Nurse author & editor

Collaborative writing is a process wherein authors work collectively to produce publications or other written work. It creates opportunities for the collective exchange of ideas and can profoundly improve the quality and depth of the resulting project or publication. In the past 2 decades, the world has undergone transformative changes due to remarkable technological advancements and an unprecedented level of global interconnectivity. These developments have transformed collaboration, enabling groups to convene from anywhere in the world and facilitating national and international collaborative efforts. Simultaneously, shared document tools have emerged, streamlining and enhancing collaborative writing endeavors, making collaboration more accessible than ever. The purpose of this paper is to explore the opportunities and challenges of collaborative writing and present strategies to facilitate successful collaboration for nurse authors. While initial reactions to group work, including collaborative writing, tend to lean toward aversion and apprehension, there exists a wealth of well-documented advantages for both students and seasoned authors. The most extensively documented advantages center around the enhanced perspectives and creativity that emerge from collaboration among multiple writers.1 Group members are no longer confined to the limitations of their institutions, and online meeting platforms have not only made it possible, but also easy for group members to convene from around the world and share their expertise. When executed well, collaborative writing groups have the potential to yield a greater quantity of publications,2-4 alleviate individual workloads,5 and, through a collective review and revision process, facilitate the detection and correction of errors, ultimately resulting in a polished final product.6 The collaborative writing process presents numerous opportunities for conflict. One of the primary challenges lies in the amalgamation of diverse perspectives and expertise, giving rise to concerns regarding interpersonal dynamics.4, 7 Conflict may also emerge concerning authorship order, division of labor, and group member performance. These issues are accentuated when groups lack autonomy and self-direction, or when hierarchical structures are present within the group. Beyond interpersonal challenges, the management of documents and version control can lead to confusion and errors. Ensuring that all team members are using the latest version and incorporating feedback accurately poses a logistical challenge requiring careful attention. Although shared documents facilitating real-time collaboration are increasingly common and beneficial, they introduce another hurdle, ensuring all group members possess the necessary technological proficiency.6 Achieving consensus in groups with diverse opinions, writing styles, and technological skills is a complex task that demands thoughtful consideration. Effectively navigating the challenges inherent in collaborative writing necessitates strong leadership and a strategic approach.8 The writing group must have strong leadership from one or two of the individuals. These individuals play a pivotal role in organizing the group, facilitating communication, adhering to schedules, and maintaining the group's trajectory through effective communication and timely encouragement. A summary table of key tasks is presented below in Table 1. In the initial phases, the group leader assumes the responsibility of establishing shared document folders. These folders serve as centralized repositories for all project materials, pertinent resources, and drafts. It is at this juncture that the leader sets the tone for organization and accessibility, fostering an environment conducive to seamless collaboration. Once the project is set up, structured, and organized, the leader's primary role transitions to that of an encourager and enforcer. The leader must gently hold members accountable for their designated tasks, thereby propelling the group forward in a cohesive manner.3 This approach ensures that team members consistently have straightforward access to crucial information, promoting efficiency and collaborative synergy. Create shared document folders and files Create task tracker; use stoplight reporting for project management Convene initial meeting Set goals, identify project aims Establish guidelines for communication, feedback, and participation. Discuss the expectations and responsibilities of group members. Discuss authorship order Introduce shared folders/organization system and offer individual meetings as needed Develop meeting schedule: Frequency and duration Collaboratively develop deadline Review and update task tracker in subsequent meetings Provide meeting summary Provide reminders and encouragement A task tracker holds a pivotal role in collaborative writing endeavors, serving as the cornerstone for effective project management. Its importance lies in providing a centralized reference point, ensuring the project remains on course and tasks are executed with precision. To effectively harness the benefits of a task tracker, leaders are encouraged to create a comprehensive table outlining tasks, task statuses, assigned owners, and projected timelines. This document helps facilitate clear communication and accountability. Task statuses should be intuitively color-coded—green denoting completion, yellow signaling tasks progressing as planned, and red highlighting those yet to commence.9 This strategic use of color enhances clarity and expedites decision-making. Table 2, included as an illustrative example, exemplifies how a well-structured task tracker can seamlessly integrate with collaborative writing efforts. It not only keeps the team informed about the status of each task but also empowers leaders to identify potential bottlenecks and proactively steer the project toward success. In the dynamic realm of collaborative writing, a task tracker emerges as an indispensable tool, ensuring efficiency, accountability, and a harmonized workflow. The tasks can vary based on the nature of the collaborative writing project, the discipline, and the specific requirements of the target journal. Tailor your task tracker to align with the unique aspects of your research project and the expectations of your team. JN to convened meeting on Goal: Review nurse faculty satisfaction with hybrid meetings with specific aim to look at inclusivity and engagement Discussion regarding conceptual framework: Social presence theory Introduce shared folders/organization system and offer individual meetings as needed Develop meeting schedule Collaboratively develop deadline Develop key terms In collaboration with the University Librarian, conduct exhaustive search of the literature Collaboratively review titles and abstracts to focus evidence JN to add evidence table to share folder Articles are added to the share folder titled “evidence” with reviewer initials. Each article will be reviewed by two reviewers Summarize important information in the evidence table Survey drafted Surveyed reviewed Survey revised and finalized Review website Categories of review Informed consent—respect for persons IRB application—submitted by email to [email protected] Review IRB project application form Informed consent form Summary of the research project and instruments for collecting information (surveys, etc.) Submit Human Subjects training to JN AA: Introduction and results JN: Methods and conclusion KC: Framework and discussion A manuscript outline ensures a cohesive and well-organized structure for the publication. During a group meeting, the leader can take the initiative to present an initial draft of the manuscript outline, inviting feedback from the team. Depending on the varying levels of experience among group members, the amount of feedback may differ. It's important to note that the outline may undergo modifications to align with authorship guidelines and submission requirements once a target journal is selected. As the outline takes shape, different sections of the manuscript can be strategically assigned or chosen by individual team members based on their expertise and preferences. A manuscript outline template is included in Table 3. Background and rationale Significance of the study Purpose and objectives Literature review (can be own section) Study design Participants or sample Data collection Data analysis Presentation of findings Tables and Figures (if applicable) Interpretation of results Comparison with previous studies Implications for practice Limitations and future research Summary of key findings Clinical relevance Concluding remarks Collaborative writing among nurse authors offers a platform for the exchange of ideas, leveraging technological advances and global connectivity for enhanced collaboration. Despite initial reservations, collaborative writing brings forth documented advantages, such as increased creativity and a higher volume of publications. However, challenges emerge, particularly in managing diverse perspectives, interpersonal dynamics, and technological proficiency. The complexities of document management and version control, along with the need for consensus in diverse groups, underscore the importance of thoughtful consideration and strategic approaches in successful collaborative writing endeavors for nurse authors. To overcome challenges in collaborative writing, effective leadership, comprehensive task tracking, and a strategic approach to manuscript outlining are crucial. Leadership ensures an organized and accessible environment, while a task tracker, as illustrated in Table 2, aids project management and communication. Creating a well-structured manuscript outline, detailed in Table 3, proves vital for navigating challenges and aligning with authorship guidelines. Implementing these strategies collectively contributes to a more efficient and successful collaborative writing process. I wish to confirm that there are no known conflicts of interest associated with this publication and there has been no financial support for this work that could have influenced its outcome. Jessica Nishikawa DNP, APRN, FNP-C is an Associate Professor of Nursing at Hawaii Pacific University in Honolulu HI. Email: [email protected]. Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no new data was created or analyzed in this study.

Nurse Author & EditorVolume 34, Issue 3 e12064 OPINIONFree Access Failure to deanonymize information in biomedical academic papers Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva, Corresponding Author Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva [email protected] orcid.org/0000-0003-3299-2772 Correspondence Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva. Email: [email protected]Search for more papers by this author Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva, Corresponding Author Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva [email protected] orcid.org/0000-0003-3299-2772 Correspondence Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva. Email: [email protected]Search for more papers by this author First published: 01 July 2024 https://doi.org/10.1111/nae2.12064AboutSectionsPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onEmailFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat INTRODUCTION During traditional peer review, especially models that employ single-, double- or triple-blind peer review,1 authors might be requested to anonymise their papers in preparation for peer review. This process might involve one or more of the following processes2: removing personal information from the paper, such as authors' names, emails, affiliations and addresses; removing identifying features from the digital record of the file; replacing authors' names in the text and reference list with a more general term like "Author"; replacing the authors' affiliation (e.g., research institute or university) or funder's name with an "XXX" (or some other symbol). Not all journals that have an anonymization requirement might verify whether it has occurred, or whether deanonymization has been effected prior to publication. This latter issue is the topic of this commentary. In one form of open peer review (OPR), authors' identity is known to reviewers (and vice versa), that is, papers are not blinded, so there is no need to blind papers. Therefore, it is expected that fewer risks of deanonymization failures noted in this paper would be encountered in that form of OPR. However, there is still a lack of consensus regarding the exact definition of the parameters that define OPR,3 and thus in cases of OPR where authors' information is blinded to reviewers, independent of whether the reviewers' identities are known or unknown,4 care is needed regarding anonymization and subsequent deanonymization, aspects that are debated in this paper. Why is anonymization required in blinded peer review models? The most obvious prima facie reason, as suggested by the term itself, is because the process is supposed to be "blind", that is, the identities of one, two or more parties (authors, authors + peers, authors + peers + editors in single-, double- or triple-blind peer review, respectively) is supposed to be unknown. This is done to reduce, referring primarily to peer reviewers, minimise or eliminate bias5 and thus subjectivity towards authors,6 as well as to eliminate any risks of conflicts of interest.7 If that bias is not removed, then one risk is that the assessment by peers might be overly fair or unfair depending on whether their relationship with or perception of the authors is positive or negative, respectively.8 Thus, the ultimate objective of anonymization is an attempt to eliminate bias and/or peer/editor subjectivity towards authors, so that focus is placed exclusively on the paper's scientific content, accuracy and merits, as well as to make the peer review process as fair and objective as possible. In situations where authors might still feel that their paper may have been subjected to unfair treatment or assessment by peer reviewers, there is not much recourse for fair re-adjudication, except in journals that allow for a fresh round of peer review following an author's challenge, a situation that can be side-stepped when OPR that employs revealing the identity of both authors and reviewers, is employed.9 FAILURES OR WEAKNESSES OF ANONYMIZATION AND DEANONYMIZATION Anonymization does not always achieve its desired objective, namely to mask the identities of the paper's authors, their institutes, ethics committees, institutional review board (IRB) numbers, or funders, and papers that are meant to be anonymised might still carry identifiers that would reveal authors' identities (or some of the afore-mentioned aspects) to peer reviewers or editors, thereby risking biasing the process, thus defeating the initial objective of anonymising the process.10 The failure to anonymise papers might be due to oversight by the authors, since this process can be manual or laborious, or it could also be due to editorial oversight during the processing of papers, that is, failure of technical checks prior to passing supposedly anonymised papers to peer reviewers.11 Experienced peer reviewers who are fluent with the technical of thematic aspects of the paper's content might even be able to quite easily pin-point which research group the paper belongs to.12 In other cases, anonymization (e.g., of authors' identities) would be meaningless if a paper submitted to a peer-reviewed journal already has a preprint, since running the text of the supposedly blinded paper through a Google search might—depending on the level of textual similarity between the preprint version and the version submitted for peer review—reveal the preprint, and thus its authors and other identifying features.13 To some extent, these issues become irrelevant in OPR, in which the identities of authors, peer reviewers and handling editors are known (except for peer reviewers who select to remain anonymous), that is, a zero-blind form of peer review.4 Even so, in both preprints and OPR, it makes sense to maintain selective information anonymised, such as university names, IRB approval numbers, or other named identities that could bias the peer review. This theme is revisited later on in this commentary. In journals that employ anonymization, in both traditional (single-, double-, or triple-blind) peer review or OPR models, following peer review and acceptance of their papers, but prior to copyediting and proof development, authors should be provided an opportunity to replace all anonymised deidentifiers with the proper identification parameters, such as authors' names, affiliations, ethics' committee's names, IRB or funding project numbers. However, due to oversight by authors, as well as journal editors and managers, who carry responsibility for verifying this process, deanonymization might occasionally fail, that is, papers might be accepted and processed in their deanonymized state. Ultimately, however, authors are most responsible for verifying the content of their papers at the proof stage, even if there has been failure by copyeditors or editors to detect anonymised information. DEANONYMIZATION FAILURES: A LITMUS TEST The hypothesis that deanonymization failures exist in the published literature was borne from the identification of select cases on PubPeer, a post-publication platform, following a search for "XXX" in April 2024, which revealed a mixed bag of deanonymization failures. To refine those findings, a search for "XXX University" (any dates) was conducted on Google Scholar, between 20 and 30 April 2024 (Table 1). Due to the high volume of results in the latter search (approx. 1200 for 2020–2024, and 2230 for any dates), a manageable limit was set to the first 150 results. A number of limitations and restrictions/exclusions were applied as a way to filter out "noise" (e.g., deleted records, duplicate entries, etc.), false positives, and marginally relevant results: (1) only open access journals were considered, to allow the findings to be independently verified by any academic or member of the public without having any access-related restrictions to the papers; (2) only English papers were considered; (3) only papers that had a digital object identifier (DOI), independent of whether that DOI was recognised by Crossref, or not, were considered; (4) conferences, local reports, book chapters, and theses (e.g., BSc, MSc, PhD, etc.) were excluded; (5) cases in which both the HMTL and PDF versions did not show the same outcome were excluded; (6) preprints were excluded because it is considered that the use of XXX to show anonymised information is valid for this publication format, also because preprints are not a final, published, peer-reviewed publication (i.e., they are typically a publishing format in a transitory state of publication). Incidentally, 12 of the 150 screened Google Scholar results were preprints, mostly in Springer Nature's Research Square. TABLE 1. Cases of "XXX" (failed reversion of anonymised information) in 66 open access papers detected on Google Scholar. Year DOI Journal Publisher 2015 http://dx.doi.org/10.15344/2394-4978/2015/136 International Journal of Nursing & Clinical Practices Graphy Publications 2015 https://doi.org/10.5505/1304.7361.2015.32659 Turkish Journal of Emergency Medicine Elsevier 2018 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2018.04.026 International Journal of Surgery Elsevier 2018 http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/jtd.2017.11.129 Journal of Thoracic Disease AME Publishing Company 2018 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2017.11.052 a International Journal of Surgery Elsevier 2018 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2018.01.021 International Journal of Surgery Elsevier 2019 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jot.2018.11.001 Journal of Orthopaedic Translation Elsevier 2019 https://doi.org/10.1002/jbmr.3936 Journal of Bone and Mineral Research Oxford University Press 2020 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2020.08.056 International Journal of Surgery Elsevier 2020 https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/821/1/012030 IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering IOP Publishing 2020 https://doi.org/10.56042/ijtk.v19i4.27316 Indian Journal of Traditional Knowledge National Institute of Science Communication and Policy Research 2020 https://doi.org/10.19127/mbsjohs.616788 Middle Black Sea Journal of Health Science Ordu University Institute of Health Sciences 2021 https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-021-02386-6 Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research BMC (Springer Nature) 2021 https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/2304072 Scientific Programming Hindawi (Wiley) 2021 http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000028069 Medicine® Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. 2021 https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/2401256 b Journal of Healthcare Engineering Hindawi (Wiley) 2021 https://doi.org/10.1002/kjm2.12323 The Kaohsiung Journal of Medical Sciences Wiley 2021 https://doi.org/10.1002/kjm2.12430 The Kaohsiung Journal of Medical Sciences Wiley 2021 http://dx.doi.org/10.21776/ub.jam.2021.019.04.14 Jurnal Aplikasi Manajemen Universitas Brawijaya 2021 https://doi.org/10.1002/dys.1672 Dyslexia Wiley 2021 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10753-020-01323-9 Inflammation Springer Nature 2021 https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1952/4/042047 Journal of Physics: Conference Series IOP Publishing 2021 https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/4609256 b Scientific Programming Hindawi (Wiley) 2021 https://doi.org/10.1002/kjm2.12316 The Kaohsiung Journal of Medical Sciences Wiley 2021 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.114269 Social Science & Medicine Elsevier 2021 https://doi.org/10.26858/ijole.v5i1.16002 International Journal of Language Education Faculty of Languages and Literature Universitas Negeri Makassar 2021 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jds.2020.06.005 Journal of Dental Sciences Elsevier 2021 https://doi.org/10.18521/ktd.858764 Konuralp Medical Journal Düzce University Faculty of Medicine, Department of Family Medicine 2021 https://doi.org/10.4103/njcp.njcp_424_20 Nigerian Journal of Clinical Practice Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. 2021 https://doi.org/10.34293/education.v9i4.4064 Shanlax International Journal of Education Shanlax Journals 2021 https://doi.org/10.16899/jcm.1014683 Journal of Contemporary Medicine Rabia Yılmaz 2021 https://doi.org/10.32322/jhsm.971453 Journal of Health Sciences and Medicine MediHealth Academy Publishing 2021 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acvdsp.2020.10.118 Archives of Cardiovascular Diseases Supplements Elsevier 2022 https://doi.org/10.1177/23743735221077543 Journal of Patient Experience Sage Publishing 2022 https://doi.org/10.1177/21514593211070129 Geriatric Orthopaedic Surgery & Rehabilitation Sage Publishing 2022 https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/2209070 b Journal of Healthcare Engineering Hindawi (Wiley) 2022 https://doi.org/10.1111/iwj.13727 International Wound Journal Wiley 2022 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amsu.2022.103277 Annals of Medicine and Surgery Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. 2022 https://doi.org/10.5937/bjdm2203188C Balkan Journal of Dental Medicine Balkan Stomatological Society 2022 https://doi.org/10.23937/2469-5734/1510141 International Journal of Oral and Dental Health ClinMed International Library 2022 https://doi.org/10.31014/aior.1993.05.02.485 Education Quarterly Reviews The Asian Institute of Research 2022 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2022.07.1417 International Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics Elsevier 2022 https://doi.org/10.51271/JTPM-0013 Journal of Translational and Practical Medicine MediHealth Academy Publishing 2022 https://doi.org/10.37845/ret.vit.2022.31.37 Journal of Retina-Vitreous Gazi Göz Vakfi 2022 https://doi.org/10.55920/2771-019X/1288 Journal of Clinical and Medical Images Case Reports Unclear 2022 https://doi.org/10.5937/bjdm2203188C Balkan Journal of Dental Medicine Balkan Stomatological Society 2022 https://doi.org/10.2186/jpr.JPR_D_20_00153 Journal of Prosthodontic Research Japan Prosthodontic Society 2023 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2022.110661 European Journal of Radiology Elsevier 2023 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12872-023-03042-z a BMC Cardiovascular Disorders BMC (Springer Nature) 2023 https://doi.org/10.1590/1517-8692202329012022_0649 Revista Brasileira de Medicina do Esporte Sociedade Brasileira de Medicina do Exercício e do Esporte 2023 https://doi.org/10.1017/S147895152100198X Palliative & Supportive Care Cambridge University Press 2023 https://doi.org/10.2147/NDT.S407156 Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment Dove Press (Taylor & Francis) 2023 https://doi.org/10.34044/j.kjss.2023.44.1.17 Kasetsart Journal of Social Sciences Kasetsart University Research and Development Institute 2023 https://doi.org/10.21608/ijhegy.2023.204249.1024 International Journal of Health Sciences (Egypt) Sharkia Medical Syndicate 2023 https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000036155 Medicine® Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. 2023 https://doi.org/10.17718/tojde.1186586 Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education Anadolu University 2023 https://doi.org/10.21614/sgo-625 Surgery, Gastroenterology and Oncology International Association of Surgeons, Gastroenterologists and Oncologists 2023 https://doi.org/10.4103/jcrt.jcrt_865_22 Journal of Cancer Research and Therapeutics Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. 2023 http://dx.doi.org/10.23977/socsam.2023.040819 Social Security and Administration Management Clausius Scientific Press 2023 https://doi.org/10.54005/geneltip.1210866 Genel Tıp Dergisi Selcuk University School of Medicine 2023 https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000034111 Medicine® Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. 2023 https://doi.org/10.34087/cbusbed.1221370 Celal Bayar University-Health Sciences Institute Journal Celal Bayar University 2023 https://doi.org/10.4103/jfmpc.jfmpc_270_21 Journal of Family Medicine and Primary Care Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. 2024 https://doi.org/10.1007/s13410-022-01161-5 International Journal of Diabetes in Developing Countries Springer Nature 2024 https://doi.org/10.4103/indianjotol.indianjotol_119_23 Indian Journal of Otology Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. 2024 https://doi.org/10.54005/geneltip.1271990 Genel Tıp Dergisi Selcuk University School of Medicine a Paper has a corrigendum. b Paper has been retracted. After manually examining the 150 Google Scholar results, using the inclusion/exclusion criteria noted above, 66 relevant cases/results were identified (Table 1). These cases were found in a wide range of journals and publishers, in both status quo and less-known open access outlets. Although not quantified, the majority of cases had between one and three instances of XXX in their texts, usually associated with methodology and ethics statements (e.g., related to ethics committees or IRB approval), and thus appearing primarily in the abstract, methods and ethics statements sections of papers (see Supporting Information S1). Among several of the results that were excluded and not analysed (tabulated), it was curious to note how Google Scholar had detected the presence of XXX in accepted versions of papers, whereas the final published versions no longer carried such vestigial traces of anonymization. In other words, journals, publishers and copyeditors, as well as possible author verification, correctly processed accepted papers, substituting anonymised text in accepted (in press, online) versions with the proper identification in the final published version. Two examples are provided to visually demonstrate failures in deanonymization related to authors' names, within the text and in reference lists, as well as related to institutional identities (including their ethics committees). In the first case, three references in Schrager et al.,14 published by Wiley, with 2019, 2020 and 2022 dates, are represented by "Author X. X., Y. Y. and Z. Z.", respectively (Figure 1a,b). In the second case, anonymised ethics committee as well as anonymised university name(s) exist in the description of participants of Yoshikawa et al.,15 published by Elsevier (Figure 1c). In this case, it is important to know which university issued the ethics approvals since the authors are associated with two universities, Hiroshima University and Hiroshima International University. FIGURE 1Open in figure viewerPowerPoint The failure to deanonymize authors' names and three references (indicated by red arrows) in Table 1 (a) and the reference list (b) of Schrager et al.,14 as well as the university name and associated ethics committees (c) of Yoshikawa et al.15 (indicated by red underline). For (a) and (b), it is unclear why the 2019 paper was anonymised because the author, as indicated by the PubMed link on the HTML reference list of Learnt Publishing, indicates the following paper: Nguyen B. M. (2019). The most shocking and inhuman. Family Medicine, 51(1), 5–7. https://doi.org/10.22454/FamMed.2019.175092. In contrast, one of the authors of Schrager et al. (2023), namely M. Bowman, is also an author of the 2022 reference, which should be: Bowman, M. A., Seehusen, D. A., Mahoney, M. R., & Ledford, C. J. W. (2022). Health care equity for Family Medicine patients and family physician equity. Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine, 35(1), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.3122/jabfm.2022.01.210438. Date of screenshots: 27 September 2023, under a CC BY-NC-ND licence. In the case of Yoshikawa et al. (2021), a formal submission of a letter to the editor to the journal (Journal of Dental Sciences) on 3 November 2023 was met with an "out of scope" desk rejection, while a follow-up query to the Editor-in-Chief and corresponding author on 25 November 2023 regarding whether the missing "XXX" information would be corrected was met with silence. This litmus test, which served primarily to prove that deanonymization failure exists in indexed peer-reviewed literature, has several limitations. As was indicated above, an April 2024 search revealed over 2200 "hits" on Google Scholar, the first 150 of which were assessed in detail for this paper, subjected to exclusions noted above. The findings of this paper should thus not be considered as definitive, nor should quantitative conclusions be extrapolated from the 66 cases noted in Table 1. Other academics who are interested in conducting this type of analysis, or who may wish to expand this analysis by sifting through the full complement of Google Scholar results, including non-open access papers (assuming that they have full-text access), should analyse texts carefully so as not to make an erroneous judgement based on false positives. Ideally, a multi-pronged database-based analysis using Scopus, Web of Science, PubMed, and Google Scholar (in the latter case, to capture grey literature) is merited to try and appreciate the full extent of such deanonymization errors. DEANONYMIZATION FAILURES ARE ERRORS THAT REQUIRE CORRECTION In the cases indicated in Table 1 and Figure 1, it can be appreciated that information is either missing or incorrect in the final published versions of these papers. Consequently, these are de facto errors in these papers that are in need of correction.16 Although at the end of April 2024 three of the 66 cases had been retracted (Table 1), all in Hindawi (Wiley) journals, the failure of deanonimization was not the (or one of the) stated reason for retraction, at least according to the published retraction notices. It is thus incumbent upon authors and editors to work together with the publisher to provide the missing information (for example of the references' authors, university or ethics committee), and issue a corrigendum, as was done for two papers listed in Table 1. RELEVANCE TO NURSE AUTHORS AND EDITORS As a subset of biomedical journals, nursing journals might employ anonymization and deanonimization procedures to papers published in them, independent of whether they use traditional (single-, double-, or triple-blind) peer review or OPR models. Thus, the advice, suggestions and case studies highlighted in this evidence-based opinion paper would benefit members of the nursing community that publish in nursing and other biomedical journals. Not only, these cases would also allow editors and copyeditors of nursing journals that mandate anonymization prior to peer review to pay closer attention to this aspect after they accept papers in which anonymised information exists. Of note, none of the 66 cases in Table 1 are nursing journals, although that does not imply that nursing journals are immune to the risk of this error. As was noted above in the limitations, a comprehensive analysis of several thousand provisional results of "XXX", according to Google Scholar, might reveal some examples that are directly pertinent to the nursing community. IN SUMMARY The issue of the existence of anonymised information in peer-reviewed papers, as a result of the failure to convert such information into deanonymized information, is not a "fatal" issue of a paper in the sense that it would likely not impact the scientific conclusions. However, some information that remains anonymised may be essential, for example, IRB numbers or the names of ethics committees or universities that accompany ethics-related statements. In such cases, authors are responsible for detecting deanonymization failures at the proof stage, while editors and copyeditors also need to employ greater due diligence in detecting anonymised information. Specifically, for journals that employ a mandatory anonymization protocol, following official acceptance but prior to copyediting and proof development, I recommend that authors be provided an opportunity to complete one last revision of their accepted paper's version to ensure that any anonymised information is deanonymized. Finally, any deanonymized information that is detected post-publication can be easily corrected with an erratum. AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS The author contributed to the conceptual design, writing, editing, and takes responsibility for the content of the paper. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS None. CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT The author, who declares no conflicts of interest. PUBLICATION APPROVAL Not applicable. Biography Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva is an independent researcher in Japan. Open Research DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT The data that supports the findings of this study are available in the supplementary material of this article. Supporting Information Filename Description nae212064-sup-0001-suppl-data.xlsx31.8 KB Supporting Information S1 Please note: The publisher is not responsible for the content or functionality of any supporting information supplied by the authors. Any queries (other than missing content) should be directed to the corresponding author for the article. REFERENCES 1Dunleavy DJ. The cultivation of social work knowledge: toward a more robust system of peer review. Fam Soc. 2021; 102(4): 556-568. https://doi.org/10.1177/10443894211012243 10.1177/10443894211012243 Web of Science®Google Scholar 2Morse JM. Why we blind: anonymity in the review process. Qual Health Res. 2014; 24(11): 1467-1468. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732314552397 10.1177/1049732314552397 PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 3Ross-Hellauer T. What is open peer review? A systematic review. F1000Res. 2017; 6: 588. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.11369.2 10.12688/f1000research.11369.2 PubMedGoogle Scholar 4Besançon L, Rönnberg N, Löwgren J, Tennant JP, Cooper M. Open up: a survey on open and non-anonymized peer reviewing. Res Integr Peer Rev. 2020; 5(1): 8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-020-00094-z 10.1186/s41073-020-00094-z PubMedGoogle Scholar 5Baggs JG, Broome ME, Dougherty MC, Freda MC, Kearney MH. Blinding in peer review: the preferences of reviewers for nursing journals. J Adv Nursing. 2008; 64(2): 131-138. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2008.04816.x 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2008.04816.x CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 6Shaw DM. Blinded by the light: anonymization should be used in peer review to prevent bias, not protect referees. EMBO Rep. 2015; 16(8): 894-897. https://doi.org/10.15252/embr.201540943 10.15252/embr.201540943 CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 7Resnik DB, Elmore SA. Conflict of interest in journal peer review. Toxicol Pathol. 2018; 46(2): 112-114. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192623318754792 10.1177/0192623318754792 PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 8Haffar S, Bazerbachi F, Murad MH. Peer review bias: a critical review. Mayo Clin Proc. 2019; 94(4): 670-676. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mayocp.2018.09.004 10.1016/j.mayocp.2018.09.004 PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 9Shoham N, Pitman A. Open versus blind peer review: is anonymity better than transparency? BJPsych Adv. 2021; 27(4): 247-254. https://doi.org/10.1192/bja.2020.61 10.1192/bja.2020.61 Google Scholar 10Chloros GD, Konstantinidis CI, Vasilopoulou A, Giannoudis PV. Peer review practices in academic medicine: how the example of orthopaedic surgery may help shift the paradigm? Int Orthop. 2023; 47(5): 1137-1145. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-023-05729-6 10.1007/s00264-023-05729-6 PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 11Tennant JP, Ross-Hellauer T. The limitations to our understanding of peer review. Res Integr Peer Rev. 2020; 5(1): 6. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-020-00092-1 10.1186/s41073-020-00092-1 PubMedGoogle Scholar 12O'Connor EE, Cousar M, Lentini JA, Castillo M, Halm K, Zeffiro TA. Efficacy of double-blind peer review in an imaging subspecialty journal. Am J Neuroradiol. 2017; 38(2): 230-235. https://doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.A5017 10.3174/ajnr.A5017 PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 13Teixeira da Silva JA. Anonymity in anonymized peer review is incompatible with preprints. Eur Sci Ed. 2022; 48:e91290. https://doi.org/10.3897/ese.2022.e91290 10.3897/ese.2022.e91290 Google Scholar 14Schrager S, Sexton S, Bowman M, Richardson C. Family Medicine editors collaborate towards antiracist publishing. Learn Publ. 2023; 36(1): 68-72. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1532 10.1002/leap.1532 Web of Science®Google Scholar 15Yoshikawa M, Fukuoka T, Mori T, et al. Comparison of the Iowa Oral performance instrument and JMS tongue pressure measurement device. J Dent Sci. 2021; 16(1): 214-219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jds.2020.06.005 10.1016/j.jds.2020.06.005 PubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar 16Teixeira da Silva JA. An error is an error… is an erratum. The ethics of not correcting errors in the science literature. Publish Res Q. 2016; 32(3): 220-226. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12109-016-9469-0 10.1007/s12109-016-9469-0 Google Scholar Volume34, Issue3September 2024e12064 FiguresReferencesRelatedInformation