
<rss version="0.91">
    <channel>
        <title>Latest Articles from European Science Editing</title>
        <description>Latest 2 Articles from European Science Editing</description>
        <link>https://ese.arphahub.com/</link>
        <lastBuildDate>Tue, 9 Jun 2026 11:51:31 +0000</lastBuildDate>
        <generator>Pensoft FeedCreator</generator>
        
	
		<item>
		    <title>Text recycling and dissertation overlap in the era of open access</title>
		    <link>https://ese.arphahub.com/article/173438/</link>
		    <description><![CDATA[
					<p>European Science Editing 52: e173438</p>
					<p>DOI: 10.3897/ese.2026.e173438</p>
					<p>Authors: Olivier Pourret</p>
					<p>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 &lsquo;self-plagiarism&rsquo;), 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.</p>
					<p><a href="https://ese.arphahub.com/article/173438/">HTML</a></p>
					
					<p><a href="https://ese.arphahub.com/article/173438/download/pdf/">PDF</a></p>
			]]></description>
		    <category>Viewpoint</category>
		    <pubDate>Tue, 10 Feb 2026 13:59:00 +0000</pubDate>
		</item>
	
		<item>
		    <title>Reporting and presentation of statistical analyses: instructions for authors of health sciences journals based in South Africa</title>
		    <link>https://ese.arphahub.com/article/114734/</link>
		    <description><![CDATA[
					<p>European Science Editing 50: e114734</p>
					<p>DOI: 10.3897/ese.2024.e114734</p>
					<p>Authors: Gina Joubert</p>
					<p>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 &lsquo;Collection: Medicine and Health&rsquo;. 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 &lsquo;Statistical Analyses and Methods in the Published Literature&rsquo; (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.</p>
					<p><a href="https://ese.arphahub.com/article/114734/">HTML</a></p>
					
					<p><a href="https://ese.arphahub.com/article/114734/download/pdf/">PDF</a></p>
			]]></description>
		    <category>Original Article</category>
		    <pubDate>Fri, 23 Feb 2024 14:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		</item>
	
	</channel>
</rss>
	