Hence, several vaccine trials have now been halted.7–9 The conflicting results and the crisis of confidence resulted from article retractions and side effects after vaccination may interfere with the doctors’ medical decision-making, intensify the anxiety over the disease among the general public, and even lead to arbitrary drug use. In this case, the effects of drugs and vaccines need to be adequately clarified with more responsible attitudes. Dinis-Oliveira (2020) has pointed out that all players involved must attend specific educational programs and that a “National Agency for Scientific and Academic Integrity” should be created during the COVID-19 pandemic.10 In the meantime, we would like to propose several feasible suggestions for researchers and journals.Developing effective drugs and vaccines is urgent for ending the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. However, controversies emerged with the feverish search for them, and a few papers have been withdrawn or retracted, such as research on chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine,Although the rapid spread of COVID-19 has altered the traditional publication procedure of papers, researchers must abide by the principles of scientific research unswervingly. First of all, they need to avoid “political interference”. The conclusion of their research should be based on the real, objective, and verified data rather than the specific point of view or hypothesis. Meanwhile, exaggerating the study results for the sole purpose of publication or sensation should never be advocated. Second, scientists should conduct randomized double-blind controlled studies with large sample sizes, as before. Moreover, the potential damage to other organs or whether there will be any sequelae after the treatment needs to be considered when evaluating the efficacy of the drug or vaccine. Third, unprecedented attention should be paid to the communication and cooperation among those who are studying the same drug regimen. In addition, it is not appropriate to announce the results to the news media before the paper is finally accepted.As for the journals, considering the difficulty in organizing massive duplicate tests or recruiting editors who are adept at analyzing data, we would like to propose the following suggestions. (1) The manuscripts on COVID-19 should be reviewed more strictly. Authors need to provide more detailed information such as data source and collection process. (2) In order to improve the detection efficiency and accuracy of the manuscripts, journals could consider sending them to a company using artificial intelligence for testing. (3) When reviewing COVID-19 papers, the number of peer reviewers could be appropriately increased, and at least one data analyst should be invited to examine the validity of the data in experiments. In the meanwhile, editors should avoid choosing reviewers suggested by authors to make peer review more objective and rigorous. (4) Replication studies and null results of drugs or vaccines on COVID-19 are also meaningful. Therefore, journals should keep a neutral attitude towards them for publication. (5) If the subject of the article is a drug or vaccine that has been seriously controversial, the journal could ask for the authors’ permission and then release it in advance, accept the review by scientists worldwide, and note that “the article has not been accepted and the conclusion is yet to be reviewed.”


Discover Oncology is a new open access journal published by Springer Nature, embracing all aspects of oncology from basic science to clinical trials. The journal is a continuation and expansion of the journal Hormones and Cancer, also from Springer Nature. By re-launching Discover Oncology we aim to expand its scope and represent all areas of oncology research by publishing both original work and timely reviews.Discover Oncology aims to provide a unified forum for discussion of this topic. The journal spans from basic and translational science, through preclinical, clinical, and epidemiology, and welcomes content that interfaces at all levels of cancer research. Areas covered include, but are not limited to, cancer causation and the underlying biology of disease, the molecular interactions between genes, hormones, the immune system and the metabolism, screening and prevention, diagnosis and treatment, prognostication, novel therapeutic agents and clinical trials. All cancer types, including benign tumors, will be considered for publication.In recent years there has been a consistent growth in research in the field of oncology and cancer research, and so Discover Oncology is to make publishing more efficient, constructive, and fair. We will try to give scientists the opportunity to publish valuable papers with only one set of referee reports and no more than one round of revision, in order to restrict revisions to the essentials. We aim to prevent repetitive, lengthy rounds of review, avoiding referee exhaustion, author frustration, and slow dissemination of research results.The journal has an inclusive scope based on quality, reliability, and rigour, delivered via a transparent and quick peer review process. One of the aims of Discover Oncology’s editorial process is highly efficient and provides authors with the best editorial experience: dedicated scientific editors and research-active academic experts drive the process with advice from a committed, young academic board. The collaborative editorial process ensures timely, balanced decisions across all subject categories.Discover Oncology will give space not only to established topics in the field, but also to emerging, preliminary studies and discoveries. Discover Oncology will also be supportive of early-career researchers, allowing them to publish their studies. Regardless of my personal perspective and scientific background as a molecular biologist, the focus of the journal will be broad. Personally, I will exert all efforts to keep the journal updated and adapted in its editorial process and scope and to meet community expectations so it can become a cutting edge forum for all the different oncology fields. I am eagerly looking forward to sharing our first articles with you. I sincerely welcome you as a reader and author!As Editor-in-Chief, I am honored to serve the scientific community by leading this new journal. I believe that facilitating the communication of discoveries has an important role for society and the scientific community. Eleonora Candi, PhD.Editor-in-chief.


The objective of this review is to identify all preprint platforms with biomedical and medical scope and to compare and contrast the key characteristics and policies of these platforms.Preprint platforms that were launched up to 25 June 2019 and have a biomedical and medical scope according to MEDLINE’s journal selection criteria were identified using existing lists, web-based searches and the expertise of both academic and non-academic publication scientists. A data extraction form was developed, pilot tested and used to collect data from each preprint platform’s webpage(s).A total of 44 preprint platforms were identified as having biomedical and medical scope, 17 (39%) were hosted by the Open Science Framework preprint infrastructure, 6 (14%) were provided by F1000 Research  and 21 (48%) were other independent preprint platforms. Preprint platforms were either owned by non-profit academic groups, scientific societies or funding organisations , owned/partly owned by for-profit publishers or companies  or owned by individuals/small communities . Twenty-four (55%) preprint platforms accepted content from all scientific fields although some of these had restrictions relating to funding source, geographical region or an affiliated journal’s remit. Thirty-three (75%) preprint platforms provided details about article screening (basic checks) and 14 (32%) of these actively involved researchers with context expertise in the screening process. Almost all preprint platforms allow submission to any peer-reviewed journal following publication, have a preservation plan for read access and most have a policy regarding reasons for retraction and the sustainability of the service.A large number of preprint platforms exist for use in biomedical and medical sciences, all of which offer researchers an opportunity to rapidly disseminate their research findings onto an open-access public server, subject to scope and eligibility. We developed robust methodology for systematically identifying relevant preprint platforms and involved platform owners/representatives wherever possible to verify data.We undertook an internal pilot of developing and testing out the data collection form in collaboration with a preprint platform owner and funders.For platforms that had a partner journal and without verification, it was sometimes unclear if the policy information related to the journal, preprint platform or both.We provide a searchable database as a valuable resource for researchers, funders and policy-makers in the biomedical and medical science field to determine which preprint platforms are relevant to their research scope and which have the functionality and policies that they value most.We plan to update this searchable database periodically to include any new relevant preprint platforms and to amend any changes in policy.A preprint is an non-peer-reviewed scientific manuscript that authors can upload to a public preprint platform and make available almost immediately without formal external peer review. Posting a preprint enables researchers to ‘claim’ priority of discovery of a research finding; this can be particularly useful for early-career researchers in a highly competitive research environment. Some preprint platforms provide digital object identifier (DOIs) for each included manuscript. This information can be included in grant applications. Indeed, progressive granting agencies are recommending applicants include preprints in their applications 2Preprints have been widely used in the physical sciences since the early 1990s, and with the creation of the repository of electronic articles, arXiv, over 1.6 million preprints or accepted/published manuscripts have been deposited on this platform alone.Given the increase in the use and profile of preprint platforms, it is increasingly important to identify how many such platforms exist and to understand how they operate in relation to policies and practices important for dissemination. With this aim in mind, we conduct a review to identify all preprint platforms that have biomedical and medical science scope and contrast them in terms of their unique characteristics  and policies . We also provide a searchable repository of the platforms identified so that researchers, funders and policymakers have access to a structured approach for identifying preprint platforms that are relevant to their research area.We define a preprint according to the Committee of Publication Ethics definition:‘A preprint is a scholarly manuscript posted by the author(s) in an openly accessible platform, usually before or in parallel with the peer review process’.11Any platform or server that hosts a collection of preprints will be referred to as a preprint platform. We use ‘platform’ instead of ‘server’ because, within this definition, we include both servers with no dedicated formal peer-review service and platforms where a manuscript has been submitted for peer review and is openly available to view before the peer review is formally complete.A preliminary list of potentially relevant preprint platforms was identified using Martyn Rittman’s original listWe included any preprint platform that has biomedical or medical scope according to MEDLINE’s journal selection criteria.We aimed to be overinclusive such that preprint platforms that hosted work within the above MEDLINE definition of scope among a broader scope  were included. For inclusion, the platforms primary focus needed to act as a preprint platform rather than a more general repository where preprints might be incidentally deposited. Platforms were included without any language restrictions on the content accepted for posting. Eligibility of preprint platforms was arrived at in discussion with two authors (JJK and NCP) and independently approved by the Steering Group. Preprint platforms were excluded for any of the following reasons: they were no longer active (as of 25 June 2019); they were print only or had no web-presence (‘offline’); their primary function was classed as a general purpose repository with no exclusive preprint functionality. We also excluded service platforms that only host postprints (after peer review), such as Science magazine’s ‘first release’.A data collection form was developed by the Steering Group which aimed to capture both preprint platform characteristics and policies. The form was pilot tested with bioRxiv and revised accordingly following discussion with the platform owner. The final agreed data collection form is available online.Manual extraction was completed for each platform using information found on the platform’s website where content was directly accessible or found on associated webpages provided by the platform . Verbatim text from the online search was recorded alongside any relevant web links. The completed data extraction form was then sent to the platform contacts , who were asked to check the data for completeness, fill in any missing fields and respond to any queries. Where an independent review could not be undertaken due to language barriers on the platforms website, the platform owner/representative provided the data. On receiving the responses from the platforms, the researcher updated the data form, in some cases simplifying the text records into categorised information. These data were then returned to the platform to confirm the data were accurate and as complete as possible, and these records were then recorded as ‘verified by the platform representative/owner’.If no contact with the platform was established, a second researcher independently completed the data extraction using information found on the platform’s website and consensus was reached. The completed data form was sent to the platforms informing them that the included information would be presented about their platform as ‘unverified’ data. The deadline for preprint platforms to approve any information and to confirm that all data could be shared publicly was 19 January 2020. Further datasets and records were updated with information provided up to 27 January 2020, and are available on the Zenodo repository.14The preprint platform characteristics and policies were summarised descriptively and divided into preprint platforms (1) hosted on the OSF Preprints infrastructure, (2) provided by the Open Research Central infrastructure and (3) all other eligible platforms. Characteristics are presented as: (A) the scope and ownership of each platform; (B) content-specific characteristics and information relating to submission, journal transfer options and external discoverability; (C) screening, moderation and permanence of content; (D) usage metrics and other features and (E) metadata.No patients were involved in setting the research question nor were they involved in the design, implementation and reporting of the study. There are no plans to involve patients in the dissemination of results.https://asapbio.org/preprint-servers).From all sources, 90 potentially eligible preprint platforms were identified for this review, although 46 were excluded based on scope (n=23), inactivity (n=13), no online presence (n=5) or were general repositories (n=5) . A list 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-041849.supp1Supplementary dataTwenty-eight platforms (64%) are owned by non-profit academic groups, scientific societies or funding organisations while two platforms are owned by individuals or small communities (Frenxiv and ViXra) . Fourtee10.1136/bmjopen-2020-041849.supp2Supplementary dataTwenty-four (55%) preprint platforms accepted articles that covered multidisciplinary scope while 20 (45%) were discipline specific  . DespiteWhere the information is known, all preprint platforms support the English language, and all accept research articles (with the exception of Thesis Commons which accepts only theses) . Some pl10.1136/bmjopen-2020-041849.supp3Supplementary dataIn general, the OSF and many of the other platforms allow authors to submit their articles to any journal although in some cases there is facilitated submission to certain journals, for example, for bioRxiv there is a host of direct transfer journal options . AuthorsThirty-three (75%) preprint platforms provided some detail about article screening, while two (FocUS Archive and SocArxiv) do mention checks although the details of such checks are unknown . Therapo10.1136/bmjopen-2020-041849.supp4Supplementary dataAll F1000 platforms (inclusive of Open Research ones), MitoFit Preprint Archives, PeerJ Preprints and Preprints.org describe policies online in relation to NIH guidance for reporting preprintsWith the exception of arXiv and MitoFit Preprint Archives (Therapoid metrics arriving soon), all preprint platforms have some form of usage metrics, and apart from JMIR Preprints and ViXra all provide the number of article downloads on the abstract page . The OSF10.1136/bmjopen-2020-041849.supp5Supplementary dataForty (91%) of platforms provided information on metadata and all provide the manuscript title, publication date, abstract and author names in the metadata . Nearly 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-041849.supp6Supplementary dataForty-four preprint platforms were identified that considered biomedical and medical scope. This review characterises each of these preprint platforms such that authors can make a more informed choice about which ones might be relevant to their research field. Moreover, funders can use the data from this review to compare platforms if they wish to explicitly support and/or encourage their researchers to use certain platforms.https://asapbio.org/preprint-servers), we will endeavour to keep this information up-to-date. More specifically the database will be maintained by ASAPbio for at least the next 2 years, and longer pending additional funding, but will be available as a CC BY resource. Our plan for maintenance is to enable preprint platforms to update their listings on demand, pending verification of publically accessible information by ASAPbio staff. We will periodically archive the database in Zenodo to preserve prior versions.Preprint platforms are fast evolving and despite our cut-off of 25 June 2019, we are aware of new eligible preprint platforms that have been or are about to be launched after this date, for example, Open Anthropology Research RepositoryDue to the lack of formal external peer review for many platforms (with the exception of those platforms that follow the F1000 Research model), preprint platforms that include medical content have been criticised as they may lack quality which can lead to errors in methods, results and interpretation, which subsequently has the potential to harm patients.Empirical evidence to support the use of editors and peer reviewers as a mechanism to ensure the quality of biomedical research is relatively weak28The strength of this study is that we developed robust methodology for systematically identifying relevant preprint platforms and involved platform owners/representatives wherever possible to verify data that was either unclear or not available on platform websites, and when this was not possible, a second researcher was involved in the data acquisition process. Systematically identifying web-based data that is not indexed in an academic bibliographic database is challenging,We undertook an internal pilot of developing and testing out the data collection form in collaboration with a preprint platform owner and ASAPbio staff and funders (promoters of preprint use) in order to ensure that the list of characteristics collected was both complete and relevant to different stakeholder groups including academics and funders. Many of the general policy information for some platforms was not well reported or easy to find online and therefore an unexpected but positive by-product of this research is that several of these platforms have updated their webpages to improve the visibility and transparency of their policies in response to this research. Similarly, some platforms became aware of policy attributes that they had not previously considered and are now in the process of considering these for future implementation.One limitation is that we focused our attention on the ‘main’ preprint article although in some cases different policies existed for the supplementary material, for example, acceptable formats and licensing options. This level of detail will be included in our searchable database. Another potential shortcoming was that some preprint platforms had a partner journal and without verification it was sometimes unclear if the policy information related to the journal, preprint platform or both. Finally, we defined preprint platforms as hosting work before peer review is formally complete and we acknowledge that some platforms included here also host content that has already been peer-reviewed and/or published in a journal With the increase in the number of preprint platforms available in the biomedical and medical research field, authors have the option to make publicly available and gain some early ownership of their research findings with little or no cost to themselves. Moreover, with many preprints platforms there is little restriction with regard to authors later publishing their preprints in peer-reviewed journals of their choice. While we did not tabulate information on this specifically, it was noted that some platforms (notably OSF platforms) did recommend that authors check the SHERPA/RoMEO service for details of a journal’s sharing policy. There is also some evidence that preprinting an article first may even boost citation rates32There has been a sharp rise in the number of preprints being published each month and it has been estimated (as of June 2019), preprints in biology represents approximately 2.4% of all biomedical publicationsOne outcome of this review has been to understand the various drivers behind the proliferation of preprint platforms for the life and biomedical sciences. While arXiv, bioRxiv, chemRxiv and medRxiv aim to provide dedicated servers for academics within each field they are dedicated to, several academic groups have offered alternative subject-specific or regional services in line with their own community’s needs, such as sharing work in languages other than English, using the OSF infrastructure. A third provider of preprint platforms is industry stakeholders: as academic publishers providing or acquiring preprint services to support the content they receive as submissions to their journals, and as biotechnology or pharmaceutical companies looking to support the sharing of relevant research content. Whether any platform becomes dominant may be influenced by the communities who adopt them, the influencers who promote them (funders and researchers who influence hiring and promotion decisions) and the financial sustainability underpinning them. We hope that enabling transparency into the processes and policies at each platform empowers the research community  to identify and support the platform(s) that help them to share research results most effectively.


Brain Communications, the new sister-journal to Brain. At Brain Communications, we aim to build upon the ethos of Brain, which has been publishing high-quality clinical and preclinical papers in neurology and psychiatry since 1878 in a traditional, printed journal. In addition to publishing translational neuroscience studies related to diseases of the nervous system, at Brain Communications we welcome papers examining brain health and resilience as it is becoming increasingly clear that understanding and harnessing resilience will be an important way to prevent or develop treatments for neurological and neuropsychiatric diseases.Welcome to Brain Communications, our emphasis is on the quality and robustness of the science and less on novelty of findings. We welcome innovative, completely novel work, replications of important studies in the field, well-substantiated negative results, and registered reports, and we strongly encourage sharing data along with published manuscripts. In the section of the journal called ‘Field Potential’, we also welcome reports of innovations to enhance rigour, reproducibility, and translatability in neuroscience.We also aim to be a force for good in the translational neuroscience field by facilitating a high standard of rigour in our papers. To make the most impact in preventing and treating diseases of the brain, I strongly believe that our scientific ecosystem needs to evolve. We need to emphasize and reward robust, rigorous studies and at least to some extent, de-emphasize the need for novelty. All of us would love to make an earth-shattering, seminal finding in our labs, and of course, these events are worth celebrating. However, equally worth celebrating, valuing, and promoting, are the studies “standing on the shoulders of giants” that add pieces to the puzzle of how the brain works. There is great value to the field in exploring key findings in different model systems and approaching similar questions from different perspectives. Robust data from many angles are needed to bridge the ever-widening translational gap between neuroscience and effective therapeutics for diseases affecting the nervous system. To that end, at Brain Communications articles without an institutional subscription. Our open access model is in line with funder rules, including the new Plan S, which requires that all grant holders from a wide range of funders will only be able to publish their results in fully open access journals. Another way we will increase transparency and highlight the value of the peer review system to scientific progress is that if both authors and referees agree we will publish peer review reports and the responses to review alongside accepted papers.To enhance transparency in publication, we are a completely open access journal. This is good for authors as open access papers are read and cited on average more than non-open access papers, good for funders in their push to ensure that the funds they provide will result in scientific outputs that can be read by everyone, and good for readers who will be able to read Brain Communications and our sister journal Brain also enhance career development through author contributions, with revenues being reinvested back into the continued operation of the journal. Any surplus generated by the journal helps support charitable endeavours. The majority goes to the Guarantors of Brain who support the field through funding fellowships, meetings, and public engagement: https://guarantorsofbrain.org/. The rest of the surplus goes to our not-for-profit publishing partner Oxford University Press which is a department of the University of Oxford whose charitable mission is to further excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide: http://global.oup.com/.We also aim to promote career development of translational neuroscientists in order to help to recruit and retain a diverse, vibrant community of scientists. To that end, we welcome ‘Field Potential’ reports concerning career development. Our journal Brain Communications aim to provide rapid, fair, author-friendly publication. Our submission process is as simple as we can make it with flexible length and formatting at the time of submission. No need to re-format your manuscript to send it to us. One of our editorial board members, all of whom are translational neuroscientists with a broad range of expertise, will read your paper and facilitate peer review.Finally, we at While a new journal won’t revolutionize the field on its own, we aim to do our part to promote a collaborative, supportive community in publishing robust studies in translational neuroscience. I hope you will join us in supporting this new endeavour by reading our papers, reviewing for the journal, and sending us your work.


Neurology International since its inception back in 2009, I am very pleased to see the journal grow and expand, with a major development now taking place with new ownership by MDPI, a world leader in Open Access Journal publication. I look forward to working with our staff and Editorial Board in elevating the quality and volume of publications that ultimately are accepted, after rigorous peer review by two or more experts has been completed. Our scope continues to be broad, encompassing both clinical and basic science aspects of the nervous system; in particular, we encourage submissions dealing with the molecular and pathological aspects of the nervous system in health and disease. We encourage both clinical and basic science-oriented submissions to keep up with our rapidly expanding knowledge of the human genome (and in particular the “brain proteome”—please follow this link for more information: https://www.proteinatlas.org/humanproteome/brain).Having served as editor-in-chief for Neurology International. Related MDPI journals include Audiology Research [Brain Sciences [Neuroglia [Neurosci [MDPI is quite an amazing partner to work with, as they currently publish 281 other journals besides euroglia , NeuroscNeurosci .Topics of special interest will be announced far enough in advance for the preparation of high quality submissions for prompt peer review. We hope to publish special issues that address “hot topics” in multiple areas that include but are not limited to Parkinson’s disease, stroke, Alzheimer disease, epilepsy, multiple sclerosis, and other disorders of the brain and nervous system, and invite all interested authors to make preparations for this now.Michael A. Meyer, MDNeurology InternationalEditor-in-Chief for Short BiographyNew England Journal of Medicine [Dr. Mike Meyer trained as a physician at Mayo Clinic with dual board certifications in Neurology and Nuclear Medicine. Prior to medical school at Albany Medical College, Dr. Meyer was part of the original research team at Brookhaven National Lab that developed 18F-FDG as a useful tracer for PET studies in Oncology and Neurology . After cMedicine . Dr. MeyMedicine .Neurology International.Dr. Meyer has extensive experience in the development and administration of regional stroke centers specializing in managing acute ischemic stroke; examples of centers he helped establish include ECMC in Buffalo and Tennova Healthcare in Knoxville, TN. Dr. Meyer is currently with Invision Health, Department of Neurology, International Drive, Williamsville, New York, and maintains strong research interests in Alzheimer’s disease ,9; he ve


Autophagy, which is just starting its eighteenth year and publishes papers on pretty much any topic; at least any topic that is connected to autophagy, which, after all, means pretty much any topic, if you get our drift. So, if Autophagy has done so well and serves such an important purpose, why do we need another journal? To find the answer, read on.Well, because you ask that question, we are going to attempt to explain exactly why we do indeed need another journal focused on autophagy. If you are reading this far, you presumably know what “autophagy” means, so we do not have to impress upon you the importance of this topic, and how autophagic dysfunction is associated with numerous diseases in humans . Nor do we think that you need to be introduced to the journal  Autophagy, which is published both in print and online. The publishing world is certainly moving toward “online only” publications. At present, however, some readers still prefer to receive a hard copy. Such a requirement imposes certain restrictions. On the one hand, the publisher needs to plan the budget a year ahead and cannot simply accommodate a huge increase in manuscripts beyond the allotted number; there are specific costs associated with publishing including paper costs, formatting, and printing. On the other hand, there is a physical limit as to how large of a binding you can have on a journal, and we have pushed that limit with the last issues of volume 17 of Autophagy. Autophagy Reports  impact factor. One result is an increase in submissions. To maintain a high standing, the sheer increase in numbers means we need to become more selective about the papers that are accepted. What happens to those other papers? In this case, we are referring to “solid” papers that, for one reason or another, may not have a broad appeal to the journal readership. We consider it painful to turn away such manuscripts, and until now we have not had an alternative home for them. With the launching of Autophagy Reports, we can now provide another option — a journal that will maintain high standards, in which the editors and reviewers understand the importance of the topic, and the nuances of the research, in particular on autophagy-related pathways.Another issue is that as journals grow in stature, such as has been the case with Autophagy Reports.In addition, we know that not all papers are equal. Sometimes, a project does not have quite the outcome that we had predicted. Other times, the first author graduates or obtains an independent position. We have even heard that reviewers may, on rare occasions, request experiments that the authors consider to be too onerous or simply beyond the scope of the present analysis. Perhaps you would like to have a stronger or more complete paper, but a cost-benefit analysis indicates that additional work on that project is not warranted at the present time. Yet, you may be sitting on worthwhile data that would be of benefit to the autophagy community. If the data are solid, and the experiments were carried out using the appropriate methodology, we are in favor of publishing them. And now, we have the right home — Autophagy Reports will publish the following types of articles:Research ReviewsBrief Reports and AddendaResourceCommentaries and ViewsPunctaMeeting ReportsAutophagy Reports has established an initial set of international section editors:In addition to the editors-in-chief, Jan Lünemann, University of Münster, Germany (immunology)Sandra Maday, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, US (neuroscience)Michael J. Ragusa, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH, USA Sebastiano Sciarretta, University of Rome “La Sapienza”, Latina, Italy (cardiology)Ann Simonsen, University of Oslo, Norway (cell biology)We anticipate increasing the size of the editorial board and adding a group of associate editors. We also have an acquisitions editor, Adam Weiss, who helps to solicit puncta and advertise the journal.Autophagy Reports as another option for publishing your autophagy research. We will set the same standards that have made Autophagy a reliable and trusted journal in our field of interest.We encourage you to consider


JCI Insight and to reflect the interests of the larger American Society for Clinical Investigation (ASCI) community. Our board of editors also help fulfill ASCI’s commitment to diversity and inclusion, with 9 women and 2 underrepresented minorities. Our weekly editorial board meetings are a lively forum for thoughtful discussion of manuscripts and have been a fantastic opportunity for colleagues across departments to engage with one another.A year has flown by since the University of Michigan–based editorial board began overseeing manuscript adjudication. It’s been my great pleasure to lead this exceptional team of 3 deputy and 17 associate editors, who were carefully selected to provide expertise for the broad range of manuscripts submitted to From the outset, the editorial board has been committed to publishing high-caliber research that advances understanding of disease pathogenesis and treatment, and to improving the experience of authors by providing comments to improve their work rather than a list of reasons why the manuscript should be rejected. We understood that there would be a learning curve to setting our standard for sending papers out for peer review and for publication. However, this year has brought exceptional changes to the entire research community as the COVID-19 pandemic thrust new clinical and scientific challenges to the forefront while grinding research in other areas nearly to a halt.JCI board, we revised the editorial process to address the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the research community , including an appeal to support the essential requirement for transparency in this time of crisis  in our evaluation of COVID-19 submissions as we balance the need to disseminate information quickly with the desire to see optimally designed studies. We will continue to evolve in our assessment of papers as the field matures. Perhaps not surprisingly, some of our most highly accessed publications from this last year have been COVID-19 studies. The most highly accessed article describes the presence of neutrophil extracellular traps in COVID-19, which may be an important therapeutic target . We havef crisis .JCI, and we have accepted 482 papers for publication. We are indebted to our reviewers for helping us evaluate these submissions. Along the way, our editorial board has clarified our vision for JCI Insight as a forum to publish cutting-edge findings that provide a new way of thinking about a disease — even if the precise molecular mechanism has not been fully elucidated. The JCI Insight board finds value in studies that utilize difficult-to-obtain human tissues — especially when they provide new insights into disease processes. We have also become adept at evaluating select JCI manuscripts transferred to JCI Insight after they were rejected at JCI. JCI Insight editors are charged with the sometimes-challenging task of crafting a path for modification that would lead to publication in JCI Insight based on prior reviews. Our publications have spanned a wide range of disciplines, with the top specialties being immunology, oncology, metabolism, neuroscience, and infectious disease. We have maintained an average time to decision of 28.7 days for manuscripts sent for external review and 5.8 days for papers not sent for review. Our goal is to maintain a speedy process without sacrificing our overarching commitment to rigorous and thoughtful review.To date, our board has handled 1823 manuscript submissions, including 312 transfers from the JCI Insight Scholars program. We accepted four exceptionally talented University of Michigan Medical Scientist Training Program (MSTP) fellows who shadow board members during a three-month supervised rotation on the JCI Insight board. Their participation helps align the editorial mission of the board with the academic training mission of the faculty board members. It also provides a unique experience for our MSTP fellows. The interest of our board members in physician-scientist training is further reflected by the publication of perspectives on this process, which are among our most highly read articles (The editorial board has also sought to encourage physician-scientist training through the articles .JCI Insight compliant with Plan S, an initiative from a coalition of funding agencies seeking to ensure research they support is freely available under open access licensing. All articles published in JCI Insight have always been freely available online, and now all of the papers in this issue and going forward will be published under a CC-BY license. This move makes JCI Insight content fully open access and will make it easier for authors to be compliant with requirements of their funding agencies.We are delighted that the ASCI Council has committed to making I am exceedingly proud of our new board. Their commitment to rigor, integrity, and careful review are all essential to maintain the high standards of ASCI. I am excited to move into the second year of our tenure working with an exceptional group of people committed to providing a supportive forum for authors to share their work.


FASEB BioAdvances (FBA) has now moved into its second year of publication and appropriately it is planning to institute some new features to mark this event. The last year has seen some significant changes in the editorial team including the addition of four new Associate Editors and a near doubling of the editorial board. The journal has also expanded its outreach to potential authors through various efforts designed to increase its recognition and visibility and, in this regard, is planning several “special” issues that will be devoted to a single topic, which cover reversible acetylation, exosome structure and homeostasis, cancer neuroscience, and other areas.FBA will strive to serve all in the content that it publishes. More detailed information regarding FASEB membership categories can be found at https://membership.FASEB.orgBeing mindful that we are a FASEB sponsored journal, we are also taking additional steps to reflect and enhance that relationship. In the first place we continue to add board members that will reflect the scientific interests of our member societies and bring a broader scope to the science we publish. To some degree, this is going to be an ongoing effort as we anticipate that FASEB will continue to grow in the months and years to come. In a recent decision, the FASEB Board of Directors voted to expand membership in the organization by creating an Associate Member status. In due course, it is anticipated that there will be growth in both the regular and associate categories and FBA is pleased to announce that Dr. Howard Garrison, who headed OPA for 25 years before retiring in 2018, has joined our editorial team as a Special Editor for Policy. He will initiate a program to publish scholarly contributions that describe, analyze, and discuss issues that impact the conduct and regulation of biomedical research and its practitioners. In addition, Dr. Garrison, with two colleagues, has recently completed an authoritative history of FASEB covering 105 years (1912‐2017) entitled The Federation of American Societies of Experimental Biology: A Century of Service and Advocacy . His mandate as an FBA Special Editor will also cover the history of bioscience. As a part of this latter section, FBA will begin publishing obituaries of notable individuals in the bioscience community in an In Memoriam subsection. We expect initial contributions to both categories shortly.In addition to the research interests of the scientists that make up the membership rosters of its constituent societies, FASEB has several programs that provide support to and advocacy for biomedical research funding. Indeed, the Office of Public Affairs (OPA) at FASEB is a mainstay of these efforts and is widely regarded as the voice of bioscientists in the policy arena in Washington and beyond. FBA plans to begin immediately the publication of articles dealing with the challenges of this area. Dr. Michael Hortsch, an Associate Editor of FBA, has agreed to lend his considerable expertise to this endeavor and will act as a Special Editor for Education in addition to his regular duties as an AE. The first article in what we plan as an extended series in the educational area appears in the current issue. In due course we expect to have one or more special issues devoted to educational matters to compliment the special issues on science topics noted above.Biomedical education is a third area that FASEB has strong interests in and FBA better serves the member societies of FASEB by devoting portions of the journal to articles that deal with core FASEB values and interests; and second, while we are proud of our relationship with our sister journal, FASEB Journal, we are keen to establish our own identity. By broadening the scope of our content, we hope to accomplish both goals. We await the reactions of our readership, and any comments, suggestions and concerns will be welcome. We are a very young publication, which has its advantages and disadvantages, but one of the former is the ability to make innovative changes quickly and efficiently.The motives behind these expansions in scope are twofold: first, we are desirous that


Neural Plasticity is pleased to announce the appointment of Dr. Michel Baudry as its new Chief Editor. Dr. Baudry is currently University Professor at Western University of Health Sciences in Pomona, CA. In this Editorial, Dr. Baudry describes some of the journal's journey and current status, and shares his vision and aspirations for its future. Neural Plasticity has turned 21! Since its renaming in 1998, the journal has matured and has become a significant player in the field of neurosciences. While the term plasticity is generally attributed to William James in his Principles of Psychology [Neural Plasticity publishes articles related to all aspects of neural plasticity, with special emphasis on its functional significance as reflected in behavior and in psychopathology. The journal publishes both research and review articles from the entire range of relevant disciplines, including basic neuroscience, behavioral neuroscience, cognitive neuroscience, biological psychology, and biological psychiatry. Thus, the journal covers all aspects of plasticity, including molecular plasticity, synaptic plasticity, and plasticity at the levels of neurons and neural circuitries taking place under physiological or pathological conditions.We are entering an exciting period, as the technological progress is allowing us to perform experiments that could not have been possible 20 years ago. To name a few, it is now possible to use minimicroscopes to record the activity of large ensembles of neurons for months and to analyze how behavior can affect neuronal activity. Optogenetics provides a tool to manipulate the activity of selected groups of neurons to help understand the functions of these neurons. Minibrains represent three-dimensional organoids generated from human cells reprogrammed to become neurons, which can mimic the brain status from an infinite variety of brain disorders. The brain computer interface popularized by the movie “The Matrix”  is becomNeural Plasticity is proud to be part of the family of Open Access journals, which means that its content is accessible by anyone. Therefore, all of us, scientists, writers, and publishers, need to make a conscious effort to write in a way that is accessible to the majority of people and not to a restricted audience. We also have to make the significance of the research being published explicit and clearly understandable by the public. This will be a guiding principle in my new function as a Chief Editor of Neural Plasticity. I am looking forward to leading the journal in its next phase of growth and to work with the publisher, the editors, and the authors to make Neural Plasticity a leading journal in the field.However, as I reflect on the state of the field 20 years ago, I am also struck by the fact that, for most of the fundamental questions we were asking then, we still do not have answers. We are still struggling with many issues, including the links between synaptic plasticity and learning and memory, the roles of the multiple mechanisms of plasticity in various forms of behavioral plasticity, and how we can use our knowledge to restore defects in plasticity present in multiple pathological conditions. We need to remind ourselves that conceptual advances are as important as technological advances to move the field forward. We also need to remind ourselves that scientists have the responsibility to educate the public. As Carl Sagan said, “We live in a society exquisitely dependent on science and technology, in which hardly anyone knows anything about science and technology” . In thisDr. Michel Baudry is currently University Professor at Western University of Health Sciences in Pomona, CA. His previous position was Professor of Biological Sciences, Neurology, and Biomedical Engineering at USC, Los Angeles, CA. After graduating from the prestigious Ecole Polytechnique in Paris (France) in 1971, Dr. Baudry obtained a Ph.D. in Biochemistry at the University of Paris VII in 1977. In collaboration with Professor Gary Lynch, he published in Science a new mechanism for learning and memory, which remains a landmark in the field. Since then, he has continued to work on understanding the molecular/cellular mechanisms of learning and memory and neurodegeneration.Michel Baudry


This involves the reviewing of a submitted manuscripts, which varies from journal to journal; however, the most common steps appear to be the notice of receipt to the author, primary appraisal by the editor-in-chief or the editorial team, extending the early impressions to the corresponding author, re-submission of the manuscript by the author, sending out the manuscript to external reviewers or its immediate rejection, receiving the reviewer’s comments, finalizing the comments, rejection or sending the comments to the author for revising the manuscript, re-submission of the revised version, and the final decision to accept or reject it. What comes to be important at this stage is how the journal interacts with the corresponding author.Practiced in various journals, peer reviewing is undoubtedly the core of science (as opposed to non-science) production in all disciplines, particularly in medical sciences due to their direct and immediate effect on human health. Publication provides the chance for bits of knowledge to get integrated into the body of global knowledge and to share it with other researchers3. For instance, journals demand authors not to submit the manuscript to other journals while it is being considered for publication, not to have it published elsewhere, and to precisely format the manuscript by the rules of the intended journal 4. In return, authors expect a fair reviewing process and timeliness – which is not considered oftentimes. Stressing this concern, ICMJE puts it as follows: "Editors should do all they can to ensure timely processing of manuscripts with the resources available to them. If editors intend to publish a manuscript, they should attempt to do so in a timely manner and any planned delays should be negotiated with the authors. If a journal has no intention of proceeding with a manuscript, editors should endeavor to reject the manuscript as soon as possible to allow authors to submit to a different journal" 3.From an interactive perspective, mutual rights are considered for both the journal and the authors; also, other stakeholders including the reviewers, readers, and the journal staff all hold rights in the publication process ,4 for particular reasons. Moreover, authors complain of wastage of time, dissatisfaction, discouragement, losing the chance to prompt publication of their innovative findings, and losses due to (non) financial grounds7. Ignoring timeliness by journal editors may originate in either of the above-mentioned steps, which contribute to journals’ falling behind schedules for reasons such as lack of rapid reviewers, slow process of reviewing, lack of cooperation of authors in responding to revisions 8 , language problems despite acceptable scientific results reported9, and so on. Therefore, editors-in-chief must be requested, or expected, to re-consider their undeniable role – either directly or indirectly – in supervising all publication stages 10. This expectation may not be considered as unlikely because authors have already made their share in science production by doing the research and reporting it; what remains is the delicately speeding up the publication process, which is the share of editors.All in all, we found this concern as a major violation of the authors’ rights by journals where editors place timeliness as the last priorityWhile the authors’ rights of timeliness (in order to help speed up the publication process as well as attaining higher rates of satisfaction), provisional and permanent measures may be put forward below to help bridging the gap between the authors’ expectations and editors’ amenities:a) Employing energetic, brisk and agile experts forjournalism in order to accelerate the message transmissionand extending the editors’ views and decisions to authors,b) Portraying an appropriate and logical timetable for each publication stage and insisting on the commitment to care for timeliness,c) Activating the submission system in order to supervise reviewing and deadlines,d) Exercising rewarding policies for committed reviewers who provide feedback before deadlines,e) Rapid reviewing options, and11.f) Rapid but respectful rejection if the manuscript does not fall within the scope of the journal, or if it is not eligible for peer reviewing, and providing acceptable reasons for the author at the earliest possible time a, Abdolghader Assarroudi (MSc)a, Mohammad Reza Armat (MSc)b, Nematullah Shomoossi (PhD)c*Mostafa Rad (PhD)aSchool of Nursing, Sabzevar University of Medical Sciences, Sabzevar, IranbSchool of Nursing, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, IrancSchool of Medicine, Sabzevar University of Medical Sciences, Sabzevar, IranCorrespondence to:Nematullah Shomoossi (PhD)E-mail:nshomoossi@yahoo.com


Aesthetic Surgery Journal (ASJ) has been the platform that many have chosen over the past several decades to describe their techniques and innovations.The artistry of aesthetic surgery continues to evolve and relies heavily on plastic surgeons’ constant search for perfection and better ways to accomplish safe and predictable outcomes. The ASJ used several creative ways to highlight contributions to the field. “Panel Discussions” and “My Way” were published teleconferences allowing authors to share their techniques to solve many of the challenging problems we faced in our practices. “My Practice to Yours” and “Surgical Strategies” were published articles by experts in the field, dedicated to sharing the technical details of specific procedures.1In the mid-1990s, ASJ, Malcolm Lesavoy and Joel Feldman both shared their approach in correcting “Witch’s Chin.” 3 Dr. Lesavoy preferred a dermal flap technique to Dr. Feldman’s direct excision approach. Both described the rationale for their preferred choice and the details of the procedure. These papers exemplified articles found in the “Practice Forum” of the then known Aesthetic Surgery Quarterly. The clinical relevance and desire to learn technical details made this section quite popular.For example, in the March 1995 issue of 4 Dr. Jamil Ahmad was appointed Section Editor and has done an excellent job at inviting, curating, and in some cases coauthoring “My Way” articles to ensure that they remained true to their original intent. Since this section’s inception, we have had 23 articles published in ASJ, many of which have included video content. The evolution of My Way articles has been underpinned by the increased popularity (and availability) of video content and has created an even greater opportunity to learn the author’s techniques in the explicit detail.In his Editorial in 2014, Dr. Foad Nahai acknowledged the historical importance of “how to” articles and developed a new section of the journal entitled “My Way.” As he described it, “My Way” content will include tips, tricks, and innovations that may not be lengthy enough for a full-length article yet are useful and worth sharing with our readers.” No longer does one have to hire a production company to film a procedure. Most of our phones have high-quality cameras, allowing us to easily film “teaching moments,” bringing our procedures to life for our reader, enabling us to teach our colleagues and to help educate plastic surgery residents and Fellows. These articles are technique-centered and include a small series discussion and an accompanying video.Aesthetic Surgery Journal Open Forum. I am honored to serve as Editor in Chief of ASJ Open Forum that has already become known for rapid peer review and broad dissemination of articles to a global audience. ASJ Open Forum is a sister journal to ASJ and is a peer-reviewed, open-access journal that targets preliminary work, case reports, Reviews, and technique-based submissions such as Featured Operative Techniques, My Way, and Video Review articles. During the first year of the journal, we published 3 My Way articles educating our readers on vaginoplasty and breast surgery.Last year, we saw the launch of a new open-access journal, https://academic.oup.com/asjopenforum/pages/General_Instructions. To submit your My Way manuscript, please visit https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/asjof.We hope you will consider the opportunity to publish your technique and expertise in My Way so that our global readers can learn from your expertise. The opportunity to share your experience in written and video formats has never been easier. Given the recent limitations of travel and meeting presentations, video articles and detailed reviews in My Way provide our readers with opportunities to learn the nuances of surgical procedures for our patients. My Way articles should include a video and photographs (a minimum of 1 pre and postoperative photographs) and generally include 1000 to 1500 words, up to 5 figures and tables, and up to 35 references. More information can be found at These past few months have been challenging times for us all. We are grateful that our publisher, Oxford University Press, has provided several resources that make publication easier.https://academic.oup.com/journals/pages/librarians/developing_countries/participating_countries. Also, ASJ Open Forum reviewers will also receive a 5% publication discount as our thanks for supporting the journal. We remain committed to publishing high-quality content and if we’ve learned one thing during COVID-19, it’s that video, Zoom, and other online educational tools are the future and an excellent accouterment to traditional learning.5Authors in many developing countries may be eligible for free or discounted publication charges. A complete list of countries can be found here: ASJ Open Forum, and I’m calling on you share your greatest learning moments so together we can pay that knowledge forward and continue this educational cycle.The Department of Plastic Surgery at UT Southwestern, where I have the privilege to serve as Professor and Chair of Plastic Surgery, has a long-established history of education and I have personally had the honor of working with some of the brightest residents and fellows in their earliest years. As their careers evolve and I watch them move from training into practice, present at national and international meetings, and begin to share what they’ve learned with the next generation, it gives me joy to see their professional development and evolution. In the same way, I am excited to carry the baton and help the My Way section continue to evolve in its new home,


This adFor many budding scientists, the first day in a new lab setting often involves a stack of papers, an email full of links to pertinent articles, or some promise of a richer understanding so long as one reads enough of the scientific literature. However, the purpose and approach to reading a scientific article is unlike that of reading a news story, novel, or even a textbook and can initially seem unapproachable. Having good habits for reading scientific literature is key to setting oneself up for success, identifying new research questions, and filling in the gaps in one’s current understanding; developing these good habits is the first crucial step.Advice typically centers around two main tips: read actively and read often. However, active reading, or reading with an intent to understand, is both a learned skill and a level of effort. Although there is no one best way to do this, we present 10 simple rules, relevant to novices and seasoned scientists alike, to teach our strategy for active reading based on our experience as readers and as mentors of undergraduate and graduate researchers, medical students, fellows, and early career faculty. Rules 1–5 are big picture recommendations. Rules 6–8 relate to philosophy of reading. Rules 9–10 guide the “now what?” questions one should ask after reading and how to integrate what was learned into one’s own science.Table 1 includes a handful of example intentions and how you might prioritize different parts of the same article differently based on your goals as a reader.What you want to get out of an article should influence your approach to reading it. In written communication, the reader and the writer are equally important. Both influence the final outcome: in this case, your scientific understanding! After identifying your goal, think about the author’s goal for sharing this project. This will help you interpret the data and understand the author’s interpretation of the data. However, this requires some understanding of who the author(s) are , the scientific field in which they work , and how this paper fits into the author’s research . This information may be hard to glean without experience and a history of reading. But don’t let this be a discouragement to starting the process; it is by the act of reading that this experience is gained!A good step toward understanding the goal of the author(s) is to ask yourself: What kind of article is this? Journals publish different types of articles, including methods, review, commentary, resources, and research articles as well as other types that are specific to a particular journal or groups of journals. These article types have different formatting requirements and expectations for content. Knowing the article type will help guide your evaluation of the information presented. Is the article a methods paper, presenting a new technique? Is the article a review article, intended to summarize a field or problem? Is it a commentary, intended to take a stand on a controversy or give a big picture perspective on a problem? Is it a resource article, presenting a new tool or data set for others to use? Is it a research article, written to present new data and the authors’ interpretation of those data? The type of paper, and its intended purpose, will get you on your way to understanding the author’s goal.When reading, ask yourself: (1) What do the author(s) want to know (motivation)? (2) What did they do (approach/methods)? (3) Why was it done that way (context within the field)? (4) What do the results show (figures and data tables)? (5) How did the author(s) interpret the results (interpretation/discussion)? (6) What should be done next?  may provide some suggestions in the discussion, but the key is to ask yourself what you think should come next.)Each of these questions can and should be asked about the complete work as well as each table, figure, or experiment within the paper. Early on, it can take a long time to read one article front to back, and this can be intimidating. Break down your understanding of each section of the work with these questions to make the effort more manageable.Scientists write original research papers primarily to present new data that may change or reinforce the collective knowledge of a field. Therefore, the most important parts of this type of scientific paper are the data. Some people like to scrutinize the figures and tables (including legends) before reading any of the “main text”: because all of the important information should be obtained through the data. Others prefer to read through the results section while sequentially examining the figures and tables as they are addressed in the text. There is no correct or incorrect approach: Try both to see what works best for you. The key is making sure that one understands the presented data and how it was obtained.For each figure, work to understand each x- and y-axes, color scheme, statistical approach (if one was used), and why the particular plotting approach was used. For each table, identify what experimental groups and variables are presented. Identify what is shown and how the data were collected. This is typically summarized in the legend or caption but often requires digging deeper into the methods: Do not be afraid to refer back to the methods section frequently to ensure a full understanding of how the presented data were obtained. Again, ask the questions in Rule 3 for each figure or panel and conclude with articulating the “take home” message.Table 2 to understand the intent of each section of a research article. When reading a specific paper, you can also refer to the journal’s website to understand the formatting intentions. The “For Authors” section of a website will have some nitty gritty information that is less relevant for the reader (like word counts) but will also summarize what the journal editors expect in each section. This will help to familiarize you with the goal of each article section.Just like the overall intent of the article (discussed in Rule 2), the intent of each section within a research article can guide your interpretation. Some sections are intended to be written as objective descriptions of the data , whereas other sections are intended to present the author’s interpretation of the data. Remember though that even “objective” sections are written by and, therefore, influenced by the authors interpretations. Check out Published papers are not truths etched in stone. Published papers in high impact journals are not truths etched in stone. Published papers by bigwigs in the field are not truths etched in stone. Published papers that seem to agree with your own hypothesis or data are not etched in stone. Published papers that seem to refute your hypothesis or data are not etched in stone.Science is a never-ending work in progress, and it is essential that the reader pushes back against the author’s interpretation to test the strength of their conclusions. Everyone has their own perspective and may interpret the same data in different ways. Mistakes are sometimes published, but more often these apparent errors are due to other factors such as limitations of a methodology and other limits to generalizability . When reading a paper, it is important to consider if these factors are pertinent.Critical thinking is a tough skill to learn but ultimately boils down to evaluating data while minimizing biases. Ask yourself: Are there other, equally likely, explanations for what is observed? In addition to paying close attention to potential biases of the study or author(s), a reader should also be alert to one’s own preceding perspective (and biases). Take time to ask oneself: Do I find this paper compelling because it affirms something I already think (or wish) is true? Or am I discounting their findings because it differs from what I expect or from my own work?The phenomenon of a self-fulfilling prophecy, or expectancy, is well studied in the psychology literature  and is wThe author(s) are human too. So, whenever possible, give them the benefit of the doubt. An author may write a phrase differently than you would, forcing you to reread the sentence to understand it. Someone in your field may neglect to cite your paper because of a reference count limit. A figure panel may be misreferenced as Supplemental Fig 3E when it is obviously Supplemental Fig 4E. While these things may be frustrating, none are an indication that the quality of work is poor. Try to avoid letting these minor things influence your evaluation and interpretation of the work.Similarly, if you intend to share your critique with others, be extra kind. An author  may invest years of their time into a single paper. Hearing a kindly phrased critique can be difficult but constructive. Hearing a rude, brusque, or mean-spirited critique can be heartbreaking, especially for young scientists or those seeking to establish their place within a field and who may worry that they do not belong.To truly understand a scientific work, you often will need to look up a term, dig into the supplemental materials, or read one or more of the cited references. This process takes time. Some advisors recommend reading an article three times: The first time, simply read without the pressure of understanding or critiquing the work. For the second time, aim to understand the paper. For the third read through, take notes.Some people engage with a paper by printing it out and writing all over it. The reader might write question marks in the margins to mark parts (s)he wants to return to, circle unfamiliar terms , highlight or underline important statements, and draw arrows linking figures and the corresponding interpretation in the discussion. Not everyone needs a paper copy to engage in the reading process but, whatever your version of “printing it out” is, do it.Talking about an article in a journal club or more informal environment forces active reading and participation with the material. Studies show that teaching is one of the best ways to learn and that teachers learn the material even better as the teaching task becomes more complex –5; anecdBeyond formal settings such as journal clubs, lab meetings, and academic classes, discuss papers with your peers, mentors, and colleagues in person or electronically. Twitter and other social media platforms have become excellent resources for discussing papers with other scientists, the public or your nonscientist friends, or even the paper’s author(s). Describing a paper can be done at multiple levels and your description can contain all of the scientific details, only the big picture summary, or perhaps the implications for the average person in your community. All of these descriptions will solidify your understanding, while highlighting gaps in your knowledge and informing those around you.One approach we like to use for communicating how we build on the scientific literature is by starting research presentations with an image depicting a wall of Lego bricks. Each brick is labeled with the reference for a paper, and the wall highlights the body of literature on which the work is built. We describe the work and conclusions of each paper represented by a labeled brick and discuss each brick and the wall as a whole. The top brick on the wall is left blank: We aspire to build on this work and label this brick with our own work. We then delve into our own research, discoveries, and the conclusions it inspires. We finish our presentations with the image of the Legos and summarize our presentation on that empty brick.Whether you are reading an article to understand a new topic area or to move a research project forward, effective learning requires that you integrate knowledge from multiple sources (“click” those Lego bricks together) and build upwards. Leveraging published work will enable you to build a stronger and taller structure. The first row of bricks is more stable once a second row is assembled on top of it and so on and so forth. Moreover, the Lego construction will become taller and larger if you build upon the work of others, rather than using only your own bricks.Build on the article you read by thinking about how it connects to ideas described in other papers and within own work, implementing a technique in your own research, or attempting to challenge or support the hypothesis of the author(s) with a more extensive literature review. Integrate the techniques and scientific conclusions learned from an article into your own research or perspective in the classroom or research lab. You may find that this process strengthens your understanding, leads you toward new and unexpected interests or research questions, or returns you back to the original article with new questions and critiques of the work. All of these experiences are part of the “active reading”: process and are signs of a successful reading experience.In summary, practice these rules to learn how to read a scientific article, keeping in mind that this process will get easier (and faster) with experience. We are firm believers that an hour in the library will save a week at the bench; this diligent practice will ultimately make you both a more knowledgeable and productive scientist. As you develop the skills to read an article, try to also foster good reading and learning habits for yourself (recommendations here:  and 7],,7], resp


Dear reader, Many colleagues have contributed for 2020 to start with this new edition of the Journal of Medical Education (JME). Many authors have written and revised manuscripts, designed and carried out the projects or studies they report on, and collected and analysed the data. I believe that this effort has been worthwhile, and we owe the authors a debt of gratitude for sharing their findings with us. In addition to the authors' obvious contribution, 2 editors in chief, 33 editors and a lot of reviewers have made this edition of JME possible with great (and free) commitment. In the editorial office, Mrs. Hespelein has coordinated the work of all these colleagues with infinite patience, reminding them and, as a result, completing a successful new edition of JME. But this work was only the tip of the iceberg. The authors, reviewers and editors of the rejected articles have also invested effort and expense, which, arguably, is much more difficult to quantify because only accepted articles are assigned to a specific issue. A simple estimate of this effort can be made by looking at the rejection rate, which is currently just over 50% and rising at the JME. The actual expenditure for an issue of the JME is therefore at least twice as high as calculated based on the published articles. Other journals in our field have similar, and in some cases significantly higher rejection rates . Assuming that on average about every third article is accepted and every manuscript is reviewed by at least two reviewers (and one editor), every published article requires the free (and mostly invisible) commitment of at least 9 colleagues. With an average of less than 4 authors per article , it follFrom my work as co-editor of the JME, as associate editor at BMC Medical Education, from an editorial internship at Medical Education and from many conversations with colleagues, I have noticed that it is becoming increasingly difficult to find reviewers for submitted manuscripts and that the work is distributed on fewer and fewer shoulders. Sometimes we ask 10 or 15 different colleagues  for an expert opinion before two commit.This has various consequences: As editors, we increasingly rely on the opinion of a few reviewers. Their actual expertise becomes increasingly secondary, while their willingness to provide an (expert) opinion becomes the main criterion. Thus, the influence of a few on the content of the JME and the methods seen as acceptable increases. In addition, the burden on the few remaining reviewers increases, potentially further reducing their number and thus exacerbating the problem. More than authors, from whom reviewers are usually recruited, every journal has readers. So why don't we ask our readers to review more of the submitted manuscripts? Apart from the obvious advantage that the reviewing process is spread between more people, there are other reasons. For example, we explicitly ask our reviewers at JME to evaluate submitted manuscripts according to the following questions and criteria :“Topicality/originality/relevance of the article to the reader? For example, is all relevant information contained in the title or summary so that the reader gets a correct picture of the article? Is a clear research question/hypothesis asked or is the aim of the paper explained? Is the study design precisely described? Do graphics/tables correspond to the text? Are the data suitable for answering the research question? Are the data presented in a comprehensible and complete manner? Is the relevance of the results adequately presented? Are the conclusions plausible? Are questions/hypotheses/objectives answered?“ We also ask about readability, expression, grammar, spelling, structuring of the text and comprehensibility.None of these questions require a thorough knowledge of the relevant literature in the field or of the methods used, as can be expected from other authors, but not necessarily from every reader. Wouldn't it be plausible to have at least one of the expert opinions, of which we typically require two, actually made by a reader, when the majority of our evaluation criteria are already explicitly intended "for the reader"? A very practical problem here: we simply only know from our authors how to contact them.So my suggestion for a good resolution in 2020: Let the editorial office know how we can reach you and help to further develop the quality and relevance of the JME through constructive and timely reviews. As editors, our decisions can only be improved by a broader perspective - and as reviewers, you are always right  anyway: https://www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/twelve-tips-for-reviewers) and reviewing yourself will certainly make you a more attentive reader and probably also a more successful author. So it is a little bit like with all good intentions: there is little to say against it. So let’s do it.There are numerous sources on what makes good reviews (e.g. this one: The author declares that he has no competing interests.


Journal of Clinical Medicine retract their paper due to the serious flaws in the study design and data presentation. These errors were reported by two readers of the journal. The authors would like to acknowledge both readers pointing out such important mistakes. The authors apologize for not using the final data to conduct the analysis, resulting in unreliable results. The editor-in-chief and academic editors of the Journal of Clinical Medicine have checked this case. The editor-in-chief has approved the retraction. Both readers have been informed about the retraction decision. The authors of a recent published paper  in the JJournal of Clinical Medicine for any inconvenience this may have caused. MDPI is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics and takes the responsibility to uphold strict ethical policies and standards very seriously.The authors apologize to readers of the


What is the role of the medical journal in our current world? Traditionalists hold fast to the classic model where academics published strictly reviewed research and clinical data to a limited professional audience in a standard format creating a passive journal of record. But, communication has changed and medical journals will have to evolve or slowly become obsolete.Expectations have changed. We now access information using electronic means almost exclusively. Most information is freely available and we become frustrated if we cannot access knowledge easily or if it is behind a pay wall. In medicine this is much more important than simply a matter of personal convenience. Public agencies and charities funding research expect outputs to be openly available and may mandate that research findings be published in open access journals. High profile journals are moving, although slowly, in this direction . There iResearch dissemination priorities have changed. In the past editors held all the power and researchers could only submit and hope that their work might be published. The route to research publication was narrow and controlled. The power balance is shifting, accelerated by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) crisis, so that researchers are now more concerned that their research is available early and widely. New format journals offer a much wider publication flow using light touch peer review appraising only the method and without applying a value judgement. Preprints ensure research findings are available for public access before peer review and publication in a peer reviewed journal and, while this avoids delay through the peer review, it is not without faults . InteresThe audience has changed. Research published electronically is now accessed widely and immediately. Patients can access the latest research just as quickly as specialists in a field and the expert patient can help inform and determine their own personal treatment. This means that medical journals need to think about how they prioritise and package information for a much wider audience and many journals now involve patients in the publication decision process . The futInformation transfer has changed. We have become more passive consumers and now expect that information be packaged and delivered directly to us in more convenient formats. Research dissemination is increasingly important and scientists are much more aware of the different modalities . ResearcMedical journals are in the business of communication. Rapid changes in information dissemination mean that some journals, while conscientiously focused on improving the traditional journal model, have slipped out of step with modern communication practice. In keeping with the rest of the communication industry, medical journals will need to become more responsive, open, and accessible, focus on their changing audience, move from passive to active research dissemination, and create content in multiple formats. This is not about the future, it is about catching up with the present.


Neurological Research and Practice (NRP), a new peer-reviewed open access online-only scientific Journal were published. Neurological Research and Practice is the official Journal of the German Neurological Society (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Neurologie (DGN)), one of the largest national neurological societies worldwide with more than 10,000 members. NRP was created by the leadership of the DGN as an international, English language publication with a broad thematic scope reflecting all clinical, translational and basic research aspects of neurology and neuroscience. We strive to provide a forum for clinicians and scientists working in all areas of neurology including, but not limited to, genetics, vascular diseases, critical care neurology, disorders of the spine, movement disorders, neuroimmunology, infections, neurooncology, epilepsy, neuroimaging and neuroradiology, and degenerative disorders. The Journal publishes Research Articles, Reviews, Clinical Trial Protocols, Guidelines, Standard Operating Procedures, Historical Articles and Reviews and Letters to the Editor.One year ago, the first articles in The announcement of the new Journal came at a time of great competition between neurology journals . With thAfter 18 months of preparatory work, the first set of seven articles were published by the end of February 2019. Now, one year later, it seems to be a good time to review and reflect on the achievements of the first year of NRP. As the founding Editor-in-Chief of NRP, I am currently assisted by a most prominent group of almost 100 international Editorial Board Members, among them more than 30% are women. Not surprisingly about 50% of them represent the German Neurological Society, but the remaining experts are geographically diverse and as Editor in Chief I strive to grow the Journal network internationally. We have appointed Section Editors for the topics of History of Neurology, Standard Operating Procedures, and Guidelines. A board of more than 100 reviewers with experience in all areas of neurology and its sister disciplines has been assembled. With such a strong network of neurologists based in Germany it is no surprise that most of our content currently originates from all parts of Germany, from universities and large teaching hospitals. We are pleased to see submissions from elsewhere in Europe but are aiming to grow submissions from all areas, worldwide.In the first 12 months since launch, more than 40 articles have been published. Most of the Reviews were by invitation, but not all those submitted were accepted. There is a stringent and detailed peer-review process for most articles published in the Journal. Clinical Trial Protocols of trials that are publicly funded, and have already undergone an exhaustive review process, and translations of specific guidelines that are approved by one or several scientific societies and already published in an extensive German version are accepted without additional peer review, with assessment by the Editor in Chief. Unofficial recommendations and Trial Protocols that are not publicly funded undergo a regular peer review process, just like research papers and other articles. Concerning official guidelines, we follow a policy of only publishing abridged versions of already published German guidelines in areas that are not yet covered by other recent international guidelines or that cover an area specific to German neurology.Some of the manuscripts published have already been cited and several of the papers have already been downloaded more than 1000 times, which is an achievement for a new journal. At the time of writing this, among the 10 most accessed articles were 5 Reviews, 3 Research Articles, 1 Guideline and 1 Standard Operating Procedure –11. MostOur publication pipeline is small but growing and we continue to invite Reviews on new developments and perspectives, and we welcome submissions of Research Articles. Several Clinical Trial Protocols are already announced, and we have lists of upcoming Standard Operating Procedures and Guidelines that will be published within the next 12 months.The Editorial Board has been a great resource in assisting with launching and establishing NRP, and we continue to grow the Board. By the end of 2020, we will have the first rotation of our Editorial Board and in 2021, we plan to identify Section Editors for the key areas of neurology such as basic science, neuroimmunology, neurooncology, neurodegeneration and movement disorders, stroke, interventional neurology and critical care, pediatric neurology, cognitive neurology and functional imaging, and neuromuscular disorders.As the Founding Editor of NRP I am very grateful for the overwhelming support by the leadership of the German Neurological Society represented by our current President Professor Christine Klein, Past President Professor Gereon Fink, Incoming President Christian Gerloff, the Secretary Professor Peter Berlit and the Chief administrative Officer Dr. Thomas Thiekötter, the publisher BMC and all my supporters in the Editorial Board, all the authors for submitting their articles and the group of reviewers for making such an important contribution. It is their work that makes the first year of NRP so successful.Please continue to support us to make NRP a well-received and influential voice of German neurology publishing content with international relevance.all the bestWerner Hacke