Endocrine Connections was launched a decade ago with the ambition of becoming the leading fully open access journal that aimed to publish cross-cutting themes in and around endocrinology. When I was appointed Editor-in-Chief in 2021, I did not do so with a ‘manifesto’ for new ideas and change as is often the case with new editors, as I believed that the journal that I took over from Josef Koerle was in the right place. Now, as I come towards the end of my term of office, I am suitably well informed about the journal to identify its strengths and weaknesses.Endocrine Connections is happy to support such endeavours.Anybody with any experience of research knows that not all research results in concept-changing discoveries, but that carefully conducted studies that replicate, refute or support current ideas are equally important and need to be disseminated. Whilst there is clearly an important place for highly specialized journals in publishing some endocrine research, there is equal importance in sharing ideas between sub-disciplines. This need to support cross-cultivation within and around endocrinology was the basis of our founding editor, Jens Sandahl Christiansen’s aim for the journal, and one to which we still adhere.Having said this, we consider that there are two areas in which we do not cater sufficiently for the discipline and which we now seek to address. These are the areas of Paediatric Endocrinology and Genetics.Endocrine Connections for publishing their research. Conversely, we encourage paediatric endocrinologists to include Endocrine Connections on their list of regularly scanned research outputs as we believe the broad scope of this journal may provide valuable insights into their own research questions. To support this initiative, Mehul Dattani has joined the editorial board as an Advisory Editor and we will be seeking to raise our profile at paediatric endocrine meetings. In addition to Professor Dattani, we have already appointed one new senior editor and a number of editorial board members in this area, and will expand our editorial board as we attract more paediatric endocrinology papers. Furthermore, we will encourage the submission of review articles that relate to paediatric elements of disease and, as an example of this initiative, we are currently publishing an excellent series of articles on the ‘Late effects of cancer therapy in children’ (https://ec.bioscientifica.com/page/lateeffects/) and later this year will begin publishing a series on ‘New technologies in diabetes therapy’.In the case of Paediatric Endocrinology, we believe there are many aspects in which endocrine clinicians and scientists have much to gain from the experience of our colleagues who specialize in endocrine physiology and pathology in childhood and we would like to encourage paediatric endocrinologists to consider https://ec.bioscientifica.com/page/Endo-ERN%20special%20series/endoern-special-collection) which clearly includes several genetically important contributions. In addition, we are currently publishing a number of articles by world-leading authorities on Klinefelter’s syndrome and related sex chromosome aneuploidies.Paediatric disorders frequently reflect the role of inherited factors in their pathogenesis, and expanding the paediatric content of the journal will inevitably expand our genetics content. Few would disagree that the last decade has seen breathtaking developments in the area of genetics, and endocrine genetic understanding has been a major beneficiary of these advances – yet no journal offers an obvious home for basic and clinical research in endocrine genetics. Consequently, we will expand our publication coverage in this topic; to this end we have recruited Constantine Stratakis as an Advisory Editor and are seeking to recruit additional editorial board expertise in this area. As an example of our aspirations in this area throughout the last year, we have been publishing the output from the European Reference Network on Endocrine Rare Diseases (Endocrine Connections is in a good place as a well-established, fully open access journal with a consistently stable impact factor which is jointly owned by and directly supporting two of the largest endocrine societies – the European Society for Endocrinology and the Society for Endocrinology. I would like to thank our highly dedicated Senior Editorial Board and Editorial Board for their hard work that has made the journal what it is today.In summary, I believe that The author declares that there is no conflict of interest that could be perceived as prejudicing the impartiality of this editorial.This work did not receive any specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sector.


European Thyroid Journal (ETJ) is the official journal of the European Thyroid Association (ETA) and has now been continuously published since 2012. The journal was the brainchild of Profs. Peter Laurberg and Wilmar Wiersinga, the later putting ETJ on a strong foundation as editor-in-chief until 2019. I was delighted to take on the editor-in-chief role in 2019, and with a 2022 impact factor of 4.7, it is now established in the second quartile of the Endocrinology and Metabolism category and as the top open-access journal completely dedicated to thyroid research. Changing our publisher to BioScientifica in 2021 along with embracing the fully open-access model with online publication has meant that the journal content is now fully and universally accessible to readers from any community. Furthermore, we can accept an unlimited number of papers each year, based purely on scientific quality, relevance and interest. I am delighted with the rise in manuscript submissions to ETJ and with the steady upward progress of the impact factor over the last 4 years. This reflects the faith of ETA members and numerous thyroid researchers from around the globe in sending their work to the journal, as well as the dedication and expertise of the editorial board and associate editors. I would like to take this opportunity to thank all the reviewers and members of the editorial board who have contributed to the journal over my time in the role of editor-in-chief. I am equally delighted to pass on the journal in what I believe is excellent health to Luca Persani as new editor-in-chief, who I know will do an excellent job in ETJ’s next phase of development.SHS PearceIt is a huge privilege for me to take on the responsibility of the official journal of the European Thyroid Association (ETA)!ETJ as the preferred choice of authors for their valued manuscripts. In return, we offer them a rapid decision from submission to first response. I believe that primary screening should become more rigorous as the most critical and fair step in selecting papers with the required novelty and attraction; the reviewing process should then become a secondary step available for a limited number of the submitted papers. External reviewers will be asked to provide fair, constructive and informative feedback and authors should feel the reviewing process is a necessary step aimed at further improving the original manuscripts. With a dedicated and enlarged group of associate editors and editorial board (EB) members this will be possible so that I believe we shall become more and more competitive with several other journals publishing thyroid research. We all wish to see ETJ becoming the voice of world leading scientists in the thyroid field. We would like to enlarge further the visibility of ETJ by involving in the EB highly motivated, clinical and basic, scientists coming also from under-represented areas of the world and different sub-specialties in thyroid field.We are acutely aware that authors within our field have an ever-increasing choice of open-access journals in which to submit their research manuscripts. However, we believe that the international reputation for quality and scientific rigor of our journal, being the official organ of ETA, together with continued hard work from the editorial team and our publishing colleagues, will help us in our aim of maintaining ETJ can expand the number of illustrative items included in a paper. From the start of the new editorial tenure, we will encourage authors of accepted manuscripts to prepare illustrative graphical abstracts of their findings, which may also be useful for congress presentations or teaching, but also showcasing the work on social media. We would like to receive research papers with nice and informative illustrations of their findings aimed to attract the ETJ readers. We also would like to receive new proposals for short or extensive reviews on hot topics in thyroid research. Reviews should be authoritative, signed by a limited number of authors with a documented expertise on the specific topic; this is unfortunately not always the case in several journals.Being an online open-access journal, So, we look forward, with optimism, to producing a high-quality journal, which captures the most exciting and novel breakthroughs in thyroid basic, translational and clinical science.L PersaniThe authors declare that there is no conflict of interest that could be perceived as prejudicing the impartiality of this editorial.The authors did not receive any specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sector.


We are immersed in an era of accelerated changes in the process of preparing and evaluating scientific publications. The propagation of scientific knowledge has undergone significant transformations, largely driven by the increasing integration of information technology. A notable change in this context is the transition towards open science, a movement that began in the 1990s and emphasizes the sharing of knowledge in a transparent and ethical manner, making it accessible to all through communication networks. With innovation as its pillar, this movement is driving a profound overhaul of conventional publishing standards.An essential component of open science is open access (OA), which has been adopted over the last few decades by leading scientific publishers. OA allows journal content to be freely accessible to anyone with Internet access.Adapting to these changes is essential if the Journal of the Brazilian College of Surgeons (JBCS) is to maintain its relevance and continue to contribute to national and international research. In this context, we would like to highlight five areas of strategic focus for the JBCS:Inclusion and Diversity: we are committed to cultivating an inclusive environment that values diversity of perspectives, voices and areas of research, contributing to the richness of scientific discourse.Quality and Rigor: we seek to raise the standards of quality and rigor in the selection and review of manuscripts, ensuring that each publication meets the highest standards of scientific excellence.Transparency and Reproducibility: we are committed to promoting transparency in publication practices and encouraging the reproducibility of studies, so that each article makes a solid and reliable contribution to the construction of scientific knowledge.Engagement and Communication: we are looking to emerging technologies and social media platforms to increase engagement with the scientific community and the general public, encouraging dissemination and dialog about published research.Sustainability and Innovation: We will continue to explore sustainable publishing models and embrace continuous innovation to ensure RCBC’s longevity and relevance in the ever-evolving landscape of scientific publishing.By prioritizing these areas, JBCS will remain well positioned to navigate current and future changes in the field of scientific publishing, continuing to provide quality articles for the dissemination of high-quality research.Furthermore, it is imperative that the scientific community remains up-to-date and proactive in the face of new developments in the publishing sphere. The advancement of science is a collaborative enterprise, and as such requires the involvement and contribution of all stakeholders - including researchers, professionals, students, editors and reviewers.Ethics and integrity must also be paramount in our efforts. As we embrace the new possibilities offered by open science and open access, we must also ensure that rigor, honesty and accountability are at the forefront of our publishing practices.JBCS is committed to serving not only as a repository of knowledge, but also as a facilitator of academic dialog and a promoter of scientific advancement. Through a combination of continuous innovation, commitment to excellence and adherence to the highest ethical standards, we seek to make a significant contribution to the development of the scientific community.In conclusion, we are grateful for the continued support and contributions of the scientific community and our reviewers, who are vital to our mission. Their dedication to advancing knowledge is what enables our success, which is collective. We invite everyone to join us on this journey of adaptation and growth, facing the challenges and seizing the opportunities presented by an increasingly interconnected and dynamic world.Through collaboration, integrity and innovation, let’s together strengthen the foundation on which science, especially Brazilian science, can thrive and serve as a catalyst for the progress and well-being of society.


Pseudogymnoascus destructans  and chestnut blight (Cryphonectria parasitica)  Articles reporting new ideas, hypotheses, general commentaries, perspective, reviews, and opinions about several aspects of fungal biology. I would like to see our journal as a forum to debate the most exciting topics in the area.2) Articles reporting fungi-plant and fungi-animal interactions, describing in more detail not only mechanisms of these interactions, but also how fungi benefit or combat other microbes in the same environment.3) Articles reporting genomic studies but especially comparative genomics and general omics, discussing the possible implications of their findings in terms of fungal evolution, and how comparable and different fungi are from other organisms.4) Articles reporting all the possible applications of fungal genetic traits and properties toward biotechnology, to serve humankind and improve our lives.5) Articles reporting all the uniqueness and conservation of fungal physiology and metabolism mechanisms, taking advantage of the most modern technologies to characterize how fungi “see” the world and transduce this information in terms of hierarchical genetic programs and biochemical pathways.6) Articles revealing all the richness of the production of secondary metabolites and toxins, and how fungi protect themselves against these molecules (self-protection).7) Articles characterizing and investigating the splendorous biology and biodiversity of marine and freshwater fungi, especially their adaptation to extreme environments.To conclude, I would like to stress my view that journal editors have the mission to help authors publish their research and boost their visibility to further the advancement of science. Maintaining a rigorous and collaborative reviewing process is a challenging task that falls onto authors, reviewers and editors, which is why keeping an open dialogue throughout the process can improve the scientific density of the manuscripts, their visibility to the scientific community, and thus the overall quality of the journal they are published in.The author confirms being the sole contributor of this work and has approved it for publication.The author declares that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.


Science Editor and Preventing Chronic Disease.Science Editor is the primary publisher, while Preventing Chronic Disease is the secondary publisher.This article is part of a joint publication initiative between The Council of Science Editors (CSE) is an international organization of more than 500 editorial professionals in the scientific, scientific publishing, and information science communities. The organization’s goal is to serve as an authoritative resource on current and emerging issues in the communication of scientific information . SimilarRecommendations for Promoting Integrity in Scientific Journal Publications  adding new content to CSE’s ications  related d Format , the CSEd Format ; 4) estae Editor , CSE’s qe Editor ; 7) actie Editor ; and 8) Collectively, these activities help publishers, editorial leadership of journals, journal editors, editorial teams, peer reviewers, and authors gain access to numerous resources, tools, educational materials, and training opportunities. This access allows scholarly publishing professionals to develop the knowledge, skills, and abilities to increase equitable participation and decision-making among diverse groups of individuals, increase trust among stakeholders, encourage civility, and support fairness throughout all aspects of the industry. The road to fully realizing equity, diversity, inclusion, and accessibility requires persistent attention, collaboration, and introspection from professionals and organizations in both the early stages  and more advanced stages  of that realization .Fortunately, there are several published and publicly available DEIA-related resources to assist professionals working in the field of scholarly publishing. The formation of CSE’s DEIA Scholarly Resources web page  has yielThe resources in these 7 categories are briefly described below and were identified through various approaches, including literature searches, resources identified by CSE DEIA members, and resources submitted via the web page from CSE members. Resources identified for inclusion ranged from peer-reviewed papers, position statements, guidance documents, online training webinars, and more. The content provided within each of the 7 categories is by no means comprehensive, and the inclusion of a particular resource does not necessarily represent endorsement by CSE or the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. As stated on CSE’s website: “The categories are broad, and information may overlap more than one category” (Various trade and professional associations within the scholarly publishing arena are committed to addressing issues of diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility in their communities . They haResources in this category describe the formation of DEIA-related committees of trade and professional organizations in scholarly publishing as well as their purposes, composition, and activities undertaken by their membership. Activities undertaken by DEIA committees include establishing toolkits for allies and organizations, establishing guidelines for inclusive language and images, implementing a series of discussion sessions to share knowledge solutions for accessibility, disseminating strategies to diversify editorial boards, and ways to improve the peer review process and the content of published articles. These resources also describe ways in which DEIA committees collaborate with their organizations’ leadership and other organizational committees to ensure that DEIA best practices are used in creating program and conference planning, identifying speakers, recruiting members, and promoting unbiased science editing among the member journals. In addition, outside of their own organizations, DEIA committees describe ways in which they have worked collectively to assist in planning seminars, educational opportunities, and other events for the field of scholarly publishing in general.Journals depend on subject area experts to help assess the strengths and weaknesses of content submitted for consideration . JournalThe content in this category offers examples from journals and publishers that present ways to diversify volunteer groups that comprise editorial boards, associate editors, and peer reviewers. Several resources provide insight into how journals can establish commitments through policies and procedures that encourage best practices in developing diverse, equitable, and inclusive peer review teams. Resources are also available that provide examples on how to collect demographic data to track diversity, how to use such data to monitor progress, and, if necessary, how to identify when it is necessary to implement a shift in approaches to address areas requiring improvement.It’s all well and good to say that you believe in the principles of DEIA; it’s another thing to commit to them. In recent years, many journals, trade organizations, professional associations, and publishers have not only acknowledged the need to advance DEIA practices within their institutions but also have published position statements or publicly declared their intent to do so . This seThese statements and declarations go beyond abstract advocacy of DEIA principles. They are prudently crafted, comprehensive statements or declarations that describe demonstrable initiatives, communicate immediate policy updates, and divulge detailed progress reports. Many of these resources cite supportive data to substantiate the need for — and the potential impact of — actions designed to dismantle systemic bias, discrimination, and racism within an organization’s infrastructure. Many take the additional step of including links to ancillary resources that provide further guidance for implementing DEIA-related practices that can inspire institutional change.Systemic inequity is a deep-seated, pervasive concept that has been responsible for immeasurable societal historical challenges that persist to this day . These cThe resources in this category provide important information and perspectives on how bias, discrimination, and racism can permeate an institution’s infrastructure, its editorial processes, and any content it may produce and/or publish. Additionally, they reflect the difficulty of having discussions and asking the questions that will actionably address the existence of bias, racism, and discrimination within the scholarly publishing industry, including: How do bias, racism, and discrimination negatively impact a journal’s and/or a publisher’s ability to avoid publishing content that perpetuates historical harm? What opportunities exist for diverse participation on volunteer boards? What are the persistent representational issues in scholarly publishing?Many of these resources offer pragmatic examples of how an institution can address and avoid systemically hierarchical, discriminatory, and biased frameworks within its operations and redefine its best practices to ensure both equity and integrity in its mission to publish scientific content. In addition, they offer examples of what journals in medicine, health care, pediatrics, and genomics are doing to establish an antiracist posture in scientific publication. Many of these statements offered by journals are geared toward establishing commitments to taking proactive steps to establish an antiracist future in scholarly publishing.Documented lack of diverse representation among editorial leadership, editorial boards, peer reviewers, and authors remains a major barrier to achieving the aims of advancing DEIA principles in scholarly publishing . There aHistorical harm from faulty studies can be caused by many factors, including limited and unchallenged research questions, flawed methodological approaches, misaligned statistical testing and reporting, and unaddressed/uncorrected publication bias . As a reInclusive language is evolving at an unprecedented rate . AcceptaAn important ripple effect of this effort is that authors are more likely to feel included, invited, and motivated to submit their work to publications that have clearly demonstrated a commitment to inclusivity and sensitivity in scientific reporting. From policy toolkits to editorial style recommendations to study methodology guidelines, these resources stand at the cutting edge of inclusive language conventions and best practices, and the institutions that developed them continue to play a critical role in advancing and keeping pace with this ever-evolving aspect of the scientific enterprise.As with any field of interest, the number of DEIA-related resources continues to increase as publishers and journals learn from and build upon previously released guidance. As such, resources on CSE’s DEIA Scholarly Resources web page will continue to increase. These resources can assist journals at various stages of implementation of DEIA-centered activities. Journals, editorial offices, and publishers are in the best position to decide which resources are of best use and why. Determining where to start requires asking important and often difficult questions, including: Is there an understanding of why DEIA in scholarly publishing is important? Are there groups, networks, organizations, experts, or other stakeholders who are willing and available to engage and ask questions about where best to get started? Are there training opportunities available that can help increase knowledge, skills, and abilities among leadership, decision-makers, staff, and volunteers? The key is to identify a reasonable plan of action, encourage participation from a wide range of stakeholders, and adopt patience to execute the plan over time.The CSE DEIA Committee has envisioned a process of curating and maintaining the Scholarly Resources web page over time to provide access to current content housed in one location. The committee encourages visitors not only to explore the contents and their evolution, but also to consider submitting resources for inclusion as they become available. Authors, journals, creators of training opportunities, and other scholarly publishing professionals are encouraged to submit requests  to inclu


Methods and Software.As we wrote previously , sciencePLOS Computational Biology has been the home of exceptional computational research and cutting-edge methodological advances. We publish papers that use computational techniques to generate new biological insight, and we publish papers that describe software or methods that many other researchers in the field can use independently to generate new biological insight.Since its founding in 2005, There is great merit in using existing techniques to advance biological understanding, and there is great merit in developing and sharing new techniques that will result in further advances. The field of Computational Biology supports both.Methods section and the Software section to encourage more researchers to publish methodological advancements. From the inception of these sections, there were dedicated Methods Editors and Software Editors on the Editorial Board responsible for the papers submitted to each section. Through the end of 2022, those editors have guided the publication of 647 Methods papers and 286 Software papers, from among the 1,790 and 646 manuscripts submitted, respectively. The standard of those papers has been high, with many excellent and impactful papers published, covering methods for microbiome data analysis [In 2013, the journal introduced the analysis  to multiMethods-specific and Software-specific editors was seen as beneficial to being able to set appropriate criteria for the review and publication of these papers, for example, making clear that new work that facilitated original research was publishable, even if the paper itself did not include original research findings. By creating and stewarding a clear standard for these papers, it has been possible to maintain and even increase the high standard of methods and software papers published in our journal.At the outset, the concept of having separate Methods and Software sections have been a massive success and continue to grow. More than half of all submissions received since 2013 in these sections have come in the last 3 years . Our editors made a Herculean effort to meet this demand, but it became harder to keep up. Clearly, we needed to spread the handling of these papers across more people.By all metrics, the We also recognized that many, if not most, of our editors have expertise in methods development and/or software development in their respective fields. As Computational Biology and its subfields become more mature, the submissions we receive often are more specialized, describing computational techniques that are applied in specific subfields but not others. For example, techniques that are used to process neuroscience data may be quite different from those used to analyze genomic data. Thus, having expertise in those fields—as our Neuroscience and Genomics editors do—is increasingly helpful for the review and handling of these submissions.Methods and Software submissions are now handled by domain-specific editors, as other Research articles are, which both increases the pool of editors handling these submissions and provides each submission with editors that are familiar with the subtleties and background of the domain-specific approaches, applications, and implementations. This editorial structure also reflects the broadening reach of research and development into new methods and new software across various areas of Computational Biology. Authors will now designate which topical section of the journal their Methods or Software manuscripts are most suited to and suggest appropriate editors to handle their manuscript, as has been the case for other Research articles.Therefore, Methods and Software sections. In particular, we want to thank our Methods and Software Editors for their immense work over the years. They have built a great reputation for these sections and have set them on the path to continue to thrive. We also want to thank the Computational Biology community for submitting novel and creative work. There’s no doubt that PLOS Computational Biology has become a key venue for the sharing and advancement of novel tools and approaches.The development and use of tools and approaches are integral to modern science, and the exceptional and dedicated authors, editors, and reviewers have nurtured and grown the Methods manuscripts and Software manuscripts will continue to be reviewed with the same criteria and standards as before; only now, the domain expertise of the editors will be more closely aligned to the manuscripts. PLOS Computational Biology will continue to be the home for sharing the development of excellent tools, approaches, and algorithms in our field.We believe this new approach improves the handling of these papers and the experience of authors.


Plant‐Environment Interactions, and our very first issue. Our new journal launches at a challenging and tragic time for the world. We all hope the Covid‐19 pandemic ends as quickly as possible, and that all our readers and authors stay safe and well. When the pandemic does end, other global challenges will of course remain. How can we grow drought‐ and pest‐resistant crops to sustainably feed our growing global population and in the face of ongoing climate change? How can we harness molecular tools to produce those crops for the future, and to further our fundamental understanding of how plants interact with their environment? How will wild plant species and communities respond to the effects of climate change, land‐use change, nutrient deposition, and rising CO2 levels? What role will interactions with other species play in moderating those responses? Research in the plant and environmental sciences is central to solving these global challenges, and that research will come from across the world.As Editor‐in‐Chief, it is a pleasure to welcome you to Plant‐Environment Interactions is to provide a home for sound, international science to be published in the plant and environmental sciences. Our scope is global and broad; we will consider work that may not necessarily be novel, but which will advance our understanding of how plants interact with their abiotic and/or biotic environment. Thus, we will consider work spanning the three categories of plant ecology and evolution, plant physiology, and plant cell and molecular biology. We welcome direct submissions across these three areas, and we are just as happy to consider manuscripts of reviews, new concepts and perspectives, as well as original research articles. We are also keen to consider transferred manuscripts of sound science that may not have been accepted in our partner journals but fit well with our aims and scope at Plant‐Environment Interactions. We recognise the valuable efforts made by reviewers of manuscripts and believe that where manuscripts have already been reviewed elsewhere, these reviews should be used as much as possible. At P‐EI, we will make use of existing reviews of transferred manuscripts to assist authors in improving their work, and to come to a more rapid decision on manuscripts sent to us. We want to support authors to get their sound science published, rather than simply find reasons not to.Our aim at PEI@wiley.com). In terms of authorship, we already have accepted articles from authors based in seven countries, with research conducted on six continents . Finally, our readership should be international too, and to support this, P‐EI is fully open‐access. To support the open access model, Wiley has a number of agreements with funders, institutions and countries to cover article processing charges for authors, meaning many authors do not need to cover the open access fees themselves.To reflect our aim of being a home for international research in the plant and environmental sciences, we are building a skilled and experienced Editorial Board team of associate editors from around the world. So far, our Editorial Board members are based in 14 countries on five continents  in the Benin Republic. Understanding what determines fruit drop is important ecologically for seed dispersal, and economically in terms of production and yield in this economic crop. Moving on to ornamental plants, Song, Zhang, Chen, Zhu, and Wang (2O) emissions from soils are reduced by photosynthetic activity of two tree species, which may have implications for our understanding of N2O flux in terrestrial ecosystems. Finally, Rolando, Gaskin, Horgan, and Richardson .I’m very happy that our first issue meets our aim to publish international research with a broad scope. First, Cordeiro et al.  present and Wang  demonstrand Wang  show thachardson  completeI very much enjoyed reading these articles, and I hope you enjoy reading them too. I am excited to see this first issue published and I look forward to seeing the science in our journal grow over the coming months and years.Stay safe and stay well.


There is no question that artificial intelligence (AI) will  radically transform(ing) the world of medical publishing, for the better, much more than for the worse. For researchers and journal editors, AI-based systems will enable more complex problems to be addressed, based on input from multiple sources of information, an approach that is not possible or would be impossibly slow without assistance from AI.The benefits of AI in medical publishing can be considered in terms of their effects on three aspects: content, peer review, and post-publication Fig. . AI willCritical Care, of course) and can be downloaded to one’s PC or reference manager; printing has largely been abandoned. Although much simpler and faster than in the past, the literature review process using PubMed is still time consuming and influenced by a researcher’s preferences and biases. In the third period, which we are now entering, literature reviews will be even easier, yet much more complete and also more objective, retrieving a broader, more extensive collection of references. AI-based systems will not only access more articles, but they will also automatically select the most relevant and analyze their quality. As Salvagno and Taccone recently underlined [Most research starts with a comprehensive synthesis of current knowledge on a particular question—the literature review. There have been three key periods in this process over the years. The first period (from 1879 to 2004) was dominated by Index Medicus and essentially involved having to go to the library to look for a precise reference in the large Index books, finding the relevant issue of the journal (if stocked) on the library shelf, and then making a ‘xerox copy.’ This process needed to be repeated for each article! The second period is the current one, with indexing now online, largely via PubMed. This database provides a selection of references based on keywords introduced into the search engine. Many of the journal articles retrieved in such a search are now open access . Data fabrication will always lead to some incongruity and inconsistency. In the medical field, it was the implausibility of the standard deviations of some variables that eventually led to the recognition of scientific misconduct by Joachim Boldt, with the retraction of the vast majority of his numerous publications . As AI sAI-based systems will also help editors in their task to find the most appropriate reviewers for specific papers, based on reviewers’ backgrounds, lists of publications (including those cited in the paper to be reviewed), and previous reviewing records (how well and how fast they reviewed previous papers). The system could even take care of the whole process, from selection of experts, through invitations and collection of reports, to a final decision based on the reviewers’ recommendations. In a provocative letter, Salvagno and Taccone  propose The post-publication impact of articles and spread of information will also be facilitated, by automatic identification of the important novel aspects of published research, leading to more rapid application of effective new concepts and/or meaningful improvements in practice. Press releases, visual abstracts, summary videos, and social media posts can all be created by AI, and targeted appropriately at specific populations, from the specialist through to the general public.The increasing role of AI technology in the future is evident and should be seen as a positive event as it will be of tremendous help to assist both authors and publishers. As an Editor-in-Chief, I do not feel threatened, but relieved that some of the more time-consuming and complex aspects of my job will be taken over, significantly improving the ultimate quality and output of the journal, which can only be for the good of science.


Without a doubt, Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) is a hot topic in the media in recent times. This was spurred initially by the popular, widespread use of ChatGPT and other platforms to generate written material, imagery, and even audio/visual productions based on user-inputted prompts. Generative AI is defined by AI as: “a type of AI that uses machine learning algorithms to create new and original content like images, video, text, and audio” .How do these technological advancements impact us in the scientific publishing world? Specifically, when is it appropriate and perhaps more importantly, when is it NOT appropriate to use such tools in producing published scientific articles?Strictly speaking, every time a word processor suggests a better way to phrase a sentence, basic AI is being applied in one’s writing. Taken to a much more sophisticated level, a writer can submit a roughly written draft to a generative AI platform using large language models (LLMs) and a more sophisticated written output could be produced and ultimately submitted. If a student in an English class, meant to teach students how to write well did submit such a piece for an assignment, this use of AI might constitute cheating. However, when authors use AIs to help polish their work for publication, this should be entirely appropriate since such an application enhances the work to help readers comprehend and appreciate such work better. Our journal has recently started providing our authors the option of using a “comprehensive writing and publication assistant” to improve their submissions. Submitting authors should see a link to the service we are partnering with the Paperpal Preflight Screening Tool. For a very reasonable fee, the tool offers translation, paraphrasing, consistency, and journal submission readiness checks on uploaded manuscript drafts. This service is particularly helpful for some international authors who may have a challenging time meeting our language requirement standards.In another scenario applicable to publishing, say a peer reviewer wishes to use AI to evaluate a submission. You might be asking: “wait, can AI do that?” Most certainly! Would that be acceptable though? There are indeed platforms out there that are trained on publicly available biomedical publications such that the AI is able to look up references to help a peer reviewer assess manuscripts. Maybe the peer reviewer just needs help getting started with the first draft of their review, or they may feel that the author’s language skills need a lot of help like in the earlier scenario. A major difference here, however, is that when a peer reviewer uploads a manuscript on one of these platforms, they would be breaching confidentiality which is not acceptable. The NIH does not allow AI to be used for the peer review of grant applications , and neiAuthors should provide a declaration of any AI-generated content in the submission and include the details of the tool or system used such as the Paperpal example above. These declarative statements should be made whether generative AI technology is used in the writing process or to generate tables, figures, and even videos. Basic tools for checking grammar, spelling and references are exempted.Authors confirm that they have reviewed the product generated by the AI systems and are ultimately responsible and accountable for the integrity of such content.AI systems cannot be attributed as authors. Only humans can.To help authors navigate this new terrain, JECT will endeavor to provide new guidance in our Instruction for Authors as other journals are currently implementing . Some prAs many other journals do, JECT uses other AI-like tools, such as for similarity checks but will always apply human review and oversight. In the future, other tools might become available for journals to use in ways that improve quality and efficiency. Being in the early stages of this new era, generative AI technology and its uses will continue evolving, raising new issues and concerns that have yet to be encountered or addressed. The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) has provided guidelines for the use of AI tools by authors, peer reviewers, editors, and publishers in scholarly publications; and will probably continue to contribute by providing guidance in the future . Ultimat


Journal of Biological Chemistry is releasing a position statement to define appropriate and inappropriate uses of AI-based chat technologies in the preparation and review of manuscripts being considered for publication.One cannot read or listen to the news each day without some commentator informing the world that the application of generative artificial intelligence technologies is revolutionizing how we all work and play by creating content such as text, images, audio, and synthetic data. The scientific community is no exception, and barely a day goes by without at least one discussion with a colleague on the potential for ChatGPT and other platforms to positively (or negatively) impact how we approach scientific writing, whether for grant applications, scientific papers, reviews, exams, or other academic purposes. The relative merits and concerns about the use of these tools have been extensively discussed in commentaries and news articles in recent months , 4, 5, 6JBC instructions to authors). In both cases, it is the author’s responsibility to ensure that this process does not alter the intended meaning and that appropriate  citations are used as needed. We now require that the use of such services should be transparently and specifically declared in the acknowledgment section of submitted manuscripts. Importantly, it is inappropriate for ChatGPT or similar technologies, or more traditional commercial editing services, to be included as a co-author, because such technologies/services cannot meet all of the essential authorship requirements.•Substantial contributions to conception and design, acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of data;•Drafting the article or substantively contributing to revisions in intellectual content;•Final approval of the version to be published;•Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work.The use of generative AI technologies during manuscript preparation would seem to have strong potential to improve the clarity and quality of manuscripts that are submitted for review. This may be particularly beneficial for authors with first languages other than English, perhaps helping to improve overall equity in science . For thehttps://www.makeuseof.com/chatgpt-privacy-issues/), including allowing retained conversations to be accessed by their AI trainers to improve future performance. Thus, uploading any part of the manuscript into a public AI tool may violate the authors’ confidentiality and proprietary and/or data privacy rights, and manuscripts should not be evaluated using generative AI tools. Similarly, these tools should not be used by reviewers, editorial board members, or senior editors to assist in preparing critiques or decision letters. In short, the confidentiality requirements for peer review of manuscripts take precedence over any benefit that may or may not be gained by using generative AI technologies for these purposes.An argument can be made that the uses of generative AI text technologies could similarly improve the peer review process, if only by enhancing the quality and clarity of manuscript reviews and decision letters (which authors might greatly appreciate!). However, confidentiality is a core principle of the peer-review process. Numerous concerns regarding the ChatGPT data retention policies have been identified  (https:/ethics page. Note that we anticipate that our guidelines may be further updated to reflect the rapid ongoing evolution of these technologies. Furthermore, we will be carefully watching the developing ability of generative AI to “create” raw image data, potentially including gels, blots, and micrographs, that may be difficult to detect using our current image forensics pipeline, potentially leading to the need to provide additional guidance on the use of these tools.We have updated the JBC Guide for Authors to explain our principles for the use of generative AI technologies by authors, peer reviewers and editors. These guidelines are explained in more detail on our publisher's


Psychology aims to capture the diversity of our human experience, yet racial inequity ensures only specific experiences are studied, peer-reviewed, and eventually published. Despite recent publications on racial bias in research topics, study samples, academic teams, and publication trends, bias in the peer review process remains largely unexamined. Drawing on compelling case study examples from APA and other leading international journals, this article proposes key mechanisms underlying racial bias and censorship in the editorial and peer review process, including bias in reviewer selection, devaluing racialized expertise, censorship of critical perspectives, minimal consideration of harm to racialized people, and the publication of unscientific and racist studies. The field of psychology needs more diverse researchers, perspectives, and topics to reach its full potential and meet the mental health needs of communities of colour. Several recommendations are called for to ensure the APA can centre racial equity throughout the editorial and review process. Psychological science, as a system of knowledge, strives to understand the breadth and depth of our human experience. Decades of research and theory development has significantly contributed to this goal by nurturing a scientific curiosity to explore and examine the world around us with the tools of the scientific method.Yet, racial disparities persist. From the bodies funding research, universities hiring faculty and admitting students, and the journals publishing and disseminating knowledge, we find evidence of systemic racism in the overrepresentation of White editors, researchers, participants, and perspectives .There are many studies demonstrating how racial bias remains a serious problem in the field of psychology  includinAs racism experts, we are intrigued by the pervasive nature of racial disparities in our discipline. Using scientific methods, we explore the antecedents, underlying mechanisms, and consequences associated with racial disparities in psychology.When it comes to the curation and publication of new psychological knowledge, decision-making around the types of articles that are produced and published is also influenced by race. Journals with White editors-in-chief are less likely to have diverse editorial board members, and three times less likely to publish papers highlighting race . RobertsAs a core part of the knowledge dissemination pathway, the peer review process acts as a quality assurance system evaluating whether the quality, originality, relevance of research is fit for publication and, if so, providing feedback to authors to improve their submission. As such, this process dictates what research is worth publishing, disseminating, and mobilising in society. There are many who champion the existing peer review system. However, the editorial and peer review process is also widely criticised in psychology and related disciplines e.g., . The maiThe purpose of this paper is threefold, organised as follows: (a) review psychological processes underlying racism and bias in the review process, (b) outline real world examples of racism and bias at varying stages of the peer review process using 10 real examples, and (c) provision of a wide-range of recommendations for equitable publication practice. The second half of the paper features a set of concrete case studies based on actual experiences to examine racism and bias in the editorial and peer-review process. Each case study will showcase a manuscript and provide an in-depth analysis of the mechanisms of racism emergent throughout the review process.As scholars of race and racism, one question that frequently arises during the editorial and peer-review process is “Why does anyone even need this research?” Given the wide range of acceptable topics that researchers choose to study, it can be discouraging when one’s area of expertise is inexplicably devalued by colleagues and editors. This was, for example, the case with a paper on measuring the strength of allyship of White individuals. In a recollection by one of the authors (Example 1):The paper had gone through the peer review process and the authors had fully responded to the feedback of two independent reviewers for a manuscript on the validation of a new scale to measure White allyship, as no other such scale existed. However, upon submission of the fully-revised manuscript, rather than send it back out for review, the editor interrupted the process with a startling decision. Adopting the counterfactual reasoning that the scale did not offer anything new and without providing any supporting evidence, he falsely stated that the measure “is empirically indistinguishable from existing measures,” and it was summarily rejected. The editor listed the Modern Racism Scale (MRS) and the Color-Blind Racial Attitudes Scale (CoBRAS) as measures he believed were indistinguishable from ours; however, these are both measures to assess the cognitive component of racial attitudes , and no further evidence was provided to support his claim .The question of “why would we need this research at all?” posed by a reviewer as above is an example of epistemic exclusion, a form of discrimination that occurs when certain groups or perspectives are excluded from the production of knowledge . The queThis has implications for the citation metrics and career trajectories of the scholars researching these topics, as well as the impact of their papers and the trajectory of the field . EpistemThere are many reasons for submitted research papers to be rejected; however, when publishing on the issue of race and racism covert psychological phenomena connected to power, solidarity, and fear converge. These suppress and censor voices that illuminate this crucial corner of academic scholarship. We have found that sometimes scientific research is deemed so dangerous and threatening to established power structures, that some will attempt to bury it before it can even see the light of day.What is the cause of these kinds of decisions? None of the authors believe that editors and reviewers are sitting at a table together, plotting about how to keep research about people of colour from being published. Nonetheless, the outcomes are such that they might as well be. So, whilst the outcomes are clear , the processes are often elusive.Racial disparities deeply taint our educational environments, funding processes, and the quality of the evidence we have available to us. Moreover, these disparities challenge the objectivity or impartiality of the publication process. Despite the systematic steps and safeguards in place, this process is not without biases . AscribiCanada Research Chair, a registered clinical psychologist, and an African American woman. She has published over 150 peer-reviewed articles, with a focus on trauma-related conditions and cultural differences, including articles about therapeutic best practices. Finally, the fifth author is a Black German and an experienced neuroscientist and pharmaceutical professional, specialising in clinical development and social justice issues.We, the authors, are a diverse group, engaged in researching what many consider to be topics most vulnerable to bias and discrimination. The first author is a doctoral student in clinical psychology and a White Canadian Ashkenazi Jewish settler of European heritage who researches in the areas of microaggressions, racial bias, institutional racism, police violence, racial trauma, and psychedelics. The second author is a Canadian doctoral student in clinical psychology and a White settler of Austrian and Scottish ancestry. She works with racialized and stigmatised populations, and researches on topics of allyship, implicit biases, and cultural competence/relevance in research and healthcare. The third author is an East African immigrant woman and an experimental psychologist. She currently has concentrated her research on racism and its effects on minoritised groups in Canada. The fourth author is a Our combined experience as psychologists/psychologists-in-training working on scholarship related to racism and people of colour has afforded us a unique perspective. More specifically, we have encountered many instances of racism, discrimination, and bias whilst attempting to publish our work, which we shall discuss in this piece as concrete examples of the problem. The examples are critical to understanding the issues, as those who do not experience racism have difficulty conceptualising it. Indeed, our peers frequently express astonishment that such problems still occur today when we share our regular experiences of racism surrounding this process. Further, we will situate these examples within the varied stages of the review process and provide the context needed to understand the underlying psychological mechanisms creating these barriers.Collectively we have published over 200 academic papers, served as reviewers for over 200 papers, handled scores of papers in the associate editor role, reviewed dozens of grant proposals, and served as guest editors for several special issues, meaning that we intimately understand the peer-review process. We hope this piece will instil in readers the need to be more critical of the overall publication process and its outputs. Amongst psychologists of colour and allied collaborators we hope this discussion will serve to validate some of the challenging experiences encountered. And finally, to those in positions of power—that is journal editors, editorial board members, reviewers, etc.—we know that guidance is needed to help implement anti-racist policies and practices. We hope this work serves to create a better awareness of this issue to spark positive change. It is not our aim to discredit the existing systems that keep our science solid and credible but rather to improve them.To understand the problems in editorial processes, we must first understand racism. A large body of work exploring the underlying mechanisms of racial prejudice, discrimination, and bias has shown these mechanisms are an interplay between individual, interpersonal, and structural systems. Although bias can exist across all these systems, each system can mitigate or augment the bias of another system. There are a range of psychological theories and processes describing the underlying mechanisms that give rise to biased actions and outcomes.Drawing on research, theory, and philosophical discourse, Individual racism can be subclassified into two major categories: attitudinal (prejudice) or behavioural  race only if it is not obvious, because overt racial discrimination is stigmatised. This is the essence of aversive racism, a covert cultural behaviour demonstrated empirically to have been instilled in childhood . As a reracial socialisation, a natural human experience in which the attitudes and stereotypes of our early carers  transfer to us and shape our earliest schemas. This theory is supported by research noting the presence of implicit biases in children as young as 4 years old . This explains the findings by White reviewers can be expected to feel similarly discomforted by manuscripts about race. Based on our years of experience in the guest editor and associate editor role, we observe that many, if not most, reviewers will decline to review a paper simply because the title includes Black people, and as such it may take many attempts to identify any reviewers at all . After rA similar dynamic occurred for a paper reviewed by one of the authors, where a Black reviewer thought a racist paper should be rejected and a White reviewer approved it (Example 3), with no reason provided by the editor as to why the Black reviewer was disregarded. Typically, when reviewers disagree sharply, either: (i) a committee made up of the editor, deputy editors, statistical editors, etc. is formed to arrive at a decision; (ii) a third reviewer is brought on to provide a “tie-breaker” review; or (iii) the paper receives a simple rejection by the editor . HoweverScientific racism refers to the use of scientific concepts and data to justify and promote ideas of racial hierarchy .Whilst aversive racists may have antiracist values, their actions are guided by unconscious, and sometimes conscious, prejudiced beliefs that cause them to ultimately undermine racial equality . For exapost hoc analyses to determine if authors of colour produced lower quality research. They also considered if there are simply too few authors of colour. After ruling out the quantity of authors of colour and the quality of their research, they concluded what psychologists of colour have known all along: that the psychological publication process, as with the rest of society, is fraught with racial inequality. Moreover, whilst the above figures relate specifically to authors (not reviewers), the size of one’s portfolio and/or venues for articles academics have published often help editors and their support team identify experts to call upon for review. As such, barriers experienced by authors of colour in publishing will also have negative impacts on the diversity of those featured for review.Considering these examples helps us see how aversive racism may also play out in the reviewer selection process. For example, some of the present authors had great difficulty finding a psychology journal that would even review an article on the use of psychology for anti-racist jury selection (Example 4), resulting in a spate of desk rejections. For context, this was at the same time as the infamous Derek Chauvin trial for the murder of George Floyd, when this topic was of high interest. Editors failed to understand why the topic itself (racism in juries and how to address it) was even a suitable issue for a scientific journal, although two important manuscripts later came from this work. This is also not an isolated incident of racial bias in the reviewer selection process. In their systematic review, Critical perspectives can mean multiple things. It can mean diverse perspectives, such as those of racial, gender, and sexual minorities. It can also mean non-dominant perspectives or perspectives that centre marginalised issues. Both types of critical perspectives are frequently censored in psychology. The following are examples of how this happens in the peer review process with explanations of the underlying facilitating mechanisms of racism.Astonishing as it may seem, the authors experienced censorship (cancellation) of a scheduled scientific talk at a 2022 psychology convention (Example 5) to prevent the public airing of a statistical analysis of disciplinary outcomes of a state licencing board . Censorsaccounts of Black members were censored – in effect removing all the voices of colour and their racialized experiences as Black professionals in the organisation. Apart from the clear deviation from the standard peer review process, most problematic is the insulting and racist assertion from the editor that an analysis of racist behaviour is simply “not scientific”  and that, in documenting these qualitative experiences, Black people are not credible documentarians of their own experiences (“how [do] we ensure they are adequately complete accounts that are fact checked”). Notably, the editor later rejected the offer to provide documentation for all accounts. The editor even went so far as to threaten the authors of committing libel and opening themselves up to legal liabilities. The reviewing associate editors criticised the paper for being “unbalanced” and using “inflammatory language,” adding that “readers would be turned off and not take it seriously enough.” The editors provided the following example:Some of the authors submitted a paper to a journal focused on contextual behavioural science, providing a critical evaluation of the practices regarding diversity and inclusion within the associated professional organisation from the perspective of Black psychologists in the field (Example 6). Upon submission, the journal did not follow its standard protocol to send the anonymous paper to two or three independent and impartial reviewers with related expertise, despite the explicit request of the authors. Rather, the paper was reviewed by two White associate editors of the journal, and the publisher, all of whom would have had a strong bias against any criticism of the organisation. Unsurprisingly, the paper was rejected but with the option to resubmit as a new paper only if first-hand Blacks [stylishly outdated wording of the editor] applied and were not successful in these pursuits. For example, maybe the current [organisation’s] board is white because no Black people nominated themselves. Maybe Black researchers have been asked to be on the [journal’s] editorial board but said no.Another example of presenting only one side of an issue is when the authors talk about the lack of diversity in [the organisation’s membership], the board of [the organisation], and [the journal's] editorial board. What's missing is how many These points made by the editor can be understood as aversive racism within the broader context of racial socialisation. As previously discussed, White people are socialised to find other, less plausible justifications for unjust outcomes than admit racism as the answer , and theTwo of the authors subsequently met with the editor of the journal and explained that their paper had been judged in a manner that was discriminatory (different from other papers), biased (reviewers had a conflict of interest), and unscientific (reviewers did not have relevant expertise). The authors were grateful when the editor agreed to send the paper out for review to qualified, less biased reviewers. The three new reviewers were all positive of the paper, and none thought it was libellous or unscientific. In fact, they all recognised the importance of the real-life examples of racism within the organisation  and praised the authors for including them. When the authors asked about the delay in hearing back from the editor, the editor warned them that the three positive reviews would not be good enough, and that the paper would have to clear the association’s lawyer. The authors suggested that a lawyer with expertise in discrimination and social justice be used. This was ignored, and the organisation’s chosen lawyer provided a revised manuscript with all the Black voices crossed out , with the excuse that it might upset some of the anonymous people who perpetrated the racist acts described. Below is a brief example of a redaction demanded by the association’s lawyer:In our investigation, we did learn that in the aftermath of George Floyd’s extra-judicial murder and the subsequent global racial reckoning, there were shifts in the climate at [organization] that made more space for Black inclusion due to what one Black member described as “White guilt”. For example, there is a new set of BIPOC clinicians brought in by members of the diversity committee through MEND, a group of trauma experts focused on healing communities of color (www.mendminds.org) using ACT. They had better experiences because the [organization’s] diversity committee and the related special interest group found ways to make them feel welcome, such as having a social event for people of color at a recent conference. There has been some thought and action around these issues, although members feel there is still a very long way to go in making [organization] truly inclusive.This example of censorship demonstrates that the authors advanced a balanced perspective, with some positives and some negatives, but the lawyer wanted all the negatives removed to create a false positive impression of the organisation and a biased narrative. This represents an incredible compromise of academic freedom and scientific integrity. In a stunning blow to academic freedom and scientific integrity, the editor refused to publish the paper unless the authors acquiesced to unscientific censorship of Black voices and hid that organisation’s critical Black history.ad hoc “publications committee” would interfere with the proper functioning of a journal and the academic freedom of scientists in the community. It is unheard of to have an outside person censor qualitative data in an academic manuscript. Further, amongst the entities that the editor conferred with for advice, there were no signs that Black members were included or that EDI committees were consulted although the authors suggested it. The lawyer consulted was more concerned about potential libel than the legalities of committing racial discrimination against Black authors. Further, the lawyer should have informed the editor that the courts have ruled that scientific articles are protected from defamation suits, as vigorous debate is good for science. The result rather was that all qualitative data was again suggested to be expunged, resulting in a watering down of the paper despite the positive reviewers’ decision; the editors had to find other reasons to control the outcome and they did. The authors later told the editor this was the most blatant case of racism they had encountered in their entire academic careers and urged the editor to resign in alignment with anti-racist values.An analysis of this experience by racism experts leads to the clear conclusion that these actions simply represent more racism being perpetrated by the association. The paper carefully documented experiences of organisational racism which represented the paper’s qualitative data and supported this data with scientific research. These observed (and in some cases very public) instances of racism at the association were also included to ensure that future members would be treated fairly. It is unheard of that an outside As discussed previously, as with the rest of academia, the field of psychology operates in a manner that is elitist and racist as demonstrated by the glaring mental health disparities within communities of colour and the poor representation of psychologists of colour in the field . A paperProblems like this may occur for a variety of reasons. First, as previously mentioned, White people are socialised to take reports of racism less seriously and look for alternative reasons for racist outcomes . As a reOn pg. 14 the authors state “The University of Ottawa is in Ottawa, Ontario in Canada on stolen Anishinaabe land”. Agreed, but in some provinces  you can’t use the words “unceeded” or “stolen”. This article is really important and we don’t want to see it censored or pulled from publication due to the wording. Maybe just remove the “stolen” and keep the land acknowledgement.These criticisms are often also neatly couched in seemingly anti-racist rhetoric. For example, the same reviewer suggested the following:Another general recommendation to the authors is to soften their language in the paper… the use of a softer language may increase the effectiveness of the arguments and reach a wider audience, particularly for those demographics who may be more likely to reject these arguments based on the language used (the same demographics who would benefit the most from learning from this paper).With an understanding of the psychosocial mechanisms at play and how they may manifest in the editorial and peer-review process, it is not hard to see how White editors and reviewers may have been quicker to disregard a paper describing systemic racism in graduate psychology admissions. Of course, attitudes of White superiority and a fear of being labelled a race traitor could also bias individuals against a paper that openly challenges White power and privilege and could benefit communities of colour.Likewise, after the acceptance of the racist paper about police and bias (Example 3), the ignored Black reviewer was invited to submit a rebuttal to address the biased and unscientific aspects of the published paper. But when she and her team submitted it for review, the editor insisted on changing the wording to “nuance” the analysis (Example 9). Further, when the authors wrote about the mechanisms of bias in the editorial and peer-review process, the editor said the paper would be rejected unless the description of those events was removed. Once the censored paper was accepted, it was another 7 months before the paper was even available online, as the publishers were holding it until the original authors had time to write their own rebuttal .In our experience, excellent papers are frequently subjected to harsh generalised criticism by reviewers simply because it makes the reviewer uncomfortable. It is often clear when a paper has legitimate shortcomings, as in such cases one usually receives specific and convergent feedback from several reviewers. A very different pattern can be observed when a paper is reviewed by those with racial biases and White fragility, as it can be expected to generate some degree of emotional dysregulation in the reviewer. These negative feelings can be explained away by the reviewer as unrelated to internal bias if they can find a reason to disparage the paper. As experts in racism, it is generally apparent to us when this has occurred, as the reviewer’s critique will include racial microaggressions rather than a helpful discussion of concrete problems areas. Common examples include, that a paper “is poorly organised,” “has an unclear rationale,” “cannot see how this adds to the literature,” “points are not well-supported,” “filled with typos,” “hard to follow,” “disjointed,” and “badly written”—which are aligned with stereotypes that many people of colour are less intelligent, less capable, and speak poor English. Certainly, a number of papers submitted for publication do have these problems, which makes the aversive racism behind these statements difficult for editors to recognise.As an example, one of the authors submitted a paper about finding the courage to be a racial justice ally to a high impact factor flagship journal of the APA (Example 10). The authors received divergent feedback from the three reviewers. Notably, the one reviewer of colour said, “I believe the authors have achieved something of significance in this work, and it will likely create a lasting impact on the readership.” The other two reviewers noted they enjoyed the paper, but their reviews were nonetheless marred by biases, containing many of the microaggressions listed above in one form or another. The lead author was a seasoned researcher, having published over 150 peer-reviewed academic papers, and an excellent writer; as such she knew that these assertions about the paper needing more clarification/explanation and more empirical support were incorrect. Nonetheless, the authors felt all of the criticisms were things they could address, and so they put considerable effort into a revision that was responsive to all of the reviewers’ points, glad for the opportunity to cite more key scholars in their revision.When the decision from the editor came back, two of the reviewers noted that the authors had been exceptionally responsive to their feedback and there was no comment from the third. However, the authors were horrified to see that a fourth reviewer (R4) had been added who had only negative feedback. The comments from R4 about the revised manuscript were completely opposite the other 3 reviewers. R4 stated that the paper was “unclear and at times disorganised,” “generally not up to APA style standards,” “often at odds with the facts,” and “more rigorous research and clearer writing would improve your paper.” Despite these sweeping criticisms, R4 offered only one concrete example of something deemed incorrect—a fact that was actually correct. The authors knew the paper was well-supported, having 133 references, so they placed the empirical papers in a supplementary table with each reference attached to each salient point to address the reviewer’s complaint. They also added an additional citation to their correct fact. But the critique about the unclear writing felt impossible to address, as by all academic standards the paper was already extremely well-written with no room to further improve.Fortunately, that journal advertised a service for authors who needed writing support. The authors hired the service to review the entire manuscript and make corrections as needed. The service uncharacteristically made private positive remarks, marvelling about the paper and made only minor changes  that marginally improved the flow and readability, but edits involved no reorganisation of the material. The authors then submitted certification to the editor as proof that the paper was  well-written, and so it was published. However, we appreciate that most authors of colour would not have been able to navigate this punishing, insulting, expensive, and racist process for a favourable outcome.lack of convergence amongst reviewers. Reviews of the aforementioned type, submitted by people without solid research in racism and/or lived experience, should be deprioritized by editors or deleted. Editors may be reluctant to delete a review and rationalise that it may be helpful to authors, but they should also consider the distress caused to scholars of colour by constantly receiving unfair reviews fueled by racial animus.Editors can increase their awareness of bias in the review process by reading reviewer comments and looking for blanket negative statements, such as those noted above, as well as a Perspectives on Psychological Science, exemplified by the resignation of an editor, also serves as a positive example of how we can address and mitigate discrimination in the field  recent initiatives to address racism in publishing, including the formation of a new working group , as wellhe field .Having outlined mechanisms driving racial bias in the editorial and peer review process, including bias in reviewer selection, devaluing racialized expertise, censorship of critical perspectives, minimal consideration of harm to racialized people, and the publication of unscientific and racist studies we provide recommendations which can be considered supportive to the initiatives from the APA, the APS, and the SPSSI, to ensure racial equity throughout the editorial and review process. These are outlined in When considering papers about racism and people of colour, it is important to push back against efforts to suppress these manuscripts and reviews. The burden of proof should be shifted from those highlighting the existence of racist policies and practices within the publication and peer review process to those denying its existence . The exiAs scholars of racism, we know that many who have not experienced racism will struggle with the examples provided. Some will become fixated on the veracity of the events shared and our conclusions about them. This is to be predicted based on the dissonance caused by the wish for a just world and the reality of racism. However, the point of this paper is not to lament about our own experiences of racism, rather to use these examples as vehicles to help readers understand the pertinent issues that are impacting scholars of colour today and the mechanisms by which racism is advanced. Further, we posit that people of colour should be respected as accurate historians of their own experience, and we challenge those who demand proof of these experiences to better understand their own motivations for their needs in this regard.Notably, in the examples provided we offered enough information so that the experiences would be relatable to academics but mostly omitted other details because the point is not to embarrass or call-out individuals. Racism is a pervasive problem, and these issues are widespread. Further, in today’s “cancel culture,” we have noticed that it is too easy for people to point the finger at a specific person to deflect attention away from structural issues or the need to do one’s own personal work. That being said, we also recognise the need for scientific accountability and are glad to provide full documentation of any examples by request.Finally, we would like to comment on the concept of double-anonymous peer review as a potential solution. Ostensibly, double-anonymous peer review represents a methodology which can reduce bias and increase meritocracy by hiding clues about authors’ stigmatised identities and there is some evidence for this in the literature . Whilst More importantly, double-anonymous review is not helpful if reviewers are biased against the fundamental ideas and concepts in a paper. Because racism is stigmatised, increased transparency seems to be more protective for authors, which is the concept behind the positionality statement for authors and reviewers. The authors openly acknowledge their race, ethnicity and social history which essentially informs the scientific work or review which they have submitted. The positionality statement is an acknowledgment that from the outset anonymous review may not be sufficient to address all forms of bias or discrimination, and that additional steps are required to ensure inclusivity and fairness. This is an important consideration, which challenges the idea of double-anonymous review as a purely objective and unbiased process.Rather than only using double-anonymous methods to increase the representation of those who have been underrepresented, sharing power for example, including more BIPOC in the peer review process as reviewers, and open reviews, or at least including positionality statements for reviews, may represent a better way of achieving a more just review process, although this is an area where research is needed to examine the issue empirically.For decades, psychology has reviewed and published empirical studies that sustain biases and structural inequities . An editDS, SG-R, MO, MW, and SF contributed significantly to the development and writing of the manuscript. MW and MO were instrumental in the conceptualization. SF played a large role in enhancing, revising, and finalising the manuscript for publication. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.This research was undertaken, in part, thanks to funding from the Ontario Graduate Scholarship (OGS) program (DS), Canada Graduate Scholarships-Doctoral (CGS-D) Program, Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) grant number 767-2022-2045 (DS), Canada Graduate Scholarships-Doctoral (CGS-D) Program, Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) grant number 767-2021-2327 (SG-R). Canada Research Chairs Program, and Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) grant number 950-232127 (MW).SF was affiliated with the pharmaceutical company Angelini Pharma and the German GmbH Bioville.The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.The reviewer NB declared a past co-authorship with the author SF to the handling editor.All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.