Editorial board

Editorial Board and Vacuum units

Women Emergency Physicians and Gender Disparities from Entry to Advancement.

Post-publication peer review faces a emerging systemic vulnerability from 'letter-bombing'-the proliferation of high-volume, potentially machine-generated critiques that exploit citable correspondence units, creating a plausible risk of academic metric inflation. Driven by the democratization of Large Language Models (LLMs), these automated submissions frequently exploit formatting loopholes to manipulate public indicators like the h-index. The problem is particularly observable in data-intensive specialties like surgical oncology, where abstract-level statistical critiques targeting complex clinical trials risk muddying translational research communication. Drawing on documented bibliometric anomalies and confirmed editorial actions, this piece discusses operational definitions of abnormal correspondence volumes and proposes a multi-layered framework. To protect the scientific record, we propose an enforceable framework for editorial boards: implementing strict metadata labeling to close indexing loopholes, verifying author history, and mandating the "Right of Simultaneous Reply" as a universal baseline publishing standard.

Geographic diversity in top dermatology journal editorial boards.

Editors and Editorial Board.

The article marks the 30th anniversary of the Lithuanian scientific journal “Visuomenės sveikata” (Public Health), highlighting its evolution from the first issue published in 1996 into a well-established platform for public health research and practice. It underscores the journal’s unique role as the first and enduring publication in Lithuania dedicated exclusively to public health, serving a broad audience of researchers, policymakers, practitioners, and students. The article reviews the journal’s scope and development, emphasizing its commitment to publishing high-quality, peer-reviewed research articles and literature reviews in both Lithuanian and English. It also highlights the gradual expansion of the journal’s content to include practice-oriented sections, thereby strengthening the connection between academic research and practical application in the field of public health. Special attention is given to the role of the editorial board, reviewers, and authors in maintaining scientific quality and relevance.

A key point of discussion at the 2024 Proceedings B annual Editorial Board meeting was that our paper submissions typically come from the same tiny subset of countries. Indeed, only 11 countries represent 77% of our corresponding submitting authors, with the remaining 23% submitted by authors from countries that each submit 1% or fewer of the papers Proceedings B receives each year. The geographical bias is also stark in acceptances; 69% of accepted papers in 2024 came from North America and northern/western Europe. During a break-out session at the board meeting, we developed the idea for a special feature focused on research by scientists in underrepresented countries and regions. These are researchers who may face barriers in scientific publication simply because of where they live. While this set of countries and regions, what we called 'the other 1%', does include high-income countries that are underrepresented in submissions owing to their small size (e.g. The Netherlands, Belgium or Denmark), most are located in what is often called the 'Global South'. Researchers in these areas are doing important, high-quality work, but can face challenges unrelated to the quality of their science when it comes to publishing in international journals. These challenges range from fewer resources, to less experience with these journals, to research topics or use of methodologies that are less common outside their geographical area; the latter issue means that the impact and broad importance of this work may be underestimated by reviewers and editors. Indigenous researchers, and especially those whose work focuses on topics specific to their area, may face similar barriers. For these reasons, we focused on amplifying work from these groups in this special feature.

The WHO Classification of Tumours is used widely by histopathologists and other disciplines as it provides an internationally agreed taxonomy of neoplastic disorders. Now published online and in print, it has often included genetic tumour syndromes (GTS) relevant to particular organs, as suggested by the editorial board. This highlighted the lack of a systematic classification of GTS, providing international standards for their diagnosis and a basis for research. The need for this was established by a series of meetings, leading to the adoption of a hierarchical classification of GTS based on the cellular mechanism affected, the molecular pathway involved, the clinical syndrome and the gene defects present. The major cellular mechanisms affected were identified as: growth factor receptors and related pathways; oxidative stress response and metabolism; cell cycle and apoptosis; DNA repair and genomic stability; telomere maintenance; epigenetic drivers and chromatin; RNA regulation and protein regulation. Assembly of the classification emphasised current gaps in knowledge, together with the need for further research. The new classification highlights the relationships between some genetic syndromes and provides an internationally agreed framework for the incorporation of new information as it becomes available.

Editorial Board, Aims & Scope, Table of Contents

As part of The International Journal of Information, Diversity & Inclusion (IJIDI)'s 10th Anniversary Special Issue, this article is reprinted by invitation of the IJIDI Editorial Board in recognition of its continued relevance and impact on scholarship and practice.

As part of The International Journal of Information, Diversity & Inclusion (IJIDI)'s 10th Anniversary Special Issue, this article is reprinted by invitation of the IJIDI Editorial Board in recognition of its continued relevance and impact on scholarship and practice.

With this notice, the Sports Editorial Office and Editorial Board wish to alert readers to concerns related to this article [...].

New International Editorial Board Member—April 2026

Regarding: Hulscher et al., “Real-world Clinical Outcomes of Ivermectin and Mebendazole in Cancer Patients: Results from a Prospective Observational Cohort,” Anticancer Research Vol. 46, No. 6, pp. 3243-3255, 2026. The Editorial Board of Anticancer Research is issuing an official Expression of Concern regarding the article cited above. The study was published purely as “hypothesis-generating", opening the discussion for repurposing of these substances, establishing the ground for future approved, randomized clinical trials. Following publication, serious scientific concerns were raised by the international medical community regarding the verifiability and statistical reliability, and ethical oversight of the underlying dataset. In formal correspondence to the journal dated June 4, 2026, the authors clarified that the study cohort was not drawn from an unverified consumer survey, but instead comprised “provider-screened cancer patients enrolled in a structured prospective cohort” managed via an internal clinical workflow and licensed provider consultations. While the Editorial Board acknowledges the authors' transparency regarding the text-level limitations of selfreported data, a study published in a peer-reviewed oncology journal that reports a “Clinical Benefit Ratio of 84.4%” and specific percentages of “tumor regression” must rest on a verifiably real clinical foundation and adhere to established ethical frameworks for human subject research to maintain its validity in the permanent scholarly record. Anticancer Research does not endorse or condone the unvalidated off-label use of medications for unapproved oncological indications. Disclosing limitations does not exempt a clinical dataset from the foundational scientific requirements of empirical verifiability and independent ethical oversight. Accordingly, based on the authors' confirmation of an established clinical provider-patient workflow, the journal is initiating a formal Post-Publication Data Integrity and Ethical Oversight Audit. This investigation will evaluate the mandatory Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval or exemption documentation, the de-identified, source-verified clinical records confirming the baseline cancer diagnoses of the 197 initial participants and the objective medical documentation supporting the reported anatomical regressions. This Expression of Concern will remain prominently appended to the publication record online and in all indexing databases while this formal data and ethical verification audit is underway.

Introduction:The use of artificial intelligence (AI) in the scientific process is advancing at a remarkable speed, thanks to continued innovations in large language models. While AI provides widespread benefits, including editing for fluency and clarity, it also has drawbacks, including fabricated content, perpetuation of bias, and lack of accountability. The editorial board of Regional Anesthesia & Pain Medicine (RAPM) therefore sought to develop best practices for AI usage and disclosure.Methods:A steering committee from the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine used a modified Delphi process to address definitions, disclosure requirements, authorship standards, and editorial oversight for AI use in publishing. The committee reviewed existing publication guidelines and identified areas of ambiguity, which were translated into questions and distributed to an expert workgroup of authors, reviewers, editors, and AI researchers.Results:Two survey rounds, with 91% and 87% response rates, were followed by focused discussion and clarification to identify consensus recommendations. The workgroup achieved consensus on recommendations to authors about definitions of AI, required items to report, disclosure locations, authorship stipulations and AI use during manuscript preparation. The workgroup formulated recommendations to reviewers about monitoring and evaluating the responsible use of AI in the review process, including the endorsement of AI-detection software, identification of concerns about undisclosed AI use, situations where AI use may necessitate the rejection of a manuscript, and use of checklists in the review process. Finally, there was consensus about AI-driven work, including required and optional disclosures and the use of checklists for AI-associated research.Discussion:Our modified Delphi study identified practical recommendations on AI use during the scientific writing and editorial process. The workgroup highlighted the need for transparency, human accountability, protection of patient confidentiality, editorial oversight and the need for iterative updates. The proposed framework enables authors and editors to harness AI’s efficiencies while maintaining the fundamental principles of responsible scientific communication and may serve as an example for other journals.

This Ask the Expert article provides evidence-informed responses to common questions raised by people living with, or at risk for, lymphedema. Drawing on the combined clinical and research expertise of members of the Pathways Editorial Board, the article addresses practical topics related to long-term lymphedema management. Questions include effective strategies to support lymphatic flow, prevention of skin hardening and discoloration, distinguishing lymphedema from lipedema, sources of information about lymphatic surgery for lower-limb lymphedema, and the use of toe caps with night-time compression. The responses emphasize the central role of compression, exercise, movement, skin care, and individualized assessment in managing swelling and reducing complications. The article also explains the importance of medical evaluation for leg swelling, the limited but evolving evidence base for lymphatic surgery, and the need for careful consideration of arterial supply, skin integrity, and donning ability when considering toe compression. Written in an accessible question-and-answer format, the article supports patient education while reinforcing evidence-based and clinically grounded approaches to lymphedema care.

Editorial Board

Editorial board

Editorial board