Science journalists are uniquely positioned to increase the societal impact of open science by contextualizing and communicating research findings in ways that highlight their relevance and implications for non-specialist audiences. Through engagement with and coverage of open research outputs, journalists can help align the ideals of openness, transparency, and accountability with the wider public sphere and its democratic potential. Yet, it is unclear to what degree journalists use open research outputs in their reporting, what factors motivate or constrain this use, and how the recent surge in openly available research seen during the COVID-19 pandemic has affected the relationship between open science and science journalism. This literature review thus examines journalists’ use of open research outputs, specifically open access publications and preprints. We focus on literature published from 2018 onwards—particularly literature relating to the COVID-19 pandemic—but also include seminal articles outside the search dates. We find that, despite journalists’ potential to act as critical brokers of open access knowledge, their use of open research outputs is hampered by an overreliance on traditional criteria for evaluating scientific quality; concerns about the trustworthiness of open research outputs; and challenges using and verifying the findings. We also find that, while the COVID-19 pandemic encouraged journalists to explore open research outputs such as preprints, the extent to which these explorations will become established journalistic practices remains unclear. Furthermore, we note that current research is overwhelmingly authored and focused on the Global North, and the United States specifically. Finally, given the dearth of research in this area, we conclude with recommendations for future research that attend to issues of equity and diversity, and more explicitly examine the intersections of open science and science journalism. Open science (OS) is a global movement aiming to “make scientific research from all fields accessible to everyone” . It encaHowever, making research outputs openly available does not automatically make them accessible to a public audience. Academic publications are written for peer researchers and academics rather than the general public and use specialized language and rhetorical features meant for communication with and within certain communities . They arScience journalists are ideally positioned to provide such conceptual access because they can critique, contextualize, and communicate findings from open research outputs in ways that highlight their relevance and implications for non-specialist audiences. That is, science journalists can help align the ideals of OS “with the realities of complex, specialized genres of writing to provide better, more ‘open,’ access to research” , p. 1. YGoogle Scholar for literature published since 2018—particularly literature relating to the COVID-19 pandemic—but also included seminal articles  outside the search dates. Although Google Scholar indexes literature from many languages, the search algorithm is highly biased towards English-language publications . We focused on these two forms of OS because journalists tend to report on study results, rather than the methods, protocols, or datasets used to conduct the research  rendering open outputs accessible to nonacademic audiences, 3)engaging a wider public with debates around openness that are taking place within academia, 4)linking those debates to wider social issues or policies with public relevance, and 5)mobilizing open research findings to hold those in power to account when policies or decisions do not align with the available evidence. Such brokerage functions may enable journalists to build trust in science, as providing clear and understandable descriptions of OS practices involved in research can boost public credibility judgments of the findings  andagenda setter —they also play additional roles such as thecivic educator, using their skills to teach audiences about the nature of scientific research and its limits and risks  efforts than other journals, enabling them to publish press releases and other press materials, circulate newsletters, and reach out to journalists to encourage them to cover newly released studies . PR mateWeb of Science database . While embargoes are controversial ,Fox . Longitudinal research is also needed in order to highlight changes in preprint coverage over time, identify patterns and shifts in attitudes or behavior, and assess the impact of COVID-19 on journalistic practices and norms.In a similar vein, much has been written about the potential of preprints to elicit public confusion and misinformation, yet only a handful of case studies have examined the flow of misinformation from preprints to media and public discourse. How much preprint coverage actually contributed to pandemic misinformation remains unknown—which is crucial to understand in preparation for future public health crises. Evidence in this regard would also help inform the current debate on the benefits and pitfalls of preprints, which at this point remains largely speculative. More broadly, it is unclear how audiences understand and respond to the descriptions of preprints they encounter in the news and how journalists can best communicate the unreviewed nature of preprint knowledge without losing audience trust in science or in journalism.  they work for). Such research is needed given the increasing diversification and expansion of (science) journalism professionals, formats, and practices  and growOpen science seeks to make science accessible to all, including non-experts, decision-makers, and the public at large. However, OS cannot fulfill its democratic potential “if those who are unfamiliar with the research world do not know how to seek […] openly available research, and have difficulty parsing the meaning once they do” , p. 6. C Given that increased public engagement with scientific research is an impetus of the Open Science movement itself, the research question of this paper is highly relevant. The authors do a good job of establishing the ways in which brokerage between science and journalism can improve public understanding of the scientific process. I find the paper well-structured, well-argued and discussing a topic of potentially high import. The paper is quite limited in scope. The authors note that there are few empirical investigations of science journalists' engagement with OS literature, and state that "this review mainly covers research and theoretical contributions that discuss the intersections of OS and SJ tangentially or as a secondary concern, rather than a primary focus". It is good that the authors acknowledge the limitations of reviewing a literature that is only tangentially concerned with the question at hand. You can only work with what is available, of course, and the authors do note that an empirical investigation of journalists' use of code and data is planned in the future. However, this limitation to conceptual discussions obviously affects the scope of the findings claimed by the paper. Given the lack of empirical data, the authors are correct to call this a review of existing literature. There is a discrepancy between how this is framed in the abstract and in the key recommendations. The abstract states: "We find that, despite journalists’ potential to act as critical brokers of open access knowledge, their use of open research outputs is hampered by an overreliance on traditional criteria for evaluatingscientific quality; concerns about the trustworthiness of open research outputs; and challenges using and verifying the findings." However, these are not really findings, given that the literature reviewed does not directly address these questions. A better framing would have been to focus on the gaps identified in the literature, as these are amply demonstrated in the paper. Overall, this is a useful overview of the literature that exists at the crossroads of science journalism, open science and COVID research. It constitutes a taking stock of the current situation and a roadmap for further investigation into the factors that shape decisions by non-scientists who are trying to navigate the somewhat insular world of academic publishing.Is the review written in accessible language?YesAre all factual statements correct and adequately supported by citations?YesAre the conclusions drawn appropriate in the context of the current research literature?YesIs the topic of the review discussed comprehensively in the context of the current literature?YesReviewer Expertise:Scientific publishing, metascience, bibliometricsI confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. This is a timely and relevant article, especially since open science is an essential discussion in the scholarly community. The UNESCO Open Science recommendations highlight the importance of the accessibility of science to the broader public. As mentioned in the article, it is, however, not always possible for the general public to understand highly specialized scientific articles, and science journalism can be really beneficial in bringing complex knowledge in a simpler form to people. In this regard, the accessibility of scholarly articles to journalists is an important consideration and enabler as well. So, how open access is enabling better science journalism needs to be understood. However, as a scholar who studies open science from a different perspective, my knowledge of science journalism and related literature is not adequate to evaluate the quality of the literature review provided here. Also, I assume that this article is a review of literature addressing science journalism and open science, not "a review of a review of...". This article presents a review of literature that mainly addresses the questions of open access rather than the broader concept of open science. Open science is a much broader concept where open access is an element. So unless the literature addresses the use of other elements, such as open data, code, etc., by the science journalists, in a more accurate sense, this article tracks mostly the use of open-access research by journalists. Using open science and open access interchangeably does not help the cause of open science as a broad concept. Since 'Altmetrics' is becoming increasingly popular in assessing the impact of research, especially on society, reporting any study by journalists' impact on the altmetric scores will be an interesting observation.  The method and value of science is deeply rooted in the peer-review process. As indicated by the cold fusion reporting through preprint and the recent controversy of widespread coverage of the LK-99 as the potential superconductor (not mentioned in the present article), indicates the problematic nature of covering preprint by SJs. Also, how the newer trend of peer-reviewed preprints are used by the SJs and how these newer model of publications can be used to remove confusion regarding the quality of preprints could be an exciting addition to this article.Is the review written in accessible language?YesAre all factual statements correct and adequately supported by citations?YesAre the conclusions drawn appropriate in the context of the current research literature?PartlyIs the topic of the review discussed comprehensively in the context of the current literature?YesReviewer Expertise:Open science, research evaluation, open accessI confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. This article examines the intersection of open scholarship and science journalism. The authors suggest that this is an understudied area, despite the critical importance of open access research to journalism and vice versa. They provide a thorough literature review of the research that is available on science journalists’ use of open access research. Notably, the authors dig into the actual usage of preprints by science journalists during the COVID-19 pandemic, which had become a hot button topic for those working in the field. I would be interested to see one of the arguments of this article fleshed out slightly; that is, for the authors to interrogate the value of specialist language more deeply. It is a truism of academic research that it is obscure and opaque to anyone outside a specific discipline (and sometimes sub-discipline). Indeed, this is one of the areas where science journalists and other knowledge brokers come into play: as translators for a broader, more generalized readership. But it is important, too, to not lose sight of the value of shorthand. As Laura Mandell writes in Breaking the Book: Print Humanities in the Digital Age, shorthand allows for an expedited exchange of ideas between specialists without having to include all of the detailed context and history of each theory or concept being explored and built upon. Translation and comprehension are necessary, of course; but there is value to the complexity and detail of research, too. How does this tension affect the production, circulation, and uptake of open access research? I also found the point about science journalists relying on prestige markers such as the Impact Factor an angle that would be well worth digging more deeply into. Prestige and open access publishing are often critiqued within the context of hiring, review, or tenure and promotion. What does it mean that science journalists and hiring and promotion committees are depending on the same arbitrary and easily gamed metrics? Overall, this article provides an important summation of the current state of play regarding science journalism and open scholarship. It highlights that for open access research to reach its full impact, it must be findable, legible, and reusable; science journalism is one of the mechanisms to reach such a goal. The article closes with recommendations for future work, all of which would be well worth pursuing. I will look forward to reading more from the lead author and her co-authors on the subject.Is the review written in accessible language?YesAre all factual statements correct and adequately supported by citations?YesAre the conclusions drawn appropriate in the context of the current research literature?YesIs the topic of the review discussed comprehensively in the context of the current literature?YesReviewer Expertise:Open access, open scholarship, scholarly communicationI confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. Thank you for the opportunity to review this paper. I found it an insightful look at a young field of study: how journalists make use of open research. With that in mind, I have some comments, many of which are not necessarily specific suggestions for consideration as much as points the authors may want to consider in this work and efforts moving forward. I am comfortable with the employed search strategy for a literature review like this, but would recommend a comment that limiting searches to the literature indexed by Google Scholar will exclude a great deal of grey literature as well as writing by journalists -- who are unlikely to publish in the peer-reviewed literature.https://m.healthjournalism.org/journal-access The manuscript does a good job of exploring just how big a barrier paywalls are, including the nuances such as articles about COVID-19 being largely available at various periods. But it is also worth noting that large publishers often make their entire libraries available to specialist reporters through organizations such as AHCJ and NASW. Eg  I found myself wondering whether the subjects and research approaches in preprints and OA journals markedly different from those in paywalled papers. Would that be another factor in what journalists decided to cover?Web of Science database  or, as newer journals, may not yet be established as ‘reputable’ sources in the eyes of scientists or the journalists who report on their work." What about paywalled journals that switch (these are mentioned in passing), or the large number of OA journals that do now have IFs? Perhaps this sentence might be moved to where Schultz (2021) is discussed. Re: "It also does not bode well for OA journals, many of which do not (yet) have an Impact Factor because they are not indexed in Clarivate’s  I would like to see a bit more discussion of the watchdog role journalists can plan in holding OA work itself accountable. It's mentioned in the antidote/mitigate section but there seems to be more to say.et al., 2021Jung )," it strikes me that "no significant difference" is probably still a change from before the pandemic. I might draw a more direct line between this and the fact that medRxiv did not exist until just a few months before the pandemic. Comparisons to previous pandemics and outbreaks are definitely important but may be challenging. Re: "For example, a small study found no significant difference in the amount of media coverage received by medRxiv preprints and peer reviewed publications about COVID-19-related therapies that were posted between February 1 and May 10, 2020 (Is the review written in accessible language?YesAre all factual statements correct and adequately supported by citations?YesAre the conclusions drawn appropriate in the context of the current research literature?YesIs the topic of the review discussed comprehensively in the context of the current literature?YesReviewer Expertise:Science and medical journalism, research integrity, publishingI confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. This is a timely and important review of the relationship between open access and dissemination practices and science journalism during the COVID-19 pandemic. It is particularly valuable in identifying gaps in the literature with respect to preprints, journalism and their risks and benefits. My expertise is not in studies of science journalism so additional expertise may be required to ensure the comprehensive coverage of the review. From the perspective of open science practices the review covers the core aspects of importance. I would find it helpful to have a table or dataset that categorizes or lists the identified outputs as well as the relevant search terms but this is a minor issue. Minor point: Introduction paragraph 4 "...a review of a review of..." is presumably a duplication? If not then maybe rephrasing will help.Is the review written in accessible language?YesAre all factual statements correct and adequately supported by citations?YesAre the conclusions drawn appropriate in the context of the current research literature?YesIs the topic of the review discussed comprehensively in the context of the current literature?YesReviewer Expertise:Open science, research evaluation, scholarly publishingI confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.


Science Editor. The purpose of the republication is to expand dissemination on best practices in diversity, equity, and inclusion in scholarly publishing. The original citation is as follows: Jack Jr L. Recent updates to CSE recommendations for promoting integrity in scientific journal publications: 7 ways to integrate diversity, equity, and inclusion into scholarly publishing. Sci Ed. 2022;45:117-120. https://doi.org/10.36591/SE-D-4504-02This article is a republication of a peer-reviewed article featured in the Council of Science Editors’ journal, The Council of Science Editors’ (CSE) Recommendations for Promoting Integrity in Scientific Journal Publications was first published in 2006, and the full document was updated in 2009 and again in 2012. In 2018, the CSE Editorial Policy Committee (EPC) began making updates on a rolling basis as new sections were added or existing sections updated to reflect new information or best practices. This updated method for amending the document allows for more rapid dissemination of its contents so that recommendations can be quickly put into practice in journal operations. In this column, the reader is advised of a recent update that provides guidance on the importance of advancing best practices in scholarly publishing. Content in this update, while condensed, was taken largely verbatim from the CSE’s Recommendations for Promoting Integrity in Scientific Journal Publications. However, readers are encouraged to visit the full set of Recommendations for Promoting Integrity in Scientific Journal Publications: https://www.councilscienceeditors.org/recommendations-for-promoting-integrity-in-scientific-journal-publications-.1,2 Content assessed for publication in scientific journals and articles eventually published are not immune from bias. In fact, bias against individuals because of their race, gender, religion, disability, education, institutional setting, career status, sexual orientation, spoken language, and other characteristics remains a pressing issue in scientific publishing.3 Emerging diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) best practices are becoming increasingly important to promote equitable actions that advance diversity of disciplines, racial and ethnic diversity, institutional diversity, interdisciplinary fields, gender diversity, geographic diversity, and linguistic and cultural diversity,1 as well as inclusion of perspectives represented by this diversity. This commentary provides a brief overview of new content in CSE’s Recommendations for Promoting Integrity in Scientific Journal Publications regarding DEI best practices in scholarly publishing , the journal’s readership, and the public.Develop DEI-related guidelines on conducting, reporting, and publishing scientific content on diverse racial and ethnic groups: It is important that journals work extremely hard to ensure published content does no harm and does not convey disrespect. One way to avoid this harm is for journals to provide clear guidance to authors on reporting of race and ethnicity in medical and scientific publications.3,5 Guidance to authors should communicate that the reporting of race and ethnicity in published papers must not be provided in isolation. Rather, reporting race and ethnicity should be accompanied by the reporting of other less acknowledged and less reported factors that contribute to shaping health outcomes. These less reported factors include structural and social determinants of health .Publish intentional statement(s) to promote DEI in scientific publishing: One key action a journal can take to demonstrate a public commitment to these practices is to publish a statement. This statement should delineate the areas around which the journal intends to advance DEI principles in its publication practices and operations. The statement is usually generated by the publisher, organization, and/or journal’s leadership. Such a publication memorializes a journal’s commitment to transparency and can be used to provide updates on progress and on challenges encountered.6Ensuring fair representation among editorial boards, peer reviewers, authors, and journal staff: There has been increased attention on who has a role in influencing or helping to determine which authors and articles are selected for publication.4,7–10 Journals have an important role in making improvements by increasing the diversity of membership in their editorial boards and among their associate editors, authors, and peer reviewers. Achieving these goals will require journals to actively work to identify and secure participation of individuals from diverse backgrounds and experiences who have the appropriate content expertise to serve in these capacities.Ensuring inclusive language in journal publications: There are several tools and resources that can assist journals in ensuring inclusive language is used in scientific publishing.11–13 This can assist journals with incorporating inclusive and nonbinary language as part of their publisher’s style guide and author guidance. Journals should become familiar with these resources and identify the most appropriate for use in publishing content in their journal. Using reliable resources on inclusive language is critically important for several reasons (see below).Collecting demographic data: Demographic data provide key metrics that make it possible to understand who is at the table helping to decide what is published, including journal leadership and staff and the individuals authoring submissions. Examples of demographic data that should be collected and reported include gender, age, race and ethnicity, education, geographic location, institution/affiliation, sexual identity, occupation, military status, disability status, and career status .3 Journal leadership and staff must recognize the possibility of data misuse. Therefore, there is a need to establish and maintain safeguards to protect sensitive data being collected.Acknowledging progress, and missteps: A journal’s readership may be the first audience to notice progress toward advancing DEI principles in a journal’s day-to-day operations, whether it be an increase in meaningful participation of diverse participants such as guest editors or on editorial boards, or the use of inclusive language in publications. Along the way to achieving such milestones, there are likely to be mistakes made that will serve as valuable lessons. And finally, journals may release publications that unintentionally contain insensitive content that is viewed as offensive, stereotypical, and harmful to the journal’s readership. To ensure transparency and build trust with their readership, authors, staff, and volunteers, journals should make it the norm to acknowledge not only progress achieved but also any missteps, including a sincere explanation of how and when missteps will be addressed and corrected.4In closing, this new DEI section of CSE’s Recommendations for Promoting Integrity in Scientific Journal Publications calls attention to resources available to assist journals at various stages of implementing DEI-centered activities. The following two DEI resources may be of use to journals:CSE Repository of Scholarly Resources on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion: CSE has generated a compilation of guidance resources, documents, and other materials providing information related to furthering diversity, equity, and inclusion in scholarly publishing in six categories6:DEI Committees of Trade/Professional Organizations in Scholarly PublishingDEI and Peer ReviewDEI Statements/Policies from Journals/Professional Associations/PublishersBias, Discrimination, and RacismData Collection on Diversity, Equity, and InclusionReporting Sex, Gender, and Race in PublicationsInclusive Language Communication.https://www.councilscienceeditors.org/dei-scholarly-resources.These resources are by no means exhaustive. Access to resources can be found at Coalition for Diversity and Inclusion in Scholarly Communication (C4DISC): The C4DISC was founded by trade and professional associations that represent organizations and individuals working in scholarly communications.13 C4DISC was formed to discuss and address issues of diversity and inclusion within our industry. Their website is located at https://c4disc.org/.There are major themes reflected in this initial DEI section that will likely continue to evolve: establishing accountability; developing DEI-related guidelines on reporting, and publishing scientific content on diverse racial and ethnic groups and other minoritized groups; publishing intentional statement(s) to promote DEI in scientific publishing; ensuring fair representation among editorial boards, peer reviewers, authors, and journal staff; ensuring inclusive language in journal publications; collecting demographic data among those who touch the publishing process ; and acknowledging progress and missteps. This new guidance was developed with the goal of providing journals with impactful ways to advance DEI in their day-to-day operations. This new guidance can be modified and expanded upon based on a journal’s unique direction, circumstances, and needs.I thank the members of the CSE Editorial Policy Committee for their assistance with these updates.https://doi.org/10.24318/RLqSoVsZ1. COPE Council. Discussion document: diversity and inclusivity. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.01864722. Carroll HA, Toumpakari Z, Johnson L, Betts JA. The perceived feasibility of methods to reduce publication bias. PLoS One. 2017;12:e0186472. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2021.21043. Flanagin A, Frey T, Christiansen, S, Bauchner, H. Reporting of race and ethnicity in medical and science journals comments invited. JAMA. 2021;325:1049–1052. https://doi.org/10.5888/pcd18.2102694. Jack L Jr. PCD’s commitment to advancing diversity, equity, and inclusion in its scientific leadership, peer-review process, research focus, training, and continuing education. Prev Chronic Dis. 2021;18:210269. . 2021;326:621–627. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2021.133045. Flanagin A, Frey T, Christiansen SL, AMA Manual of Style Committee. Updated guidance on the reporting of race and ethnicity in medical and science journals. JAMAhttps://www.councilscienceeditors.org/dei-scholarly-resources6. Council of Science Editors. DEI scholarly resources. . https://www.statnews.com/2022/03/31/main-authors-in-elite-medical-journals-remain-mostly-white-and-male7. McFarling UL. Even as medicine becomes more diverse, main authors in elite journals remain mostly white and male. STAT. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsopen/zraa0648. Gallivan E, Arshad S, Skinner H, Burke JR, Young AL. Gender representation in editorial boards of international general surgery journals. BJS Open. 2021;5:zraa064. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.20027609. Espin J, Palmas S, Carrasco-Rueda F, Riemer K, Allen PE, Berkebile N, Hecht KA, Kastner-Wilcox K, Núñez-Regueiro MM, Prince C, et al. A persistent lack of international representation on editorial boards in environmental biology. PLoS Biol. 2017;15:e2002760. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.016135710. Topaz CM, Sen S. Gender representation on journal editorial boards in the mathematical sciences. PLoS One. 2016;11:e0161357. 11. American Medical Association. AMA manual style: a guide for authors and editors (11th ed). Oxford University Press, 2020.https://www.apa.org/about/apa/equity-diversity-inclusion/language-guidelines.pdf12. American Psychological Association. Inclusive language guidelines. . https://c4disc.org13. Coalition for Diversity & Inclusion in Scholarly Communications. . Preventing Chronic Disease: Public Health Research, Practice, and Policy, Office of Medicine and Science, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.Leonard Jack, Jr, PhD, MSc (ORCID: 0000-0002-4342-5696), Co-Chair, Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Committee, CSE, and Editor in Chief, The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the official position of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.Science Editor.Opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions or policies of the Council of Science Editors or the Editorial Board of


As we reach our fifth year, we are particularly thankful for the contributions of our peer reviewers. The knowledge, expertise, and guidance offered by the people listed below have ensured that we can continue to share timely research to effect health and well-being across Appalachia. As we mark, with this issue’s publication, the beginning of our fifth year, we want to reflect on the enormous—and too often thankless—contribution of our network of peer reviewers. The people listed below have volunteered their time, energy, and attention to ensure that this Journal remains a credible, up-to-date outlet for knowledge on Appalachian health and well-being. We owe an enormous debt of gratitude to these content experts who have cheerfully shepherded our articles into stronger, more relevant pieces with their constructive reviews. Theirs is the work that upholds one of the most important aspects of academic pursuit: the peer review process.Alongside our reviewers, we thank the members of our Editorial Board and Advisory Board, East Tennessee State University (our new managing institution), the University of Kentucky (our publisher), and the institutions who have partnered with us. Together, we have navigated a year of considerable change and tremendous growth. We mourn those who have left us and appreciate the energy brought by new joiners. Though we offer it here, our heartfelt “thanks” can never be enough to convey the appreciation we hold for this community of people, all of whom have given generously of their time and minds in the service of Appalachia.Abram BrummetttChristiaan G. AbildsoLacey AndrewsThomas ArcuryElizabeth AyangunnaMd. Tofial AzamCasey P. BalioRebecca BattistaRuchi BhandariKristine BowersBilly BrooksKimberly A. CarneyW. Jay ChristianJamison ConleyWayne CoombsMatthew CourserCory E. CroninAlan M. DucatmanCecily FasslerJudith FeinbergBrian W. FlynnArthur L. FrankTim J. HilbertMonique HillSydeena E. IsaacsKingsley A. KaluRaihan KhanBrenna KirkJennifer R. LarsonJonathon LeiderSue LinHerb LinnKristin Lunz TrujilloHadii M. MamuduMalissa McAlisterRandy P. McCombieDenise Moreno RamírezTodd P. NewmanBethesda O’ConnellRobert PackMargo RiggsChristine SchalkoffAshlyn Nicole SchwartzDavid A. ShohamAdams SibleyKostas SkordasRick SlavenMichael SmithLaura SwanJessica ThompsonJennifer TysonRobin C. VanderpoolAmy WahlquistLisa WashburnSallie J. WeaverRachel L. WrightDaniel YoderJennie L. Yoost


Diversity is recognized as a driver of excellence and innovation. Women represent a significant part of the infectious diseases (ID) and hospital epidemiology (HE) workforce. We aimed to assess gender representation among editors of top ID and HE journals and explore potential correlations with the gender of first and last authors in published articles.Using Scimago Journal & Country Rank, we identified 40 ID and 4 HE high-ranking journals. Editorial members were categorized by decision-making influence (levels I-III). We retrieved names of first and corresponding authors from 12 ID-focused journals’ 2019 research articles. Gender assignment for editors, first authors, and last authors utilized digital galleries and manual searches.Among 2,797 editors from 44 journals, 33% were women. Female representation varied across editorial levels: 26% at level I, 36% at level II, and 31% at level III. Gender balance disparities existed among journals. Female first authors accounted for 50%, and female last authors accounted for 36% of the 2,725 published articles. We found weak but significant correlations between the editors’ gender and the gender of the first and last authors.Gender representation among ID and HE journal editors displayed unevenness, but no overt vertical segregation was observed. A generational transition among authors may be underway. Our findings suggest that a generational transition may be occurring among authors. For instance, in the United States of America (USA), there has been a notable increase in the proportion of female physicians. In 2007, women accounted for 28% of active physicians and 45% of residents and fellows. Fast forward to 2021, these numbers increased to 37.1% and 47.3% for active physicians and residents/fellows, respectively. Similarly, the landscape in infectious diseases (ID) has also transformed. In 2007, the USA had one ID physician for every 46,952 individuals, with 33% of the 6,424 active ID physicians being women and a majority falling below the age of 55. Fourteen years later, the number of ID physicians increased to 9,913, with 1 physician for every 32,944 people, and the proportion of women rose to 43%. However, the representation of younger individuals (under 55) in this field declined.Over the past two decades, the representation of women in the field of medicine has undergone dynamic changes in various countries. Gender disparities were also observed in achieving the rank of full professor in academic ID in 2016, as well as in compensation in 2015, and an underrepresentation of female authors on IDSA guidelines’ editorial boards for prominent ID publications from 2004 to 2018.Given the growth of ID specialists, one might expect an increase in female leadership positions. However, studies conducted during different periods do not support this assumption. For instance, from 2008 to 2017, only 20% of the presidents of the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) were women. Yet, these editorial bodies have also been found to exhibit gender imbalances. A recent study across 41 international medical journal categories found that only 21% of editors-in-chief were women, with significant variability among medical specialties. In ID, this percentage was only 10% in 2019. Another recent study revealed that only 22% of editors-in-chief of ID and microbiology journals were women.The influence of editorial bodies in scientific publishing is pivotal, as journal editors act as gatekeepers to science, influencing research trends and significantly impacting the professional advancement of individuals, thus shaping academic and research programs.With women comprising an increasing proportion of the ID and Hospital Epidemiology (HE) workforce, it becomes pertinent to assess the gender balance of editors and authors in leading ID and HE journals. This study’s primary objective is to evaluate the gender representation of editors and editorial boards in leading ID- and HE-focused journals in 2023. The study also assesses the gender distribution of the first and last authors of a convenience sample of original articles published in 2019 and explores if there is a correlation between the gender of editors and authors.This study uses a cross-sectional audit-type design and it was conducted between November 2022 and March 2023. and added a convenience sample of HE journals we had access to. The full names and positions of editorial members were extracted from the websites of each selected journal. If the given name was not noted, it was searched in Google Scholar.We evaluated top ID-focused journals listed in the first quartile of Scimago Journal & Country RankWe categorized the positions of editorial members based on their presumed influence on a manuscript’s fate to enrich the assessment of gender representation. However, due to the lack of uniformity among journals regarding editorial position labels and the function performed by members in these positions, we developed a spreadsheet containing the specific labels of the entire editorial group. Subsequently, we categorized these positions based on their presumed influence on manuscript outcomes. Positions labeled as level I, including editor-in-chief and deputy editor, were considered to have the highest decision-making power. Level II positions, such as associate editor, feature editor, and section editor, had relatively less influence as they were responsible for fewer manuscripts. Level III positions, such as advisory, board members, and editorial board members, reviewed only a few manuscripts per year and thus had less influence. Administrative or honorary positions, such as editor emeritus, managing editor, assistant editor, and consulting editor, were classified as level IV and were excluded from our analysis.The first exploratory variable aimed to assess whether the country of affiliation of the editors was associated with gender distribution. Countries with at least 34 editors were individually categorized, while the remaining countries were grouped under the “rest of the world.”The second exploratory variable assessed if there was an association between the gender of editorial members, stratified by their level of influence, and the acceptance of articles based on the gender of the first or last author. Based on preliminary results, we selected a convenience sample of 12 journals demonstrating distinct distributions of male/female editorial members, with imbalances skewed toward men, roughly balanced, or skewed toward women. We accessed the original articles published in 2019 from Web of Science for these selected journals, utilizing an institutional account. The year 2019 was chosen as a representative year to minimize potential confounding factors associated with the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. We registered the names and affiliations of all first and last authors, with particular attention to the given names of the authors. In cases where citation information only provided last names and initials, a manual search was conducted using available names and affiliations on platforms such as Google Scholar and LinkedIn.The third exploratory variable aimed to evaluate whether the country of affiliation of the first and last authors was associated with the authors’ gender and their preferred journals for publication. Only the countries with the most published articles among the previously mentioned 12 selected journals were considered, while the remaining countries were grouped as “rest of the world.” Our approach prioritized accuracy above other considerations. Gender was classified as female or male (binary) based on the cultural association of a given name with a woman or a man, respectively. To accomplish this, we utilized a digital gallery available at https://gender-api.com/ and assigned gender based on the returned result. We set a threshold of at least 100 samples with an accuracy rate of at least 80% to ensure robustness. When the estimated accuracy for a specific gender denomination did not meet these parameters, individuals with such names were manually searched using their full names and affiliations on academic platforms like Google Scholar and LinkedIn. We maintained the misclassification rate of names through these confidence measures at or below 5%.To infer gender and assign it to individuals, we followed established methodologies outlined in previous research.Our analysis is grounded on 2 assumptions. First, we consider all editorial members as one system and examine the numbers and proportions of males and females within this system, categorized by decision levels, to evaluate gender balance. Second, we assume that the editorial members of each journal should be treated as independent, heterogeneous, and non-comparable populations. This assumption is supported by evident disparities such as variations in editorial membership selection committees, the timing of membership, job descriptions, labels, the specific scope of each journal, and even the publisher. Hence, with this assumption, we recognize the independent distribution of gender within each individual journal, thereby precluding statistical comparisons between them. We considered the strength of association to be weak when it fell between 0.1 and 0.3, medium when between 0.4 and 0.5, and strong when exceeding 0.5. The 2-tailed significance level was set at P ≤ 0.05.All variables examined in this study were of nominal nature, including editor and author gender, journal names, editor’s decision level, and country of affiliation. To assess independence, we utilized the Pearson chi-square test (χ2), and for determining the strength of associations in contingencies greater than 2 × 2, we used phi or Cramér’s V.Forty ID-focused and 4 HE-focused journals were included. Overall, there were 2,797 editor names, but 11 were further excluded due to missing data. In total, 2,786 editor names from 44 journals were analyzed. Table The number of listed individuals per journal varied from 1 to 342. The categorization by decision level showed that 84 editorial members (3%) were at level I, 839 (30%) at level II, and 1863 (67%) at level III. Overall, 912 (33%) editors were assigned as females and 1,874 (67%) as males. The frequency distribution of the assigned gender by decision-making level shows that 22 (26%) females and 62 (74%) males were at level I, 305 (36%) females and 534 (64%) males at level II; and 585 (31%) females and 1,278 (69%) males at level III.Antimicrobial Stewardship & Healthcare Epidemiology with 30 editors, females represented 50%, 60%, and 47% of the decision levels I to III, respectively; in Journal of the International AIDS Society, with 75 editorial members, females represented 67%, 75%, and 54% of decision levels I, II, and III, respectively. Microbiology Spectrum had 342 editors, and females composed 100%, 42%, and 44% of editorial members in decision levels I to III, respectively. Current HIV/AIDS Reports had 38 editors, and females composed 0, 58%, and 40% of editorial members in decision levels I to III, respectively. However, several others were unbalanced. For instance, in a journal .Table P = 0.002), whereas the gender of the last author and the country of affiliation had a weak correlation . Our analysis did not show significant associations between authors’ gender and their chosen journals.In the sample of 12 journals, first authors from 105 different countries published a total of 2,725 articles; 62% of the publications came from 5 countries, while the remaining 100 countries were grouped as “rest of the world” for comparison purposes Table . The genDiversity and equity are essential drivers for excellence and innovation, and these principles are equally vital for the advancement of science in all fields. However, it is evident that the editorial structure of ID and HE journals has not yet achieved diversity in terms of gender representation. Our study reveals that females are underrepresented at all decision levels within the editorial system. Only 26% serve in top leadership roles such as editors-in-chief or similar positions, 36% are in associate editor roles or similar positions, and 31% are part of the editorial boards. Strikingly, some journals exhibit a complete absence of females at the highest decision-making levels (I and II), and only a minority of females are present at level III. British Medical Journal Editorial Group journals, gastroenterology, medical education, healthcare simulation journals, ID, and rheumatology. For instance, Ayada et al. reported that only 22% of editors-in-chief in ID and microbiology journals were women, a figure similar to our findings, although the study utilized a different approach. Similarly, our results are in line with those reported for rheumatology, using the same methodology.This gender disparity aligns with trends observed in various medical specialties, as recently reported in leading medical journals,These figures can be interpreted from different angles. One perspective would be that there might be intentional limitations on access to level I or level II editorial positions based on gender, akin to vertical segregation or the “glass ceiling” phenomenon. However, although our study was not designed to assess vertical segregation explicitly, the findings suggest that such a system does not exist within the editorship of ID and HE journals. This conclusion is supported by the fact that approximately half of the first authors of the reviewed articles were females, and the gender imbalance is not uniform across journals.Another perspective would be that the ID and HE editors’ imbalance reflects what happens in other areas. This could be related to a self-perpetuating cycle, where practices and decisions remain unchanged for decades. The results of the exploratory variables studied here suggest country-related cultural, social, and organizational influences on editors’ gender composition, first and last authors’ gender, and the journal’s preference for where to publish. For instance, half of the 2,786 editors are affiliated with only 2 countries. On one side are the USA and the United Kingdom, where around 38% of the editors are females. On the other side are Japan and China, where 3% and 16% of editors at any decision level are females, a similar figure to what was found in rheumatology. Considering the growth of the ID workforce and the increasing number of older-than-55 ID specialists, it is plausible to consider that we are witnessing a generational transition. However, the cross-sectional nature of our study precludes making definitive conclusions in this regard, though external evidence supports this hypothesis.Despite the dominance of two countries in publishing almost half of the articles we reviewed, the overall distribution of female and male authors is almost even for first authors, and 30% females and 70% men for last authors, consistent with other recent reports. and a microbiology journal in 2017, but this correlation was not observed in a rheumatology study employing a similar methodology in 2019. It is important to note that the magnitude of the correlation found in our study is relatively small, and the exploratory nature of our research precludes drawing definitive inferences.Our study identified a correlation between a higher proportion of female editors and increased publications with female first authors in some journals. Similar patterns were found in ID journals in 2018 and 2019 within the editorial system of ID and hospital epidemiology journals. Additionally, our use of gender as a binary variable can be critiqued, as gender is a spectrum. However, we adopted this strategy due to data acquisition feasibility and its alignment with the approaches of other publications, as well as international institutions such as the World Bank and the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).While our study has several strengths, including the inclusion of a significant number of ID journals, the categorization of editors according to their level of influence, and the rigorous gender assignment methods, it also has several limitations. Primarily, the cross-sectional design restricts the study to only providing point prevalence and exploratory data, which may serve as a foundation for hypothesis generation and informing future data collection and research. Furthermore, our study focuses on reporting proportions of females and males but without establishing a specific threshold of a desirable balance. However, the clear gender imbalance we observed can serve as a basis for further examination of gender equality and equity and the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA) or devising new approaches tailored to countries that significantly influence editors’ composition, with the goal of having a higher impact in a shorter timeframe. For instance, a training and development program, such as an IDSA-supported editorial fellowship for young ID physicians involving ID and HE journals, might be considered as a potential strategy. In the interim, fostering further discussion on representativeness, equality, and equity in ID and HE is essential and warranted.In summary, our study shows that female editorial board members are underrepresented at all decision levels within the editorial system of ID and HE journals. Our findings suggest that the imbalance may be a result of long-standing practices and decisions perpetuating the underrepresentation of females. This study can serve as a baseline for monitoring the gender composition of editors and authors over time. It may also aid in reinforcing existing strategies implemented by IDSA


Since its inception, AE&M aimed to establish itself as a leading source of high-quality scientiﬁc information in the areas of endocrinology and metabolism   . In thaAE&M's incorporation into PMC reﬂects its growth and scientiﬁc relevance in the ﬁeld. PMC is a free full-text repository of biomedical and life sciences journal literature at the U.S. National Institutes of Health's National Library of Medicine (NIH/NLM), directly linked to its preeminent search engine. Created in 2000, it houses more than 7.6 million records and, like SciELO, PMC-indexed journals make their issues and articles available in full format. Its global reach will certainly bring even more visibility and prominence to the research ﬁndings published in AE&M.Another remarkable achievement is the adoption of the continuous publication model, beginning next month. This means that articles will be released online as soon as they are ready for publication, without the need to wait for other articles to compose a complete issue of the journal. This change aims to increase the efficiency of the publication process and to ensure that readers have faster access to important research ﬁndings in the areas of endocrinology and metabolism. We also believe that this change will beneﬁt our authors, providing greater visibility and recognition for their work.With these changes, AE&M aligns itself with recent trends in scientiﬁc publishing to increase the agility in making research available for the community. We will keep the high standards of quality that are expected of AE&M, and we hope that these implementations will further enhance the experience for our readers and authors. These achievements result from the effort and commitment of the entire editorial team, to which we are immensely grateful. Our community is responsible for allowing AE&M to progress as a valuable and reputable source of information in our ﬁeld.


Neurobiology of Language. As co-editors-in-chief, we thought this first editorial should explain our reasons for launching a new open access journal and describe our ambition for its future.Welcome to the first issue of the first volume of the The non-invasive measurement of brain signals at high resolution has fundamentally changed research into the biological basis of behavior. This is particularly true for the study of language, in which traditional neuroscience approaches involving animal models are not viable. Spatially and temporally precise methods of interrogating the brain permit serious investigation of the neurobiology of language and the linking together of conceptual premises from psychology, linguistics, and neuroscience.Although investigations of the neurobiology of language focus primarily on brain mechanisms, emphasizing questions in systems and cellular neuroscience, genetics, anatomy, physiology, and evolution, such work also requires substantial knowledge of psychology and linguistics. Given the unique nature of human language, the neurobiology of language is primarily a field involving human subjects and has benefited from the novel and highly robust methods of brain measurement. Nevertheless, the field also adopts the central tenets of modern biology, including the evolutionary imperative that the human brain evolved from a common ancestor, and thus the study of other species plays an important role in the investigations of the neurobiology of language. The journal aims to be the most important venue for scholars interested in this area, with a broad scope of disciplinary topics, representing not only neurobiological data but also data from all related disciplines that would have direct relevance to scientists studying the biology of language.Our field thus involves highly interdisciplinary inquiry to integrate insights from the full range of basic scientific fields that are concerned with human language, including (but not limited to) neuroscience, linguistics, psychology, genetics, motor control, and computational modeling, and clinical fields such as neurology and speech pathology. The availability of advanced technologies and high-performance computing has not only opened up exciting new avenues of scientific study and re-energized existing research fields, but also expanded the set of required skills and knowledge for language researchers engaged in this type of research. It is thus of utmost importance to foster dialogue and interaction among the relevant disciplines to continue to shape this substantially re-created area of research and promote scientific investigation of the highest quality.The first conference on the neurobiology of language was held in Chicago in 2009 as a satellite symposium of the annual meeting of the Society for Neuroscience. This first meeting clearly underlined the need for such a new forum by attracting 350 participants from myriad scientific backgrounds and more than 20 different countries. The success of the first meeting was not anomalous: Participation has steadily increased, with more than 600 researchers present at each of the last three meetings . The early success led to the founding in 2011 of the Society for the Neurobiology of Language (SNL) to empower the community to actively shape the emerging discipline that aims above all to understand how the brain does language.Brain and Language: Steven Small was editor in chief there for almost 15 years; Kate Watkins was an action editor for several years and later also one of the Language section editors for Neuropsychologia. Both are active researchers in the field with experience of publishing and reviewing in many other outlets. Part of our motivation for wanting a new outlet was driven by dissatisfaction with large commercial publishers, whose business model consists of charging subscription fees to readers of articles about research that is largely funded by governments and charitable organizations and peer-reviewed by unpaid volunteer scientists. In recent years, these costs have become prohibitive for many individuals and institutions, despite increasing public interest in scientific results. The lack of access by taxpayers to research that they have funded has been particularly striking. Furthermore, we felt that editors, authors, and peer reviewers, who contributed considerable time and effort to the editorial process were not being supported well in terms of the infrastructure for publishing.We first discussed the idea of a new journal early in 2017. Both of us had several years’ experience editing manuscripts for the journal Brain and Language and Language, Cognition and Neuroscience—but both are subscription-based commercial publications, and neither is fully open access. Prior to the 2017 meeting in Baltimore, all SNL members were asked to complete an online survey about launching a new journal. The results were very positive, including strong support for open access, not-for-profit publication, unbiassed and modern publishing policies, and affiliation with the society. We were enthused by the clear support and appetite for the proposal from society members. We also received encouragement from the society itself that they were keen to pursue this idea with us and have a society-owned journal.Both editors-in-chief are supporters and active members of SNL. At the time of writing, the society has completed eleven annual conferences, with an annual attendance well in excess of 500 individuals, with over 1,500 individuals attending at least one meeting. The success of the society is an indicator of the health of the field, and it was precisely this community that we felt would be well served by a new journal such as this. The annual meeting of the society was already supported by two journals—Brain and Language and Neuropsychologia, as well as reviewing experience at many dozens of the top journals in neuroscience, psychology, and linguistics, non-specialized science journals, and applied journals in neurology, psychiatry, and speech and language, has given us insight into community needs, best practices, and common failings. Further, a younger generation of scholars, led by Dr. Jeremy Skipper of University College London and Dr. Uri Hasson of the University of Trento, provided us with creative insights into the future of publication and some of the advanced features that such modern publication might entail.There are many reasons that we believed that the time was right to develop a new journal, and this is certainly not because of the paucity of journals—even reputable ones, which are far less numerous nowadays than the “predatory ones”—or the personal ambitions of the founders. Our editorial experience with the journals Neurobiology of Language is to enable all published manuscripts to be immediately available to anyone in the world who wants to read them, independent of subscription. The goal of ensuring such free and unfettered availability of all scientific work has led to an international effort to shift research-based publishing toward open access, which we were keen to support. Particularly in the United Kingdom and Europe, but also elsewhere in the world, many public and private funding agencies are requiring researchers to make their work freely available via this mechanism. Some of these agencies provide funding to cover the open access fees for publication of the research they fund, but in many cases this is (or soon will be) restricted to publications in fully open access journals, such as this one, and does not cover publication in hybrid journals.One of our primary goals with https://www.coalition-s.org/). We have founded Neurobiology of Language within the open access framework and aim to be compliant with Plan S in this respect.One significant proponent of open access is the cOAlition S, an informal grouping of research funding organizations that have endorsed “Plan S,” an initiative for open access publishing that was launched in September 2018. Plan S requires that, from 2021, “all scholarly publications on the results from research funded by public or private grants provided by national, regional and international research councils and funding bodies, must be published in Open Access Journals, on Open Access Platforms, or made immediately available through Open Access Repositories without embargo”  or those specific for human neuroscience data  - with the developers of BrainLife (https://brainlife.io/) to facilitate open data and replication via stored data, code, and an infrastructure that enables data analysis.We are also initiating a collaboration - with the help of MIT Press and the other recently started open science journals at MIT Press  have been founded on an open access model solely for profiteering. For these reasons, we chose the MIT Press as the publisher of Established in 1962, the MIT Press is one of the largest and most distinguished university presses in the world and a leading publisher of books and journals at the intersection of science, technology, art, social science, and design. MIT Press books and journals are known for their intellectual daring, scholarly standards, interdisciplinary focus, and distinctive design. The MIT Press is known for publishing significant works by leading educators and researchers around the globe and achieving the broadest possible access, impact, and audience. MIT Press has been publishing leading edge journals for over 50 years, and launching new journals that have nurtured burgeoning areas of scholarship. In both form and content, the Press aims to push at the edges of scholarship, and has embraced the open access model for many of their journals. MIT Press was one of the first journal publishers in the world that moved subscription-based publications to completely open access publications.Although some funding agencies and academic institutions provide financial support to make publications open access, there is an increasing sense among academics of paying twice through the open access charge as well as the journal subscriptions being paid by their institutions to publishers for so-called hybrid journals. Discussions about open access fees and arrangements between publishing houses, governments, and universities are still ongoing and it is clear that publishing models are going to change.The MIT Press has supported us in our aim to make open access publishing affordable and has worked with us to create a business plan based on article processing charges (APCs) well below the average. In addition, we received support from the National Science Foundation and the MIT Libraries to launch the journal. The editors-in-chief, the senior editors, and the reviewers are not paid for their service. We realized, however, that the journal needed the support of managing editor and some of the open access costs support that position.With the society’s agreement, and with the strong support of its publication committee, headed by Matt Davis , all profits for the next five years will be held by the journal to keep open access fees as low as possible. The costs to publish open access offer considerable value for money in particular for members of the society. Manuscripts where the first and last authors are current members have a discounted fee. In this way, we hope also to support the society by incentivizing membership by providing an additional benefit to members outside of attending the annual meeting and receiving the newsletter.Neurobiology of Language needed an identifiable logo. With the help of MIT Press and the design firm Hecht/Horton Partners, we created an abstract logo that simultaneously suggested the concepts of left and right hemispheres, interhemispheric and longitudinal connections (using the diffusion tensor imaging color scheme), electroencephalographic and speech waveforms, and the double helix of DNA. This logo will increasingly be identified with the journal through its presence on social media, submission and publication platforms, and websites of MIT Press and SNL.Starting a new journal involves more than good intentions, a great publisher, and dedicated editors and reviewers. More than anything it requires manuscripts, and this means that the community of scholars needs to know about us and to submit manuscripts for consideration. We are grateful to SNL for helping increase awareness, and to our editors for spreading the word. We also have an active Twitter account (@jneurolang) that currently has more than 1200 followers. In the current era, marketing critically involves social media and other online platforms, and for this, Authors are asked to submit articles without revealing their identities so that reviews can be conducted in a blinded fashion. Although we realize that absolute blinding is impossible, and in fact, some of the reviewed articles will have been already published on preprint sites such as bioRxiv or PsyArXiv, it is nevertheless possible to make the reviewing process less overtly personalized, since many reviewers will not know the identities of the authors, even if some would. By aspiring to blind reviewing, we aim to reduce the many types of implicit biases that often adversely affect the peer review process.Reviewers also remain anonymous throughout the reviewing process unless they choose to reveal their identities by signing their review. At this point, we have chosen not to implement open reviewing, in which the identities of reviewers are revealed to the authors. There are arguments for and against this model, and we may review this and other reviewing practices as the journal matures.clinicaltrials.gov). Further, many journals required that even small trials be registered for their results to undergo peer review.The scientific enterprise as currently configured provides strong incentives to find positive results. It is often difficult to publish negative findings, even if such publication would save other investigators with similar well-motivated hypotheses significant time and effort. This problem was of such importance in the clinical world that the U.S. government mandated the registration of all large clinical trials and their universal access (https://cos.io/rr/), registered reports “reduce the chances of low statistical power, selective reporting of results, and publication bias, while allowing complete flexibility to report serendipitous findings.” The Neurobiology of Language is keen to support registered reports.An important mechanism for changing the incentive is to permit submission of papers consisting of only an introduction and extensive detailed methods, including planned data analyses. Such registered reports undergo rigorous review by a team of domain experts and statistics. Once a paper is accepted, the experiment can be executed, with a promise of publication of the results, however they turn out. This approach improves considerably the rigor and reproducibility of findings: Without the incentive for positive results, there is no incentive to try to extract weak “positive” findings from null results through the creative application of statistical methods. To quote the Center for Open Science  editor assembles a reviewing team, composed of both senior scholars and early career researchers, and each team member performs an independent review . What changes is in the subsequent step, when all members of the team participate in an online (private) discussion of their reviews, aiming to come to consensus on what the authors need to do to make their manuscript suitable for publication. One member of the team is then assigned the job of writing the consensus document that will be returned to the authors. Ideally, this document is not simply a rehashing of all the reviews but a succinct synthesis of them.During this first year of operation, the In addition to open access, another driver of our goals, motivated by our colleagues, Drs. Jeremy Skipper and Uri Hasson, has been that the new journal would be modern and embracing of new innovations in publishing in terms of making data available flexibly and interactively.after the experiment has been run); (7) exploratory reports; (8) alternative metrics ; and (9) access credits or monetary rewards for reviews and comments.A number of other modern publishing features are under consideration and will be trialed on an incremental basis over the coming years, based on community feedback and publisher operational imperatives. Our survey of the community did not find consensus on many of the possible features under consideration. These include (1) the identification of reviewers (attributed peer review) in published papers; (2) posting of reviews and responses online with manuscript publication; (3) post-publication commentary linked to manuscript publication; (4) pre-publication preprints for obtaining comments before/during peer review; (5) poster archives from conferences ; (6) results-free reviewing (same as pre-registered reports but reviewed https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Copyright of the published article is assigned to the Society for the Neurobiology of Language and Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Authors are allowed to self-archive the article on their website or in institutional repositories crediting the MIT Press and journal accordingly.Authors submit their manuscripts for review in any format excluding any identifying information see  section.Neurobiology of Language from researchers at all levels of experience and accomplishment. The initial organization of the editorial board reflects primarily those individuals of the most experience or accomplishment or both, who serve as handling editors, coordinating the reviewing process in their specialized areas of knowledge.We have had an overwhelming outpouring of support for editorial participation in the All individuals who expressed an interest in the journal are increasingly participating in reviewing teams organized by the senior editors, and are valued members of these teams. Interested scientists who have not yet been invited to participate should remind the editors-in-chief and senior editors of their interest. We expect that the most active and responsive editorial consultants will in time, and commensurate with their own accomplishments, become senior editors in the coming years.We wanted an editorial board that was balanced for gender, had representation from all corners of the globe, and had a breadth of expertise. We achieved the first goal and have equal numbers of men and women as senior editors. These people will serve for different terms in the first instance so it will be important that we maintain our current balance.In terms of our global reach, many continents are represented, but not all, and not sufficiently. The vast majority of our editorial board comes from Europe and North America, and we have some representation from Asia, Oceania, South America, and the Middle East. We have no representaiton from Africa. In the coming years, we will work to increase representation from global regions outside of Europe and North America.We wrote this editorial almost a year after we started accepting manuscripts. The first issue is a milestone for us and we would not have got here without the considerable efforts of our Managing Editor Dr. Salomi Asaridou. Salomi supports the co-editors-in-chief, senior editors, reviewers, and authors admirably and patiently as we all learn to navigate and test out new systems relating to the whole editorial process. We are extremely grateful to her and to all at MIT Press who have assisted us in these first 12 months.This first issue of the first volume includes both the first manuscript submitted  and the The six publications in this first issue demonstrate the breadth of our field in terms of the methodology, including three papers using EEG, two using functional MRI, one each for fNIRS and regional gene expression profiling. They also demonstrate the depth and breadth of scientific inquiry: prediction and diagnosis of atypical language processing in autism spectrum disorders , perceptSeveral of the published manuscripts in this first issue underwent consensus reviewing. Feedback from authors was positive. For editors, the experience was more mixed. As expected, it was easier to generate a consensus document when there was a consensus view among reviewers and when reviews were written with this in mind. It can take a considerable amount of an editor’s or reviewer’s time but does make things clear for the authors. Other journals implementing consensus reviewing are compensating editors for their time. To keep costs low at the journal, we are not able to financially compensate editors or reviewers. Going forward, we need to weigh up the costs and benefits of consensus reviewing, along with other innovative features that we trial.Anonymous author feedback: “I really liked the consensus review approach. It removes all the contradiction of one reviewer asking for more results while the other thinks your result section is way too long etc… It also makes reviewers a lot more anonymous than usual! And it probably removes some arguments that do not make sense. It was all in all a nice review experience. It improved the paper a lot and it was all fair comments.”Neurobiology of Language is a not-for-profit open access journal devoted to the neurobiology of language that incorporates modern publishing features, embodies the highest ethical standards, and facilitates data sharing, reproducibility, and replicability. With the support of SNL and our community of scholars, our aim is to keep pace with and adapt to the needs of our field and our broad readership of academics, professionals, clinicians, patients, and members of the public, all of whom contribute to our science in some way. With this editorial, we invite you to keep in touch, and tell us how we can improve this publishing venue further. We also invite you to continue your support of the journal by submitting your best work, editing and reviewing manuscripts in a timely manner, reading, sharing, and citing our publications, and generally promoting the Neurobiology of Language as an exciting new outlet through which we can disseminate our science. You can also follow us on Twitter @jneurolang.Thank you for your support.


Because I talked about it in my last editorial, I will try not to talk too much about the microscopic elephant in the room. It floored me for a few weeks  but I have now recovered, mostly. I extend my sympathies to those whose life or loves have been damaged by this ruinous virus. And now I will try to talk about other things.EHS will start charging authors for publication. This is how open access publishing works. The good news is that many of you may find that your institution is part of a Read and Publish agreement with Cambridge University Press – take a look: https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/open-access-policies/read-and-publish-agreements. If you are lucky enough to be at the University of Cambridge, University of California, any Max Planck Institute, most universities in Austria, The Netherlands, Switzerland and many more individual institutions, then you may find out that your institution has already paid for you to publish Gold Open Access in CUP journals, including EHS; and no doubt your universities are hoping you will make good use of their investment. CUP has a large number of such agreements under discussion and expect many more to be announced in 2021. If your institution is not on one of those lists (which mine is not yet), then do try to encourage your librarians to consider signing up to one of these transformative agreements. I am hopeful that this may be a route by which open access publishing can flourish. If you are from a very poor country your fee will be waived; we grant 100% waivers to papers whose corresponding authors are based in Research4Life ‘Group A’ countries and 50% waivers to those who are based in ‘Group B’ countries. If you are funded by a grant, your funders should pay.At the time of writing 1 January looms, which is a date of some consequence for the journal . This is the date that If your institution is in a slightly poor country, or is a slightly poor university in a not poor country, and you do not have a grant, then open access publishing is more difficult. If you are a member of EHBEA the Article Publishing Charge is reduced . Otherwise I can grant a small number of fee waivers through our discretionary waiver scheme in cases where there are really no other options. I will try to continue to publish everything that is worth publishing on academic grounds.The Descent of Man in 2021.The journal has done well. We had over 100 submissions in 2020 (despite the elephant). Thank you to all our authors, reviewers and editors for your work. I am very happy at the diversity of the subject matter. Our authors have included evolutionary-minded anthropologists, archaeologists, biologists, psychologists, linguists, economists and philosophers (and I think at least one lawyer); this makes us a fairly unique home for publishing evolutionary human science. Cultural evolution, in its broadest sense, looms large. We have not been recording the gender or ethnicity of authors, but eyeballing the author names, the gender balance looks good in both senior and junior authors. Our papers are coming from around the world, with some obvious regional gaps. Authors from Africa remain a tiny minority. Awareness that those of us from wealthy countries predominate in the authorship of papers about poorer or less educated countries where we have done research has moved up the agenda. Anthropology is one of several disciplines built on pretty dodgy foundations. I am pleased to note that a wider range of researchers are now being recognised as authors on papers about the research they have contributed to when working, often on fieldwork, with foreign researchers from wealthier countries. Expanding our role as trainers in research beyond our home countries will hopefully diversify our disciplines and help generate more lead authors from under-represented parts of the world. Academic research should not just be for wealthy countries. Of course, diversity within universities in wealthy countries still has a long way to go too – so slow, but I feel academia is at least crawling along in the right direction (even if government policies are not). Several special issues have happened or are in progress, and we may be able to use this route in future to further encourage diversity in our authorship. Do please contact me if you are interested in guest editing a special issue on anything within our remit. Special collections so far have covered TransEurasian Languages and Genes, Children and Innovation, and forthcoming collections will include one on research in South America and a volume to mark the 150th anniversary of the publication of I hope you have had a very happy Christmas holiday and celebrated the New Year in your small gatherings. Let's hope that vaccines will make 2021 look rather different.


Ministry of Truth that imposed itself on everyone justify the censorship of anything that was not compatible with the doctrine of this Ministry [George Orwell described, in his highly topical work “1984”, a To justify censorship, some official statements, such as the FDA's tweet that “if you are not a horse or cow, do not take ivermectin, which is an animal medicine” are false information. This is obviously not ignorance on the part of the FDA, since it is well known that ivermectin is one of the most widely used human antiparasitic drugs in the world, but rather pure propaganda that legitimizes censorship over the use of ivermectin.Censorship applies not only in social networks and in the usual media, but also apply in scientific journals. The first article on HCQ efficacy came from China, and we published preliminary results showing a faster decrease of the viral load in patients treated with HCQ combined with azithromycin . Since tWhile HCQ, a very old worldwide prescribed molecule, was reported to be very safe, its toxicity of was requestioned. However once again this was a pure propaganda. The Lancet publication (now retracted) could only be a fake, as the risk factors presented in the patients were the same on all continents and they enrolled in Australia more patients than the total cases reported in this country. The RECOVERY study reported a 0.4% excess of cardiac death, but this study used a massive and toxic dosage of 2400 mg of HCQ the first 24 hours . NeverthOur Ministry of health claimed that general vaccination would prevent the contamination of subjects at risk. Since then, it has been shown that no control of the disease, worldwide, was associated with vaccination. This is very easily seen by looking at the Johns Hopkins web site. The epidemic in South Korea, UK, Israel, and Iceland followed the vaccination campaigns. Pfizer senior executive Janine Small revealed the vaccine was not tested for transmission before it entered the market due to the speed other drug companies were developing their products . We issuCyber-harassment is another tactic to discredit highly cited researcher that bring scientific controversy during COVID-19. We were the target of a cyber harassment campaign on “Pubpeer”, by anonymous individuals presenting themselves as specialists in scientific fraud, and who have undertaken to examine all the studies of the members of IHU. Pubpeer has commented on more than 350 articles in which at least one of the members of the IHU is referred as an author. Most of these comments are absurd, but some accuse IHU members of neo-colonial science, which is legally reprehensible. It goes without saying that anonymous comments are problematic insofar as there is no information on the scientific background of the commentators. As such, this goes far beyond the scope of peer review and becomes cyber harassment in the sole purpose to undermine the reputation of the IHU.Anyway, partially based on these comments, an eight-month investigation was conducted at the IHU by the general inspection of public health and research ministry (IGAS-IGESR) and the French drug agency (ANSM). Those investigations led to the examination of 30,000 pages of documents and 700 hours of interviews. During those investigations, several hundreds of articles were reviewed. The outcome of the inspection was that there was disagreement between the inspectors and us on only two studies. Not fully satisfied of their impact on the IHU, individuals from that organisation also wrote to 90 journal editors to inform them of possible scientific fraud. Some journal editors, who were alerted by Pubpeer have flagged the cited articles with “expression of concerns” without giving us any possibility to defend ourselves and express that they will not publish our papers anymore. PLOS decided to flag an “expression of concern” on 49 articles published whenever one author belongs to the IHU. Our eight highly cited researchers were not evaluated in 2022 by Clarivate® because of this and disappeared from the list. This cyber harassment might have a considerable impact on the research output of the most productive centre in infectious diseases in France, by discrediting the IHU on the quality and integrity of the research carried out over all these years.Conversely, a major ethical problem is conflict of interest, which is currently still neglected by most journals at a time when, on the contrary, it is responsible for scientific misconduct. The amount of money received from Gilead Sciences by physician was correlated with their public opposition to the use of HCQ in France. Self-declaration is not sufficient and active research through the available data banks, such as, for example EurosForDocs, should be systematically performed by responsible journal ethics teams. This naturally also applies to whistle-blowers.The campaign coordinated by Pubpeer raises the question of the goal of these platforms and the role played by the media in discrediting high quality, renowned scientists who have no links to the pharmaceutical industries and who did not benefit from the pandemic. Science is a debate with rules. When someone disagrees with the scientific content of an article, comments should be addressed to the journal and be peer reviewed by recognised experts without any conflict of interest, in such a way as to preserve independent and constructive debate and enrich the quality of science. Most of the greatest scientific and medical advances in history were achieved by researchers who challenged the “Ministry of Truth”.This work has benefited from State aid managed by the National Research Agency under the “Investments for the Future” program bearing the reference Méditerranée Infection 10-IAHU-03.None.


The delay in the publication of new information is the critique of medical journals that has received the most recent and robust attention. Fueled by the need to rapidly transmit new findings during the Covid pandemic, the time required to provide peer review and ultimately make new data available to readers has been the focus of intense scrutiny. The result has been the development of preprint servers, which provide the ability to post the results of completed research manuscripts online and available to the public. The most prominent of these servers for medicine is MedRxiv organized by Yale University in conjunction with Cold Spring Harbor and the British Medical Journal.Space does not allow complete review of preprint servers as is available in other reviews.The most obvious limitation of preprint servers is the potential to circulate inaccurate information. The danger of disseminating erroneous information is amplified if propagated widely in the press, online, and in social media. The findings reported in the medical literature are susceptible to misinterpretation or exaggeration by the media, and this potential appears to be increased for preprint servers. The final manuscript submitted to and published in a journal may differ significantly from that posted on the server. While the most reputable preprint sites stress that the data have not been peer reviewed and is not actionable, this contrasts somewhat with the need for rapid dissemination.As delineated in an earlier essay, the origin of peer review is usually credited to Henry Oldenburg who, as Editor of the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, was the first to send out submissions for independent external evaluation.Peer review and the process by which medical journals select manuscripts to publish has always been subject to criticism. It is often said that the external reviewers are the biggest variable in how an article is graded. Reviewers differ in how critical they are, the topics in which they are interested, and potential rivalry with or admiration of other investigators. An examination that I performed previously for another publication revealed that nearly a quarter of manuscripts were graded in the highest categories by one reviewer and in the lowest by another. Even when the critiques of two reviewers were nearly identical, their grades sometimes varied substantially. As discussed above, even when a paper is accepted, the time required for review and publication is often very lengthy and delays the diffusion of information.The emergence of online medical journals has addressed some of the above limitations. Papers can be posted online quickly after acceptance, reducing to some extent the time required for publication. The internet provides a venue by which commentaries by readers can be rapidly transmitted. The absence of the expense of printing also conveys the potential to increase the number of articles published. It is not surprising that there has been a progressive move of journals and readers to online publications.Although clearly of value, online publication of medical journals has begotten a troublesome problem. A number of online only periodicals have arisen, sometimes referred to as predatory publications, that seem to exist primarily to generate a profit. These journals have been characterized by weak or seemingly nonexistent peer review and sometimes with ostensibly absent or limited editorial boards. A fee is charged to publish a paper which, given the cost of posting online, can generate a considerable profit. Such publications do provide a venue for articles that have not found acceptance. However, they have the potential to publish inaccurate information which may result in even greater damage than preprint servers since the publication conveys a greater sense of validity.A longstanding alternate approach to remedy the delay in publication of new findings by journals has been presentation of data at medical meetings. Similar to preprint servers there is cursory review at best, while in contrast to preprints the information is available only to those who attend the meeting. In addition, there is typically no archiving of the presentation. Advocates point out that important medical meetings are now nearly always covered in detail online by a variety of sources that present not only the results but often also critiques by authorities. Thus, some have maintained that the information presented and reviewed at medical meetings is an adequate substitute for peer review, and that the results reported at meetings and as reviewed online is actionable. This requires, of course, that one accepts the accuracy and interpretation of the reporter.In aggregate, existing limitations coupled with the availability of alternate information sources has again raised the question of the value and relevance of medical journals. As any editor clearly knows, and as delineated above, medical journals have many imperfections. However, passing the crucible of peer review is the best assurance that new information is valid and may be actionable. So, like democracy, peer review journals may be imperfect, but they are the best alternative available. While providing some advantages, preprint servers and other sources for new investigative results all have significant limitations as well. They are perhaps most valuable in defining the areas in which current medical journals need to improve. In my view, the alternate sources of medical information will remain an important supplement to journals. However, they will never replace them. Since its initiation, peer review has survived for 360 years. It continues to be the most accurate and reliable method to assess new research findings, and surely will not become obsolete in the foreseeable future.The author has no funding to report.The author reports no conflict of interest.


The recent resignation of the entire editorial board of Neuroimage (IF 7.4) - one of the most prominent scientific journals dedicated to brain imaging research - rekindles the discussion on access to scientific data and the high costs for publication and access to scientific data .The episode highlights the disproportion between the high costs that researchers must pay to publish their research and the exorbitant profit margins of large publishers. It is worth remembering two very important aspects: (1) The entire peer review process that guarantees the quality of publications is carried out by the most distinguished researchers, who receive nothing for this difficult and demanding work; (2) Most of the scientific work produced by academic researchers is funded by government institutions and often part of the costs come out of the researchers’ pockets.Faced with these facts, the mass resignation of more than 40 renowned scientists from the editorial board of a renowned scientific journal was applauded by a large part of the scientific community. The resignation came in protest at what former publishers describe as the “greed” of a publishing giant after the company refused to cut publishing costs despite the company’s profit margins that are estimated to be close to 40%, according to 2019 data. Former editors say this is “unethical” and unrelated to the costs involved.At the International Brazilian Journal of Urology (IBJU), we are proud to offer true open access to Science, based on principles and practices that assure that the most relevant research in urology is widely distributed online, free of access charges or other barriers, like green open access.The IBJU is peer-reviewed and have a rigorous editorial process to maintain quality and ensure accuracy. It is partially supported by the Brazilian Ministry of Science and Technology, National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPQ) and Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel (CAPES), which makes possible not charging authors an article processing fee (APC) to cover publication costs. The mean cost for every published article is US$30,00 dollars.To the best of our knowledge the IBJU is the unicorn of open access among Urological journals, as PubMed indexed, highest official impact factor (IF 3.05), and no APC cost for authors.


The International Journal of Telerehabilitation (IJT) is a biannual journal dedicated to advancing telerehabilitation by disseminating peer-reviewed information about current research and practices. IJT is indexed by PubMed and Scopus.IJT is published via the open journal system (OJS) and sponsored by the University of Pittsburgh's Office of Scholarly Communication and Publishing at the University Library System. This institutional support enables IJT to be subscription free and require no author fees.The current issue of the multi-disciplinary IJT features impactful research across rehabilitation disciplines. As context, COVID-19, a global pandemic, even with the availability of vaccines, is still dramatically affecting healthcare worldwide to greater or lesser degrees, as well as the global economy. Submissions to IJT continue to increase, ostensibly to document how telerehabilitation is meeting these challenges. We regret that we are unable to publish the high volume of articles that are being submitted. Instead, we strive to promptly suggest other placements for work that is not central to the mission of the journal  or relevant to the larger IJT audience.IJT enjoys a diverse international audience. We surmise that this wide readership is testimony to the expanding global relevance of telemedicine, telehealth, and telerehabilitation.In this Fall 2022 issue, we are pleased to publish work by authors from Australia, Brazil, Canada, Japan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Turkey, Ukraine, and United States.Across the disciplines that employ telerehabilitation, there is increasing discussion about the value of hybrid practice — a combination of virtual and in-person care. Research is needed to confirm the value of hybrid approaches. IJT welcomes such research.IJT editor Cohn recently had the opportunity to serve as a presenter/panelist in the workshop “The use of telehealth for disability evaluation in medicine and allied health,” sponsored by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, Medicine for the purpose of providing perspectives to the United States Social Security Administration. In their concluding remarks, workshop chair Allen Heinemann observed that:telehealth encapsulates healthcare delivery via a wide range of modalities, including synchronous and asynchronous video, phone, email, text, and hybrid interactions between care providers and patients and among teams of allied health professionals. http://d-scholarship.pitt.edu/41773/. All or parts of the STA can therefore be freely adapted with attribution for clinical or research purposes.Since its inception in 2008, IJT has embraced this wide range of modalities. Furthermore, as a journal dedicated to telerehabilitation, IJT's scope is not limited to telehealth-based rehabilitation. IJT also publishes telehealth-based research conducted in educational settings. The wide scope of expertise required in school-based settings is illustrated in an open-source audit protocol developed by Lundblom et al. (2022) to document whether school-based telepractice is comparable to in-person or hybrid practice. The School-based Telepractice Assessment (STA), archived in D-Scholarship under a Creative Commons Attribution License, an institutional repository at the University of Pittsburgh, can be freely downloaded from: