Social biases may concentrate attention of researchers on a small number of well-known molecules/mechanisms leaving others underexplored. In accordance with this view, central to mechanistic toxicology is a narrow range of molecular pathways that are assumed to be involved in significant part of responses to toxicity. It is unclear, however, if there are other molecular mechanisms which play important role in toxicity events but are overlooked by toxicology. To identify overlooked genes sensitive to chemical exposures we used publicly available databases. First, we used data on published chemical-gene interactions for 17,338 genes to estimate their sensitivity to chemical exposures. Next, we extracted data on publication numbers per gene for 19,243 human genes from Find My Understudied Genes database. Threshold were applied to both datasets using our algorithm to identify chemically sensitive and chemically insensitive genes and well-studied and underexplored genes. 1,110 underexplored genes highly sensitive to chemical exposures were used in GSEA and Shiny GO analyses to identify enriched biological categories. Metabolism of fatty acids, amino acids, and glucose were identified as underexplored molecular mechanisms sensitive to chemical exposures. These findings suggest that future effort is needed to uncover the role of xenobiotics in the current epidemics of metabolic diseases.

The research analysed the publications metric of literature regarding the impact of socially responsible investing (SRI) and environmental, social, and governance (ESG) on portfolio and financial performance. The study aimed to determine the latest trends, key themes, authors, and influential journals. Data from the SCOPUS database was used in this study. A total of 1377 research articles from academic journals related to this topic and published from 2013 to 2022, they data was cleaned to remove duplicate, and documents that do not meet the criteria of this study. For this bibliometric analysis, a total of 260 articles were chosen in order to summarise the collective knowledge and emerging patterns in ESG, SRI, ethical, and impact investing, a bibliometric analysis was employed. The thematic map classified the ESG, SRI, and performance relationship themes into four categories of themes: niche themes, motor themes (corporate financial performance, corporate social performance, ESG, ESG factors, sustainability, performance, integrated reporting, gender diversity, and board size), emerging or declining themes (social responsibility, environmental performance, socially responsible investment, ethical investment, and SRI), and basic or transversal themes (financial performance, corporate social performance, ESG performance, environmental, social, and governance). Social responsible investing, engagement, and ESG, implies a position between niche themes and highly developed topic/emerging or decreasing theme, and covid, ROA, while, tobin’s Q, implies a position between highly developed topic/emerging or decreasing theme and basic theme. The findings contribute to the enhanced understanding of ESG, SRI, ethical, and impact investing, which are crucial for an efficient capital market in promoting sustainability and sustainable development. The study offers vital practical implications and future research directions.

The number of bibliometric studies published in the scientific literature has been increasing in recent years. Some authors publish more bibliometric studies than others do. To identify authors who focus on bibliometric studies and their publication strategy is based on these studies. To determine whether the focus on bibliometric studies can be considered a successful publication strategy. A bibliometric analysis, including a citation analysis, was used to determine the results. The Scopus database was chosen as the source of bibliometric data. In total, 100 authors who frequently publish bibliometric studies were identified. For almost half of them, bibliometric studies can be considered the main or important part of their publication portfolio. A relatively small group of authors widely publishes bibliometric studies. The bibliometric indicators of these authors indicate that this specialization in bibliometric studies is quite successful.

Scholarly publication in international journals depends on qualified, unbiased and available referees: (1) qualified in their ability to assume each role inherent to being a peer reviewer and in willingly and competently accepting the responsibilities that coincide with these roles; (2) unbiased in focusing on the submitted research content irrespective of their own research programs in judging the submission’s merit; and (3) available to devote time to read and understand the paper, check the accuracy and relevance of references, and write a comprehensive review commenting on the strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript, the ability of the research to be replicated, and the contribution of the work to the discipline. This study investigates the range of reviewer’s roles and responsibilities in relation to author’s own assessment as a frequent reviewer for fourteen journals representing five publishing houses—and as an active researcher—in comparison with a 2019 comprehensive study of the views of 224 authors on peer review. Based on this investigation, advice will be provided to potential reviewers regarding what is expected of them in undertaking their work. Recommendations will be offered for peer review to mitigate weaknesses in the process and increase the pool of qualified peer reviewers.

Based on the total scholarly article output of Norway, we investigated the coverage and degree of openness according to three bibliographic services 1) Google Scholar, 2) oaDOI by Impact Story and 3) 1findr by 1science. According to Google Scholar, we find that more than 70% of all Norwegian articles are openly available. However, degrees are profoundly lower according to oaDOI and 1findr, respectively 31% and 52%. Varying degrees are mainly caused by different interpretations of openness, with oaDOI being most restrictive. Furthermore, open shares vary considerably by discipline, with the Medcine and Health sciences at the upper and the Humanities at the lower end. We also determined the citation frequencies using Cited-by values as of Google Scholar, applying year and subject normalization. We find a significant citation advantage for open articles. However, this is not the case for all types of openness. In fact, the category Open Access journals was by far lowest cited, indicating that young journals with a declared open access policy still lack recognition.

The odontogenic cysts can lead to a bone destruction that can hamper the dental implant place-ment in the ideal 3D position. Different biomaterials and techniques that allow bone regeneration are described in the literature, each with its advantages and disadvantages. This clinical case with 18 months of follow-up shows the enucleation of an odontogenic cyst fol-lowing the guide bone regeneration with fence technique. After 6 months 2, dental implants were placed at the region of tooth 11 and 21, being rehabilitated nine weeks after. The fence technique allowed the recovery of the bone morphology and the placement of the dental implants in the 3D ideal position.

The purpose of this paper is to highlight the main themes and insights from the Journal of Orthopedic Research (JOR)/JOR Spine Workshop during the Orthopedic Research Society 2022 Annual Meeting in Tampa Bay, Florida. This workshop, organized by JOR Editor-in-Chief Dr. Linda Sandell, focused on communication strategies (particularly using social media) to broadcast published work in orthopedic research. In this manuscript, we summarize data that support the beneficial impacts of amplifying scholarly works on social media and outline a linearized workflow for constructing a Twitter posts, which can be generalized to other social media platforms, to share academic research. Finally, we identify resources to alleviate barriers to social media use and help promote professionalism and success online in the orthopedic research community. As early career scientists in orthopedics, we see immense value in using social media, particularly Twitter, to communicate our research findings and build our scholarly networks. We hope this information will be persuasive to those in the orthopedic field and be broadly applicable to others in related scientific fields who wish to disseminate findings and engage a public audience on social media. For the orthopedic research society and journal of orthopedic research, social media can assist in accomplishing our mission of creating a world without musculoskeletal limitations via the timely dissemination of orthopedic research findings and news.

In scientific research, there is a noticeable lack of specific studies focused on inconclusive results, in contrast to the abundance of studies dedicated to conclusive or positive outcomes. While conclusive results offer definitive answers, inconclusive results, often viewed less favorably, do not provide such clarity. However, they play a vital role in the scientific process by identifying gaps and inspiring future research. This paper introduces the pioneering Integrated Inconclusive Results Framework, a significant development that addresses the challenges associated with inconclusive results. The Framework aims to shift the perception of inconclusive results from setbacks to crucial components of scientific progress, ultimately enhancing scientific inquiry's rigor, transparency, and overall quality. The paper delves into the historical treatment of inconclusive results, causes, and strategies for handling them, offering insights into utilizing them to inspire and guide future research, thereby strengthening the scientific community and instilling confidence and reassurance in the direction of scientific research.

A vivid debate is ongoing in the scientific community about statistical malpractice and the related publication bias. No general consensus exists on the consequences and this is reflected in heterogeneous rules defined by scientific journals on the use and reporting of statistical inference. This paper aims at discussing how the debate is perceived by the agricultural economics community and implications for our roles as researchers, contributors to the scientific publication process, and teachers. We start by summarizing the current state of the p-value debate and the replication crisis, and commonly applied statistical practices in our community. This is followed by motivation, design, results and discussion of a survey on statistical knowledge and practice among the researchers in the agricultural economics community in Austria, Germany and Switzerland. We conclude that beyond short-term measures like changing rules of reporting in publications, a cultural change regarding empirical scientific practices is needed that stretches across all our roles in the scientific process. Acceptance of scientific work should largely be based on the theoretical and methodological rigor and where the perceived relevance arises from the questions asked, the methodology employed, and the data used but not from the results generated. Revised and clear journal guidelines, the creation of resources for teaching and research, and public recognition of good practice are suggested measures to move forward.

Academic publishing appears to be the most important key of the academic functions (academic research, excellence in teaching and learning and community services). Selecting the right journal to publish research results is a challenge to academics. Yet, there is inadequate knowledge about a model specifically directed at the topic of the journal selection process with a mathematical certainty. The objectives of this research are: to identify the main factors that an author or researchers consider when selecting an academic journal for submitting a manuscript, and, to develop a mathematical algorithm of journal selection that provide the best journal choice with a mathematical certainty based on difficulty of each factor. Quantitative research through questionnaires has been applied as an appropriate instrument base to address the researcher’s identification of the factors that should be considered when selecting a journal. Questionnaire developed and emailed to academics in 31 public and private universities in the developing countries. Academics reported that the most important publication difficulty factors were publishing in reputable journals, and publishing in a journal that has an impact factor. However, the most least publication difficulty factors were found to be: number of issues per year and if the journal is an open access. The proposed mathematical algorithm of journal’s publication difficulty factors was developed and tested.

A lack of data reproducibility (“reproducibility crisis”) is debated across many scientific and medical disciplines. A systematic analysis of the available evidence on the reliability of scientific data revealed that, although the existence of a reproducibility crisis is widely perceived, conclusive data on the scale of the problem are lacking. Most importantly we found that, although the debate is largely focused on methodological issues, researcher conduct defines research standards and in turn data reliability. The availability of reliable methods itself does not guarantee good practice. Moreover, research is typically characterised by a lack of established methods due to its immanent novelty. Despite the crucial importance of researcher conduct, research and conclusive data on the determinants of researcher behaviour are missing. In conclusion, meta-research is urgently needed that establishes an understanding of the factors that determine researcher behaviour. This knowledge can then be used to implement and iteratively improve measures, which incentivise researchers to apply the highest standards resulting in high quality data.

In the educational process, quality has long been considered a critical component. It may get impacted due to different factors especially when talking about the COVID19 pandemic. The purpose of this investigation is to explore the impact and relationship between COVID-19 and the quality of education using bibliometric analysis. As face-to-face learning shifts to online learning, this research investigates how the COVID-19 epidemic has affected education quality, concentrating on Programme Educational Outcomes (PEOs), Programme Learning Outcomes (PLOs), and Course Learning Outcomes (CLOs). The research covers pandemic online education, literature, and trends. There are two important steps in any bibliometric analysis selecting keywords and databases. The initial set of keywords was selected by the authors' experience and then an online survey study through Google Forms was conducted among experts in the research area. This was followed by a search of the selected keywords in the databases consisting of PubMed, Web of Science (WoS), and SCOPUS. Therefore, the final data was collected from the SCOPUS database on August 24, 2021. Hence, 182 documents were considered for the current study. The document's data were analysed by using the “visualization of similarities” (VOS) Viewer software and the R-Tool of the Bibliometrix-package that was specifically designed for quantitative Bibliometrics research. Based on the obtained data, the results showed the quality of education that may get impacted by the changing of the education delivery from face-to-face to online-based learning. In conclusion, this study showed the importance of studying the correlation and impact of COVID-19 on the quality of education.

Background and Objectives: Clinical trials are a critical step in the development of new medicines and medical devices, testing the efficacy and safety of new treatment regimens. However, if the results of clinical trials are not made public, the evidence base on interventions is incomplete and possibly distorted, which lead to suboptimal treatment choices and negatively affect public health. This study analyses and contrasts the laws and regulations governing clinical trial registration and reporting in China and the United States. Methods: We used desk research to compile, assess and compare current laws, regulations, compliance patterns, and enforcement mechanisms and actions in China and the United States (U.S.). Policy documents were downloaded from Chinese and U.S. government websites. A spreadsheet analysis was utilized for direct comparison. Results: Both China and the U.S. have laws and regulations governing clinical trial registration and reporting. Chinese legislation covers a broader range of trials. In the U.S. trial results must be disclosed to both the national regulator and the public, while Chinese law mandates disclosure to the regulator alone. Cross-country comparisons of regulatory compliance by trial sponsors are impossible due to the opacity of the Chinese data platform. Neither country effectively ensures that all clinical trial results are made public as required by the Declaration of Helsinki and recommended by the WHO. Interpretation: While neither country is perfect, both may be able to learn from each other. There is a major gap in the literature regarding the extent of non-publication of clinical trial results by sponsors operating in China.

The scientific work posted on the Internet, which its author constantly keeps up to date, will be called an alive publication. The genre of alive publishing has many attractive features. However, it requires a certain expansion of the composition of the meta-attributes of the publication: along with the traditional attributes, the date of the appearance of the new, fresh revision is brought to the fore here. Such date is placed in a prominent place in the text of the publication. Along with this, it becomes highly desirable to include such a dynamically ("on the fly") generated date in a bibliographic reference to an alive publication. The currently used methods of dynamic extraction of this date are considered for a simple online publication, for a publication that has received a DOI through Crossref, for a publication posted in arXiv and in Preprints. Thanks to adding this meta-attribute, references to alive publications will beautify any bibliographic list.

Consumption of coffee by women early in their pregnancy has been viewed as potentially increasing the risk of miscarriage, low birth weight, and childhood leukemias. Many of these reports of epidemiologic studies have not acknowledged the potential biases inherent in studying the relationship between early-pregnancy-coffee consumption and subsequent events. I discuss five of these biases, recall bias, misclassification, residual confounding, reverse causation, and publication bias. Each might account for claims that attribute adversities to early-pregnancy-coffee consumption. To what extent these biases can be avoided remains to be determined. At a minimum, they need to be acknowledged wherever they might account for what is reported.

Objective: The Asia-Pacific region (APAC) represents a unique environment for the publication of biomedical research, particularly industry-funded research. Awareness and adoption of international guidelines on ethical publication practices continues to increase across APAC, but the reframing and expansion of many of the recommendations in the Good Publication Practice (GPP) 2022 guidelines versus GPP3 published in 2015 have important implications for publishing industry-funded biomedical research in the region. Methods: This manuscript provides practical guidance for stakeholders in APAC on interpreting and applying the recommendations made in the GPP 2022 guidelines. Results: Key focus areas include navigating new opportunities for communicating industry-funded research, such as plain language summaries, social media, and preprints; implementing formal processes to improve the integrity of published research in APAC; and methods of promoting transparency and inclusion when publishing industry-funded research. Key APAC-specific issues, including encore presentations, leadership on publication ethics in the region, access to professional resources, and support for educating regional stakeholders are also discussed. Conclusions: Overall, this review offers a pragmatic guide for stakeholders in industry-sponsored research on applying GPP 2022 in practice with a focus on effectively integrating these guidelines in an APAC context.

For doctoral students, publishing in peer reviewed journals is a task many face with anxiety and trepidation. The world of publishing, from choosing a journal, negotiating editors and navigating reviewers’ responses is a bewildering place. Looking in from the outside, it seems that successful and productive academic writers have knowledge that is inaccessible to novice scholars. While there is a growing literature on writing for scholarly publication, many of these publications promote writing and publishing as a straight-forward activity that anyone can achieve if they follow the rules. We argue that the specific and situated contexts in which academic writers negotiate publishing practices is more complicated and messy. In this paper, we attempt to make explicit our publishing processes to highlight the complex nature of publishing. We use autoethnographic narratives to provide discussion points and insights into the challenges of publishing peer reviewed articles. One narrative is by a doctoral student at the beginning of her publishing career, who expresses her desires, concerns and anxieties about writing for publication. The other narrative focuses on the publishing practices of a more experienced academic writer. Both are international scholars working in the Canadian context. The purpose of this paper is to explore academic publishing through the juxtaposition of these two narratives to make explicit some of the more implicit processes. Four key themes emerge from these narratives. To publish successfully, academic writers need: 1) to be discourse analysts; 2) to have a critical competence; and 3) to have writing fluency and 4) to be emotionally intelligent.

The digital transformation has initiated a paradigm shift in research and scholarly communication practices towards a more open scholarly culture. Although this transformation is slowly happening in the Digital Humanities field, open is not yet default. The article introduces the OpenMethods metablog, a community platform that highlights open research methods, tools, and practices within the context of the Digital Humanities by republishing open access content around methods and tools in various formats and languages. It also describes the platform’s technical infrastructure based on its requirements and main functionalities, and especially the collaborative content sourcing and editorial workflows. The article concludes with a discussion of the potentials of the OpenMethods metablog to overcome barriers towards open practices by focusing on inclusive, community sourced information based around opening up research processes and the challenges that need to be overcome to achieve its goals.

Online streaming contents are creating greater service uncertainty, as consumers need to experience such contents before making a decision to continue to purchase them. Few studies have investigated the interaction between eWOM (online word-of-mouth) and online streaming content service characteristics in online streaming contents’ performance and explained the way this interaction can promote service characteristics’ role in service performance or remedy service uncertainty attributable to these characteristics. Thus, this paper examines the interaction between eWOM and service (webtoon) characteristics (i.e., author experience, genre (drama or fantasy), completion, transfer to pay service, and publication time (Wednesday)) on online streaming contents’ service performance measures such as publication period and gamification of contents. Author experience and genre interact with the number of reviews to affect gamification. The transfer to pay service interacts crucially with review ratings and the number of reviews to influence both publication period and gamification. Online streaming contents completion and publication time are interacting factors with review ratings that affected publication period. Service providers need to cope with service uncertainty in furthering online streaming contents service by considering service characteristics as well as customers’ responses through eWOM.

The study was aimed at examining the status of research productivity and exploring the factors behind the identified status in Ethiopian universities from SDT and RBVT perspectives. In phase I, a null hypothesis was tested using a one-sample t-test at 0.05 alphas while in phase II one RQ was solved using qualitative analysis. The sample involved 531 academics, of whom 13 were interviewed. The mixed-methods research approach and explanatory sequential design guided this research. The status of research project production, indexed publication, and conference presentation performances in Ethiopian universities demonstrated statistically significant mean differences below the institutional, national, and world average cut-off points (performing at least one research project, one indexed journal, and one conference paper presentation per year per academic staff). Furthermore, we explored scarcity of funds, low research capacity, weak research culture, lack of productive institutional leadership, and political instability in the country as major causes of the low research productivity status. The researchers felt that the study would contribute to both promoting academic staff's research productivity and enriching the higher education research literature. MOE, university presidents, and deans should intervene in causes to improve academics’ research productivity status towards the desired local and global standards.

Between 2019 and 2023, sixteen universities increased their research output by more than fifteen times the global average, alongside significant changes in authorship dynamics (e.g., decreased first authorship, increased numbers of hyperprolific authors, increased numbers of multiaffiliations, and increased numbers of authors per publication). Using bibliometric methods, this study detected patterns suggesting a reliance on unconventional authorship practices, such as gift, honorary, and sold authorship, to inflate publication metrics. This study underscores the need for reforms by universities, policymakers, funding agencies, ranking agencies, accreditation bodies, scholarly publishers, and researchers to maintain academic integrity and ensure the reliability of global ranking systems.

This article presents a radical reassessment of scientific validation processes, arguing that traditional peer review has become an outdated, inefficient, and ultimately flawed mechanism for ensuring research quality. Modern artificial intelligence systems demonstrate superior capabilities in analyzing methodological rigor, statistical validity, and literature comprehensiveness, while being free from human cognitive biases, professional rivalries, and institutional politics. Through examination of empirical evidence, we demonstrate how AI systems consistently outperform human reviewers in speed, accuracy, and comprehensiveness of research evaluation. The current peer review system, characterized by months-long delays, substantial costs, and demonstrable biases, actively impedes scientific progress. We propose a fully automated AI-driven validation framework that can evaluate research in real-time, identify methodological flaws, verify statistical analyses, and assess significance within the broader scientific context. This transformation would democratize research validation, eliminate publication bottlenecks, and accelerate scientific progress while maintaining higher standards of methodological rigor than currently possible under human review.

Many academics are critical of the current publishing system, but it is difficult to create a better alternative. This review relates to the Sciences and Social Sciences, and discusses the primary purpose of academic journals as providing a seal of approval for perceived quality, impact, significance, and importance. The key issues considered include the role of anonymous refereeing, continuous rather than discrete frequency of publications, avoidance of time wasting, and seeking adventure. Here we give recommendations about the organization of journal articles, the roles of associate editors and referees, measuring the time frame for refereeing submitted articles in days and weeks rather than months and years, encouraging open access internet publishing, emphasizing the continuity of publishing online, academic publishing as a continuous dynamic process, and how to improve research after publication. Citations and functions thereof, such as the journal impact factor and h-index, are the benchmark for evaluating the importance and impact of academic journals and published articles. Even in the very top journals, a high proportion of published articles are never cited, not even by the authors themselves. Top journal publications do not guarantee that published articles will make significant contributions, or that they will ever be highly cited. The COVID-19 world should encourage academics worldwide not only to rethink academic teaching, but also to re-evaluate key issues associated with academic journal publishing in the future.