Fabricated references, citations to nonexistent sources, appeared at a rate of 56.9 per 10 000 biomedical papers indexed in early 2026, a more than 12-fold increase since 2023. Manuscript volume is rising faster than editorial capacity, and conventional peer review does not routinely verify references. This viewpoint argues that automated reference verification, integrated into submission workflows, is a practical and proportionate response. The technical readiness of current tools, the evidence gaps and economic barriers to adoption, and the structured editorial response triggered by fabricated references are examined. The core principle is ‘artificial intelligence should handle the verifiable; humans should judge the evaluable’.
Academic conferences are important for sharing knowledge and collaboration; however, the organization often entails practices that incur a significant environmental footprint. As sustainability emerges as a global concern, academic events should implement responsible practices that reduce waste, emissions, and resource consumption.These guidelines were developed and implemented during the planning of the 18th European Association of Science Editors (EASE) Conference. The approach involved a systematic examination of decisions in relation to the UN Sustainable Development Goals, with a focus on accessibility, inclusivity, reduced carbon footprint, responsible consumption, and participant experience.The resulting guidelines propose practical and adaptable strategies applicable to academic events, and help organizers reduce environmental impact and support broader sustainability goals.
交差性分析は、単一の変数のみを考慮する段階を超えて、ジェンダーと人種、地理的位置とカーストなど、交差において生じる複合的な影響を検討するものである。「科学技術における交差性分析ガイドライン(GIST)」は、研究者、査読付き学術誌の編集者、資金配分機関が、関連する科学技術領域において交差性分析を体系的に統合することを支援するものである。本ガイドラインは、戦略的に研究の優先順位を設定したり研究課題を形成したりする段階から、データ収集、分析、解釈に至るまで、それぞれの研究プロセスにおける定量的交差性分析のためのロードマップとして機能する。また、著者や査読誌の編集者が本ガイドラインを遵守できるように、本稿ではチェックリストを提示する。さらに、私たちは査読誌の投稿規定に GIST チェックリストを追加することを推奨したい。最終的な目標は、適切な場面で交差性分析が含まれるように、研究のデフォルトを再設定することである。交差性分析はより良い科学をもたらす。すなわち、研究における精確性は、社会政策および環境政策の有効性を最大限に高め、ひいては世界的な公平性と環境の持続可能性の向上に資するのである。
교차성 분석은 단일 변수만 고려하는 것을 넘어, 성별과 인종, 또는 지리적 위치, 계급과의 교차점 등에서 발생하는 복합적 영향을 검토한다. 과학기술 분야의 교차성 분석 가이드라인(GIST)은 연구자, 학술지 편집자, 연구지원기관이 관련 과학기술 분야에서 교차성 분석을 체계적으로 통합하는 데 도움을 준다. 이 가이드라인은 연구의 전략적 우선순위 설정과 연구 문제 형성에서부터 자료 수집, 분석, 해석에 이르기까지 연구 과정 전반에 정량적 교차성 분석을 통합적으로 적용하기 위한 로드맵으로 사용될 수 있다. 여기에서는 저자 및 학술지 편집자가 가이드라인을 준수할 수 있도록 점검표를 제공한다. 우리는 GIST 점검표를 학술지의 저자 안내(Information for Authors)에 포함할 것을 권장한다. 목표는 적절한 경우, 교차성 분석을 포함하는 것을 연구 기본으로 재설정하는 것이다. 교차성 분석은 더 나은 과학으로 이끈다. 정확한 연구는 효과적인 사회·환경 정책을 이끄는 가장 좋은 가이드이며, 이는 전 지구적 형평성과 지속가능성을 강화한다.
交叉性分析超越了对单一变量的考量，旨在探究多重因素交叉产生的复合影响，如性别与种族、地理位置与种姓。《科技领域交叉性分析指南》（GIST）助力研究人员、期刊编辑和资助机构将交叉性分析系统性地整合到科学技术的相关范畴。该指南为研究过程中定量交叉分析提供路线图—从设定战略研究重点和构建研究问题，到数据收集、分析和阐释。在此，我们提供了一份核查清单，以帮助作者和期刊编辑对指南的遵循。我们建议将GIST核查清单纳入期刊的《作者须知》，其目的是在适当的情况下将交叉性分析重置为研究默认选项。交叉性分析能催生更优质的科学：精准研究最能引导高效的社会和环境政策，进而提升全球公平性与可持续性。
Introduction: The number or percentage of journals publishing review reports or reviewer names remains unknown in today's scholarly milieu. Methods: In January 2025 we sent a survey to all members of the European Association of Science Editors (EASE), followed by 2 reminder rounds, with 16 questions related to their journals, including type of peer review, availability of post-publication com-menting, journal discipline, articles access type, and the manuscript submission sys-tem used by the journal. Survey responses were verified by checking the information listed on the journals' websites. Results: A total of 84 participants completed the survey out of the 668 emails sent (of which 83 bounced, and 125 were unopened), leading to a response rate of 14% (84 out of 585 working or non-bounced emails), or 18% (84 out of 460) if only opened emails are counted. After data cleaning, information on 71 unique journals was collected, of which only 2 described their peer review type using the National Information Standards Organization (NISO) 2023 peer review taxonomy. Of the 71 journals, one published review reports with reviewer names and one without. Four journals allowed post-publication commenting on their websites. A little over a third of the journals used the Open Journal System (n = 22, or 31%) as their submission platform, were health sciences journals (n = 23, or 32%), were published by institutional publish-ers (n = 25, 35%), and more than half operated as Diamond open access (n = 42, 59%). Discussion: Only two journals in our survey published review reports alongside arti-cles, and of the two, one published reviewer names (used open peer review) and one did not (transparent peer review). Additionally, only two journals described their peer review process on their websites using the NISO taxonomy. More research is needed to determine barriers and interventions for greater adoption of open and transparent peer review and the NISO taxonomy.
Introduction: The number or percentage of journals publishing review reports or reviewer names remains unknown in today’s scholarly milieu.Methods: In January 2025 we sent a survey to all members of the European Association of Science Editors (EASE), followed by 2 reminder rounds, with 16 questions related to their journals, including type of peer review, availability of post-publication commenting, journal discipline, articles access type, and the manuscript submission system used by the journal. Survey responses were verified by checking the information listed on the journals’ websites.Results: A total of 84 participants completed the survey out of the 668 emails sent (of which 83 bounced, and 125 were unopened), leading to a response rate of 14% (84 out of 585 working or non-bounced emails), or 18% (84 out of 460) if only opened emails are counted. After data cleaning, information on 71 unique journals was collected, of which only 2 described their peer review type using the National Information Standards Organization (NISO) 2023 peer review taxonomy. Of the 71 journals, one published review reports with reviewer names and one without. Four journals allowed post-publication commenting on their websites. A little over a third of the journals used the Open Journal System (n = 22, or 31%) as their submission platform, were health sciences journals (n = 23, or 32%), were published by institutional publishers (n = 25, 35%), and more than half operated as Diamond open access (n = 42, 59%).Discussion: Only two journals in our survey published review reports alongside articles, and of the two, one published reviewer names (used open peer review) and one did not (transparent peer review). Additionally, only two journals described their peer review process on their websites using the NISO taxonomy. More research is needed to determine barriers and interventions for greater adoption of open and transparent peer review and the NISO taxonomy.
The European Association of Science Editors (EASE) issues this statement in support of its members and regional chapters across the Middle East and beyond, particularly in Azerbaijan, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Oman, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and the United States, as well as the broader scholarly community affected by the ongoing escalation of armed conflict.
Background: Over the past decade, open access (OA) publishing has gained increasing prominence in higher education systems worldwide. In Vietnam, this shift has been particularly visible within engineering and technology (E&T) universities, in which the requirement that students publish in international journals and the availability of funding have become central to research evaluation. Understanding how OA publishing has evolved and how funding patterns support this development is essential to assessing changes in research dissemination within the academic sector. Objectives: This study aimed to (1) analyse the growth of OA publications in Vietnamese E&T universities between 2013 and 2024 in relation to national policy reforms on international publication requirements, (2) identify the predominant OA publishing models, and (3) analyse patterns in funding sources that support OA publications and implications of these funding sources for researchers’ choices of outlets for publishing. Methods: A bibliometric analysis was conducted using publication data retrieved from the Scopus database from 2013 to 2024. The study assessed the distribution of OA publications, the relative prevalence of different models of OA (Gold, Green, etc.) and the extent of funding support for OA articles. Results: Open access publishing remained modest before 2017 but increased sharply after 2018, coinciding with the introduction of stricter requirements for publishing internationally for doctoral training, eligibility for being a research supervisor, and career advancement. Gold OA emerged as the dominant publishing model in the later years of the study period. Nearly two-thirds (63.3%) of OA publications acknowledged financial support, with domestic public agencies, particularly the National Foundation for Science and Technology Development (NAFOSTED) and the Ministry of Education and Training (MOET), forming the primary funding base, complemented by international collaborative sponsors. Conclusions: Open access publishing is becoming the norm in Vietnam’s E&T universities more because of policies and funding than because of isolated individual initiatives. The growing prominence of Gold OA reflects the interaction between policy-driven incentives, institutional strategies, and the availability of funding. These findings highlight the importance of sustaining and strategically aligning funding mechanisms to support OA publishing in research systems in developing countries.
Dissemination of research is an important component of a successful nursing career, and research shows that providing faculty with resources that facilitate publication can increase their productivity. The authors identified gaps in publication resources available to faculty at Indiana University School of Nursing in Bloomington and created a toolkit to fill those gaps. The purpose of this article is to introduce the Writing and Dissemination Toolkit and discuss the resources provided. A template of the toolkit is available and is customisable for use by faculty, staff, or students at other institutions.
Background: Traditional, complementary, and integrative medicine (TCIM) includes a diverse range of practices, products, and therapies outside the scope of conven-tional Western medicine, including acupuncture, Ayurveda, chiropractic care, and homeopathy. Globally, TCIM is widely used and recognized by most World Health Organization member states, and research in this field has grown substantially in recent decades. However, TCIM research is often criticized for methodological weak-nesses and insufficient rigour, raising concerns about its evidence base and credi-bility. Retraction of scientific articles serves as an essential mechanism to safeguard research integrity, alerting the scientific community to serious errors or misconduct such as fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism. The increasing number of retractions across biomedical research highlights the importance of understanding their under-lying causes. Studying retracted TCIM publications may provide unique insights into recurring methodological, ethical, or systemic issues specific to this field and inform strategies to strengthen research quality. Objectives: The proposed research protocol will use a retrospective analysis to ana-lyse retracted TCIM articles reported in the Retraction Watch database. Methods: Articles classified under '(HSC) Medicine-Alternative' will be identified, extracted, and compared descriptively against retracted non-TCIM publications. Variables of interest include reasons for retraction, date of retraction, article type, journal, publisher, country, number of authors, paywall status, and time from publi-cation to retraction. Data will be summarized using descriptive statistics, with explor-atory comparisons made between TCIM and non-TCIM retractions. Conclusions: The findings will provide the first comprehensive overview of TCIM retractions, offering valuable insights into patterns of flawed research in the field.
Background: The integrity of scholarly literature is paramount, yet retracted research remains largely unexamined within the rapidly growing field of green economy. Objectives: As the first systematic analysis of retracted research publications in the green economy, this study aims to (1) quantify the proportion of retractions and identify temporal and geographic patterns of retractions, (2) map the intellectual structure of the retracted literature, and (3) identify the primary causes and impacts of these retractions. Methods: A corpus of 61,273 Scopus-indexed documents on the green economy was analyzed; of these, 181 retracted publications were systematically identified and examined. The analysis included quantitative assessment of the proportion of retractions and keyword co-occurrence using VOSviewer in addition to qualitative content analysis of retraction notices. Results: The proportion of retractions (retraction rate) was 29.5 retractions for every 10,000 publications, significantly higher than that in many scientific disciplines. Two distinct crisis periods were identified, 2009-2011 and 2021-2024, involving different publication channels (conference proceedings and journals), with 86% of the retractions originating from China. The leading causes of the retractions were compromised peer review (78%) and referencing issues (66%), particularly affecting research in sustainability-industry linkages, energy transitions, and climate-related economic policy. Notably, 59% of the retractions came from in Q1/Q2 journals, and some of the retracted papers had been cited as many as 121-177 times. Conclusion: The findings revealed critical systemic vulnerabilities in the scholarly ecosystem, including the exploitation of special issues and opaque retraction processes. The authors propose three evidence-based interventions to reinforce integrity: enhanced conference governance, AI-assisted validation of peer reviews, and adoption of standardized metadata on retractions.
As doctoral theses become increasingly accessible through open repositories and similarity-checking software is applied more widely, many early-career researchers encounter the rejection of manuscripts that are legitimately derived from their the-ses. This viewpoint examines the complexities of text recycling (often inaccurately labelled 'self-plagiarism'), reviews how publisher policies and editorial practices have evolved in the past decade, and argues for transparent communication among authors, supervisors, and editors. Drawing on the Text Recycling Research Project Best Practices for Researchers and a model policy for publishers, this article proposes measures such as author disclosures, clear repository embargo policies, and submis-sion-system prompts to reconcile the principles of open science with fair publication practices. A more harmonised approach would serve not only authors but also the integrity of the scholarly record.
Paywalls and high article processing charges in academic publishing restrict access to scientific knowledge, limiting who can produce, use, and benefit from research. These barriers disproportionately affect researchers and institutions in low- and middle-income countries, reinforcing global inequalities in research capacity and evidence-informed policymaking. Addressing these challenges requires determined system leadership to reform funding models, expand equitable open access pathways, and ensure publicly funded research is freely available. Without coordinated action, the promise of inclusive, globally shared scientific progress central to the Sustainable Development Goals will remain unrealised.
In July 2023, version 3.0 of standard terminology for peer review was published by the National Information Standards Organization. The terminology approaches four aspects of the peer review process: identity transparency, reviewer interacts with, review information published, and post-publication commenting. Using examples of open peer review models with public participation implemented by open access journals covering different subjects, the inclusion of two new categories in the next version of the terminology is proposed herein: manuscript review and pre-publica-tion commenting.
Background: As the number of journals and manuscripts continues to increase, so do the calls on researchers to review. To ensure that researchers accept or decline review invitations quickly and appropriately, review invitations should be informative. Objectives: Review invitations received by one health sciences researcher are sum-marized and invitations from journals listed in Web of Science, Scopus, or Directory of Open Access Journals are compared with invitations from journals listed in none of these three databases. Methods: This quantitative cross-sectional study included review invitations that the author received from journals between 1 January 2022 and 31 December 2024. For the analysis, only the most recent review invitation from each journal was included so that the results were not skewed towards journals that requested reviews more fre-quently. Requests for reviews of revised manuscripts were excluded. Results: Review invitations were received from 52 journals, 10 (19%) of which were not listed in any of the three databases. Emails from the 42 listed journals generally provided more, and more appropriate, information such as the manuscript abstract (98% of listed journals vs. 60% of unlisted journals) and addressing the email recipient correctly (62% of listed journals vs. 30% of unlisted journals). For 45% of listed journals and 50% of unlisted journals, the time to review was not stated in the email itself and 74% of listed journals and 80% of unlisted journals made no statement regarding the anonymity (or not) of reviewing. Conclusion: Minimum requirements for review invitations are recommended, as well as areas for further research.
Інтерсекційний аналіз виходить за межі розгляду окремих змінних та досліджує складний вплив на перетині умов, наприклад, статі й раси, або географічного розташування й кастової приналежності. Керівні принципи інтерсекційного аналізу в науці та технологіях (GIST) допомагають дослідникам, редакторам журналів та грантодавчим установам систематично інтегрувати інтерсекційний аналіз у відповідні галузі науки та технологій. Ці Принципи слугують дорожньою картою для здійснення кількісного інтерсекційного аналізу на всіх етапах дослідницького процесу — від визначення стратегічних пріоритетів і формулювання дослідницьких питань до збирання, аналізу та інтерпретації даних. У статті подано контрольний список, який допоможе авторам та редакторам журналів дотримуватися принципів щодо відповідного аналізу. Ми рекомендуємо журналам додати контрольний список GIST у розділ «Інформація для авторів». Мета полягає в тому, щоб зробити інтерсекційний аналіз стандартною складовою досліджень там, де це доцільно. Інтерсекційний аналіз сприяє підвищенню якості науки: точність у дослідженнях впливає на ефективність соціальної та екологічної політики, яка, так само, сприяє глобальній рівності та сталому розвитку.
ملخص يتجاوز التحليل التقاطعي النظر في المتغيرات الفردية، ليدرس التأثير التراكمي للتقاطع بين عوامل متعددة، مثل الجنس والعرق، أو الموقع الجغرافي والطبقة الاجتماعية. وتساعد المبادئ التوجيهية للتحليل التقاطعي في العلوم والتكنولوجيا ) GIST ( الباحثين ومحرري المجلات والوكالات الممولة على دمج التحليل التقاطعي بشكل منهجي في المجالات ذات الصلة بالعلوم والتكنولوجيا. تعمل هذه المبادئ التوجيهية كخريطة طريق للتحليل التقاطعي الكمي طوال عملية البحث من تحديد أولويات البحث الاستراتيجية وصياغة أسئلة البحث إلى جمع البيانات وتحليلها وتفسيرها. و نقدم هنا قائمة مرجعية لتسهيل امتثال المؤلفين ومحرري المجلات للمبادئ التوجيهية، كما نوصي بإضافة قائمة مراجعة GIST إلى "إرشادات للمؤلفين" في المجلات. والهدف هو إعادة تعيين الإعدادات الافتراضية للبحث؛ لتشمل التحليل التقاطعي، حيثما كان ذلك مناسبًا. إذ يؤدي التحليل التقاطعي إلى تحسين العلوم. فالدقة في البحث هي أفضل دليل لسياسات اجتماعية وبيئية فعالة، والتي بدورها تعزز العدالة والاستدامة العالمية.
Background: The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) tools in academic publish-ing is expanding rapidly, raising concerns about authorship, transparency, and edito-rial standards. Although organisations such as Committee on Publication Ethics and International Council of Medical Journal Editors have proposed guidelines on the use of AI, the extent to which they have been adopted by journals in psychiatry and mental health remains unclear. Objectives: To examine the adoption and content of AI policies in psychiatry and mental health journals indexed in SCImago and to determine whether higher-quar-tile journals are more likely to include policies related to AI. Methods: Policies related to AI in the guidelines for authors and reviewers were examined for two groups of journals, all indexed under Psychiatry and Mental Health in SCImago in November-December 2024. The two groups were (1) a stratified ran-dom sample of 200 journals (50 per quartile) chosen from a total of 578 journals and (2) 25 top-ranked journals in psychiatry and mental health. Results: Among the first group, 78 (39%) journals included policies related to AI in their guidelines or instructions for authors and reviewers, the number being greater in top-quartile journals (56% in Q1 versus 20% in Q4; chi 2= 14, P = .003). Of the 78 jour-nals, 69 (88.5%) disallowed AI tools as named authors, an equal number mandated disclosure of the use of AI, and 58 (74.4%) emphasised author accountability. Peer review policies mostly prohibited AI use (n = 47); AI-assisted copy editing was permit-ted in 56 journals; and policies on AI-generated images varied. None reported using AI detection tools. Among the top 25 journals, 16 (64%) included policies related to AI; all prohibited authorship to AI and required disclosure; and one reported using AI detection tools. Conclusion: Despite the rising use of AI in publishing, most psychiatry and men-tal health journals, especially the lower-quartile journals, lack policies on such use. Wider adoption and standardisation of policies related to AI are crucial to ensure research integrity and credibility.
Evidence-based medicine (EBM) is literature-based medicine. The essence of EBM is ensuring that research is adequately reported in the literature, not only to help readers determine whether the research is sound but also to ascertain that it can be applied appropriately to specific patients and conditions. This need to document clinical research gave rise to the standards-reporting movement in medicine, the first and best-known standard being the 1996 CONSORT statement for reporting rand-omized controlled trials. Guidelines and checklists are widely used to augment mem-ory, improve quality and consistency, ensure thoroughness and efficiency, structure repetitive tasks, and to reduce errors, omissions, ambiguities, and misunderstandings. These characteristics make them ideal for reporting the designs, activities, and results of medical research. In fact, EBM is built around developing and using guidelines and checklists. As an early participant in the clinical guideline movement, I learned a lot about how and how not to prepare guidelines. I describe my lessons here.
