Étiquette : biomedical research

Catégories
EN

Building internationally competitive journals for science data sharing: The evolution of three biomedical English academic journals launched in China

Authors : Huisheng Wang, Hao Cheng

Academic journals serve as the platform of scientific collaboration. As China’s contribution to world-class science is advancing at a remarkable pace, cultivating world-class English-language journals has become a national imperative issue. Taking Academician George F. Gao and the three flagship journals he founded or led—Protein & Cell (2010), China CDC Weekly (2019), and hLife (2023)—as examples, herein we trace the evolutionary trajectory of English-language periodicals in China, dissecting their evolving missions, internationalization strategies and contributions to biosafety and ethical governance to provide a reproducible roadmap for currently-emerging journals.

Through analyses of the case of clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR) gene-editing ethics controversy, pandemic-data-sharing protocols, and international cooperation frameworks, we highlight that journals are pivotal arenas where domestic and global scientific discourses on critical biosafety and public health issues are made.

Building internationally competitive journals for science data sharing scientific governance will serve as a critical foundation for China’s ambitions to become a scientific power and for its deeper engagement in global science and technology governance.

URL : Building internationally competitive journals for science data sharing: The evolution of three biomedical English academic journals launched in China

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bsheal.2026.04.002

Catégories
EN

Data Availability Statements in Mega Journals: A Comparative Analysis of Global and Korea-Affiliated Publications in Health and Medical Research

Authors : Sanghee Oh, Yunseo Park, Seyun Sim

Data Availability Statements (DAS) have become a standard mechanism for promoting transparency and reproducibility in open-access mega journals, yet questions remain about how effectively they support meaningful data sharing in practice and how these practices vary across national research contexts.

This study examines data-sharing practices in the medical and health sciences through a comparative analysis of global publications and Korea-affiliated articles in three mega journals indexed in PubMed Central: PLOS ONE, Scientific Reports and BMJ Open (2020–2024). DAS from 176,145 articles were collected from PubMed Central using an automated pipeline with manual validation and classified into a seven-category typology reflecting levels of data accessibility and reuse.

Results indicate that although DAS inclusion increased over time, repository-based data sharing remains limited, while ‘data available upon request’ continues to be prevalent. Clear differences are observed across journals: PLOS ONE shows greater use of repository-based and in-article sharing, whereas Scientific Reports and BMJ Open rely more heavily on ‘data available upon request’. Korea-affiliated articles largely follow global trends, with slightly greater reliance on national public data repositories.

Repository use is concentrated among a small number of international multidisciplinary platforms and selected national biomedical databases. The findings reveal a persistent gap between formal DAS compliance and effective data accessibility, indicating the need for clearer, more actionable data-sharing guidance.

URL : Data Availability Statements in Mega Journals: A Comparative Analysis of Global and Korea-Affiliated Publications in Health and Medical Research

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.2083

Catégories
EN

Effectiveness of the researcher-led “Peerspectives” peer review training course on review quality, knowledge, and skills among doctoral students in the biomedical sciences: a pre-post study

Authors : Jessica L. Rohmann, Nadja Wülk, Kerstin Rubarth, Hannah Grillmaier, Iman Abdikarim, Mariana Lopes Simões, Sara Schroter, Marco Piccininni, Tobias Kurth, Toivo Glatz

Background

Peer review remains a cornerstone of scientific knowledge dissemination, yet comprehensive, practically relevant training is limited. This inspired us to develop Peerspectives, a peer review training course for doctoral students in the biomedical sciences in Berlin, Germany. We aimed to assess the effectiveness of the Peerspectives course on editor-judged quality of peer review reports.

Methods

Doctoral students in health research fields who enrolled in the Peerspectives course between October 2020 and August 2022 were invited to participate in the study, and 80 consented. The ~18 week-long course provided training on the structure, purpose, and conduct of peer review and editorial processes in biomedical journals. It included 12 h of lectures, homework assignments, and 12 h of hands-on, small-group workshops, during which students reviewed original research manuscripts currently under consideration at The BMJ under the guidance of experienced mentors.

The primary outcome was the overall quality of the peer review reports as judged by two independent BMJ editors using the global score of the Review Quality Instrument (RQI) pre- and post-intervention. Additionally, we compared participants’ post-course scores with those of actual BMJ reviewers. We also compared participants’ self-assessed knowledge and skills related to scholarly peer review (1–5 Likert scale) before and after the course.

Results

After course completion, the editor-assessed overall quality of the participants’ peer review reports was higher than before the course (median increase of 0.5 points, p < 0.001; mean increase of 0.36 points, p < 0.001). The RQI scores of participants’ post-course reports were not non-inferior to those of actual BMJ reviewers for the same manuscripts. Self-assessed peer review-related knowledge skills increased across all questionnaire items after course completion. Greatest improvements were seen in understanding reviewer expectations (increase in means from 2.9 to 4.5), confidence in reviewing (2.5 to 3.9), and knowing what to look for while reviewing (2.8 to 4.2).

Conclusions

Providing doctoral students with comprehensive training resulted in an editorially significant increase in review report quality and improved understanding of the role and expectations of peer reviewers in the scholarly publishing processes and confidence in giving constructive feedback.

URL : Effectiveness of the researcher-led “Peerspectives” peer review training course on review quality, knowledge, and skills among doctoral students in the biomedical sciences: a pre-post study

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-026-00220-3

Catégories
EN

Gaming the peer review system: Evidence for a review mill in medicine highlights the need to ensure reviewer integrity

Authors : M. Ángeles Oviedo-García, René Aquarius, Dorothy V. M. Bishop

Background

Review mills are recognized when individuals generate numerous generic review reports, typically containing suggestions for citations to their own work. Here, we report a network with characteristics of a review mill in the field of gynecological oncology.

Methods

Our search started with a review that contained “boilerplate” comments as well as suggestions that specific PubMed IDs be cited. We searched the internet using Google for review reports using the same boilerplate comments. We coded text to quantify similarities between reviews and compiled citations suggested by reviewers. For comparison, we analyzed 59 reviews of the same articles by other peer reviewers.

Results

We identified a network of 195 review reports that shared boilerplate text from 170 articles. One hundred and eighty-six reports suggested citing articles coauthored by a member of the network. Five members of the network had editorial roles. Authors of 142 articles complied with suggestions for citation. Boilerplate text and citation recommendations were rare in the comparison reports.

Conclusions

Review mills lead to articles being published without proper peer review. This is of particular concern in medical research. Open peer review and transparent reporting of the editors responsible for handling papers will make it easier to detect review mills.

URL : Gaming the peer review system: Evidence for a review mill in medicine highlights the need to ensure reviewer integrity

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2026.2640012

Catégories
EN

PreprintToPaper dataset: connecting bioRxiv preprints with journal publications

Autors : Fidan Badalova, Julian Sienkiewicz, Philipp Mayr

The PreprintToPaper dataset connects bioRxiv preprints with their corresponding journal publications, enabling large-scale analysis of the preprint-to-publication process. It comprises metadata for 145,517 preprints from two periods, 2016–2018 (pre-pandemic) and 2020–2022 (pandemic), retrieved via the bioRxiv and Crossref APIs.

We selected the two periods to capture preprint-publication dynamics before and during the COVID-19 pandemic while avoiding transitional years. Each record includes bibliographic information such as titles, abstracts, authors, institutions, submission dates, licenses, and subject categories, alongside enriched publication metadata including journal names, publication dates, author lists, and further information.

In addition to the main dataset, a version-history subset provides all available versions of preprints within the two selected periods, enabling analysis of how preprints evolve over time. Preprints are categorized into three groups: Published (formally linked to a journal article), Preprint Only (posted on a preprint server), and Gray Zone (potentially published in a journal but unlinked).

To enhance reliability, title and author similarity scores were computed, and a human-annotated subset of 299 records was created to evaluate Gray Zone cases. The dataset supports diverse applications, including studies of scholarly communication, open science policies, bibliometric tool development, and natural language processing research on textual changes between preprints and their corresponding journal articles.

URL : PreprintToPaper dataset: connecting bioRxiv preprints with journal publications

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-026-06867-3

Catégories
EN

Researchers’ Views on Preprints and Open Access Publishing: Results From a Free-Answer Survey of Japanese Molecular Biologists

Authors : Harufumi Tamazawa, Kazuki Ide, Kazuhisa Kamegai

A survey conducted in 2022 amongst members of the Molecular Biology Society of Japan (n = 633) about preprints and open access journals included qualitative data from free-response answers (n = 161). Analysis of the free-form responses suggests that researchers believe that peer review of papers is the foundation for ensuring the credibility of research content.

The trust-building mechanism achieved through peer review shapes the research community. For this reason, researchers are extremely cautious about preprints that have not undergone peer review within their own fields.

This foundation has fostered a sense of responsibility within the community, and this sense of responsibility, which is being fulfilled by ensuring the quality of research, is a mixture of both a sense of responsibility towards the community itself and a sense of responsibility towards the outside world, namely the relationship between researchers and society.

Researchers also appear to view the rise in Article Processing Charges (APCs) as a problem for the entire community, rather than simply an issue for individual researchers. In the field of molecular biology, where collaborative research between universities and companies is common, differences in normative awareness based on position are reflected in the various attitudes towards preprints and open access.

URL : Researchers’ Views on Preprints and Open Access Publishing: Results From a Free-Answer Survey of Japanese Molecular Biologists

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.2039

Catégories
EN

Preprint policies across journals and publishers in ecology and evolutionary biology

Authors : Marija Purgar, Edward R. Ivimey-Cook, Antica Culina, Joshua D. Wallach

Preprints have the potential to accelerate knowledge dissemination and promote transparency in ecology and evolutionary biology. However, concerns about journal policies regarding prior publication may discourage researchers from preprinting their manuscripts.

Therefore, we identified 230 eligible ecology and evolutionary biology journals, published by 69 different publishers, and assessed both their journal- and publisher-level preprint policies. At the journal level, 119 (51.7%) of the 230 journals included preprint policies in their author guidelines—either through journal-specific policies (109, 47.4%) or by directly referencing their publisher’s preprint policies (10, 4.3%).

Overall, 116 (97.5%) of these journals were supportive of considering preprints for publication. At the publisher level, 26 (37.7%) of the 69 publishers had explicit preprint policies, all of which supported considering preprints for publication. There were 38 (16.5%) journals without journal- or publisher-level preprint policies.

While most journals and publishers were supportive of considering preprints for publication, instructions for authors, such as acceptable locations for posting preprints, timing of preprint posting relative to manuscript submission and requirements to link preprints to final published articles, were lacking.

These findings highlight opportunities for ecology and evolutionary biology journals, along with their publishers, to clarify and refine their preprint policies and instructions for authors.

URL : Preprint policies across journals and publishers in ecology and evolutionary biology

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2025.0524