Patterns, and their experiences with Cell Press Community Review.In this People of Data, Cell Press Community Review Scientific Editor Leia Judge talks to lead author Dr. Daisuke Komura and Principal Investigator Prof. Shumpei Ishikawa about their paper “Restaining-based annotation for cancer histology segmentation to overcome annotation-related limitations among pathologists,” which was published in the February issue of  Patterns, and their experiences with Cell Press Community Review.In this People of Data, Cell Press Community Review Scientific Editor Leia Judge talks to lead author Dr. Daisuke Komura and Principal Investigator Prof. Shumpei Ishikawa about their paper “Restaining-based annotation for cancer histology segmentation to overcome annotation-related limitations among pathologists,” which was published in the February issue of  Daisuke Komura & Shumpei Ishikawa: We have developed a method for generating rich annotations for tissue and cell segmentation in digital pathology images of hematoxylin and eosin (H&E)-stained tumor tissue sections.DK & SI: Our lab has long been interested in using machine learning to aid pathological diagnosis and facilitate knowledge discovery from cancer pathology images. In our previous work published in Cell Reports in 2022,As we began to examine existing datasets for cancer tissue segmentation, we encountered several challenges. First, our lab studies a variety of tumors, but existing datasets primarily cover tumors common in Western countries, such as colon and breast cancer. This limited the scope of our diverse research interests. Second, freeing up pathologists' time for annotation was impractical due to their diagnostic workload. Given these gaps, we felt a compelling need to develop a method that could efficiently generate many annotations across different tissues with minimal pathologist intervention, hence the motivation for this research.DK: I have been aware of Community Review since its inception, have used it several times, and have found it to be a convenient system. We do a lot of genomic research and are familiar with the Cell Press journals, having even published a paper on pathology image analysis in Cell Reports.DK & SI: Indeed, our manuscript took an unconventional path before finding its rightful place in Patterns. First, we submitted our work to several Cell Press journals through Community Review, including Cell, Cell Reports, Cell Systems, and Cancer Cell. Although we did not receive interest from the editors of these journals, we did receive positive responses from the editors of Patterns, Cell Reports Methods, and iScience. Given their interest, we decided to proceed with the review process. After the review phase, we responded to the reviewers' comments and submitted our revisions. Both Patterns and iScience expressed interest in our work after revision. After considering the mission and scope of both journals, we ultimately chose Patterns for final submission. This experience highlighted the flexibility and openness of the community review process in helping us find the most appropriate platform for our research.DK & SI: While Patterns wasn’t initially on our list of potential journals, the Community Review process revealed its compatibility with our research. Patterns is a relatively new journal, and we weren’t entirely familiar with it. However, after it was suggested through the Community Review process, we realized that its concept and the papers it publishes are closely aligned with our work. The value of our research lies in the data we’ve generated and the process we’ve used to create it, which fits perfectly with Patterns's data descriptor category. Without the recommendation of the Community Review, we may not have made this connection.In recent years, the number of journals has increased, making it more difficult to understand the concepts of all of them and whether our paper would fit. In such an environment, the ability of the Community Review system to recommend appropriate outlets, even those not initially considered, is very useful. It accelerates the process of getting our research to more appropriate readers, increasing its overall impact.DK & SI: Restaining-based annotation is a method in which we perform an initial H&E stain, destain the specimen, and then perform immunostaining with cell-type-specific antibodies. This process precisely aligns the positions of the H&E staining with the target cell types. This approach has two major advantages.First, it can generate a tremendous amount of annotation compared to manual annotation by pathologists. This is particularly beneficial in places like Japan, where pathologists are incredibly busy—a technique that minimizes their involvement is very beneficial. Second, it can identify cells that even pathologists may have difficulty characterizing. While pathologists are experts in pathological diagnosis, they are not specifically trained in cell-type identification. They can estimate the relative proportions of different cell types in a field of view, but identifying individual cells, especially those with less distinct features such as myeloid cells or cells with atypical morphologies due to some reason such as distortion, is a challenging task even for them. Our restaining-based annotation method allows accurate annotation even for these cell types.DK & SI: With our research, we expect to enable the segmentation of different tissues and cells in various cancer types on an unprecedented scale. This will not only advance research on segmentation methods but also stimulate new studies using the results of cancer tissue segmentation. For example, detailed analysis of the spatial relationships between tumor cells and various immune cells in the tumor microenvironment may lead to research on new prognostic factors or prediction of the efficacy of immunotherapy.We’ve already received inquiries and requests for collaboration related to this study from several companies. In addition, since our lab’s goal is to support the pathology diagnostic process and extract knowledge from pathological tissue images, we’re pursuing several research projects that use the segmentation model trained on this dataset as a pre-processing step. Thus, our work has the potential to contribute significantly to the ongoing evolution of cancer histology analysis.DK & SI: Our study required close collaboration between computer scientists and pathologists or pathology researchers. Tasks such as selection of appropriate cases, selection of antibodies, verification of staining conditions, and evaluation of generated annotations could only be performed by pathology researchers, while data analysis was performed by computer scientists. After data acquisition, the pathology researchers would revise case selection and antibody selection based on the computer scientists' analysis results, demonstrating the indispensability of this synergy. A one-way interaction would not have produced the high-quality data we did.Fortunately, our lab is unique in having both computer scientists and pathologists. Having everyone in the same room allows for a smooth exchange of ideas. As a result, we have been able to manage all processes from case selection, antibody selection, staining, scanning, and analysis within the lab, streamlining our research.DK: In addition, I am uniquely positioned for this endeavor. After earning a PhD in engineering with a focus on bioinformatics, I entered medical school. My background in pathology made it easier to work with pathologists. This interdisciplinary approach undoubtedly contributed to the success of our study.DK: As the number of researchers and journals continues to grow, we are facing a bottleneck in the peer review process. The shortage of reviewers is becoming more of an issue, and I too am overwhelmed with review requests. The current system often results in a manuscript being reviewed from scratch by different reviewers each time it’s submitted to a new journal. Given this scenario, we need to look at ways to make the review process more efficient.In addition, research seems to be accelerating, especially in areas such as machine learning, with generative AI being a prime example. The traditional process of publishing papers after a review cycle often cannot keep up with this pace. Therefore, for some disciplines, a system where papers are published in venues such as preprint servers and then peer reviewed may prove effective. However, maintaining the quality of research and ensuring appropriate revisions based on valuable reviewer feedback remains critical. Therefore, I believe that we need a new system that balances these two aspects, addressing the need for speed while preserving the quality of scientific work.DK: If you are not sure which journal is the best fit for your work, or if you have several potential journals, the Community Review process could streamline your publication process. The submission process can be time consuming, and the Community Review system may be a worthwhile consideration to free up valuable research time. The value of a paper is determined not only by its publication but also by how it becomes a cornerstone for other studies after publication. Therefore, when choosing a journal, it’s important to consider whether your work will reach a broad audience in your field. My advice is to choose a journal that ensures that your work will be seen and have an impact among relevant researchers, rather than focusing solely on the prestige of the journal.Cell Press Community Review provides a collaborative approach to peer review and publication within Cell Press, offering authors alternative pathways to share their work. This streamlined process saves time and identifies the best-fit journal for the research, with >80% of papers being offered peer review at one or more of the participating Community Review journals.


Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) with the features of Moroccan chemical research from 2014 to 2021 in the Web of Science Core Collection (WoS). In this context, we generated scientometric networks using Gephi, a tool for large-scale data visualization, to reveal the patterns of the publications in the Moroccan Journal of Chemistry. When performing our analysis, we found a significant alignment between the research topics featured in the Moroccan Journal of Chemistry and the main research areas of the Moroccan chemical scholarly outputs, particularly Multidisciplinary Chemistry, Physical Chemistry, and Analytical Chemistry. We also identified that the Moroccan Journal of Chemistry functions as an incubator for establishing new traditions of research collaboration between Moroccan institutions and target nations such as Asian and African countries. As well, it is clear that the Moroccan Journal of Chemistry is an interesting venue for the most productive chemical researchers in Morocco for sharing preliminary research findings and discussing trendy topics.In this research paper, we analyzed the bibliographic data of the research publications issued by the Moroccan Journal of Chemistry between 2013 and 2021. As an open-access country-based research journal with a narrow area of interest and international online exposure, it will be interesting to see how it affects the local chemical research community through the comparison of the characteristics of the research outputs of the journal as retrieved from the  With the rise of the digital age, more research journals are being founded across the continent, mainly in South Africa [La Tunisie Médicale [Directory of Open-access Journals (DOAJ), a community-curated database of trustworthy open-access research journals created in 2003 and available at https://doaj.org [DOAJ database as of August 20, 2022, South Africa is the most represented country with 125 scholarly journals followed by Egypt , Morocco , Algeria , and Nigeria .For decades, scholarly journals have been featured as the major means for disseminating research findings and evolving communication between major scientific communities . In Afrih Africa , Nigeriaicale 190, TunisiaMoroccan Journal of Chemistry have decided to make publication services free of charge for authors and enhance the indexation of their outputs in highly recognized citation indexes such as Web of Science and Scopus so that the scientific community can consider them as reliable sources for references and interesting targets for publication.1Five years earlier, the situation was a bit better with 490 indexed journals from Egypt, 72 journals from South Africa, 38 journals from Nigeria, and 8 journals from Morocco . The reaMoroccan Journal of Chemistry, one of the journals issued in the African continent that has limited traditions in open-access publishing, between 2013 and 2021 to verify whether this journal has succeeded in its quest of internationalization and impact. This will be a reliable proof of whether the non-predatory free-of-charge open-access publishing model adopted by several African journals to increase their reach and reputation is efficient or not. For the sake of our analysis, we will restrict our internationalization assessment to the study of the worldwide contributions to the Moroccan Journal of Chemistry. As well, we will study the impact of the national journal on local chemical research through the comparison of the output and country contributions of the journal with the reported changes in Moroccan chemical research. We will begin by providing a literature review of the bibliometric studies that have been conducted to analyze open-access journals, particularly in the Global South  software maintained by the Public Knowledge Project and allowing the low-cost web hosting of online open-access journals [Moroccan Journal of Chemistry, have a transparent peer-review management system mostly led by volunteer editorial board members and immediately publish accepted research papers under the CC-BY-SA 4.0 License without any article processing fees [Web of Science and Scopus.In this research paper, we continue this effort for identifying the patterns of African open-access scholarly journals through the analysis of the journals . OJS-basing fees . As of JHere, we emphasize whether the publishing model of the Moroccan Journal of Chemistry and consequently of the OJS-based journals leads to the internationalization of the contributions of countries to national research journals and whether the output of such venues influences the local research community.3Moroccan Journal of Chemistry between 2013 and 2021 from the Web of Science Core Collection as an Excel spreadsheet . These data include the year of publication of the outputs, the full names and countries of the published authors, and the Keywords Plus of the publications. Keywords Plus are controlled keywords assigned by the Web of Science Core Collection database to the indexed research publications through the extraction of noun phrases from the titles of their references. The advantage of these keywords is the assignment of the same term for the same concept across the Web of Science Core Collection database allowing a less granular and more precise topic analysis [Gephi, a data visualization tool that generates networks from pre-processed datasets [Moroccan Journal of Chemistry: the keyword co-occurrence network and the collaboration networks for published authors and countries. We use default settings to generate the networks and we assign weights to nodes and edges according to their respective total link strength.To conduct our analysis, we retrieve all the bibliographic data of the papers published in the analysis . After tdatasets , to consWeb of Science Core CollectionMoroccan Journal of Chemistry has been founded in December 2013.After that, to allow the discussion of our research findings, we retrieve statistics about the bibliographic information related to Moroccan chemical research through a simple query of Web of Science Core Collection data will allow us to characterize how the scholarly journal impacts local chemical research in Morocco. The retrieved data covers the most published authors, the main Web of Science Categories, and the most important country collaborations of Moroccan chemical research. Web of Science Categories are precise mappings of scholarly research publications indexed in the Web of Science Core Collection to the subfields of confirmed research areas. It currently includes 254 subject areas representing all the areas of scholarly research ranging from arts and humanities to management and engineering [Moroccan Journal of Chemistry corresponds to the main research trends of Moroccan chemical research or not.The ineering . The ana4When retrieving the bibliographic data of the research papers issued by the Moroccan Journal of Chemistry, we have successfully identified 641 papers proving that the journal has been successful to acquire a confirmed community of authors. All the papers are either journal articles or reviews. The distribution of the publications per year shown in Ahmed Chetouani , Belkheir Hammouti , Rachid Salghi (25 papers), Ahmed El Harfi (25 papers), Hicham Elmsellem (18 papers), Mohammed Bouachrine (16 papers), Ismail Warad , and Abdelkader Zarrouk (15 papers). This reveals that the Moroccan Journal of Chemistry is mainly used as a forum for local scientists to develop and discuss their large nationwide scholarly project proposals and initiatives by providing preliminary findings and upcoming research directions. This effect has been confirmed in several developing countries like Brazil where national journals contributed to the growth of local research [I. Warad) in chemical research in Morocco. The journal can consequently serve as a tool to mature research careers through interaction with local scientists. This fact can explain the huge gap in productivity and citation between local scientists and researchers working abroad [When assessing the author collaboration network of the journal , we founresearch . The com Editor,  papers, g abroad  by the lI. Warad) led us to verify whether research collaborations at the scale of the journal can cause significant changes in the country collaboration patterns of Moroccan chemical research. When tracing the collaboration network between the published countries in the Moroccan Journal of Chemistry, we unsurprisingly found that Morocco was the most published country in the journal as shown in Palestine and Indonesia) as shown in China, Qatar, South Korea, and Palestine). The increasing occurrence of Saudi Arabia, Turkey, the United States of America, and India in Moroccan chemical research , food processing (oil and antioxidant activity), and alloys and compounds  using a variety of techniques such as chemical reactions on aqueous solutions , computational methods (DFT), physical methods (kinetics and sorption), and materials (activated carbon). This confirms previous findings about the growth of research in Morocco about water resources and management [Multidisciplinary Chemistry, Physical Chemistry, and Multidisciplinary Materials Science are the main subfields of Chemistry in Moroccan research.When analyzing the Keywords Plus of the scholarly publications of the Moroccan Journal of Chemistry, we found that most of them are related to Applied Chemistry, Physical Chemistry, Multidisciplinary Materials Science, and Analytical Chemistry as shown in nagement . Effectinagement . This alnagement . The avanagement . Some ofnagement . This ca5Moroccan Journal of Chemistry between 2013 and 2021 through the assessment of their bibliographic data as revealed by the Web of Science Core Collection using a variety of tools including descriptive statistics and network analysis. Then, we compared the results of our study to the landscape of Moroccan chemical research for providing the impact of the development and internationalization of the Moroccan Journal of Chemistry on the local chemical research community. We found that the Moroccan Journal of Chemistry has successfully evolved thanks to its free-of-charge open-access research policy. On the one hand, the journal has successfully evocated multiple topics ranging from water management to materials processing within the framework of the Moroccan national research priorities. On the other hand, the journal has encouraged local and international research networking by letting the journal a forum for discussing and enhancing preliminary Moroccan research initiatives in Chemistry. The journal serves as an incubator to develop research on novel topics that have been evocated before by local chemical research. As well, this journal is very useful to launch new research collaborations with untraditional target countries such as Asian  and African  countries freeing the host nation  from its long-term dependency on French scholarly institutions, allowing the internationalization of the Moroccan Journal of Chemistry.In this research paper, we analyzed the outputs of the This internationalization induces the development of an international collaboration network for local chemical research, leading to an increase in the topical coverage and diversity of the local chemical research outputs that cover a variety of topics corresponding to local and international contexts. The high level of collaboration between Moroccan and international researchers guarantees greater visibility and impact for researchers. As well, we identified that the journal serves as a model to develop South-South cooperation and collaborative partnerships between countries in the global south for mutual benefit and development. To develop South-South cooperation beyond French-speaking countries, it is important to identify common challenges and opportunities, establish clear communication and dialogue channels, and pursue mutually beneficial initiatives. This can involve promoting scientific exchange programs and facilitating technology transfers. It is also important to build relationships with non-French-speaking countries to foster international collaboration.6Despite the significance of our findings, they do not cover multiple aspects of journal internationalization, particularly citation, readership, and editorial board internationalization. Furthermore, they are restricted to the analysis of a single OJS-based national journal even though Morocco issues 102 free-of-charge open-access journals. As a future direction of this research work, we look forward to verifying the effect of national journals on the research outputs of their host countries, particularly in the Global South nations. We also envision studying the effect of the free-of-charge open-access policy of the nationwide journals on the internationalization of their editorial boards, their readership, and their citations.All authors listed have significantly contributed to the development and the writing of this article.www.edream.ma.Data associated with this study has been deposited at No additional information is available for this paper.The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper


Brain and Neuroscience Advances was launched in 2017, and pledged to be the journal which ‘puts the goals of researchers first, welcomes submissions from all areas of basic, clinical, and translational neuroscience’ , and alerted us to the vulnerability of research and researchers during unexpected crises. Meanwhile science funding and career structures have become more uncertain and unstable, and the publication landscape has become chaotic and complex to navigate. Brain and Neuroscience Advances so that the journal and field continue to thrive.And what’s new in 2023? I have joined Jeff Dalley as co-editor-in-chief, bringing some new perspectives to the journal’s strong and creative leadership. I am a clinician by training and practice, and a developmental cognitive neuroscientist. My own research spans genomics, neurodevelopmental disorders and mental health, and I like reading and writing across neuroscience topics and methods. Publishing articles can be a confidence-testing process – I will be a friendly, approachable and supportive editor, and I look forward to publishing your work in


RSC Advances is introducing the option of transparent peer review for authors. Editors-in-Chief Russell J. Cox and Karen Faulds, and Executive Editor Laura C. Fisher offer more detail on how this will work. RSC Advances we are committed to ensuring trust and rigour in our peer review processes. In recent years, incidents such as manipulated peer review and the publication of papers believed to be from paper mills1 have undermined trust in the peer review process, and we have been working to re-establish this trust. As an open access journal, we also have a commitment to supporting the principles of open science, including greater access to knowledge and data, which helps us promote a more transparent research and publishing culture.2At RSC Advances is the RSC's largest journal and has always tried to be innovative. In 2017, we were the first RSC journal to convert to an APC-based open access model.3 Our article-based publication process gives authors fast and immediate page numbers, our topic-modelling system characterises our papers by subject area so that readers can find what they are looking for in such a broad chemistry journal, and we pioneered the use of Proof Central to simplify the proofreading process.4 Our Reviewer Panel enables us to quickly find reliable reviewers, as well as giving the opportunity for early career and under-represented groups to review,5 and our recently launched Student Paper Awards recognise students who have made a significant contribution to published work.67It seemed obvious that we should look for the next innovation, something that can help support peer review rigour, and the principles of open science, as well as benefitting our authors and readers. Therefore, we are excited to announce that we are now giving our authors the option of transparent peer review – where anonymous reviewers' comments, editor's decision letters, and the authors' own responses to these are published alongside the main article.Chemical Science.8 Not only will this provide readers with an insight into the peer review process for each article, but we hope it will also foster greater trust in the peer review process. Furthermore, we truly believe it will encourage more thorough and constructive reviewer reports, providing authors with more support to improve their articles ahead of publication as well as improving the quality of peer review.This follows successful trials of transparent peer review in several RSC journals in recent years, as well as its recent introduction to RSC Advances does have an article processing charge, there will be no further charge for transparent peer review. More information about transparent peer review, including a FAQs document, can be found on the RSC website,7 and examples of transparent peer review in action can be found in RSC Chemical Biology, Digital Discovery, Environmental Science: Atmospheres, Energy Advances, Environmental Science: Advances, Sustainable Food Technology, EES Catalysis, RSC Applied Polymers, RSC Applied Interfaces, and Chemical Science.Authors are free to opt in or out of transparent peer review upon submission as well as at any decision stage throughout the process, and reviewers will be informed that their anonymous comments will be published alongside the article should the authors choose to opt-in. While RSC Advances“We are very excited to introduce the opportunity to take part in transparent peer review to our authors and reviewers. We believe this will bring great benefits in terms of improving the quality of peer review and making the peer review process as transparent as possible for the authors, reviewers, and readers of the journal.” – Karen Faulds, Editor-in-Chief, RSC Advances“Transparent Peer Review shines a light on the reviewing process, while still allowing reviewers to maintain their anonymity. We hope this will allow our readers to have a better insight into the reviewing and revision processes, and encourage reviewers to give better quality and more helpful reviews that will, in turn, help authors. Overall, our aim is to improve transparency and benefit authors, readers and reviewers.” – Russell Cox, Editor-in-Chief, Russell J. Cox, Editor-in-Chief, Leibniz Universität Hannover, GermanyKaren Faulds, Editor-in-Chief, University of Strathclyde, UKRSC AdvancesLaura C. Fisher, Executive Editor,


Biomolecules selects a few special topics to investigate every year. The Editor invites authors working on that particular topic to publish original papers, review articles and short papers. I am the Editor for “New Discoveries in Retinal Cell Degeneration and Retinal Diseases”, a Special Issue of Biomolecules.Age-related macular degeneration (AMD) has two phenotypes: dry AMD and wet AMD. The dry type is characterized by drusen formation and if left untreated can cause wet AMD, which is characterized by neovascularization from existing choroidal vessels. Age-related macular degeneration (AMD) is a complex disease; several other factors (other than complement factors) are responsible for its pathogenesis. The review articles in this Special Issue highlight the mechanisms of complement proteins that are involved in the pathogenesis of AMD and current novel therapeutic approaches for the treatment of neovascular age-related macular degeneration ,4,5,6,7.Other articles and original papers published in this Special Issue highlight the research on retinal pigmented epithelium, optic neuropathy, retinal ganglion cells and other retinal diseases. Five original articles and eight review articles are included altogether. I will briefly describe the highlights of these published articles. Mitchell and Chacko  describeBiomolecules may offer Special Issues in a book format and may offer the public to have easy access of the Journal/Book to read. Some of the original papers and review articles of this Special Issue have already benefited the people affected by AMD and other retinal diseases.Successful Special Issues are great platforms for the discussion of important and pressing issues, allowing the public to read about diseases and enhance their knowledge in this field. If AMD is not treated, it can cause permanent loss of vision. High-impact journals like


Open access (OA) publishing represents an exciting opportunity to facilitate the dissemination of scientific information to global audiences. However, OA publishing is often associated with significant article processing charges (APCs) for authors, which may thus serve as a barrier to publication.In this observational cohort study, we aimed to characterize the landscape of OA publishing in oncology and, further, identify characteristics of oncology journals that are predictive of APCs.We identified oncology journals using the SCImago Journal & Country Rank database. All journals with an OA publication option and APC data openly available were included. We searched journal websites and tabulated journal characteristics, including APC amount (in US dollars), OA model (hybrid vs full), 2-year impact factor (IF), H-index, number of citable documents, modality/treatment specific (if applicable), and continent of origin. All APCs were converted to US-dollar equivalents for final analyses. Selecting variables with significant associations in the univariable analysis, we generated a multiple regression model to identify journal characteristics independently associated with OA APC amount. An audit of a random 10% sample of the data was independently performed by 2 authors to ensure data accuracy, precision, and reproducibility.P<.001), higher 2-year IF (P<.001), higher H-index (P<.001), and those using the hybrid OA model (P<.001), or originating in Europe or North America (P<.001) tended to have higher APCs. In our multivariable model, the number of citable documents , 2-year IF , hybrid OA publishing model , and North American origin  persisted as significant predictors of processing charges.Of 367 oncology journals screened, 251 met the final inclusion criteria. The median APC was US $2957 (IQR 1958-3450). The majority of journals  adopted the hybrid OA publication model and were based in Europe  or North America . The median (IQR) APC for all journals was US $2957 (1958-3540). Twenty-five (10%) journals had APCs greater than US $4000. There were 10 (4%) journals that offered OA publication with no publication charge. Univariable testing showed that journals with a greater number of citable documents (OA publication costs are greater in oncology journals that publish more citable articles, use the hybrid OA model, have a higher IF, and are based in North America or Europe. These findings may inform targeted action to help the oncology community fully appreciate the benefits of open science. Open access (OA) publication grants any individual permission to view published scientific articles without cost, thereby allowing free public access to content regardless of geography or consumer affiliation . This coOA publishing allows for advancements in science and medicine to be adopted at faster rates and promotes the democratization of knowledge . As suchDespite the clear advantages of OA publishing, there are also some potential disadvantages. Many journals require authors to pay article processing charges (APCs) in order to publish an OA manuscript. These fees can be significant, in the ranges of thousands of US dollars and thus may inadvertently serve as a barrier to OA publication, particularly for authors with limited personal or institutional resources ,10. To aIn this study, we sought to identify and characterize journal-level factors associated with APCs in oncology journals. We hypothesized that journals with higher impact factors (IFs), those based in the United States, and those adopting the hybrid OA model would have higher APCs. Our results could be used to inform policy-level change aimed at promoting equity and equality in access to oncologic research.The SCImago Journal and Country Rank database  was querSubject area: “Medicine”Category: “Oncology”Region or country: “All regions/countries”Types: “Journals”Year: “2019”The resulting journals were screened according to OA publishing status. Journals with an OA publishing option (hybrid or full) and APC data available via their website were included. Journals that were discontinued or written in non-English language were excluded from this analysis. Journals with less than 10 published articles per year were also excluded.For each journal meeting inclusion criteria, the journal’s website was manually searched, and the following data points were tabulated: APC (in US $), OA model (hybrid or full), 2-year IF, H-index, number of citable documents, modality specificity (yes or no), treatment site specificity (yes or no), and continent of origin . A journal was considered modality specific if its stated mission and scope were to publish content related to a particular oncologic treatment modality . Similarly, journals were considered site specific if the stated mission and scope were related to a particular disease site , as opposed to oncology in general. All APCs were converted to US-dollar equivalents for final analyses. An audit of a random 10% sample of the data was independently performed by 2 authors (MKR and UGG) to ensure data accuracy, precision, and reproducibility.Data were summarized using descriptive statistics. Pearson correlation was used to identify associations between continuous variables. Wilcoxon rank sum and Kruskal-Wallis testing were used to identify differences in continuous variables. For factors with significant associations on univariable testing, a multiple regression model was created to identify factors independently associated with APCs. For collinear factors, only 1 was used in the multivariable model. Log transformation was used for right-skewed predictive variables. All analyses were performed with R 4.0.3 . Data collection and analysis were performed from August 19, 2020, to December 11, 2021.Institutional review board approval was not necessary for this study and was waived accordingly. Informed consent was not required as the included information is publicly available.P<.001). There were no significant differences in IF between full OA  and hybrid OA journals .Of 367 oncology journals identified in the SCImago database, 251 met the final inclusion. The most common reasons for exclusion were journals not having an OA publishing option or not having detailed information regarding APCs on the journal website. The majority of journals  adopted the hybrid OA publication model and were based in Europe  or North America . The median APC for all journals was US $2957 (IQR 1958-3540). Twenty-five (10%) journals had APCs greater than US $4000. There were 10 (4%) journals that offered OA publication with no publication charge. The median number of citable documents per year was 308; however, there was significant variation in publication volume across evaluated journals. About 14% (n=35) of journals published fewer than 100 articles per year, while 11% (n=27) published at least 1000 citable articles per year. North American  and European  journals tended to have a greater IF than journals from other regions , higher IF (P<.001), use of the hybrid OA model (P<.001), and North American origin (P<.001) were independently associated with increased APCs according to the multivariable model. Beta coefficients are provided in The associations between APC, journal IF, and region of origin are summarized in In this cross-sectional analysis of OA publication practice among oncology journals, we not only found that a significant portion of journals charged high fees for publication but also identified multiple journal-level factors associated with higher costs. In particular, our data suggest that journals using the hybrid OA model, having a higher IF, publishing a higher volume of articles, and those housed in North America tend to charge more for authors to publish their articles openly. Taken together, these findings suggest that current publication standards in the field of oncology may limit sharing of knowledge, particularly among select journals. These data may ideally be used to inform policy-level changes aimed at improving equitable dissemination of knowledge among the oncologic community.The OA publication model is intended to increase the dissemination of scientific findings by bypassing consumer financial barriers to article access. Indeed, prior research has shown that articles published in an OA forum are more likely to be viewed and downloaded compared to papers limited by a paywall ,14. FurtPlan S is an OA initiative that stipulates research derived from public grant funding must be published in a full and immediate open manner. This enterprise is supported by cOAlition S, a consortium of international research funders and research-performing organizations. The objective of Plan S is to not only increase the number of articles published in OA journals but to ensure public funding directly leads to research that the public can easily access. For full compliance with Plan S, authors must publish in OA journals or platforms, publish in subscription journals and choose to make the articles available OA  or publish OA in subscription journals under a transformative agreement (subscription publishers agree to transition to OA by a given date). In addition, Plan S is working on a journal comparison service, which would increase transparency in OA journals by allowing APCs to be directly compared.While cOAlition S is already supported by the European Commission and the European Research Council, the United States has not yet adopted these standards. The United States continues to rely heavily on traditional publishing methods that require reader subscriptions to access articles. Encouragingly, a recent policy from the US government has required the implementation of OA publication starting in 2026, which represents a promising change in value prioritization .It is worthwhile to note that Plan U , a research preprint initiative, offers a unique compromise in the realm of OA versus traditional publishing methods. Plan U advocates for all funding agencies to mandate research preprints, which would essentially eliminate the time between submission and official publication. Preprints would be instantaneously uploaded on the web, which would not only allow for an expedited peer-review process from a larger number of individuals but would give everyone access to new and potentially impactful research . ResearcOpen publication is still the optimal avenue for the sharing of many, if not all, scientific articles. However, many barriers exist that may limit the ability of researchers and authors to publish their work under current publishing models. Most notable is the presence of publication costs in the form of APCs, which authors often must pay themselves in order to publish their work, provided their employer or affiliated institution has not signed a transformative agreement to cover costs of publication while transitioning to full OA. This can be particularly burdensome for individuals with limited personal or institutional resources, as costs of publication can be quite high. In the present study, we found that the median APC was nearly US $3000, with 10% of oncology journals charging more than US $4000 for the OA publication of a single article. Many institutions and academic groups have developed strategies to address APCs, such as pooled funds dedicated specifically to submission fees. Furthermore, some journals have instituted waiver policies for financially vulnerable populations, including submitting authors from low- and middle-income countries. However, the adoption of these policies has not been universal, and there is variation in the extent of discounts across journals .Significant publication costs not only create the problem of limiting shareability of the science itself, but they also create a structural framework that predisposes to academic inequity. Authors that are fortunate to have available personal funds or strong institutional support may elect to pursue OA publication and therefore reap the benefits described previously, including improved visibility. In contrast, authors unable to afford OA publication fees may need to publish their work behind a paywall or, worse, may have limited options to share their findings in a scientific journal altogether. Consequently, this may create a cyclical disparity in academic opportunities wherein disadvantaged authors are further limited in their ability to participate in and share scientific research.The optimal solution to the financial crisis of OA publishing likely will not involve consumer strategies to obtain funds to meet APC requirements but rather focus on reform of publication practice at large, as evidenced by recent efforts on behalf of governments and professional scientific groups to mandate a transition to OA publication in the coming years. Our study provides initial support that certain journal characteristics may be associated with an increased risk of high publication costs; these findings may encourage further investigation into potential strategies that might encourage a more equitable publishing economy.One of the most important trends identified in this analysis is the association between journal IF and APCs . We founOur analysis also revealed a strong relationship between the type of OA publication model and processing costs . At the While OA publishing models certainly do benefit consumers of science at large, there are important economic considerations regarding the adoption of open science that need to be recognized in order to fully contextualize the findings of this investigation. Compared to traditional subscription-based publishing costs, which are often covered by a library or institutional contracts, APCs for OA publication benefit from increased cost transparency for consumers of scientific articles. Regardless of the publishing model, however, there will inevitably be costs associated with the evaluation, review, and publication of scientific findings, such as hiring of editorial and production staff in addition to the peer-review process. Although these costs are not universal across journals , any expenses will inevitably need to be met in order for science to be vetted and published responsibly. APCs are 1 practical method of meeting these costs and, therefore, do represent a feasible mechanism to allow for free public access to scientific work. However, APCs themselves are likely derived, at least in part, from costs specific to any given journal. For example, editorial salaries would be expected to be higher in journals that have a greater number of submissions or in areas with a greater cost of living such as North America and Europe. It is, therefore, critical that such factors are considered when interpreting the results of this study. Despite any unadjusted confounding factors related to APCs and journal characters, this investigation does provide hypothesis-generating data which may be used to stimulate further research in this area with the goal of improving equitable open science.This investigation is limited by several factors related to the study design. First, as with any observational study, evaluation of causal relationships between variables is difficult. However, we did attempt to consider all publicly available data with intuitive potential impact on APCs when generating our multivariable model. Second, some endpoints, such as the proportion of papers published OA in hybrid journals, were of interest for the scope of this investigation but were not readily available on the web and thus may limit our ability to analyze patterns in author submission preferences. Last, although we did survey all oncology journals listed in the SCImago database, a minority of journals were excluded either due to lack of transparent APC information or non-English language, which may limit the generalizability of our findings.OA publication has been shown to improve article visibility compared to traditional subscription-based publication; however, APCs can pose a significant burden to authors and researchers interested in publishing their work in an OA forum. In this cross-section observational study of publication practices among oncology journals, we find that APCs were greater in journals with a higher IF, more citable documents, those originating in North America, and those utilizing the hybrid OA model. These results warrant further investigation and reevaluation of publication standards which ideally may promote equitable sharing of oncologic research and knowledge.


European Heart Journal initiated by its Editor, Filippo Crea. The format is a relatively open-ended discussion between an individual and the editors of the journal. The conversation touched upon my personal background and career evolution, the origination, development and future of cardiac ultrasound, and thoughts about various editorships that I had held. Significantly, during the discussion, I was asked my opinion about the proper role of medical journals. That stimulated me to rethink the answer and ultimately to write this Editor’s Page.I recently participated in the Dialogues program of the The origin of the modern peer review medical journal is usually credited to Henry Oldenburg, who is described as a theologian and natural philosopher. He was the founding editor of the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society (of London). Prior to this publication, the transmission of information largely consisted of correspondence between individuals. The Philosophical Transactions provided a central home for the correspondence. Of greater significance, Oldenburg was the first to send out communication to other authorities to determine the worthiness for publication. The Philosophical Transactions represented the best new information in the field that had been judged by peers to be accurate and worthy of being read. Thus was the process of peer review established.Opinions differ regarding the goals of a medical journal, and therefore, the potential contents can vary greatly. Journals may serve to provide novel observations or knowledge or to consolidate and review existing knowledge. They can offer opinion or news about a professional society or society in general. They can supply information regarding the logistics or economics of providing care. In the current environment of internet communications, they can provide videos of real-time imaging and even demonstrate the performance of procedures. Not surprisingly, a review of current medical journals reveals a broad spectrum of content.Journals are the traditional venue for communicating new research findings. The process invariably involves peer review whereby the data are scrutinized by experts to ensure accuracy, novelty, and relevance. The journals may vary in focus, such as basic research vs. clinical investigation. To varying degrees, they may offer editorial comments regarding the data presented. They may differ regarding the detail in which methodology is described. Nevertheless, nearly all journals exist to publish the results of new research. As an adjunct, most journals will attempt to educate by providing scholarly reviews of important topics. The best of these reviews will not only present the existing data but also organize and synthesize the information to draw consensus conclusions and/or identify unresolved issues. The epitome of a scholarly review is a guideline or a consensus document authored by a group of authorities or stakeholders designed to guide practice. Such manuscripts are invariably the most read and cited. While most journals contain some review material, a few journals are comprised only of review articles. Original research findings and review articles represent the core content of most journals.A plethora of material complements the research and review content. Case reports are very prevalent as are sections devoted to images or procedural vignettes. While case reports and vignettes occasionally present original material, more often they describe material that is rare but has been previously reported. Articles regarding health care delivery and/or quality are often included in content. If the journal is an organ of a medical society, it will often include information relevant to its activities. Recently journals have become more creative in their use of online communications. Detailed how-to presentations are sometimes provided in a video format for new and even well-established procedures such as lumbar puncture. An overview of the material in any issue may be presented in either video or audio format by the editor or their designee. The Dialogues program of the EHJ is an example of one of the more innovative initiatives of a journal to provide information to its readers, or in this case, viewers. Thus, journals that started as a venue for the presentation of original peer-reviewed papers have morphed into multimedia publications with a wide range of roles.In my opinion the primary, most important and critical role of a medical journal is to present the findings of original peer-reviewed research. I applaud utilizing the opportunity that journals provide to deliver education in a variety of formats. Review papers in medical journals should be the highest quality available since they have passed peer review and presumably have been screened to be free of bias. Similarly, it is crucial to have the involvement of the profession in issues of health care delivery and quality, so this content is also valuable. There is little question that exploiting the advantages inherent in online presentation enables journals to both educate and, to some degree, entertain. So there are many valuable roles that journals can fill. However, the opportunities for medical education are ubiquitous. Review articles are readily available from a variety of venues, as is material in other formats including the internet and meetings. Conversely, only medical journals can provide the results of original research that has undergone peer review by experts. It is true that peer review may be imperfect, and it is susceptible to the subjectivity of reviewers and editors. But like democracy, it is the best system available. When published in a medical journal, one can have the maximal confidence possible of the validity of a paper. Of equal importance, all research reports must be viewed with some caution until the data pass the crucible of peer review by experts and are judged deserving of publication in a journal. So as a medical editor, I spend the vast majority of my time and effort evaluating original research and spend less time on educational content.The author has no funding to report.The author reports no conflict of interest.


Molecules,Dear readers, authors, reviewers, editors, coworkers and staff of it is my immense pleasure to greet you as the journal’s new Editor-in-Chief. In this Editorial, I would like to take the opportunity to introduce myself and share with you some personal thoughts on the journal’s past, present and future.Doctor rerum naturalium) in pharmaceutical biology in 1994 at the University of Düsseldorf, Germany. After a brief postdoctoral experience at the Department of Chemistry at LSU , I continued the academic track at the University of Düsseldorf and obtained my habilitation and venia legendi (license to teach) in 1999. I remained as an Assistant Professor at the same institution from where I then moved on to the University of Münster (Germany) in 2005. Here, I became a University Professor of pharmaceutical biology and phytochemistry, which I have been ever since. In all my scientific career, my work has been dedicated to the structure and biological activity of secondary metabolites of plants. Over more than a decade now, most of this work aimed at finding and characterizing natural products with the potential as leads or drugs against neglected tropical infectious diseases. Among many other activities in research and academia, I became engaged in working with Molecules around 2010 and have been the Section Editor-in-Chief (sEiC) for Natural Products Chemistry since May of 2016. Born as the son of a chemical technician and a pharmaceutical assistant, it was clear from my youth that I would pursue studying a field related to chemistry. Moreover, being fascinated with biology and other natural sciences, I studied Pharmacy from 1984 to 1989 and then obtained my doctorate  published in 2022. However, having already served the journal for more than seven years as the sEiC of its largest section , this concern was relatively easy to soothe. I was already aware of the mechanics with which this “big ship” operated, allowing it to sail smoothly, which was thanks to its well-organized and extremely efficient crew: the editorial staff and system of expert editors. Hence, although the chief editorship role of the whole journal remains to appear as a looming challenge, I look forward to the close collaboration with all the excellent editors of our many different sections. Please be assured that I will rely heavily on your expertise and thank you in advance for your support. I consider it a great honor to be chosen for this position and would herewith like to cordially thank the journal’s administrative management for the confidence of inviting me into this position. I do look forward to a great cooperation with all of the journal’s parts and contributors, especially to the continued smooth and effective collaboration with the editorial staff and journal administration. I am sure that it will be as pleasant and rewarding as it was over the years in my previous position.When I was recently asked to take on the position of Editor-in-Chief (EiC) for the whole journal, my first thought—aside from surprise and delight—was “Will this be manageable?” I suppose most scientists working in any field of chemistry would consider it a challenge to be the Chief Editor of an “all chemistry” journal of such a dizzying size as Molecules in 2009, the notion of open access publishing was still new to me, but I immediately saw the importance of making scientific results available to every single individual (with internet access) worldwide. Not only did it appear absolutely logical to make research funded by tax money directly accessible to any interested person who paid these taxes, but it also became clear to me that the research results, particularly in the field of neglected tropical diseases—wherein I had recently begun to work—would not be disseminated properly if they were published in journals with availability restricted to the few percent with access to the university libraries of wealthy nations, which are able to afford expensive subscription contracts with large publishing companies. Therefore, I decided to publish my next paper in Molecules. Due to the very pleasant experience ), many more papers followed. One of the main motivations to become increasingly involved in Molecules was, and is, my conviction that full open access publishing is the best way of disseminating science. This is why, having been a Reviewer for a while, I also agreed to become part of the journal’s Scientific Editorial Board, and then, in 2016, the sEiC of the Natural Products Chemistry section. I can only say today that this has thus far been a very exciting, pleasant, instructive and also rewarding and satisfying journey.When I first became aware of Molecules in 2009, up to almost 5 in 2021 (4.6 at present). At the same time, Molecules has quite rapidly grown in size, best illustrated by its increasing number of publications, which rose from 362 in 2009 to 8986 in 2022.Over the years, I have witnessed a very steady increase in the size of the journal, paralleled also by an increase in the bibliometrics. It was astounding to observe, from period to period, the growth of the journal impact factor (JIF), beginning from a point below 2 (1.74) when I first published in Molecules in terms of published articles was only possible by steadily increasing the number of scientists contributing as editors and reviewers, and this has evidently worked well for many years. But the number of scientists willing and suitable to serve a journal, of course, is not infinite. Thus, in a similar way as in nature and economy, it may be foreseen that it could become problematic to maintain this kind of journal growth in the long run, because this is likely to affect the scientific quality of the contributions. Along the same lines, there is criticism regarding the speed of publishing, the large number of Special Issues and the financing model of open access journals, whereby authors pay for their publications, which, in the eyes of critics, would make it easier to have substandard work published. These as well as related points of concern must be taken very seriously. Considering that it is the most important task of an Editor to help maintain and improve the scientific quality, I promise that I will continue to conduct my best to counteract any tendencies fostering such concerns.The keyword “growth”, in our era of a fast-growing global population on a limited planetary surface, in view of dwindling resources and man-made climate change, along with the paradigm of perpetual (infinite?) growth as the “elixir of life” of the global economy heavily under debate, should be worth some contemplation. Of course, the fast increase in size of Molecules  must continue “growing” in order to avoid stagnation and dwindling. But this must be healthy growth in order to allow flourishing. The pharmaceutical biologist and phytochemist within myself tends to draw analogies with the plant kingdom: a plant—imagine a big tree—in all its life never stops growing even though it may, from a certain age, cease to grow taller. Healthy growth is characterized by steady change: Old leaves and twigs are lost, but new ones continue to form; older twigs become branches and boughs; and the stem—once a thin stalk—grows into a stronger and wider trunk. This type of growth leads to steady improvement and consolidation. In journal terms, this can be translated to a growth of impact/citations by increasing scientific quality rather than mere growth in the number of articles. The tree, entirely made up of beautiful Molecules, grows stronger and more endurable: It does not merely grow, it thrives.It is clear that a journal such as Molecules thrive in this way is my vision for our journal’s bright future.Seeing My sincere regards and good wishes to all.


Dear colleagues,AE&M and we have some important information to share.A new year begins for the Two new associate editors for the area of Obesity and Metabolic Disorders are joining us: Dr. Simone Van der Sande Lee and Dr. Bruno Halpern, who will face the arduous mission of replacing Dr. Erika Parente and Prof. Rogerio Friedman, leaving their positions due to other commitments assumed. Welcome Simone and Bruno to your new task!As already stated in the Journal’s instructions to the authors, only Brazilian manuscripts with CAAE number  generated at Plataforma Brasil will be considered for review   . I beliFinally, I hope that everyone has accepted the absence of the print edition, a general trend in medical journals. This measure undoubtedly streamlines, reduces costs and should, therefore, be maintained.With my best regards.


Diversity among editorial boards and in the peer review process maximizes the likelihood that the dissemination of reported results is both relevant and respectful to readers and end users. Past studies have examined diversity among editorial board members and reviewers for factors such as gender, geographic location, and race, but limited research has explored the representation of people with disabilities. Here, we sought to understand the landscape of inclusivity of people with lived experience of spinal cord injury specifically in journals publishing papers (2012–2022) on their quality of life.An open and closed 12-question adaptive survey was disseminated to 31 journal editors over a one-month period beginning December 2022.We received 10 fully completed and 5 partially completed survey responses (response rate 48%). Notwithstanding the small sample, over 50% (8/15) of respondents indicated that their journal review practices involve people with lived experience of spinal cord injury, signaling positive even if incomplete inclusivity practices. The most notable reported barriers to achieving this goal related to identifying and recruiting people with lived experience to serve in the review and editorial process.In this study we found positive but incomplete trends toward inclusivity in journal practices involving people with lived experience of spinal cord injury. We recommend, therefore, that explicit and genuine efforts are directed toward recruitment through community-based channels. To improve representation even further, we suggest that editors and reviewers be offered the opportunity to self-identify as living with a disability without discrimination or bias. Journal editorial boards, editors, and reviewers have been described as gatekeepers of knowledge , influenStudies have investigated the composition of editorial boards for journals publishing articles in science, medicine, and public health disciplines in the context of representation of identity factors such as gender –9, race Limited research, however, has specifically examined the representation of people with disabilities and spinal cord injury (SCI) specifically, which is the focus of the present work. Spinal cord injury affects between 250,000 and 500,000 people worldwide each year. The global unemployment rate of people with SCI can be as high as 60%  and betwResearchers are increasingly engaging people with the lived experience of SCI in the design and translation of research that directly impacts them , 17. WitAs part of the ethics arm of a consortium called Mend the Gap that is working to develop a biomaterial scaffold to treat SCI, we sought to assess the inclusion of the valuable perspectives of PWLE of SCI in the editorial and peer review process in the reporting of the results, and identify existing gaps and opportunities for advancing inclusivity in the specific arena of research pertaining to quality of life in publication.An open and closed 12-question adaptive survey was disseminated to 31 journal editors, querying the inclusion of PWLE of SCI in the peer-review and editorial process of their journals. The data reported in this study  are in aN = 70) pertained to the perspectives, priorities, and experiences of people living with SCI. Editors-in-chief and editorial staff of the journals publishing these papers were invited through email on December 7, 2022 to complete the anonymous, voluntary, web-based survey using the Qualtrics platform. AY obtained the email addresses of potential board and staff members from the corresponding journal, university or company website, or LinkedIn. Two reminder emails were sent at two-week intervals on December 14, 2022 and January 3, 2023, and the survey was closed on January 7, 2023. The emails to potential participants included the information of the primary investigator (JI), the purpose of the study, the approximate length of time the survey would take to complete, and indicated that all data would be anonymized and reported in aggregate. Professional role, sex, and disability were the three variables to which respondents could optionally report. Consent was obtained by including the following statement at the beginning of the survey: “By completing this survey, you consent to the integration of your answers into the analysis and aggregated reporting of our findings”. No incentives were offered for survey completion.Thirty-one (31) journals were identified from a prior literature review  in whichThe survey  was deveOverall response rate for the survey was calculated by dividing the number of partially and fully-completed responses by the number of participants contacted. Responses to each individual question were calculated using the denominator of responses for that question alone. For example, if only 11 participants responded to the question “Do individuals with lived experience of SCI participate in the review of manuscripts submitted to your journal?”, 11 was the denominator for determining the proportion of yes and no answers. Based on the small size of the survey questions and responses, descriptive statistics were applied to the data. AN and TB reviewed comments for synthesis and reporting.We received 10 fully completed and 5 partially completed survey responses yielding an overall 48% response rate (15/31); all partially and fully completed surveys were analyzed .Ninety-percent (9/10) of respondents were Editors-in-Chief, one  was an Associate Editor. Forty-percent (4/10) self-identified as male and 50% (5/10) as female; one respondent chose not to answer. Thirty-percent (3/10) self-identified as having a disability.More than half of the respondents 8/15; 53%) reported the involvement of editors with lived experience of SCI. Overall, however, they represent less than 25% of the editorial boards. Seven of 11 (64%) respondents reported inclusion of PWLE of SCI or other disabilities in the peer-review process  cited that they engage reviewers with SCI on occasional or rare bases. Two respondents elaborated that decisions about the assignment of reviewers to a specific review stage is based on research topic or level of expertise.Avenues for recruitment of reviewers with lived experience vary. They most frequently draw from academic channels and colleagues and collaborators . Three respondents also reported that advocacy or community groups, social media channels, and personal referrals are occasionally tapped for reviewer participation.We received 6 open comments to the survey. They suggest that a main challenge to inclusion is the identification and recruitment of editors and reviewers living with a disability Table .In this study, we aimed to identify existing gaps and opportunities for advancing inclusivity by surveying the involvement of PWLE of SCI in review and editorial practices in journals that publish research pertaining to quality of life Table . The CanThe data also indicate that recruitment to journal processes occurs mainly through academic institutions and among colleagues and collaborators. Requirements of reviewers often include specialized knowledge, advanced educational degrees, and referrals from other reviewers , 30. TheEquity, diversity, and inclusion have taken a central focus in research and academia in recent years . Equity-Non-tokenistic, concerted efforts to engage PWLE are necessary to inform best practices in journal editorial processes and to ensure research is disseminated with the appropriate representation. Efforts to address ableism and accessibility challenges  and fostWe acknowledge the limitations of the small participant sample, and that respondents were drawn from journals publishing manuscripts pertaining only to quality of life in SCI and from only the most recent decade. Nonetheless, we deliver a first picture of the inclusion of PWLE of SCI in editorial and journal review processes of one sector of research that they have identified as most critical to them .Journal editors and reviewers influence the landscape of published research. Here we found largely positive attitudes toward inclusivity and the involvement of PWLE of SCI in journal practices. Journals may address barriers to inclusion by creating opportunities for editors and reviewers to self-identify as having a disability, increasing recruitment and community engagement through relevant channels, and refreshing the make-up of their editorial boards as needed.


Journal of Experimental Botany is pleased to announce the appointment of six early career researchers as editorial interns: Francesca Bellinazzo , Konan Ishida , Nishat Shayala Islam , Chao Su , Catherine Walsh , and Arpita Yadav  . The aim of this programme is to help train the next generation of editors.The Associate Editors as a mentor, who will guide them through all aspects of the editorial process for selected manuscripts: initial editorial assessment, selection of reviewers, and evaluation of the reviews to reach a decision. The strict rules of editorial confidentiality will apply at all times, and the final decision on each manuscript will remain the sole responsibility of the Associate Editor. Our interns will also be invited to write Insight commentaries on selected papers and contribute to the journal’s social media output. If you would like to learn more about our editorial interns, please visit the JXB website.Each intern has been paired with one of our JXB has been no exception. Our editorial staff in the Lancaster office and members of our editorial board rose magnificently to the challenges during these difficult times, guided by our goal to handle all submissions in an efficient, constructive, and courteous way, and helping to maintain the high publishing standards the plant science community expects from us. We are pleased to report a further increase in our Clarivate™ Web of Science™ impact factor to 7.378, reflecting the high quality of the manuscripts we receive. We would like to thank all the authors who entrusted their work to us for publication and our valued reviewers who kindly gave their time and the benefit of their expert knowledge to support JXB.As we begin a new year, we look forward with hope to an end to the Covid-19 pandemic, which has had a major impact on all of our lives, both personal and professional, and JXB was founded by the Society for Experimental Biology (SEB) and remains part of the SEB family of journals that support its mission to promote science, supporting the science community through its scientific meetings, travel grants, careers workshops, and public outreach and education programmes. This year, the SEB celebrates the centenary of its founding in 1923 (https://www.sebiology.org/centenary.html), and we congratulate the society, its officers and members, past and present, for this remarkable achievement. We are looking forward to an exciting programme of plant, animal, and cell science at the SEB Centenary Conference in Edinburgh , where there will be an opportunity to meet some of our editors and editorial staff. To mark the occasion, we have commissioned a special series of SEB Centenary Reviews, to be published later this year, representing the diverse aspects of plant science published by JXB. We thank the eminent scientists who kindly agreed to contribute to this collection, and we hope that you will enjoy reading the reviews and that you will continue helping JXB to support the invaluable work of the SEB in its second century.


This article was migrated. The article was marked as recommended.Medical education is increasingly becoming a digital world, with a range of new technologies that are transforming and challenging our current activities as a medical educator. The purpose of this article is to highlight how technology not only supports teaching and learning but also offers new opportunities for demonstrating the educational scholarship of medical educators. The foundation of educational scholarship that has been widely adopted by medical educators has a focus on the engagement and public demonstration of scholarly educational activities in research and teaching . EducatoOver the last few years, there has been increasing awareness of how engagement and demonstration of scholarly educational research and teaching activities have been transformed by a variety of new technologies . There aThe rise in open access publishing has been almost exponential, with numerous opportunities for scholarly outputs to be published without cost to the reader. In contrast, most established academic journals require readers to pay a subscription or be a member of a subscribing organization and this limits wider access by readers, especially in low resource settings, and the potential wider impact of any outputs. Some open access journals have a formal peer review process prior to publication, such as BMC Medical Education, but others have adopted a post publication peer review process, such as MedEd Publish. Non-peer reviewed scholarly outputs, including research and teaching, are frequently disseminated through conference proceedings, but many conferences also have an element of peer review.There is an increasing number and variety of social media, such as Facebook, WhatsApp, Instagram, and Twitter, that are freely accessible from any online or mobile platform. Scholarly outputs from research and teaching can be quickly published and shared across the world but also scholarly activity in collaboration online networks and communities of practice can be developed . For exaGoogle Analytics, and established platforms likeAlmetrics and this data can provide an indicator of the interest and usefulness of the scholarly output. The use of digital analytics can also provide useful insights into both learning and the impact of teaching, which are essential to evidence the scholarship of teaching , and usefulness of the content . This data can be used to assess the impact of digital scholarship. An interesting approach to assessing the scholarship of teaching is the integration of teaching and learning analytics . TeachinThe process of building a portfolio of educational scholarship can be simplified using an electronic portfolio that collates and curates the different types of evidence, including weblinks to online publications and scholarly outputs, including social media, and teaching and learning analytics .Technologies can augment, enhance, extend and expand on the work of medical educators as medical educational scholars. The extension and expansion occurs through the use of open access dissemination and peer review, social media to build online networks and communities of practice, and the integration of teaching and learning analytics. Overall, digital scholarship facilitates and augments current activities in educational scholarship, with an essential focus on the reflective and creative approach to both the creation and presentation of the evidence required for the assessment of both the scholarship of research and the scholarship of teaching.Technologies can augment, enhance, extend and expand on the work of medical educators as medical educational scholars. The extension and expansion occurs through the use of open access dissemination and peer review, social media to build online networks and communities of practice , and the integration of teaching and learning analytics. Overall, digital scholarship facilitates and augments current activities in educational scholarship, with an essential focus on the reflective and creative approach to both the creation and presentation of the evidence required for the assessment of both the scholarship of research and the scholarship of teaching.https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1531-2053Poh Sun Goh, MBBS, FRCR, FAMS, MHPE, FAMEE, is an Associate Professor and Senior Consultant Radiologist at the Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, and National University Hospital, Singapore. He is a graduate of the Maastricht MHPE program, a member of the AMEE TEL committee, and a Fellow of AMEE. ORCID:https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3930-387XJohn Sandars is Professor of Medical Education at Edge Hill University Medical School, Ormskirk, UK, and is Co-Chair of the AMEE Technology Enhanced Learning Committee. ORCID:The author has declared the conflicts of interest below.Both authors are members of the AMEE Technology Enhanced Learning Committee.This is an opinion piece incorporating a review of literature on educational scholarship and topic of digital scholarship.This article has not had any External Funding This review has been migrated. The reviewer awarded 4 stars out of 5 Thank you for the opportunity to review this interesting manuscript. With the increasing availability of online journals, periodicals and blogs the traditional journal is being increasingly seen as slow and bureaucratic. Many traditional journals are developing a significant online and web presence. Some have online blogs and commentaries supplementing the journal. Some journals allow for quick publication of findings often followed by post-publication peer review and discussions. MedEdPublish is a good example. The long peer-review process and often the delay in publishing accepted articles are drawback of traditional journals though many journals today offer online publication soon after acceptance. Social media will play an increasingly important role in medical education. There already exist devices which can record lectures and other activities and upload them on various cloud-based platforms and social media. Post-publication peer review may become increasingly common. Technology makes it easier for educators from resource-constrained settings to collaborate and conduct research. The article would be of interest to all medical educators.Reviewer Expertise:NANo decision status is available This review has been migrated. The reviewer awarded 4 stars out of 5 A really very useful introduction to the concept of digital scholarship. The authors have begun with the background of educational scholarship, and have then reflected upon the impact of the “digital” part – the technology, and have broadly given an overview of three important areas: Open access publication and non-peer reviewed outputs, Social Media, and Analytics. I particularly like the fact that the authors have been able to introduce a necessarily technical subject with as little confusing technical jargon as possible. In addition, they have supported the concepts with useful and current references so that those readers interested in pursuing the topics further are easily able to do so.Finally, the authors have also nicely addressed some of the possible problems facing the digital scholar, as the innovative nature of technology inevitably brings with it new challenges.Two small issues:• “Almetrics” should be “Altmetric”  if referring to the site, or “altmetrics”  if referring to the concept.• The current “Take-Home Messages” is a repeat of the Conclusion – these should rather be short and pithy bullet points. .Reviewer Expertise:NANo decision status is available


Authors rely on a range of devices and techniques to attract and maintain the interest of readers, and to convince them of the merits of the author’s point of view. However, when writing a scientific article, authors must use these ‘persuasive communication devices’ carefully. In particular, they must be explicit about the limitations of their work, avoid obfuscation, and resist the temptation to oversell their results. Here we discuss a list of persuasive communication devices and we encourage authors, as well as reviewers and editors, to think carefully about their use. Writing a research article is difficult for many reasons. First, there are many things that need to be done besides writing, such as generating the figures. Second, a research article is typically several thousand words long, so there is a lot of writing to do and many decisions to make (such as what to include and what to leave out). Third, most articles have multiple authors, so it will be necessary to circulate drafts to co-authors and act on their feedback. In this article we will focus on the second of these tasks – the act of writing the article itself.All writing that is intended for publication should be clear and engaging, and the authors of scientific articles can use a wide range of persuasive communication devices to achieve these goals. An obvious example is to give the article an eye-catching title, and this is perfectly fine if the title reflects the content of the paper. However, it is also possible for these devices to be mis-used in ways that can mislead readers (including reviewers) by, for example, giving a false impression about the significance of the work being reported. Clearly, this is not fine.preprint we posted in March 2022 . However, as regards articles that are cited, it has been estimated that around a quarter of the articles cited in ‘high-impact general science journals‘ do not completely support the statement they are supposed to support , and simACS Catalysis) has gone a step further and now pre-screens submissions for words like ‘outstanding,‘ ‘excellent,‘ and ‘unprecedented‘ , or authors overgeneralizing their conclusions without sufficient evidence . Examples of the latter might include generalizing from college students to all human adults, or from one species to another. The inappropriate use of adjectives such as ‘striking,‘ ‘important,‘ or ‘remarkable,‘ and wording that makes the author’s research questions seem more important than they really are, are also problematic . Reviewers will often ask authors to tone down their language, but one journal , or by claiming that the results were consistent with a hypothesis when, in fact, the hypothesis was generated after the data had been collected . The practice of HARKing : in psychology, for example, an author might describe the same mental process as efficient in one article, unconscious in a second article, and unintentional in a third. Another tactic is to mislead the reader about other work being cited through selective quotation, misquotation, or quotation out of context .Relying on ‘straw-person‘ arguments is another form of smoke screening: an author may interpret a claim or theory in its most exaggerated form, and then try to convince readers who are not familiar with the nuances of the claim or theory that it is foolish and therefore wrong . For instance, the word ‘influence‘ can be used to suggest causality, without explicitly claiming that causality has been demonstrated, thus providing the author with wiggle room if another researcher challenges the finding. Words like ‘influence‘ are particularly deceptive when used to describe results derived from weak theories where causality cannot be easily identified . AnotherSuperficial engagement with open research practices (such as underspecifying a pre-registered study) can also be used to mislead readers and reviewers about the strength of research . For instance, one study of data availability in economics found that only 47.5% of articles in journals with a data-availability policy actually complied with the policy .Our fourth category is a range of devices that rely on authority rather than sound arguments. An author may suggest, for example, that some procedure  is valid because it has been used in a large number of studies, even though the procedure is known to have flaws . Likewise, an author may write that there is growing interest in X or that there have been lots of papers about Y to give the impression that their own paper is more important than it really is .Honorary authorship is the practice of including someone as an author on a paper because they are famous and/or important, even though their contribution to the article in question does not warrant their inclusion in the author list . Honorary authorship is a well-known problem in medicine .Our intention in writing this article was to recognize how difficult it is to effectively and accurately convey one’s research to the scientific community and beyond, while at the same time encouraging self-reflection amongst authors, reviewers and editors. This self-reflection should focus on the potential misuse of persuasive communication devices in scientific writing, so that as a global scholarly community we can uphold the highest possible standards of research rigor with a level-playing field.We want to emphasize that the issues listed here do not necessarily arise from a deliberate intention on the part of the author to mislead the reader. For instance, ignorance of relevant work need not be deliberate, or there may be a limit on the number of references that can be cited. More generally, authors may simply conform to examples set in other papers. However, we find it useful to raise awareness of writing practices that may lead to the misinterpretation of research results, both within and outside our scientific community. Moreover, the scientific writing issues discussed here can be detrimental even when they are not implemented purposefully.The typology we present is tentative, and is not intended to be a dogmatic list of dos and don’ts. We do not mean to suggest either that incoherent narratives or exceedingly boring or technical titles and abstracts should be the rule. However, there is a point at which the writing style of an article, chapter, or book, is at risk of misleading the readers, be it on purpose or not. In its extreme version, an article may ‘camouflage true phenomena in the name of promoting Wow Effects and preferred narratives‘ .Going beyond scientific writing per se, one should keep in mind that we may be tempted to use the same or related persuasive communication devices in all kinds of science communication. In oral talks, scientific poster presentations, interviews, and even in discussions with colleagues, we may find ourselves resorting to persuasive tactics that are not always consistent with good research practices.The descriptions of the persuasive communication devices we have identified are necessarily brief as there are 22 of them overall. We are also certain that this is an incomplete list (see, for example,


It is particularly important for science. We all make mistakes, but we should be careful not to persist in error and, most importantly, do everything we can to correct our errors and do so as quickly as possible. Otherwise, our scientific record will be unreliable and therefore not a secure basis for further work and rational decision making. In the worst cases, real harm is done to the care of patients.The famous phrase “Errare humanum est, sed in errare perseverare diabolicum” , which is attributed to the Roman philosopher and orator Lucius Annaeus Seneca interpretations, revisits, and reconsiderations have been the path of science since the early days of Greek philosophy. Aristotle, who was the first to produce a comprehensive description of the brain , regarded the brain as a mere cooler for the psychic pneuma originating in the heart and distributed through the circulation to govern the body. Galen, the father of experimental neurosciences, placed the pneuma in the ventricles, believing that the rest of the brain was the sole producer of this pneuma from the air. Franz Josef Gall, who contemplated the localization of brain function, created phrenology, which captured the world, but it was subsequently ridiculed and has now been reborn at a completely new level with advances of brain imaging. The list of misconceptions and scientific mistakes is endless and is part of the progression of knowledge: Past errors are the seeds of future discoveries. However, this seemingly inexorable spiral ascent requires academic transparency, critical appraisal, acceptance of errors, and their swift rectification.5 “most published research findings are false,” the reasons varying from objective  or lack of knowledge  to personal . The rise of predatory publishers with little or no quality control facilitates multiplication of squander. The situation is further exacerbated by a substantial increase in scientific fraud ranging from data manipulation to their outright invention; what we can identify is most likely only the tip of the iceberg. Similarly, plagiarism (which fortunately is easier to spot through the use of modern software) plagues academic writings from student essays to papers in reputable journals. The reason is simple—the resources for testing and assessing scientific work are woefully insufficient, thus triggering wild competition that erodes academic morale already shaken by poor training of an exponentially rising number of students.6Drastic changes in reporting scientific data have seen an exponential increase in publications over the last decades representing a major threat to the classical model tested over millennia. Not only have millions of published reports increased the noise level through repeating trivial observations or conducting useless experiments, but the avalanche of papers has made their post-publication critical appraisal, testing, reproduction, and, most importantly, rectification almost impossible. This applies to both fraud and misconduct as well as honest errors that are inevitable in scientific research. As argued by John Ioannidis,2+ in the contraction of the heart,7 is an illustrious example, as it repudiated his own results published a year earlier.8 Whether academic decency will prevail in our brave new world, or we succumb to senseless overproduction of irrelevant or erroneous papers, is the main challenge that will define future academic progress.Academia faces a crisis; lack of reproducibility and lack of trust make further progress questionable. What are the tools and remedies? Surprisingly, these are rather few. As already mentioned, fraud can at least be identified, and the fraudulent papers withdrawn; plagiarism can be dealt in the same way, but how to rectify straightforward errors, which  carry dangerous implications? The only way is post-publication testing of the main findings and, in the case of error identification, making the academic community informed through publication, which is of course exactly what is happening in the case discussed here. However, this pathway is severely handicapped, because the modern environment does not favor publication of negative results. There is little place for open and transparent critical discussion of published data. The ideal solution is of course that an author accepts errors made and publishes a correcting paper. The most famous paper of Sydney Ringer, demonstrating the fundamental role of Ca9 We now need a serious debate about the merits and perils of various measures. As mentioned in an earlier editorial in another journal,4 certain “cures” could be worse than the “disease.” No doubt we, and many others, will return to this theme on many occasions in the future.We must find practical ways to deal with this problem, and discussion about how to do this has started.


Communications Chemistry.Dr Satoshi Honda talks to us about pursuing his scientific dreams, scientific developments he is excited about, directions polymer synthesis and materials development should focus on, as well as his experience of being an Editorial Board Member for  Dr Satoshi Honda is an Assistant Professor of Chemistry at the University of Tokyo (Japan), where his research focuses on the synthesis of polymers with complex architectures, the construction of functional nanostructures, and the development of stimuli-responsive organic and polymeric materials.Professor Robert M. Waymouth at Stanford University as a Visiting Scholar in 2018-2019. He is the recipient of the Young Scientists’ Prize, Commendation for Science and Technology by Japanese Minister of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, 2020.Dr Honda received his PhD from Tokyo Institute of Technology in 2013 for his work on the synthesis and self-assembly of cyclic polymers with Professor Yasuyuki Tezuka. Following his PhD, he spent two years at the Tokyo University of Science as Specially Appointed Assistant Professor. He joined the Department of Basic Science at the University of Tokyo as Assistant Professor in 2015 and was named an Excellent Young Researcher in 2018. During his current position, he engaged in ring-opening-polymerization of unusual cyclic molecules with organic catalysts with Why did you choose to be a scientist?Scientists are those who can pursue dreams based on science. I am interested in using the power of material science to realize the imaginary matters of sci-fi movies. No one but a chemist can do this, so I want to enjoy it to my heart’s content.What scientific development are you currently most excited about?Technologies that connect materials science with the immersive experience in virtual and augmented reality, i.e., cross reality, in a sustainable future are at the top of my list. I am also interested in the future development of organic and polymerization reactions and materials development using artificial intelligence. There is a limit to what one person can learn. However, I’m thrilled to see how the fusion of AI learning from vast amounts of data and the unusual ideas of unique and talented chemists will open-up the future.What direction do you think your research field should go in?I hope to see an increase in the number of pioneering developments that will create new research through deeper involvement between the field of advanced small molecules and polymer synthesis and device development. I think one area that is creating a virtuous circle is 3D printing. In particular, the performance of vat-polymerization (VP) 3D printing (3DP) is progressing in synergy with the development of high-resolution liquid-crystal displays (LCDs). That is, inexpensive 3D printers used for VP 3DP can employ an LCD we’d normally use as a monitor to control the photocuring area. The photoresin cures only in the area where the image is projected on the LCD. As the resolution of LCDs improves, it becomes possible to produce high-quality and intricate 3D models, and new applications can be found for them, such as flow reactors and microfluidic devices. In addition, the development of materials that can be applied to VP-3D is progressing spectacularly.Such progress in the development of devices and materials should occur in my research field as well, and I would like to do my best to play a part in it.Communications Chemistry?What attracted you to becoming an Editorial Board Member for Communications Chemistry are, of course, responsible for making the journal attractive. In addition, editorial activities at Communications Chemistry allow me to think about how to make our research fields more attractive to the readers of the journal while also looking at what is going on in other fields. The opportunity to think about the features and attractiveness of a particular field among a variety of fields will eventually work positively for my own research.When we work as researchers, we have opportunities not only to publish our own research but also to review manuscripts from other researchers. Of course, these are our responsibilities to contribute to science, but there is one more entity that we should not forget, that is, editors of journals. Editors contribute to scientific research in ways different from authors or reviewers with a great deal of responsibility. The editors at Communications Chemistry because this journal covers all aspects of chemistry, and I expected to learn much from communication with in-house editors and other EBMs. For a more personal reason, being offered the EBM position directly by the Chief Editor was more than enough to move me to take action. Therefore, the moment I received the offer, I immediately decided to accept it.Editorial Board Members should contribute to the development of all areas of chemistry from a more bird’s eye view. I decided to become one of the Editorial Board Members (EBMs) of Communications Chemistry?What have you gotten out of the experience of being an Editorial Board Member for Being an EBM has allowed me to see different views that I would not be able to see if I only served as an author or reviewer. What do editors think about the papers they handle? What do they consider key points and trivial? We might not be able to understand these perspectives until experiencing editorial work ourselves. I strongly feel that this will be essentially the same for other journals, and in turn, will be a great benefit to my own research.Communications Chemistry in the scientific community?What do you see as the role of Communications Chemistry, decisions at any step are made based on close communication between in-house editors and EBMs. I feel that this interaction ensures the quality of the papers and reduces the blurring of quality. I believe that the role of Communications Chemistry is to continue this style of communication and continue to provide high-quality papers in an open access manner. I also think Communications Chemistry is building a good community among authors, reviewers, EBMs, and in-house editors through our Collections, the ongoing Reviewer of the Month program, a past Meet the Editors initiative, and various other projects. I am sure that authors, reviewers, EBMs, and in-house editors will continue to build good relationships and will come up with various projects that will ignite the chemistry community. Stay tuned!At This interview was conducted by the editors of Communications Chemistry.