Journal Editors Research Articles

How to describe a new species in zoology and avoid mistakes

Abstract Taxonomy is the science of discovering, naming, describing, diagnosing, identifying, and classifying different kinds of taxa, from species to families. It lays the foundation for all of the biological sciences. The rapid increase in both taxonomic descriptions and malpractice in recent decades indicates a need for consistency in the procedure and quality of taxonomic research publications dealing with recognition of new taxa, name changes, and nomenclatural acts. Indeed, there are numerous examples in the recent literature of taxonomic works that fall short of the basic procedures and minimum standards required for naming new species according to the mandatory provisions and recommendations of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, accepted standards of taxonomic best practice, and journal editorial policy. Here, we provide practical guidelines of the procedure and key elements required to name, describe, and publish a new animal species or revise the taxonomic status of a species. We then discuss some of the common pitfalls that should be avoided. Mistakes commonly made include failure to read the Code, to review the primary taxonomic literature, to examine type material, to construct the taxon name correctly, to explicitly establish the new taxon, to provide adequate typification, to clearly differentiate the new taxon, to register the publication of the new taxon name in ZooBank, or to publish the name of the new taxon in a manner that is compliant with the Code. We provide some examples of these mistakes, mainly from butterflies (Insecta: Lepidoptera: Papilionoidea) and, to some extent, reptiles because these taxon groups seem to have an unusually high level of poor taxonomic practice.

What use is the concept of the digital? Embracing the retro

Responding to this journal's inaugural editorial statement, this forum piece reflects on the ongoing usefulness of the concept of the digital itself. The digital as a term could be regarded to encapsulate too much of social life to be effective as an analytical point of reference. Beginning with the unstated evocations of the term, the article turns back to earlier work on digital sociology in an attempt to put this concept into context and to think about its value. It argues for embracing the digital's retro properties by reflecting on how it might be used to understand the relations between past, present and future. The article concludes by thinking about how potential issues with the term digital can be turned to the advantage of the researcher and also how a renewed agenda for research on digital society might yet be devised, especially in the pages of this new journal.

Retraction: "Adipose-derived mesenchymal stem cells ameliorate the inflammatory reaction in CLP-induced septic acute lung injury rats via sTNFR1".

Retraction: "Adipose-derived mesenchymal stem cells ameliorate the inflammatory reaction in CLP-induced septic acute lung injury rats via sTNFR1", by Xian-Fei Ding, Huo-Yan Liang, Jun-Yi Sun, Shao-Hua Liu, Quan-Cheng Kan, Le-Xin Wang, Tong-Wen Sun, J Cell Physiol. 2019; 234: 16582-16591: The above article, published online on 18 February 2019 in Wiley Online Library (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/jcp.28329) has been retracted by agreement between the journal's Editor in Chief, Alexander Hutchison, and Wiley Periodicals LLC. The retraction has been agreed following an investigation based on allegations raised by a third party. Several flaws and inconsistencies between results presented and experimental methods described were found. The authors were not able to provide comprehensive experimental data upon request. Thus, the editors consider the conclusions of this article to be invalid. The authors disagree with the retraction.

Can ChatGPT evaluate research quality?

Abstract Purpose Assess whether ChatGPT 4.0 is accurate enough to perform research evaluations on journal articles to automate this time-consuming task. Design/methodology/approach Test the extent to which ChatGPT-4 can assess the quality of journal articles using a case study of the published scoring guidelines of the UK Research Excellence Framework (REF) 2021 to create a research evaluation ChatGPT. This was applied to 51 of my own articles and compared against my own quality judgements. Findings ChatGPT-4 can produce plausible document summaries and quality evaluation rationales that match the REF criteria. Its overall scores have weak correlations with my self-evaluation scores of the same documents (averaging r=0.281 over 15 iterations, with 8 being statistically significantly different from 0). In contrast, the average scores from the 15 iterations produced a statistically significant positive correlation of 0.509. Thus, averaging scores from multiple ChatGPT-4 rounds seems more effective than individual scores. The positive correlation may be due to ChatGPT being able to extract the author’s significance, rigour, and originality claims from inside each paper. If my weakest articles are removed, then the correlation with average scores (r=0.200) falls below statistical significance, suggesting that ChatGPT struggles to make fine-grained evaluations. Research limitations The data is self-evaluations of a convenience sample of articles from one academic in one field. Practical implications Overall, ChatGPT does not yet seem to be accurate enough to be trusted for any formal or informal research quality evaluation tasks. Research evaluators, including journal editors, should therefore take steps to control its use. Originality/value This is the first published attempt at post-publication expert review accuracy testing for ChatGPT.

The development of a Core Outcome Set for clinical trials targeting interventions aiming to improve adherence to appropriate polypharmacy in older people – A Delphi consensus study

Abstract Introduction Older people encounter challenges when taking polypharmacy. Different interventions have been applied to improve adherence to polypharmacy. However, there are few high-quality studies, and little consideration has been given to the outcomes selected to measure the effectiveness of interventions.[1] To produce high-quality studies and accurately report adherence-related outcomes, developing a Core Outcome Set (COS) is important.[2] A COS is the minimum number of outcomes that should be reported and measured in future trials in a specific health field to reduce outcomes’ inconsistencies across trials.[2] Aim This study aimed to develop a COS for use in clinical trials aiming at improving adherence to appropriate polypharmacy in older patients. Methods A list of outcomes related to adherence to polypharmacy (n=13) was compiled from previous semi-structured interviews with stakeholders. The Delphi panel consisted of experts in adherence, polypharmacy and gerontology, including journal editors, academics, non-National Health Service doctors, nurses and pharmacists who were identified by searching researchers’ publication profiles using Google Scholar and Scopus. Senior editors and editor-in-chief of peer-reviewed journals were identified by searching journal information. Public members were identified by searching for contact emails of staff members in public charities/organisations representing older people’s healthcare needs (e.g. AgeUK). Additionally, identified participants received invitation emails asking them to forward the email to other participants and experts who might be interested in this study (i.e. snowball sampling). The 13 outcomes were distributed in three online Delphi questionnaires between February and April 2023 using an online SoGoSurvey® platform. All outcomes were rated according to their degree of importance using a nine-point Likert scale (1 to 3 = unimportant; 4 to 6 = important but not critical; 7 to 9 = critical). Following each round, response rates and the distribution of scores were calculated to classify outcomes into ‘consensus in’, ‘consensus out’ and ‘no consensus’. An outcome was considered very important if ≥80% of participants scored it as ‘critical’ and ≤15% scored it as ‘unimportant’. Results The Delphi panel (Round 1, n=57; Round 2, n=53; Round 3, n=50) comprised different professionals, including 38 academics, 23 pharmacists, 12 doctors, six journal editors, three nurses and four public members, some of whom had multiple roles, e.g. doctor and academic. Participants were distributed over four continents, mostly from Europe (n=39). Both Australia and America had identical representation (n=8), while two participants represented Asia. Consensus was reached following the third round on seven outcomes, namely: medication adherence across multiple medications (100.0%), treatment burden (96.2%), health-related quality of life (96.2%), healthcare utilisation (83.0%), adverse events and side effects (83.0%), patient-carer satisfaction (82%), and cost-effectiveness (81.1%). Conclusion Seven outcomes were considered of critical importance to stakeholders. This study is the first to develop a COS for interventions targeting adherence to appropriate polypharmacy in older patients. However, most of our participants were academics and pharmacists from Europe, whilst other participant categories and continents were less well-represented. A future nominal group technique study will be conducted to discuss the results obtained from previous Delphi questionnaires, followed by selecting the appropriate outcome measurement instruments to measure these outcomes.

Inclusiveness in mental health research: a survey of attitudes, awareness, and actions among journal editors.

Background: Improving inclusiveness in mental health research merits attention as we seek to reduce inequalities in mental health. Academic journals can promote inclusiveness through editorial practices related to the selection of content and the composition of journal editorial boards. Objectives: To investigate the attitudes, awareness, and actions of journal editors con-cerning inclusiveness in mental health research and editorial practices. Methods: We surveyed 74 chief and senior editors, representing 55 prominent journals in neuroscience, psychiatry, and psychology (2021 impact factor M = 8.04, SD = 10.76). Results: Most respondents (74–99%) acknowledged the importance of inclusiveness in mental health research, and a majority (62–78%) were familiar with existing guide-lines. Half or fewer of the journals (49–50%) had policies for selecting content that is diverse, and 20% had policies regarding inclusion of individuals with lived experi-ence of mental health challenges. Well over half the journals (57–72%) had policies to widen diversity among their editorial boards and roughly half (43–53%) among peer reviewers, although only a few (18–23%) included among their editors or peer review-ers individuals with lived experience of dealing with mental health challenges. Conclusions: This study highlighted an intention-action gap, with positive attitudes and awareness but limited editorial practices promoting inclusiveness in mental health research. Inclusion of individuals with lived experience emerged as an area in particular need of improvement. We discuss potential strategies that journals might consider to foster inclusiveness, such as diversity training, publication checklists, and infrastructure that supports participatory approaches.

RETRACTION: Novel computer‐aided lung cancer detection based on convolutional neural network‐based and feature‐based classifiers using metaheuristics

RETRACTION: Z. Guo, L. Xu, Y. Si, and N. Razmjooy, “Novel computer‐aided lung cancer detection based on convolutional neural network‐based and feature‐based classifiers using metaheuristics,” International Journal of Imaging Systems and Technology 31, no. 4 (2021): 1954–1969. https://doi.org/10.1002/ima.22608The above article, published online on 5 June 2021 in Wiley Online Library, has been retracted by agreement between the authors, the journal's Editor in Chief, Mohamed Seghier, and Wiley Periodicals, LLC. Following the article's publication, the journal was contacted by co‐author Yujuan Si, who stated that she had not participated in any way in the work presented in the article or its preparation, and that the email address used to correspond with the journal in her name had been fabricated. In the following investigation, the authors stated that Yujuan Si's inclusion in the author list was due to her supervisory role over co‐author Lina Xu as a mentor for her PhD studies, and that authorship attribution occurred without Yujuan Si's knowledge nor consent due to inadequate communication among the co‐authors. However, the ownership of the email address attributed to Yujuan Si for journal correspondence (bio_sp@163.com) remains uncertain. The retraction has been agreed due to concerns about the fabricated email address and author impersonation, which calls all aspects of the work presented into question. Following the investigation's findings, the corresponding author Navid Razmjooy has agreed on the decision to retract the article on behalf of all authors.

PRIDASE 2024 guidelines for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies in endodontics: A consensus-based development.

Studies investigating the accuracy of diagnostic tests should provide data on how effectively they identify or exclude disease in order to inform clinicians responsible for managing patients. This consensus-based project was undertaken to develop reporting guidelines for authors submitting manuscripts, which describe studies that have evaluated the accuracy of diagnostic tests in endodontics. These guidelines are known as the Preferred Reporting Items for Diagnostic Accuracy Studies in Endodontics (PRIDASE) 2024 guidelines. A nine-member steering committee created an initial checklist by integrating and modifying items from the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD) 2015 checklist and the Clinical and Laboratory Images in Publications (CLIP) principles, as well as adding a number of new items specific to the specialty of endodontics. Thereafter, the steering committee formed the PRIDASE Delphi Group (PDG) and the PRIDASE Online Meeting Group (POMG) in order to collect expert feedback on the preliminary draft checklist. Members of the Delphi group engaged in an online Delphi process to reach consensus on the clarity and suitability of the items in the checklist. The online meeting group then held an in-depth discussion on the online Delphi-generated items via the Zoom platform on 20 October 2023. According to the feedback obtained, the steering committee revised the PRIDASE checklist, which was then piloted by several authors when preparing manuscripts describing diagnostic accuracy studies in endodontics. Feedback from this process resulted in the final version of the PRIDASE 2024 checklist, which has 11 sections and 66 items. Authors are encouraged to use the PRIDASE 2024 guidelines when developing manuscripts on diagnostic accuracy in endodontics in order to improve the quality of reporting in this area. Editors of relevant journals will be invited to include these guidelines in their instructions to authors.

Research on Innovative Paths for Journal Editing and Publishing in the New Media Era

This article analyzes the current situation of journal editing and publishing in the new media era and proposes relevant innovative strategy suggestions. It first analyzes the challenges faced by traditional journal editing and publishing, including low efficiency in information dissemination and outdated content formats. Then it discusses the opportunities brought by the new media era, such as real-time publishing and social media promotion. It also puts forward innovative pathways, including introducing new media technologies, expanding content expression methods, and strengthening academic exchanges and collaborations. Specific measures and suggestions are provided for enhancing the new media literacy of editorial teams, strengthening academic integrity and quality management, and optimizing the knowledge service functions of journals.

Systematic Reviews on Human–Animal Interaction Topics: A Look at Reporting Practices

ABSTRACT Mirroring the patterns of primary research, there is a significant and growing increase in the number of systematic reviews (SRs) in the human–animal interaction (HAI) field. This article describes the content of published SRs and compares their reporting practices against the rigorous, prescribed methodologies associated with quality SRs. This study was designed to describe the characteristics of HAI SRs in terms of publication patterns, human subjects, animal(s) of interest, and outcomes and determine the extent to which they follow recommended practices for transparency and reproducibility. Thirteen bibliographic databases were searched for articles containing both an HAI-related term and an SR term. We screened 766 articles for relevance and coded 110 of them for desired data. The majority of reviews (54.55%) were published between 2019 and 2022. Most (65.45%) did not specify the age of human populations studied, but specified ages included children or adolescents, adults, and older adults. A range of human conditions was studied, including, among others, dementia, autism spectrum disorder, and chronic illness. A slight majority of studies (51.82%) did not specify the animal species to be studied, but those that did included, singly or in combination, dogs, horses, robotic animals, and farm or food animals. The majority of studies (63.63%) referred to PRISMA or other methodological guidelines. Across all studies, 163 different databases were searched, with PubMed, PsycINFO, and CINAHL among the most frequently used. Few studies (18.18%) referred to consultation with an information professional. A slight majority (52.72%) provided a full search strategy for at least one database. Most (67.27%) did not include gray literature searches, and most (72.72%) included an assessment of quality or risk of bias for the studies included in their review. In light of their importance in informing practices and policies, and because they are viewed as the most reliable study type, SR reporting in the HAI field should reflect best practices. There is room for improvement in reporting among HAI SRs. Suggestions are offered for ways HAI educators and journal editors may improve SR methodologies and reporting in the field.

Recommendations for optimising pilot and feasibility work in surgery

BackgroundSurgical trials are recognised as inherently challenging. Pilot and feasibility studies (PAFS) are increasingly acknowledged as a key method to optimise the design and conduct of randomised trials but remain limited in surgery. We used a mixed methods approach to develop recommendations for how surgical PAFS could be optimised.MethodsThe findings from a quantitative analysis of funded surgical PAFS over a 10-year period and in-depth qualitative interviews with surgeons, methodologists and funders were triangulated and synthesised with available methodological guidance on PAFS.ResultsThe synthesis informed the development of an explanatory model describing root causes and compounding challenges that contribute to how and why surgical PAFS is not currently optimised. The four root causes identified include issues relating to (i) understanding the full scope of PAFS; (ii) design and conduct of PAFS; (iii) reporting of PAFS; and (iv) lack of appreciation of the value of PAFS by all stakeholder groups. Compounding challenges relate to both cultural issues and access to and interpretation of available methodological PAFS guidance. The study findings and explanatory model were used to inform the development of a practical guidance tool for surgeons and study teams to improve research practice.ConclusionsOptimisation of PAFS in surgery requires a cultural shift in research practice amongst funders, academic institutions, regulatory bodies and journal editors, as well as amongst surgeons. Our ‘Top Tips’ guidance tool offers an accessible framework for surgeons designing PAFS. Adoption and utilisation of these recommendations will optimise surgical PAFS, facilitating successful and efficient future surgical trials.

Registered Reports and Associated Benefits for Agricultural Economics

Abstract The distribution of published scientific evidence is biased. There is accumulating evidence of the frequent use of questionable publishing practices and questionable research practices, and current solutions are limited (e.g., pre-registration). This has important undesirable consequences for policy-oriented areas such as agricultural economics. In this article, we discuss a potential solution: Registered Reports. We first provide an overview of the Registered Report publication format. We demonstrate how Registered Reports outperform pre-registration, while also efficiently contributing to reducing questionable research practices, canceling questionable publishing practices, and providing more reliable results that can inform evidence-based policymaking. Second, we present a benchmark of Registered Reports in economics today and discuss potential barriers using survey data from economic journal editors. Lastly, we highlight the importance of developing the Registered Report publication format in agricultural economics.

Social Work Journals and the Disciplinary Production of Alternative Knowledge(s)

ABSTRACT Disciplinary knowledge is reflected, legitimated, and replicated in academic journals, social work knowledge reproducing mainly Western knowledge(s). Hence, there has been an increase in the calls for a stronger articulation and inclusion of critical alternatives. Using a critical social work lens, we explored whether and how social work journals reproduce alternative knowledges. We developed a novel global list of all 272 social work journals and invited journal editors to respond to a virtual, exploratory qualitative survey. Through our reflexive thematic analysis, we identified two core themes in the 31 responses – the journal editors’ attachment to dominant, white, western social work knowledge and values, and their rhetorical inclusion of alternative knowledges. Alternative knowledges were seldom constructed as subjugated voices, but rather as innovation, gaps, or international perspectives. Despite agreeing that social work journals should include of a variety of knowledges, few journals created intentional space for subordinated knowledges. A disciplining mechanism that excludes/minimizes the alternative voices, and invalidates their experience was used to avoid attention to marginalized and silenced perspectives. Such processes impoverish social work knowledge. To enrich social work knowledge, journal editors should act intentionally, collectively, and critically to identify critical alternative knowledges and facilitate their inclusion in the social work canon.

Retraction: "Downregulation of microRNA-205 inhibits cell invasion and angiogenesis of cervical cancer through TSLC1-mediated Akt signaling pathway".

Retraction: "Downregulation of microRNA-205 inhibits cell invasion and angiogenesis of cervical cancer through TSLC1-mediated Akt signaling pathway" by Fang Zhang, Jian Liu, Bei-Bei Xie, J Cell Physiol 2019, 234: 18626-18638. The above article, published online on 2 May 2019 in Wiley Online Library (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jcp.28501) has been retracted by agreement between the authors, the journal's Editors in Chief, Alexander Hutchison, and Wiley Periodicals LLC. The retraction has been agreed due to concerns related to the data presented in the article. Several flaws and inconsistencies between results presented and experimental methods described were found. Additionally, some figure elements have been published elsewhere in a different scientific context. Thus, the conclusions of this article are considered to be invalid by the editors.

Retraction: 'MicroRNA-198 Inhibits Proliferation and Induces Apoptosis of Lung Cancer Cells Via Targeting FGFR1'.

(https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jcb.24742) has been retracted by agreement between the journal's Editor in Chief, Christian Behl, and Wiley Periodicals LLC. The retraction has been agreed following an investigation based on allegations raised by a third party. Several flaws and inconsistencies between results presented and experimental methods described were found. Thus, the editors consider the conclusions of this article to be invalid. The authors were not available for a final confirmation of the retraction.

Retraction: "Downregulation of long noncoding RNA SNHG1 inhibits cell proliferation, metastasis, and invasion by suppressing the Notch-1 signaling pathway in pancreatic cancer".

Retraction: "Downregulation of long noncoding RNA SNHG1 inhibits cell proliferation, metastasis, and invasion by suppressing the Notch-1 signaling pathway in pancreatic cancer" by Long Cui, Yadong Dong, Xiaochuan Wang, Xin Zhao, Chenchen Kong, Yangsui Liu, Xinchun Jiang, Xinhui Zhang, J Cell Biochem 2019, 120: 6106-6112. The above article, published online on 5 December 2018 in Wiley Online Library (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jcb.27897) has been retracted by agreement between the authors, the journal's Editor in Chief, Christian Behl, and Wiley Periodicals LLC. The retraction has been agreed upon authors' request due to concerns related to the data presented in the article. The authors admitted several mistakes during figure compilation resulting in flaws and inconsistencies between results presented and experimental methods described. Thus, the conclusions of this article are considered invalid.

Retraction: "Silencing lncRNA PVT1 inhibits activation of astrocytes and increases BDNF expression in hippocampus tissues of rats with epilepsy by downregulating the Wnt signaling pathway".

Retraction: "Silencing lncRNA PVT1 inhibits activation of astrocytes and increases BDNF expression in hippocampus tissues of rats with epilepsy by downregulating the Wnt signaling pathway", by Teng Zhao, Ying Ding, Min Li, Chunkui Zhou, and Weihong Lin, J Cell Physiol. 2019; 234: 16054-16067: The above article, published online on 25 February 2019 in Wiley Online Library (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jcp.28264) has been retracted by agreement between the journal's Editor in Chief, Alexander Hutchison, and Wiley Periodicals LLC. The retraction has been agreed following an investigation based on allegations raised by a third party. Several flaws and inconsistencies between results presented and experimental methods described were found. Furthermore, indication for image manipulation was found in Figures 3, 7, and 9. Thus, the editors consider the conclusions of this article to be invalid.

Retraction: "H19 suppresses the growth of hepatoblastoma cells by promoting their apoptosis via the signaling pathways of miR-675/FADD and miR-138/PTK2".

Retraction: "H19 suppresses the growth of hepatoblastoma cells by promoting their apoptosis via the signaling pathways of miR-675/FADD and miR-138/PTK2" by Lili Ge, Xianwei Zhang, Shengnan Hu, Yinsen Song, Jinghui Kong, Bo Zhang, Xiaoang Yang, J Cell Biochem 2019, 120: 5218-5231. The above article, published online on 26 October 2018 in Wiley Online Library (https://doi.org/10.1002/jcb.27797) has been retracted by agreement between the authors, the journal's Editor in Chief, Christian Behl, and Wiley Periodicals LLC. The decision to retract the article was made following a request for retraction from the authors. An initial assessment uncovered the duplication of image elements between Figure 2A and 2C. The editors believe that these findings compromise the interpretation of the data and results presented.

Retraction: "Evaluation of the neuroprotective effects of electromagnetic fields and coenzyme Q10 on hippocampal injury in mouse".

Retraction: "Evaluation of the neuroprotective effects of electromagnetic fields and coenzyme Q10 on hippocampal injury in mouse" by Mansoureh Soleimani, Fereshteh Golab, Akram Alizadeh, Sara Rigi, Zeinab Nazarian Samani, Gelareh Vahabzadeh, Tahmineh Peirovi, Maryam Sarbishegi, Majid Katebi, Fereshteh Azedi, J Cell Physiol 2019, 234: 18720-18730. The above article, published online on 1 April 2019 in Wiley Online Library (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/jcp.28512) has been retracted by agreement between the journal's Editor in Chief, Alexander Hutchison, and the Wiley Periodicals LLC. The retraction has been agreed following an investigation based on allegations raised by third parties. Image elements in Figures 3 and 5 were found to have been duplicated and/or published elsewhere in a different scientific context by the same author group. The authors have admitted significant errors in figure compilation due to the simultaneous execution of experiments for both this article and their previous publication, resulting in complications with organization and storage of data. Accordingly, the editors consider the conclusions of this article to be invalid. The authors have been informed of the decision to retract the article but disagree with it.

Editor Profile: Andrey Abramov.

In this special interview series, we profile members of The FEBS Journal editorial board to highlight their research focus, perspectives on the journal and future directions in their field. Professor Andrey Abramov is a cell biologist and biophysicist at University College London's Queen Square Institute of Neurology. He has served as an Editorial Board Member of The FEBS Journal since 2015.