DOI: 10.3897/ese.2026.e92847

Authors: Lovorka Čaja, Iva Grabarić Andonovski, Mary Hodgson

Abstract: 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.

HTML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2026.e173438

Authors: Olivier Pourret

Abstract: 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 theses. 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 submision-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.

HTML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2025.e165365

Authors: Anuradha Baminiwatta, Chathuranga Costa, Dinuka Weerasinghe, S. M. Yasir Arafat, Brady D. Lund

Abstract: Background: The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) tools in academic publishing is expanding rapidly, raising concerns about authorship, transparency, and editorial 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-quartile 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 random 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; χ² = 14, P = .003). Of the 78 journals, 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 permitted 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 mental 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.

HTML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2025.e151746

Authors: Tom Lang

Abstract: 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.

HTML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2025.e162102

Authors: Londa Schiebinger, Mathias Wullum Nielsen, Elena Gissi, Shirin Heidari, Richard Horton, Kari C. Nadeau, Dorothy Ngila, Safiya Umoja Noble, Hee Young Paik, Girmaw Abebe Tadesse, Eddy Y. Zeng, James Zou, Joan Marsh

Abstract: Intersectional analysis goes beyond consideration of single variables to examine the compounded impact at the intersections of, for example, gender and race, or geographical location and caste. The Guidelines for Intersectional Analysis in Science and Technology (GIST) help researchers, journal editors, and funding agencies systematically integrate intersectional analysis into relevant domains of science and technology. These guidelines serve as a roadmap for quantitative intersectional analysis throughout the research process—from setting strategic research priorities and shaping research questions to data collection, analysis, and interpretation. Here we provide a checklist to facilitate author and journal editor compliance with the guidelines. We recommend that the GIST checklist be added to journals’ “Information for Authors”. The goal is to reset the research default to include intersectional analysis, where appropriate. Intersectional analysis leads to better science: precision in research best guides effective social and environmental policies that, in turn, enhance global equity and sustainability.

HTML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2025.e142485

Authors: Shelly Melissa Pranić, Ana Heredia, Charikleia Tzanakou, Pavel Ovseiko, Kate Wilson, Diana Samuel, Christina Kassiteridi

Abstract: Background: Scholarly settings lack racial, ethnic, sex, gender, geographic, and linguistic diversity. Despite initiatives to promote more inclusive scholarly communities, the extent of implementation of policies related to equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) remains low.Objectives: The objective is to survey the perceptions and opinions of journal editors and other stakeholders with reference to policies related to EDI and relevant practices in their journals and organizations.Methods: We sent out, through email, a link to a survey with 16 Likert-scale items and 8 open-ended questions in English to assess the perceptions of EDI. Questions were generated based on discussions at meetings of the European Association of Science Editors (EASE) EDI Committee in November and December 2023. The survey was available from 8 to 30 January 2024. Snowball sampling was used among members of EASE and those of related professional organizations recruited through social networks.Results: Of the total of 232 participants, 129/232 (56%) responded on behalf of journals and 103/232 (44%) on behalf of organizations. Most (72%) considered EDI to be important or very important for their journal or organization, and even more (76%) wanted examples of existing policies and guidelines for implementing EDI. Exactly 50% (27/54) reported that their organizations have no published EDI policies, and 59% (54/91) reported the absence of an EDI statement.Conclusion: Although the survey showed wide support for EDI within journals and organizations, efforts to develop EDI policies and statements have been limited, as reflected in the responses that welcomed guidance on EDI. This suggests a need for increased awareness and knowledge-sharing about EDI policies and practices, as well as concrete actions to create a more diverse scholarly community.

HTML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2025.e156214

Authors: Agnieszka Freda, Ana Heredia, Charoula Tzanakou, Joan Marsh

Abstract: -

HTML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2025.e148267

Authors: Swarna Buddha Nayok, Harsh Pathak

Abstract: N/A

HTML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2025.e139166

Authors: Anda-Cosmina Hângan, Andrei Ognean, Michal Orlický, Karlo Prižmić, Dorian Karuc, Hrvoje Baric

Abstract: Background: In 2016, the SAGER (sex and gender equity in research) guidelines were developed to standardize research reporting and to facilitate the generalizability of research findings for women and men, thereby impacting clinical practice.Objectives: To assess the extent to which the SAGER guidelines have been implemented in neurosurgical publications.Methods: Original research articles from leading neurosurgical journals indexed in Google Scholar under the category ‘Neurosurgery’ were examined and assessed for the extent to which the articles conformed to the SAGER guidelines. Data were extracted on subjects (sample size and relative proportions of sex or gender) and on adherence to the SAGER guidelines (one item for general principles and five items from recommendations for each section of the article) and summarized.Results: We included 98 articles from 10 leading neurosurgical journals. The average number of subjects for a journal was 4728, of which 2056 (43.5%) were women. Only nine (9.2%) of the 98 articles used the terms ‘sex’ and ‘gender’ appropriately. The outcomes were disaggregated by sex in 16 (16.3%) articles; sex differences were acknowledged in the introduction in six (6.1%) articles; considered in the ‘Methods’ section in five (5.1%) articles; the differing numbers of women and men were justified in the methods in two (2%) articles; and the generalizability of the results to women or men was discussed in five (5.1%) articles. The journals showed no differences in the extent to which they adhered to the guidelines.Conclusions: Reporting sex and gender equity in neurosurgical journals is negligible for the most screened SAGER items as is the endorsement of the guidelines. The results likely reflect the lack of awareness of both the importance of disaggregating data by sex or gender and the existence of pertinent guidelines.

HTML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2025.e142904

Authors: Chris Zielinski

Abstract: Generative AI/chatbots provide a valuable new writing tool, but they are just software products, and software does not have a legal persona. You cannot sue, arraign, fine, imprison or otherwise punish a chatbot. This is one reason why many journals, as well as COPE, ICMJE and WAME, among other practitioners’ organisations, advise against identifying AI as an author. Furthermore, chatbots produce a statistically generated language, or botfo, by applying probability to the materials they have scanned. It is a strangely dehumanised language, lacking intentionality and containing conscious and unconscious bias. Ultimately, this paper argues that we should not call chatbots authors since they are unaccountable, and can’t think, judge or be jailed.

HTML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2024.e137675

Authors: Bahar Mehmani, Mario Malički

Abstract: To address the low overlap between reviewer comments and the publication recommendations they make, as well as to suggest guidance on what kind of peer review report would benefit journals and editors the most, we introduced structured peer review to Elsevier journals and analyzed its effect in our June 2024 paper: peerj.com/articles/17514/ . To further promote the implementation of the structured peer review process and help reviewers prepare thorough review reports, in this paper, we present our set of structured peer review questions in a checklist format.

HTML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2024.e139657

Authors: Philippe C. Baveye

Abstract: n/a

HTML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2024.e124807

Authors: Silvije Šegulja, Gordana Starčević Klasan, Anja Šegulja Perić, Mirela Vučković, Iva Sorta-Bilajac Turina

Abstract: Background: Case reports are especially important in paediatrics, and CARE (CAse REport) guidelines help in standardizing the reporting in case reports.Objectives: To examine the actual use of CARE guidelines in journals in the field of paediatrics.Methods: Journals that publish case reports were selected from the databases of the Web of Science Core Collection (WoSCC; Science Citation Index Expanded, or SCIE; and Emerging Sources Citation Index, or ESCI). All journals that publish case reports and mention CARE guidelines were included, and the ranking (quartiles) of those journals was also recorded. From all the journals in paediatrics that mention CARE in their instructions for authors, 5% of all the open-access case reports were selected (limited to 10 reports from any one journal), and every 10th case report was included in the analysis. The reports published between 2013 and 2023 were further analysed for their compliance with the 13-item CARE checklist.Results: Of 184 journals in the field of paediatrics category included in the WoSCC, 130 (71%) were indexed in the SCIE and 54 (29%) in the ESCI; 161 (87%) publish case reports; and 121 (65%) mention CARE guidelines in their instructions for authors. However, they differ in applying CARE guidelines (P = .001), and more journals included in the ESCI mention CARE guidelines than do those included in the SCIE. During 2013–2023, a total of 22,989 case reports were published in the 121 journals that mention CARE guidelines. Of the total, 6733 (29%) were open access. Our final sample comprised 326 (5%) open access case reports that were open access, of which 240 (74%) were in the journals included in the SCIE and 86 (26%) in the ESCI. On aver-age, these reports were given a score of 8.5 (SD 1.97; range, 2–13) out of the maximum possible score of 13. The highest compliance was observed for the informed consent item (99%), while the lowest compliance was found for the keywords item (22%).Conclusion: It is important for journals to ensure that during writing and editing, the case reports they publish adhere to CARE guidelines so as to eliminate biased reporting and improve their quality.

HTML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2024.e131528

Authors: Philippe C. Baveye

Abstract: Journal and book editors in most disciplines are faced with a flood of meta-analyses, which critical reviews have shown are not always of sufficient quality. In the short run, editors could give targeted instructions to authors and make specific recommendations to reviewers to ensure that not only meta-analyses but also research syntheses more broadly, published under their watch, meet acceptable publication standards. In order to achieve satisfactory improvements in the long run, editors should foster fundamental changes in the way the publication of negative and non-significant results is handled.

HTML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2024.e122090

Authors: Nikita Lad, Iva Grabarić Andonovski, Dana Compton, Jo Wixon, Mary Hodgson

Abstract: Background: To enlist publishers and journals in promoting the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), the United Nations and the International Publishers Association (IPA) launched the SDG Publishers Compact in 2020, and the European Association of Science Editors (EASE) published its Environmental Manifesto, a set of recommendations for journal editors on how to contribute to reducing a journal’s carbon footprint. It is important to monitor the impact of these initiatives on journal policies for developing future recommendations.Objectives: The EASE and the Higher Education Sustainability Initiative (HESI) SDG Publishers Compact Fellows developed a survey to assess the progress made by signatories to the SDG Publishers Compact, detect obstacles that prevent other publishers or journals from signing the compact, assess awareness and implementation of the EASE Environmental Manifesto, and identify other initiatives that promote SDGs.Methods: A multi-stakeholder group was formed, which included editors and both commercial and non-profit publishers, to design questions suited to journals and organizations at different stages of sustainability action. The survey was designed using SurveyMonkey, introduced in an online workshop, distributed through mail-ing lists to more than 2000 addresses, and promoted on social networks, and a total of 79 responses were collected and discussed.Results: Most respondents were representatives of smaller journals based in Europe. The majority were aware of the SDGs, but only half were aware of the SDG Publishers Compact, and only 17 (22%) were signatories to the Compact. Lack of awareness was the major reason for not joining the initiative, followed by lack of time or resources. Respondents focused mostly on quality education, and the majority were acting to achieve at least one SDG. Signatories to the compact mostly have a written environmental policy, have appointed an environmental officer, and are acquiring content related to the SDGs and promoting related activities. Non-signatories are also acting to minimize their environmental impact but have not considered the SDGs in their workflows. Both groups mainly do not have a dedicated budget to achieve the SDGs and have not completed a baseline of their activities. Activities undertaken to reach the SDGs had the most effect on community awareness. Half the respondents were members of EASE and were taking actions aligned with the Environmental Manifesto, mostly towards reducing their journal’s carbon footprint, and 25% are fol-lowing other initiatives aimed at achieving the SDGs as well.Conclusions: The survey showed that editors of small academic journals were not aware of the SDG Publishers Compact, although most of them are acting to achieve at least one SDG. Signatories to the Compact are implementing SDGs into their work-flows and practices, which shows the importance of the initiative. Greater efforts should be undertaken to make the editors of smaller journals aware of the Compact, encourage them to become its signatories, and provide them with more resources and metrics for monitoring their activities.

HTML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2024.e123908

Authors: Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva

Abstract: The current and predominant school of thought in academic publishing, with a correspondingly rigorously implemented set of ethical policies, notes that classic authorship is a purely human endeavor. However, such rigid conceptual restrictions on authorship for artificial intelligence (AI), like large language models (LLMs), may be borne from fear, emerging perhaps from being intellectually threatened by AI/LLMs that might outperform humans. In this paper, considering several caveats, a world of academic publishing in which AI/LLMs are offered a fair opportunity of authorship, coined AI-authorship, is envisioned.

HTML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2024.e131771

Authors: Olivier Pourret

Abstract:

HTML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2024.e129735

Authors: Ksenija Baždarić, Joan Marsh, Duncan Nicholas

Abstract:

HTML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2024.e114734

Authors: Gina Joubert

Abstract: Background: Statistical analyses are a key component of quantitative research in health sciences. Objectives: To review the instructions for authors on reporting and presentation of statistical methods by all health sciences journals based in South Africa. Methods: Health sciences journals based in South Africa that publish original quantitative research articles were identified using three sources, namely the list of accredited South African journals compiled by the South African Department of Higher Education and Training in 2022, relevant journals covered in Scopus, and web pages of major health sciences publishers in South Africa. The list was cross-checked against the listing of journals in Sabinet, an online database covering South Africa, under the category ‘Collection: Medicine and Health’. The instructions for authors given by the journals were accessed through their websites. The form for recording data was based on items listed in the ‘Statistical Analyses and Methods in the Published Literature’ (SAMPL) guidelines. Results: All except one of the 52 journals could be located online. Of the 51, 13 (25%) made no mention of statistics in their instructions, and 11 (22%) made only a general statement regarding statistical content with no further guidance. The statistical item most frequently mentioned was the P value (45% of journals), whereas the rest of the items appeared in the instructions of 20% or fewer journals. Nine journals (18%) referred to the EQUATOR guidelines, mainly CONSORT (10%). Conclusion: Nearly half of the health sciences journals based in South Africa either did not mention statistics at all in their instructions for authors or made only a cursory reference to statistics. The study thus emphasizes that these journals, in their instructions for authors, need to cover in greater detail the reporting and presentation of statistical methods in articles reporting quantitative research.

HTML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2023.e99151

Authors: Kadri Kiran, Erdem Demiröz, Hacı Ali Güleç, Müge Atakan, Cem Uzun

Abstract: Background: Although Turkey publishes more than 3000 peer-reviewed scientific journals, fewer than 5% of them are covered by major indexing databases, and only 1 of the 10 scientific journals published by Trakya University (Turkey) is among those quality journals. In November 2017, Trakya University organized a workshop titled ‘Increasing the quality of academic journals at Trakya University’, the ultimate goal of which was to bring together all stakeholders in the process of academic publishing, to review the criteria of publishing quality, and to recommend measures to enhance the quality of academic journals published from Turkey. Objectives: To review the current status of academic journals published by Trakya University in terms of international publishing standards, to devise measures to enhance their quality, and also to help other journals do the same. Methods: Information was collected from the websites of 10 academic journals pub-lished by Trakya University in the fields of natural, medical, and social sciences to assess the extent to which each journal met a set of criteria defining quality academic publishing. These journals were then compared in terms of their success in meeting those criteria.Results: No single measure can improve the quality of all the ten journals published by Trakya University. Balkan Medical Journal topped the list in that it satisfied nearly all the criteria whereas the journals that met the fewest criteria were Trakya University Journal of Economics and Administrative Sciences Faculty, Trakya University Journal of Faculty of Letters, and Journal of Balkan Libraries Union. Timeliness in ensuring ethical standards was the criterion most often met by the journals, but all 10 failed to meet the criteria related to data accessibility and good reporting guidelines. Of the 8 crite-ria related to fairness of the blind-review processes, all 10 met 6 but none met all 8. In terms of transparency and implementation of best practices, the highest compliance was in terms of the criteria related to the name of the journal, its governing body, and archiving, but no journal made any effort to market itself, that is, to expand its circulation.Conclusions: The strengths and weaknesses of each journal with reference to the quality of academic publishing were highlighted. The method described in the paper can also be used for evaluating other journals.

HTML

XML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2023.e101121

Authors: Panagiotis Tsigaris, Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva

Abstract:

HTML

XML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2023.e98101

Authors: Yuki Yamada, Andreas Nishikawa-Pacher, Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva

Abstract: Some journals require users to register before accessing a scientific paper, despite labelling that content as open access (OA) and free-of-charge. We refer to such cases as members-only OA (MOOA), which we contend is not ‘free’ since users are forced to ‘pay’ with personal data. Scholarly content may be accessible via MOOA to either the in-browser text (HTML) or to the archival-friendly version (PDF), or both. We suggest a four-tier typology to capture the degree of openness based on this observation. We believe that technical guidelines of OA implementation should not permit MOOA.

HTML

XML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2023.e96778

Authors: Danielle S. Gash, Christopher H. Wortley

Abstract: Artwork within publications, broadly covering non-text items including graphs, diagrams, and photographs, is typically published under a copyright licence, and permission for the reproduction of such items needs to be sought. The various image rights can be difficult to navigate, especially in the era of open access, and thus at The Lancet, we have developed a streamlined workflow to guide our teams on artwork permission processes in our journals. We present a practical guide for other publishing professionals, which can be adapted to meet their resources and needs.

HTML

XML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2023.e99231

Authors: Sun Huh

Abstract: None

HTML

XML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2023.e90942

Authors: Nguyen Hoang Thien

Abstract: The risk of bias in academic publishing is present from the first stages of the publishing process when the author creates an account and submits the manuscript, which becomes subject to the rights and power of journal editors. The author’s disclosure of certain personal information risks exposing him/her to biases for or against certain groups of authors. To reduce these potential biases, reviewers and editors involved in the assessment of author works should be prevented from accessing authors’ information until the final decision regarding publication has been made. Some information, such as authors’ ORCID details, can be requested after the article is accepted for publication. Standardizing appeal procedures and establishing protocols for handling author appeals is a necessary step in the effort to reduce publication bias. Regulations for the cover letter to editor should also be put in place to ensure that authors’ personal information is not disclosed, either explicitly or implicitly.

HTML

XML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2022.e95926

Authors: Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva

Abstract: In the academic world, despite their corrective nature, there is still a negative stigma attached to retractions, even more so if they are based on ethical infractions. Editors-in-chief and editors are role models in academic and scholarly communities. Thus, if they have multiple retractions or a record of academic misconduct, this viewpoint argues that they should not serve on journals’ editorial boards. The exception is where such individuals have displayed a clear path of scholarly reform. Policy and guidance is needed by organizations such as the Committee on Publication Ethics.

HTML

XML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2022.e89445

Authors: Kate Wilson

Abstract:

HTML

XML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2022.e86910

Authors: Heather Van Epps, Olaya Astudillo, Yaiza Del Pozo Martin, Joan Marsh

Abstract: Understanding sex and gender differences is fundamental to rigorous and inclusive research, whether studying disease pathophysiology, sociodemographic determinants of health, or the benefits and harms of medical or social interventions. The inclusion of gender-diverse study populations has improved, but the reporting of sex and gender variables in research is still incomplete. The Sex and Gender Equity in Research (SAGER) guidelines, published in 2016, have been widely endorsed, but few scientific journals and organizations have incorporated them into formal editorial guidance and publication policies. To facilitate monitoring of and adherence to the SAGER guidelines in Lancet journals, we carried out an informal pilot study and developed a checklist to enable rapid editorial checks, promote uptake of the guidelines by other editors and journals, and raise awareness among peer reviewers and authors. By using this checklist as part of manuscript assessment and peer-review processes, journal editors can support best reporting practices when considering sex and gender as variables, improving the generalizability of the research they publish.

HTML

XML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2022.e91290

Authors: Jaime Teixeira da Silva

Abstract:

HTML

XML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2022.e83943

Authors: Libor Ansorge

Abstract: In this communication, the calls for standardizing citation styles are discussed. Instead of standardizing citation style, I consider efforts to introduce style-free references to be more beneficial to authors.

HTML

XML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2022.e71240

Authors: Necdet Sut, Zafer Koçak, Selcuk Korkmaz, Cem Uzun

Abstract: Background: Published reports of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are not compliant with the CONSORT checklist as much as they should.Objective: To assess the quality, in terms of the level to which they are compliant with the CONSORT checklist, of abstracts of RCTs published in general medical journals in the Balkan region.Methods: Two observers assessed the abstracts of RCTs published in five general medical journals of the Balkan region between 2012 and 2018 to determine the level to which the abstracts were compliant with the 16-item CONSORT abstracts checklist.Results: Of the 183 studies that were identified for evaluation, 124 (67.8%) were excluded from the evaluation. The average compliance level was 44.5% (95% CI: 41.9%–47.1%), the lowest being that for randomization (1.7%), funding (1.7%),numbers analysed (11.0%), blinding (13.6%), and trial registration (18.6%). However, the compliance level was very high for conclusions (99.2%), objectives (96.6%), interventions (95.8%), and primary outcomes (83.9%). The length of the abstract (word count) and the level of compliance were positively correlated (rs = 0.43; p = 0.001). Abstracts of trials published in journals that endorse CONSORT in their publication policies were more compliant than those published in other journals (47.5 ± 10.4 versus 40.8 ± 8.0, p = 0.024).Conclusion: The overall level of compliance with the CONSORT checklist was below 50%. To improve the quality of abstracts of RCTs, authors should be encouraged to use the CONSORT checklist, and editors should check compliance with the CONSORT guidelines as part the publishing workflow.

HTML

XML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2022.e81677

Authors: Cary Moskovitz, Michael Pemberton, Susanne Hall

Abstract: Because science advances incrementally, scientists often need to repeat material included in their prior work when composing new texts. Such “text recycling” is a common but complex writing practice, so authors and editors need clear and consistent guidance about what constitutes appropriate practice. Unfortunately, publishers’ policies on text recycling to date have been incomplete, unclear, and sometimes internally inconsistent. Building on 4 years of research on text recycling in scientific writing, the Text Recycling Research Project has developed a model text recycling policy that should be widely applicable for research publications in scientific fields. This article lays out the challenges text recycling poses for editors and authors, describes key factors that were addressed in developing the policy, and explains the policy’s main features.

HTML

XML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2022.e83864

Authors: Jaime Teixeira da Silva

Abstract: The European Union (EU), and Europe more widely, is facing its largest socio-political threat in a generation. As the political events between Russia and Ukraine, which have been festering since at least 2014, have now turned into a war, with many major Western and EU companies barring business with Russia, and with most Western Governments imposing increasingly stiffer sanctions on Russia, where do non-Russian academic publishers stand? This commentary takes a brief look at what we know, and where we stand. A humanitarian response is needed, but so too is a decision regarding treatment of Russian and Ukrainian academics.

HTML

XML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2022.e77781

Authors: Tanja Vuckovic Juros

Abstract: Open science offers hope for new accountability and transparency in social sciences. Nevertheless, it still fails to fully consider the complexities of qualitative research, as exemplified by a reflection on sensitive qualitative data sharing. As a result, the developing patterns of rewards and sanctions promoting open science raise concern that quantitative research, whose “replication crisis” brought the open science movement to life, will benefit from “good science” re-evaluations at the expense of other research epistemologies, despite the necessity to define accountability and transparency in social sciences more widely and not to conflate those with either reproducibility or data sharing.

HTML

XML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2022.e76113

Authors: Christopher Baethge

Abstract: Effective 30 June 2021, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, ICMJE, has updated its disclosure form. It is now public on ICMJE’s web page, and member journals have started using the form. In the ICMJE, editors of general medical journals discuss and adopt proposals to address important problems in medical publishing, such as authorship definition, trial registration, data sharing, and the declaration of conflict of interest. All of ICMJE’s proposals are summarized in the “Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals”, a 19-page document containing advice on a wide variety of topics related to manuscript writing and publishing.

HTML

XML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2021.e75625

Authors: Stephan Mertens, Alastair Brown

Abstract: Human impacts on the Earth have become so pervasive as to drive global scale changes leading some scientists to propose a new geological epoch, the Anthropocene. A name which reflects the huge and sweeping changes human activities have caused to the Earth. Furthermore, these rapidly expanding and accelerating activities threaten to push aspects of the Earth system beyond the relatively stable and safe space in which the entirety of human history occurred, the Holocene. This safe operating space is characterised by a set of nine planetary boundaries1 within which humanity should be able to continue to develop and thrive for generations to come. These include: climate change, biosphere integrity, biogeochemical flows and freshwater use. Crossing these boundaries risks generating large-scale, rapid or irreversible environmental changes.Reducing the environmental impact of our activities in order to keep within a safe operating space for humanity and the linked goal of providing a basic social foundation for everyone requires global actions. Every individual, company, institution and organisation, whether large or small, public or private, needs to contribute – ‘think global, act local’. Scientific publishing as a key player in discussing and disseminating research on climate heating and the biodiversity crisis has transformed from print to digital journals and e-books over recent decades but we must do more.The European Association of Science Editors (EASE) is an international community of individuals and associations engaged in science communication and editing. As such, EASE can help and support its members to engage in different ways to achieve and communicate efforts to reduce our environmental footprints for example by becoming carbon neutral (or even carbon negative) irrespective of the type of organisation they work in.Below are some suggestions for how editors can take steps to reduce their environmental footprint in their own particular circumstances and thereby contribute to the overall effort to reduce environmental damages. Not all suggestions will be relevant to everyone and structural or organisational change will have a greater impact than individual actions, but together we can make a difference.

HTML

XML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2021.e75635

Authors: Joan Marsh, Ksenija Bazdaric

Abstract:

HTML

XML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2021.e68868

Authors: Elizabeth Wager, Sabine Kleinert

Abstract:

HTML

XML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2020.e59855

Authors: Denys Wheatley

Abstract: A brief discussion is presented of the use of "ize" rather than "ise" in most current day journals. The need for editors and authors to be consistent in their spelling remains an issue.

HTML

XML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2021.e62065

Authors: Ashley N Cooper, Jessica E Dwyer

Abstract: A transparent corrections process is essential to assist in the maintenance of public confidence in scientific and medical research. In the era of preprints, fast-paced peer review, and early-access publication, errors and oversights from both authors and editors might be more common. The swift and open correction of the public record requires the participation of authors, journal editors, and publishers, and in this Viewpoint we share The Lancet group’s best practices around errors and corrections.

HTML

XML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2020.e60083

Authors: Sylwia Ufnalska

Abstract: The new EASE campaign, aimed at further simplification of submission processes in science journals by means of an improved version 3.1 of the EASE Quick-Check Table, is now promoted worlwide. Volunteers  have already translated the table into Dutch, German, Korean, Romanian, Slovenian, Spanish, and Turkish, while Bosnian and Polish translations will be finished soon. Volunteers who would like to translate the English version into other languages should first contact EASE Secretary to avoid duplication. We hope that our new campaign will help to increase the efficiency of scientific communication worldwide, which is crucial now. The initial extra effort of journal editors is worth it, as the optimization of manuscript submission is likely to minimize the number of manuscript revisions and may also aid in limiting the spread of COVID-19, thanks to faster publication of crucial research findings.

HTML

XML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2020.e57377

Authors: Jaime Teixeira da Silva

Abstract: European Science Editing (ESE), a platinum open access journal, is gaining recognition as one of the prime outlets for publishing-related topics, as evidenced by its 2019 rise into the second quarter of Scimago’s Journal Rankings and by its Scopus CiteScore of 1.3. However, the discoverability of knowledge and information in ESE is currently limited by the fact that manuscripts published before 2003 are not indexed, that none of the papers published before May 2016 have a DOI, and that not all information that appears on the html version of a paper appears on its PDF version, and vice versa. Finally, because ESE is already indexed in the Directory of Open Access Journals, all papers should be archived on that platform. Such improvements would undoubtedly take time and some resources, but if they could be achieved, the discoverability of the journal would clearly be fortified.

HTML

XML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2020.e55817

Authors: Thomas A Lang

Abstract: I’ve been a medical writer and author’s editor for 45 years. I have read the instructions for authors in dozens of medical journals. I know what authors (and author’s editors) think of these instructions, at least among those who know that journals actually have instructions for authors. For almost as long, I’ve been a member of four professional societies concerned with scientific publishing, and I know a lot of editors-in-chief of medical journals. I appreciate their desire to have authors follow the instructions when preparing manuscripts, at least among those editors who remember that their journals have such instructions and insist, at least occasionally, that they be followed.

HTML

XML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2020.e52063

Authors: Jaime Teixeira da Silva

Abstract: Academics are under constant pressure to optimize their time. Formatting requirements imposed on academics by journals or editors during initial manuscript submission may waste precious time, energy, and financial resources, especially if a paper is desk-rejected, and even more so when there are multiple rejections. Formatting, which does not reflect a manuscript’s academic quality, should not be a requirement during initial submission, but only after a paper has passed peer review and been approved for publication. Several publishers offer a formatting-free option during initial submission, allowing academics to optimize their time and energy.

HTML

XML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2020.e53477

Authors: Sylwia Ufnalska, Alison Terry

Abstract: When preparing a scientific manuscript for submission to a journal, it is often time-consuming to find the journal's specific preferences, which can influence acceptance. We propose that journals include a simple table at the start of their instructions for authors, clearly displaying the essential information, e.g. word count, number of keywords, format of tables and figures. Such a table could be also easily updated as journal preferences change. Thanks to this, the submitted articles would be more likely to meet the basic requirements. We hope this initiative will save time for everyone involved in scientific publishing.

HTML

XML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2020.e53230

Authors: Ksenija Bazdaric, Pippa Smart

Abstract: The world has changed in the past few months in a way most of us could not imagine. The words “novel corona virus’’ (SARS-CoV-2), “COVID-19’’, “prevention”, “flattening the curve’’ and “hand washing’’ have become constant references within the daily news reports of mortality rates, the lack of equipment and possible therapies. The novel corona virus (SARS-CoV-2), which was first identified in the Chinese province of Hubei, has led to a pandemic and the whole scientific community, both in the public and privately-financed sector, is searching for an effective therapy as well as for a vaccine. All scientists (clinicians, epidemiologists, virologists, and public health experts) are under great pressure to give advice on matters where there is still no evidence.We are used to reading fake news and non-filtered information in the media, but are we ready for similar occurrences in science journals?

HTML

XML

PDF