Expression of Concern: Optimising Deep Neural Networks for Tumour Diagnosis Algorithms Based on Improved MRFO Algorithm

Part 4: Conflict of Interest Management Before, During, and After the 2010 International Consensus Conference on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations

Part 4: Conflict of interest management before, during, and after the 2010 International Consensus Conference on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science with Treatment Recommendations

Authors consider a number of variables in selecting the journal to which they will submit their manuscripts. These include 1) the apparent prestige of the target journal (as this reflects on the importance of their work), 2) the target audience (Who are the readers? What is the extent of the readership?), and 3) the integrity and efficiency of the review process (especially the time to publication). Success in the first variable is seen in our citation data, as Neurology is the most widely cited of the clinical neurology journals (eliciting about 55,000 citations/year). Regarding the second variable, Neurology has earned its reputation as a leading biomedical journal with the largest readership (now weekly) for practicing and academic clinical neurologists. Our editorial staff is committed to rapid publication of the best peer-reviewed articles that enhance patient care, education, clinical research, and professionalism without sacrificing the integrity of the peer review process or jeopardizing our commitment to quality. This editorial focuses on steps we have taken to address this third variable of the integrity and efficiency of the review process. ### Growing demand. Each week the editorial office receives more than 70 new manuscripts for consideration. We are approaching the submission numbers enjoyed by four of the “big five” general medical journals ( New England Journal of Medicine, The Lancet, JAMA, and BMJ ), which receive 6,000 to 10,000 manuscripts/year, and more than those received by the fifth of this elite circle, Annals of Internal Medicine (about 3,000/year), and we handle this number with a much smaller editorial staff. As we continue to enhance Neurology with new features (we are planning a new section …

We, the Editors and Publisher of the journal Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, have retracted the following article: P.García-Oliveira, M. Fraga-Corral, A. G. Pereira, M. A. Prieto & J. Simal-Gandara (2022), Solutions for the sustainability of the food production and consumption ­system, Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition 62 (7):1765–1781, doi: 10.1080/10408398.2020.1847028 Following an investigation by the Taylor & Francis Research Integrity and Ethics team, it was discovered post-publication that this article was not peer reviewed appropriately, in line with the Journal's peer review standards and policy. The stringency of the peer review process is core to the integrity of the publication process. Unfortunately, we have discovered that the integrity of the review process for this article was compromised. As a result, the Editor and Publisher have decided to retract the article. The journal is committed to correcting the scientific record and will fully cooperate with any institutional investigations into this matter. The authors have been informed of this decision. We have been informed in our decision-making by our policy on publishing ethics and integrity and the COPE guidelines on retractions. The retracted articles will remain online to maintain the scholarly record, but they will be digitally watermarked on each page as ‘Retracted’.

Editorial: Continuing on an Inclusive Path to Scholarly Excellence with Renewed Vigor

Introduction:Dear editor, I have read the interesting article “The Peer Review Process: Past, Present, and Future” by Drozdz and Ladomery (1). The authors elegantly describe the various approaches to peer review during scientific article evaluation and how each approach has its advantages and disadvantages.The authors alluded to “Double anonymous peer review,” which is characterized by “Neither party knows the identity of the other at any point during the process (2)," as they referred to in their detailed review. Furthermore, they mentioned that one of the claimed benefits of this approach for a peer-review process is the reduction of possible biases originating from revealing the author's identity (gender, affiliation, and other possible identities that could induce unconscious bias) (2-5).What is missing in the “Problems Associated With the Peer Review Process” section?I was expecting the authors to discuss how “Double anonymous peer review” is breached by the authors (intentionally or unintentionally) under the section Problems Associated With the Peer Review Process, which might include one or more of the following:1- Some journals oblige authors submitting randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to provide the identity of their trial registration in one of the online registration databases (such as https://clinicaltrials.gov/). If the registration ID was presented in the "anonymized" or "blinded" version of the manuscript, the reviewers could quickly identify the authors and their details by checking the registration details. 2- Another example of breaching Double anonymous peer review occurs when authors submit a systematic review article. Reviewers could easily identify the authors if they reported details of their systematic review protocol registration (in one of the databases such as PROSPERO, https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/).3- Some journals offer the authors the option to post their submitted, pre-peer-review manuscript to one of the preprint online repositories (such as Research Square https://www.researchsquare.com/), where the details of the authors are revealed (6).4- If the authors state the setting of their study or define the details of their ethical committee board, their nationality or affiliation (not necessarily the exact authors' identity) could be exposed.5- Lastly, if the authors alluded to some of their previous work, such as mentioning “in a previous study, we reported….” The reviewer could identify the authors or at least the study group by following their previously published article.Discussion: In a scientific community overwhelmed by fraud, falsification, and questioned integrity, all possible actions must be followed to eliminate or minimize these dangers; one way to approach a fair and intact scientific research community is a sound peer review process, as explained in detail by Drozdz and Ladomery (1). Although many peer review practices were suggested, and each has pros and cons, many scientists believe that the double anonymous peer review approach offers less bias as the reviewers do not know the author's identity and vice versa. However, if it is breached by one of the abovementioned possibilities, it loses its main advantage.Cooperation between the authors, the editorial team, and the reviewers is needed to ensure the integrity of the double-anonymous peer review process as follows:1- The authors must follow the journal instructions and remove any information that could lead to their identification. They must also report if their manuscript was deposited in one of the preprint servers.2- The editorial team should review the manuscript thoroughly to ensure an anonymous presentation. Further, some journals stated they would not accept submissions in which the original manuscript was published as a preprint (7).3- The reviewers should decline to review manuscripts if the authors' identity could be revealed. However, if they decide to complete their review process, they need to clearly state that they detected a breach regarding the blinding of the manuscript they had reviewed. In this situation, it is up to the editor to include their report or not. In conclusion, the double-anonymous peer review approach is vulnerable to breaches, which could be intentional or unintentional. To improve the efficiency of such a process, cooperation between the authors, editorial team members, and potential reviewers is needed to detect and inform about breaches of the manuscript's anonymized presentation.

Integrity in Research Publishing and Professional Accountability

The purpose of the paper is an analysis of the advantages and limitations of the use of translanguaging, or the mobilisation of students’ whole multilingual repertoires to facilitate understanding and learning (Lewis, Jones, Baker, 2012, p. 655), in the teaching of third or additional languages (De Angelis’s (2007) term) at the university level. The paper is based on two studies by the [name deleted to maintain the integrity of the review process], on the use of translanguaging in the teaching of Spanish [name deleted to maintain the integrity of the review process] and French [name deleted to maintain the integrity of the review process]. It analyses the use of translanguaging for the purposes of explanation and awareness-raising, taking into consideration the increased language learning experience and awareness of multilingual students (cf. Hufeisen, 2018), and its perception by the students. However, despite its advantages, it also has limitations related to students’ lack of experience with translanguaging and unwillingness to use their multilingual repertoires in learning particular languages.

Editorial Decision Making for Academic Medicine, 2021.

We would like to join Sharon Gomez and the leadership at the American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (AAIDD) in welcoming you to this inaugural issue of a new ejournal, Inclusion. The AAIDD has a long history of leadership in the dissemination of knowledge related to its mission of promoting progressive policies, sound research, effective practices, and universal human rights through its widely respected journals: Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities and the American Journal on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities. It is our pleasure and privilege to introduce Inclusion to the AAIDD family of journals. Inclusion will capitalize on emerging technologies, specifically the ejournal format, to foster the timely, relevant dissemination of innovation in research, policy, and practice related to the inclusion of people with intellectual and developmental disabilities in all aspects of society. It is important to note, however, that we are committed to the integrity of the peer-review process as the fulcrum of the publication process in Inclusion. While peer review is often, or most often, equated with print journals, the challenge and opportunity with a new online journal is to maintain the integrity and value of a peer-review process and to take advantage of the capacity of an online platform to deliver content in a timely manner. While peer-reviewed articles in print journals can take a year or more to reach their audience after acceptance, the online platform should allow for a more rapid (and relevant) turnaround time. That said, the peer-review process takes time, and we are committed to establishing Inclusion as a rigorously reviewed publication. One of the hallmarks of the peerreview process in academia is its value for a range of opinions. Inclusion will respect that hallmark and will support diverse opinions as they lead to the mission of the journal: to promote full inclusion. There is plenty of room for diversity of opinion with regard to how to achieve the mission of full inclusion. Inclusion will provide a multidisciplinary forum for the discussion of interventions and strategies that support the full inclusion of people with intellectual and developmental disabilities across the life span in society. Emphasis will be placed on emerging research directions and practices that have direct implications for building systems of supports that enhance the inclusion of people with intellectual and developmental disabilities and promote enhanced quality of life outcomes. In this, our inaugural issue, we have invited leaders in diverse areas to provide a snapshot of the state of inclusion across many of the life domains that will be the focus of articles in Inclusion. AAIDD president-elect Dr. Amy Hewitt and her colleagues at the Institute for Community Integration at the University of Minnesota are well recognized for their expertise in community inclusion, and we have asked them to provide a summary of the state of inclusion in community living. Professor David Mank and his colleagues at the Institute on Disability and Community at the Indiana University are, similarly, recognized for their expertise in transition and employment issues, and they provide a review of the literature pertaining to inclusion in employment. Dr. Diane Ryndak from the University of Florida and Dr. Lewis Jackson from the University of Northern Colorado have both written extensively about school inclusion for students with extensive support needs, and they and their colleagues provide a timely synthesis of knowledge in that domain. Dr. Erik Carter from Vanderbilt University addresses a topic that is often overlooked in the professional literature but is important in the lives of many citizens, that of inclusion in religious life. Drs. Debra Hart and Meg Grigal

The publication process relies heavily on email communication among authors, editors, and reviewers. However, the informal nature of email can lead to breaches of ethics that compromising the integrity of the publication process. This editorial examines the ethical considerations surrounding email communication in publication, including confidentiality, tone, and content. The article discusses the importance of maintaining confidentiality and avoiding conflicts of interest, as well as the need for clear and respectful communication. Furthermore, this work explores the role of email in peer review, editorial decision-making, and author-editor communication and highlight potential pitfalls and best practices. Establishing guidelines for email ethics can promote transparency, accountability, and professionalism in the publication process. It also can enhance the credibility and reliability of published research in research. Along with that, this editorial provided discussion and guide stakeholders in directing the complexities of email communication. In the context of publishing innovations in health, email communication serves to facilitate collaboration, peer review, and editorial decision-making. For instance, when submitting a manuscript to a health innovation journal, authors rely on email to communicate with editors and reviewers. A breach of confidentiality or unprofessional tone in these interactions can undermine the integrity of the publication process and potentially delay or jeopardize publication. In health innovation research, the accuracy and reliability of findings are crucial for public health policy and practice. Keywords: Academic publication; journal editor; scientific contribution; healthcare science; role models

Event Abstract Back to Event Multisensory integration of temporal processing in the auditory and somatosensory modalities: A psychophysical and EEG study. Justin Timora1* and Timothy Budd1 1 University of Newcastle, Australia Prior research examining multisensory integration has established the importance of the cross modal correspondence of temporal information. In the present study we examine the perceptual and neurophysiological impact of cross modal variations in amplitude modulation (AM) rate of acoustic and vibrotactile stimulation. To achieve this 33 participants completed separate psychophysical and EEG recording sessions where the cross modal correspondence of AM rate was varied. For the psychophysical session AM detection thresholds were estimated for 21 and 40 Hz auditory and vibrotactile stimuli where AM rate varied across modalities in one of three different cross modal correspondence (CMC) conditions, being either the SAME, DIFFERENT or NONE (i.e. unmodulated). For the EEG session identical stimulation conditions were presented and an FFT analysis carried out to determine whether EEG entrainment at each AM rate varied according to cross modal correspondence of temporal stimulation. The psychophysical results showed significant decreases in AM detection thresholds for conditions where the non-target modality was amplitude modulated at the same rate as the target modality (i.e. SAME), indicating reduced perceptual sensitivity when stimuli in both modalities were amplitude modulated. In contrast the results of the EEG analysis showed the opposite relationship, where EEG activity at the stimulation rate (i.e. entrainment) showed increases in EEG power for stimulus conditions where cross modal correspondence for AM stimulation was the same (i.e. SAME). These results suggest a potential dissociation between perception and EEG activity and are discussed in terms of the relationship between oscillatory neural activity and multisensory integration. Keywords: multisensory integration, multisensory processing, steady state, amplitude modulation, temporal processing Conference: ACNS-2012 Australasian Cognitive Neuroscience Conference, Brisbane, Australia, 29 Nov - 2 Dec, 2012. Presentation Type: Poster Presentation Topic: Sensation and Perception Citation: Timora J and Budd T (2012). Multisensory integration of temporal processing in the auditory and somatosensory modalities: A psychophysical and EEG study.. Conference Abstract: ACNS-2012 Australasian Cognitive Neuroscience Conference. doi: 10.3389/conf.fnhum.2012.208.00173 Copyright: The abstracts in this collection have not been subject to any Frontiers peer review or checks, and are not endorsed by Frontiers. They are made available through the Frontiers publishing platform as a service to conference organizers and presenters. The copyright in the individual abstracts is owned by the author of each abstract or his/her employer unless otherwise stated. Each abstract, as well as the collection of abstracts, are published under a Creative Commons CC-BY 4.0 (attribution) licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) and may thus be reproduced, translated, adapted and be the subject of derivative works provided the authors and Frontiers are attributed. For Frontiers’ terms and conditions please see https://www.frontiersin.org/legal/terms-and-conditions. Received: 14 Oct 2012; Published Online: 17 Nov 2012. * Correspondence: Mr. Justin Timora, University of Newcastle, Newcastle, Australia, justin.timora@uon.edu.au Login Required This action requires you to be registered with Frontiers and logged in. To register or login click here. Abstract Info Abstract The Authors in Frontiers Justin Timora Timothy Budd Google Justin Timora Timothy Budd Google Scholar Justin Timora Timothy Budd PubMed Justin Timora Timothy Budd Related Article in Frontiers Google Scholar PubMed Abstract Close Back to top Javascript is disabled. Please enable Javascript in your browser settings in order to see all the content on this page.

Information for authors and editorial policies

We, the Editor, Institution and Publisher of the journal IETE Journal of Research, have retracted the following article, which is part of the Special Issue titled “Federated Learning for Blockchain Systems and Industrial Internet of Things”: Abu Buker Siddique, Rafaqat Kazmi, Habib Ullah Khan, Sikandar Ali, Ali Samad & Gulraiz Javaid (2022) An Intelligent and Secure Air Quality Monitoring System Using Neural Network Algorithm and Blockchain, IETE Journal of Research, DOI:10.1080/03772063.2022.2052984 Following publication, concerns were raised about the peer review and decision-making processes for this special issue. After an investigation by the Taylor & Francis Publishing Ethics & Integrity team, in full cooperation with the Editor-in-Chief and the Institution, it was confirmed that the articles included in this special issue were not reviewed appropriately, in line with the Journal’s peer review standards and policy. As the stringency of the peer review process is core to the integrity of the publication process, the Editor and Publisher have decided to retract all of the articles within the above-named Special Issue. The journal has not confirmed if the authors were aware of this compromised peer review process. The journal is committed to correcting the scientific record and will fully cooperate with any institutional investigations into this matter. The authors have been informed of this decision. We have been informed in our decision-making by our editorial policies and the COPE guidelines. The retracted articles will remain online to maintain the scholarly record, but they will be digitally watermarked on each page as “Retracted”.

The veracity of the content of any medical publication relies on the peer review process, a most important tool to ascertain the quality of the science being published. There is a need to evaluate the rigor of methodology, ascertain the authenticity of the data collected, and to assist authors in sharpening the analysis of their work. Thus, essential to any journal is the ability to attract a community of such scholars to perform reviews. On the surface, it seems to be an easy task. To be invited to review a scientific article in any journal is flattering. To receive an invitation from top tier publications is prestigious. Yet, there seems to be some difficulty in recruiting and managing the performance of this supposedly highly motivated group. Apparently, the actual concern is not merely in engaging an adequate number of scholars to agree to review. Since most peer reviewers are authors themselves who are encouraged to provide evaluation to their colleagues, many conditions including the explosion of publications, the requirements of academia to publish, and the incentivization of performing reviews for promotion, all contribute to swell the ranks of the willing. What challenge many an editor nowadays are tasks that require creativity mixed with pragmatism: discerning the competency and objectivity of reviewers, improving the effectiveness of the review, and increasing the efficiency of the review process. Strengthening the editorial board with renowned experts aid in the identification of experienced reviewers and the development of a large enough pool. These measures affect the quality of reviews obtained, limit bias, and improve efficiency of the process. Being a university-based health journal, we can rely on our large community of scholars to supply these needs. Yet, we must look beyond our walls to expand the expertise and to improve objectivity of the reviews since many a field in the health sciences have expanded by leaps and bounds outside of the capacity of our own group. Another issue is to address the quality of the reviews. It takes time to come up with a good review. An overburdened academic may find it increasingly difficult to meet the deadlines and thus result in delay in submission. This has a profound impact on the journal’s metric to process each submission promptly and will eventually limit its ability to attract authors. Additionally, methods to contain bias such as double-blind reviewing may impair the ability to cross check the capacity of investigators to undertake specific studies. Indeed, with the proliferation of AI-assisted writing, the identity and reputation of researchers matter. It is a balancing act to be objective and reduce bias while trying to identify any dishonest behavior. Lastly, the peer review is an academic mentoring process. Many authors find the comments and suggestions helpful. It is the obligation of the peer reviewer to provide constructive feedback not only to improve the writing but to allow data collected to see the light of day, properly presented and competently analyzed. There is also the matter of employing AI tools in improving such output, but the technology is nascent, the appropriateness of the application and the ethical debates surrounding it are enormous and require another discussion on its own. It is, therefore, the responsibility of us editors to uphold the integrity and quality of the peer review process. We should continually recruit and maintain a competent pool of experts who are able to apply rigorous scrutiny to submissions, provide constructive feedback to the authors, and conduct these tasks within a reasonable time frame. Through these, we can foster trust and cooperation in our community, and allow innovative and inclusive science to flourish under our watch. This we commit to do in the coming years.