A Content Analysis of HIV-Related Stigmatizing Language in the Scientific Literature, From 2010-2020: Findings and Recommendations for Editorial Policy

Despite negative effects of HIV-related stigma on people with HIV, some scientific literature continues to use stigmatizing terms. Our study aimed to explore the use of HIV-related stigmatizing language in the scientific literature between 2010 and 2020 based on 2015 UNAIDS terminology guidelines. We searched for articles with the stigmatizing term "HIV/AIDS-infected" or any variations that were peer-reviewed, published between 2010 and 2020, and in English or with an English translation. Our search yielded 26,476 articles that used the stigmatizing term of interest. Frequencies on the variables of interest (journal, year, and country) were run. The use of these terms increased from 2010 to 2017 and decreased from 2018 to 2020. Most journals using the terms were HIV/AIDS specific or on infectious diseases, but the journal with the greatest frequency of use was on general science and medicine. Thirty-six percent of the articles emanated from the United States. To reduce the use of stigmatizing language in the HIV literature, action should be taken by authors, reviewers, editors,educators, and publishers should create formal policies promoting use of non-stigmatizing language.

Let's be fair. What about an AI editor?

Much of the current attention on artificial intelligence (AI)-based natural language processing (NLP) systems has focused on research ethics and integrity but neglects their roles in the editorial and peer-reviewing process. We argue that the academic community needs to develop and apply a consistent end-to-end policy on the ethics and integrity of NLP in academic publishing: standards such as drafting requirements and disclosure criteria imposed on potential contributors should be consistently applied to the editorial and peer review process in academic publications.

Dissecting the tension of open science standards implementation in management and organization journals

Growing concerns about the credibility of scientific findings have sparked a debate on new transparency and openness standards in research. Management and organization studies scholars generally support the new standards, while emphasizing the unique challenges associated with their implementation in this paradigmatically diverse discipline. In this study, I analyze the costs to authors and journals associated with the implementation of new transparency and openness standards, and provide a progress report on the implementation level thus far. Drawing on an analysis of the submission guidelines of 60 empirical management journals, I find that the call for greater transparency was received, but resulted in implementations that were limited in scope and depth. Even standards that could have been easily adopted were left unimplemented, producing a paradoxical situation in which research designs that need transparency standards the most are not exposed to any, likely because the standards are irrelevant to other research designs.

Novelty: Nursing scholars' guide for successful publication

The "pressure" or "passion" to publish is a common reality in academia. All faculty are required to demonstrate that they are engaged in research and that their work is disseminated in reputable journals. However, writing manuscripts is quite challenging; some papers for publication may take days, weeks, months, and even years. This editorial aims to provide the editors' points of view to assist authors in successful acceptance and publication in an international nursing journal.

Are highly ranked dental journals at risk of editorial bias? An examination of information on the reporting of peer-review practices

The objective of the present study was to assess how clearly and transparently reported are the editorial policies of highly ranked dental journals regarding the handling of submitted manuscripts. A total of 92 dental journals classified by impact factor had their websites scrutinized between 22 July and 06 September 2021 for all information on their policies regarding the handling of submitted manuscripts by editors. The information included items that could indicate potential risk of editorial bias. A total of 49 (53.3%) of the selected journals allowed the submission of all types of manuscripts, while 26 (28.3%) journals did not allow some types of manuscripts to be submitted (some manuscripts are only commissioned). The criteria for the acceptance of submitted manuscripts were clearly reported in eight (8.7%) journals, and only one reported the criteria in a hierarchical fashion. Sixteen (17.4%) journals reported a policy for handling the submitted manuscript when an editor was the author of the manuscript. Nine (9.8%) journals reported the possibility of a rebuttal letter by authors after manuscript rejection, but for most (62%) journals this information was not reported.The reporting of editorial policies regarding the peer-review process in highly ranked dental journals should be improved.

Peer Review in Law Journals

The field of law has retained its distinctiveness regarding peer review to this day, and reviews are often conducted without following standardized rules and principles. External and independent evaluation of submissions has recently become adopted by European law journals, and peer review procedures are still poorly defined, investigated, and attuned to the legal science publishing landscape. The aim of our study was to gain a better insight into current editorial policies on peer review in law journals by exploring editorial documents (instructions, guidelines, policies) issued by 119 Croatian, Italian, and Spanish law journals. We relied on automatic content analysis of 135 publicly available documents collected from the journal websites to analyze the basic features of the peer review processes, manuscript evaluation criteria, and related ethical issues using WordStat8. Differences in covered topics between the countries were compared using the chi-square test. Our findings reveal that most law journals have adopted a traditional approach, in which the editorial board manages mostly anonymized peer review (104, 77%) engaging independent/external reviewers (65, 48%). Submissions are evaluated according to their originality and relevance (113, 84%), quality of writing and presentation (94, 70%), comprehensiveness of literature references (93, 69%), and adequacy of methods (57, 42%). The main ethical issues related to peer review addressed by these journals are reviewer's competing interests (42, 31%), plagiarism (35, 26%), and biases (30, 22%). We observed statistically significant differences between countries in mentioning key concepts such as "Peer review ethics", "Reviewer", "Transparency of identities", "Publication type", and "Research misconduct". Spanish journals favor reviewers' "Independence" and "Competence" and "Anonymized" peer review process. Also, some manuscript types popular in one country are rarely mentioned in other countries. Even though peer review is equally conventional in all three countries, high transparency in Croatian law journals, respect for research integrity in Spanish ones, and diversity and inclusion in Italian are promising indicators of future development.

Adherence to conflicts of interest policy in Cochrane reviews where authors are also editorial board members: A cross-sectional analysis

Cochrane devolves most editorial governance of the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR), including title prioritization, protocol registration, peer-review, editorial oversight and subsequent review deposition, to specific Cochrane Review Group (CRG) editorial boards. Current Cochrane policy stipulates authors of reviews who are also members of the supporting CRG declare this non-financial conflict of interest and confirm no involvement in the review editorial process. The aim of this cross-sectional analysis was to assess adherence to Cochrane's editorial conflict of interest policy. All 260 published Cochrane reviews (CR) in issues 1 to 6 from 2019 of the CDSR were reviewed. A total of 133 (51.2%, 133/260) of CRs had at least one author that was also listed as an editor in the CRG. Of these, only five (3.8%, 5/133) appropriately declared the conflict according to Cochrane policy. In 6.5% (17/133) CRs, the contact author had a leading editorial position within the CRG and in only four of 17 was this declared according to Cochrane policy. No CR with the contact author who also had a leading editorial position described methods to prevent any potential issues related to this scenario during the editorial process in accordance with Cochrane policy. We propose a specific form to improve the transparency and reliability of editorial conflict of interest reporting in CRs. The suggested form can be adapted to other contexts.

How Scientometrics Became the Most Important Science for Researchers of All Specialties

The point of view of the author of this article, who participates in the work of several scientific journals, on the current situation with publishing articles by scientists of various specialties is presented. Two approaches to this problem are considered: “informal” (focused only on the quality of published manuscripts) and “formal” (taking into account mainly the scientometric indicators of both authors and journals). The continuous commercialization of this process, associated with the emergence of a huge number of publications that require significant article processing charges from scientists to publish the results of their research, is noted. At the same time, the financial interests of publishers promote reducing the requirements for reviewing and editing articles submitted to the editorial board. It is emphasized the need for the appropriate formal scientometric indicators for researchers applying for grants as well as for the corresponding positions and titles, which has arisen at the present stage. According to the author, excessive attention to such formal rankings does not improve the effectiveness of scientific publications, negatively affecting, in particular, the process of blind peer reviewing, grammar and style of manuscripts, statistical processing of data given in articles, design of illustrations, as well as the quality of reference lists.

The fate of triaged and rejected manuscripts

In 2011, Nephrology Dialysis and Transplantation (NDT) established a more restrictive selection process for manuscripts submitted to the journal, reducing the acceptance rate from 25% (2008-2009) to currently about 12-15%. To achieve this goal, we decided to score the priority of manuscripts submitted to NDT and to reject more papers at triage than in the past. This new scoring system allows a rapid decision for the authors without external review. However, the risk of such a restrictive policy may be that the journal might fail to capture important studies that are eventually published in higher-ranked journals. To look into this problem, we analysed random samples of papers (∼10%) rejected by NDT in 2012. Of the papers rejected at triage and those rejected after regular peer review, 59 and 61%, respectively, were accepted in other journals. A detailed analysis of these papers showed that only 4 out of 104 and 7 out of 93 of the triaged and rejected papers, respectively, were published in journals with an impact factor higher than that of NDT. Furthermore, for all these papers, independent assessors confirmed the evaluation made by the original reviewers. The number of citations of these papers was similar to that typically obtained by publications in the corresponding journals. Even though the analyses seem reassuring, previous observations made by leading journals warn that the risk of 'big misses', resulting from selective editorial policies, remains a real possibility. We will therefore continue to maintain a high degree of alertness and will periodically track the history of manuscripts rejected by NDT, particularly papers that are rejected at triage by our journal.

How to spot a statistical problem: advice for a non-statistical reviewer

Statistical analyses presented in general medical journals are becoming increasingly sophisticated. BMC Medicine relies on subject reviewers to indicate when a statistical review is required. We consider this policy and provide guidance on when to recommend a manuscript for statistical evaluation. Indicators for statistical review include insufficient detail in methods or results, some common statistical issues and interpretation not based on the presented evidence. Reviewers are required to ensure that the manuscript is methodologically sound and clearly written. Within that context, they are expected to provide constructive feedback and opinion on the statistical design, analysis, presentation and interpretation. If reviewers lack the appropriate background to positively confirm the appropriateness of any of the manuscript's statistical aspects, they are encouraged to recommend it for expert statistical review.

Biochemia Medica's editorial policy on authorship

Recent findings of authorship criteria violations in the manuscripts submitted to Biochemia Medica show that almost 40% of authors do not meet necessary criteria for authorship and thus indicate the need for better dissemination of editorial policy on authorship in our journal. We believe that such cases are mostly due to the authors' unawareness or the lack of understanding of the authorship criteria. With this article we therefore wish to declare our editorial policy on authorship and authorship criteria. Biochemia Medica endorses the authorship policy provided by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). Information on authorship is assessed by self-reported authorship claims during on-line manuscript submission. Those who meet ICMJE criteria shall be listed as authors, and all listed authors shall fulfill ICMJE criteria. All authors should be responsible for content of the article and have to know other authors' contributions to the study. Biochemia Medica will follow recommendations provided by Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) flowcharts for possible disputes. By adhering to this procedure we hope to raise awareness about the importance of compliance with ICMJE authorship recommendations.

CREDIBILITY, PEER REVIEW, AND NATURE, 1945-1990

This paper examines the refereeing procedures at the scientific weekly Nature during and after World War II. In 1939 former editorial assistants L. J. F. Brimble and A. J. V. Gale assumed a joint editorship of Nature. The Brimble-Gale era is now most famous for the editors' unsystematic approach to external refereeing. Although Brimble and Gale did sometimes consult external referees, papers submitted or recommended by scientists whom the pair trusted were often not sent out for further review. Their successor, John Maddox, would also print papers he admired without external refereeing. It was not until 1973 that editor David Davies made external peer review a requirement for publication in Nature. Nature's example shows that as late as the 1960s a journal could be considered scientifically respectable even if its editors were known to eschew systematic external peer review.

Conflict of Interest Disclosure Policies and Practices in Peer-reviewed Biomedical Journals

OBJECTIVE

We undertook this investigation to characterize conflict of interest (COI) policies of biomedical journals with respect to authors, peer-reviewers, and editors, and to ascertain what information about COI disclosures is publicly available.

METHODS

We performed a cross-sectional survey of a convenience sample of 135 editors of peer-reviewed biomedical journals that publish original research. We chose an international selection of general and specialty medical journals that publish in English. Selection was based on journal impact factor, and the recommendations of experts in the field. We developed and pilot tested a 3-part web-based survey. The survey included questions about the presence of specific policies for authors, peer-reviewers, and editors, specific restrictions on authors, peer-reviewers, and editors based on COI, and the public availability of these disclosures. Editors were contacted a minimum of 3 times.

RESULTS

The response rate for the survey was 91 (67%) of 135, and 85 (93%) of 91 journals reported having an author COI policy. Ten (11%) journals reported that they restrict author submissions based on COI (e.g., drug company authors' papers on their products are not accepted). While 77% report collecting COI information on all author submissions, only 57% publish all author disclosures. A minority of journals report having a specific policy on peer-reviewer 46% (42/91) or editor COI 40% (36/91); among these, 25% and 31% of journals state that they require recusal of peer-reviewers and editors if they report a COI. Only 3% of respondents publish COI disclosures of peer-reviewers, and 12% publish editor COI disclosures, while 11% and 24%, respectively, reported that this information is available upon request.

CONCLUSION

Many more journals have a policy regarding COI for authors than they do for peer-reviewers or editors. Even author COI policies are variable, depending on the type of manuscript submitted. The COI information that is collected by journals is often not published; the extent to which such "secret disclosure" may impact the integrity of the journal or the published work is not known.

What's news: perspectives on HIV/AIDS advocacy in the South African print media

This paper explores stakeholders' views regarding the question of whether HIV/AIDS coverage in the South African media should be the product of media advocacy and a proactive agenda for contributing to social change. Twenty-seven newspaper editors, journalists and other key stakeholders with a vested interest in HIV/AIDS coverage in the print media were interviewed during the course of 2002. Two overriding issues were raised by informants for consideration. These were, firstly, the need to balance the journalistic objectives of (a) advocacy and (b) neutrality and, secondly, the need to balance the objectives of (a) advocacy and (b) news value and profitability. Findings suggest that reticence regarding the adoption of an explicit advocacy role regarding HIV/AIDS has much to do with the media's evolving relationship with the post-apartheid government and its controversial approach to HIV/AIDS.