reports was launched in 2018 with the philosophy—“All sound data and evidence‐driven cancer research has value and should be published and shared with the community.” Since then the journal has grown in its article output and academic impact by publishing studies that are relevant to an international audience and are of global or regional interest. With hard‐work, support, trust and scientific diligence of our authors, reviewers and editors, the journal has successfully adhered to the principles of sound science wherein manuscripts are evaluated on their scientific merit and ethical compliance as opposed to novelty or perceived impact. Recently, the journal achieved a major milestone when it was accepted for inclusion in two of the most prestigious indices, MEDLINE and the Web of Science’s Emerging Sources Citation Index (ESCI).Cancer Reports has endorsed Open Science to promote scientific rigor, transparency and research reproducibility. It became one of the very few oncology journals to publish a new empirical article type, Registered  Report, that emphasizes the importance of the research question and methodology by conducting peer review before data collection thereby eliminating selective reporting and publication bias. Other important initiatives included adoption of CRediT (Contribution Roles Taxonomy)Cancer Reports publish a data availability statement to confirm the presence or absence of shared data and how it can be accessed.From its start, Cancer Reports is transitioning to Open Access. Starting from 13th August, 2020, all articles submitted and accepted for publication in Cancer Reports will be published Open Access under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) License which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. All peer‐reviewed and accepted articles will be subject to an ArticleProcessing Charge (APC) to cover the cost of publishing. With this change, Cancer Reports joins the Wiley Open Access Portfolio. The journal will have fast production times facilitating rapid publication of articles that are immediately freely available to read, download and share. Open access confers several benefits to the authors and the research community at large. Authors retain the copyright of their article while allowing more permissive use and widest possible dissemination of their research. With increasing number of institutions and funders worldwide, encouraging and more often mandating the researchers to publish Open Access, this transition will ensure that all Cancer Reports' authors are compliant with their funders' Open Access policy. As a Wiley Open Access journal, articles in Cancer Reports will feature article discovery tools and metrics (ADMs) that will increase article discoverability, help authors connect with colleagues, and give usage metrics of individual articles.Continuing its stride towards embracing Open Science, we are pleased to share the exciting news that Cancer Reports. We look forward to the continued support of our authors, reviewers and readers and hope this change will encourage new authors to publish in Cancer Reports.It is important to underscore that manuscript evaluation criteria, publication ethics and peer review policy of the journal will remain unchanged and will continue to comply with rigorous research and community standards. We are truly excited as we enter the next phase of publishing in


Neuronal Signaling, a new open access journal that aims to expand on the existing knowledge about signaling within and between neurons.There have been a number of advances in our knowledge of neuronal communication in processes involved in development, functioning and disorders of the nervous system. This progress has prompted the Biochemical Society to launch  Communication between and within neurons is critical for all functions of the nervous system, from development to aging, through health and disease. The last decade has seen huge advances in our knowledge of the molecular, cellular and systematic signaling pathways within the nervous system. There have been significant breakthroughs in studies on the signaling pathways that underlie neurogenesis , addictiTechnological advances such as the development and application of optogenetics ,9, and rThe remarkable discovery in 2006 of induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs)  showed uAdvances in our knowledge of epigenetic mechanisms, and how they shape the developing and aging nervous system , have coThe large extent and vast scope of these advances in our knowledge of neuronal communication invites the creation of a new journal specializing in research on the molecular and signaling processes involved in the development and functioning of the nervous system, as well as its disorders. Furthermore, crossover between disciplines in biological research is central to driving the advancement of our collective knowledge, and breakthroughs in neurological therapeutics and patient care have often been fueled by findings in other disciplines. For example, much of the information on the signaling pathways used by neurons has been gleaned from the fields of oncology and developmental biology .Neuronal Signaling, a new, online-only, fully open access (OA) journal, published by Portland Press, the Society's wholly-owned trading subsidiary. This journal will be the first fully OA journal focusing on signaling aspects of neuroscience to be owned by a European society and will aspire to apply the expertise of the Biochemical Society in cellular and molecular signaling to the field of neuroscience. It will disseminate peer-reviewed articles at the interface of neuroscience and molecular biology, with original research articles and reviews on all aspects of inter- and intra-neuronal signaling.The Biochemical Society's mission to advance the molecular biosciences as a whole is not restricted by specialty and the Society was therefore keen to launch a new journal exploring molecular biology of the brain, and signaling networks within and between neurons. Having accepted the Editor-in-Chief position for this new journal, I am now delighted and honored to introduce Neuronal Signaling will span a large range of molecular and cellular neuroscience research topics, from the development of the nervous system through to its aging, from its normal functioning to a range of neurological and neuropsychiatric disorders. The journal invites the submission of excellent original research articles, as well as review articles on pertinent topics in any aspect of neuronal signaling. We will ensure that all manuscripts are peer-reviewed in a fair and timely manner.Neuronal Signaling articles will be published as OA under the liberal Creative Commons CC BY license ensuring compliance with current research-funder OA policies. This OA policy is in keeping with the recent trend of ever-increasing numbers of research articles in fully-OA journals being published under the CC BY license (see http://oaspa.org/oaspa-members-ccby-growth-2015-data/). All researchers publishing in Neuronal Signaling will therefore benefit from maximal visibility and dissemination of their published work.All The Biochemical Society's mission is to promote the future of molecular biosciences by facilitating the sharing of expertise, supporting the advancement of biochemistry and molecular biology, and raising awareness of their importance in addressing challenges within society. Portland Press as the Society's wholly-owned trading subsidiary, is embedded in the global scientific community and dedicated to promoting and sharing scientific research. All surpluses from Portland Press’ trading activities are gifted back to the Society, to support the advancement of the molecular life sciences through activities such as scientific meetings, public engagement and training events, awards, support for educators, students and early-career researchers, and the provision of grants and bursaries.all to read, with what the findings from a published article might mean for an individual (including patients and their relatives) and for society in general. We therefore intend to conclude articles with summaries that point to what the research findings or review-article conclusions might mean for a patient or caregiver. Not only will this make important scientific findings reported in the journal accessible to any reader, but, will also help authors of published articles report on the human and societal impacts of their findings.Both Portland Press and I recognize the growing need to link OA science, which is by design available for I am very much looking forward to working on this journal with our international team of expert Associate Editors, chosen from across the neurosciences, which includes Eero Castrén , Eilís Dowd , Meng Li , Clare Stanford  and Vidita Vaidya .


BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders appeared free online. Over 5700 publications later, we celebrate our anniversary as the largest Open Access journal in the ‘Orthopaedics and Sports Medicine’ and ‘Rheumatology’ fields. Our ‘open, inclusive, and trusted’ ethos, along with our efficient and robust peer review services, are recognized by the musculoskeletal field.Twenty years ago, on October 23, the first article published by BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders pushed the Open Access publishing model, in order to better support the needs of both the clinical and research communities. We pride ourselves on the continual innovation of author services, data transparency, and peer review models. These advances would not have been possible without your efforts - so a massive thank you to all the authors, editorial teams, and reviewers who have contributed to our success. Excellent reviewers are the nucleus of any thriving journal, and we have been lucky to collaborate with so many talents.The early pioneers of The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12891-020-03785-2. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders appeared free online [Twenty years ago, on October 23, the first article published by e online . Over 57BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders pushed the Open Access publishing model, in order to better support the needs of both the clinical and research communities. We pride ourselves on the continual innovation of author services, data transparency, and peer review models. These advances would not have been possible without your efforts - so a massive thank you to all the authors, editorial teams, and reviewers who have contributed to our success. Excellent reviewers are the nucleus of any thriving journal, and we have been lucky to collaborate with so many talents.The early pioneers of 2,350,000 article downloads in 2011; one meta-analysis on stabilisation exercises for back pain is our most clicked study ever with 123,000 reads [13,332 citations in 2019; the disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand (DASH) outcome questionnaire has been cited an impressive 581 times [Recent article collections on osteoarthritis, work and musculoskeletal health, and imaging provided a venue for deeper investigation into important topics.We take this opportunity to look back on some highlights and milestones in our partnership with our diverse community:BMC Series policy, we do not make editorial decisions on the basis of the interest of a study or its likely impact. Studies must be scientifically valid, for research articles this includes; a scientifically sound research question, the use of suitable methods and analysis, and following community-agreed standards relevant to the research field. Our leadership in editorial policies has allowed thousands of authors to maximise the reach and readership of their work around the world, with 25,000,000+ article downloads and 91,000+ citations to date.As part of the Preprint publishing provides a service for the rapid dissemination of preliminary research findings. A preprint is a finalized draft of a research manuscript that is shared publicly online pre-peer review. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, in partnership with Research Square, launched In Review to facilitate this option. Authors benefit by receiving credit, feedback, and visibility for their submitted work. Manuscripts can be tracked, allowing authors to view from when reviewers are invited to when reports are received. 500+ preprints have already been posted on our In Review site.musculoskeletal imaging and digital health is reaching a tipping point, with these applications finally becoming commonly used in clinical practice. Artificial intelligence and data science fuel this transition to the mainstream, and BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders will highlight these topics.Rapid progress in patient and public involvement in research is something that delights us [BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders is working to recognize and engage patients.Empowered ights us , 5. The As the field acknowledges that OA is here to stay and continues to thrive, we highlight some future advances in the field that we excite us:BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders expectation for the next 20 years, as we take this moment to look into the horizon whilst celebrating with birthday cake.Scientific journals should benefit society, contributing to the patient and research communities we serve. This is Additional file 1. Supplementary Video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gq36uhr2jg.


JAMIA Open stands firm with colleagues across AMIA and the international biomedical informatics community in opposition to racism. Systemic racism is not acceptable, and yet so much of modern society is hindered by its acceptance. The death of George Floyd on May 25, 2020, was not the first such aggression due to race, and it will, unfortunately, not be the last unless education, understanding, and alliance are achieved by the people of the United States and the world. Protests alone will not bring about change, and we must, together, stand together for equity. https://academic.oup.com/journals/pages/race-and-diversity.Oxford University Press (OUP) has been organizing content across its portfolio of publications to encourage discussion pertaining to racial inequality and diversity: JAMIA Open looks forward to receiving guidance on how it can improve our processes and policies to ensure diversity, equity, and inclusion.Change can only be brought upon by action. The AMIA Board of Directors has announced the creation of the AMIA Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Task Force that will chart a path for AMIA.JAMIA Open, in that I work with a team of Associate Editors and an Editorial Board to select the highest quality research. As should be expected of any journal in biomedicine, our editorial and review processes focus on the science of the work being presented. Still, I am certain there are ways that we can improve our processes to ensure diversity, equity, and inclusion.As an Editor-In-Chief, my primary responsibility is to you, the readership of JAMIA “Health Informatics and Health Equity: Improving our Reach and Impact” Special IssueInformatics approaches have been shown to be a powerful approach to identify and address health inequity, which is often correlated with a number of social factors (including race). Reports of research in these areas are often limited, and the majority focus on detecting or reducing disparities (as highlighted in the I am not naïve in stating that the changes that we make now will have an immediate effect. However, I do believe that the right actions now will result in change for the generations of informaticians that will follow. I know that we can do better.None declared.


As it turns out, in a recent survey about Society Publications, Wiley determined that no‐cost or open access to Society content is the top desire for most researchers. They also found that making journal articles more accessible to nonacademic audiences, greater transparency around peer review, and improving how we measure the impact of research are also highly important. https://www.wiley.com/network/societyleaders/member‐engagement/members‐say‐open‐data‐is‐more‐important‐now‐than‐it‐was‐12‐months‐ago?elq_mid=48002&elq_cid=12309687&utm_campaign=30355&utm_source=eloquaEmail&utm_medium=email&utm_content=Email%206‐RC‐SOCM‐MS‐XX‐Global‐W26M4‐October%20Newsletter.This Editorial will summarize some of the recent tendencies of publication explored in a recent Wiley Society Newsletter on the open access movement: While three‐quarters of members are mostly satisfied with the access to society content that they personally receive as members, only a little more than half are happy with their society’s engagement with open access publishing.Publishing open access is particularly important for recruiting newcomers to your field: 85% of students and 75% of researchers with less than five years of experience told us that societies need to do more OA publishing. Researchers in the USA show the least demand for more OA (61%), but if your society is interested in growing membership in Africa or the Middle East, try emphasizing open access in your outreach: 84% in Africa and 82% in the Middle East want more society open access opportunities.https://www.wiley.com/network/societyleaders/societies/how‐much‐where‐and‐when‐do‐members‐want‐open‐access.More researchers from the Middle East (71%) have published in open access journals than from anywhere else, too. Interestingly, while research funder mandates for open access are especially strong in Europe, fewer researchers (56%) there told us that they have published their work under an OA model compared to those in the Middle East and compared to researchers in Central Asia (66%), Africa (65%), or the Asia‐Pacific region (64%). The amount of OA publishing in Europe beat out only the USA, where just 46% reported that they have published their work open access. Demand for more society OA publishing among members seems to be less tied to their local funding environment and more connected to how much open access publishing they have done themselves. This also fits with the response we saw when we asked about society funds to cover Open Access Article Publication Charges (APCs). Researchers in Europe are also less motivated to join a society by the offer of funds to help with APCs, perhaps because finding funds for APCs is not a particular challenge for them. Funding help for APCs would be a big draw for members in Africa and Central Asia, though, which are also the two places learned societies are most likely to find new members. https://soundcloud.com/specialissue/episode‐38‐open‐access‐doesnt‐mean‐equal‐access‐what‐does‐it‐mean‐to‐be‐open.Open access can and should mean more than just being able to download an article without cost. It also means that the information available should be accessible to the reader and not so dense that it is difficult to understand or integrate into the user’s body of knowledge. Articles are often written just for other scholars in a narrow field. How do you make these articles available to those in adjacent fields or to those in a broader scientific landscape of scholars? How do you get the information of science and engineering into communities that do not have access or have barriers to access? Accessible means you can tell me what you did, why you did it and what it means, and you can do so in a way that is understood by a wider space of scholars. https://www.wiley.com/network/societyleaders/societies/how‐societies‐are‐navigating‐open‐access?elq_mid=48002&elq_cid=12309687&utm_campaign=30355&utm_source=eloquaEmail&utm_medium=email&utm_content=Email%206‐RC‐SOCM‐MS‐XX‐Global‐W26M4‐October%20Newsletter.So how are Societies navigating open access? First, the journals must have an impact on scholarship and on people’s lives, secondly the journal must be sustainably funded so we can continue to deliver the research and assure that the Society’s priorities are aligned with Wiley’s. The publishers and societies that have seriously discussed such priorities have done well with open access. There is an emphasis on helping scholars put their information into visuals that better help communicate thoughts and ideas and gives the readers a more accessible version of science. https://www.wiley.com/network/researchers/open‐access‐week‐2020‐open‐with‐purpose?elq_mid=48002&elq_cid=12309687&utm_campaign=30355&utm_source=eloquaEmail&utm_medium=email&utm_content=Email%206‐RC‐SOCM‐MS‐XX‐Global‐W26M4‐October%20Newsletter.Finally, Wiley has a page of links to articles focusing on various topics related to open access publishing and open data. I encourage you to explore this page as you may find an article that will illuminate and challenge you to more creative ideas for communication.