Journal Editors Research Articles

Retraction: Evaluating the impact of climate change and geo‐environmental factors on flood hazards in India: An integrated framework

Retraction: ‘’ by Indrajit Chowdhuri , Subodh Chandra Pal , Paramita Roy , Rabin Chakrabortty , Asish Saha , Manisa Shit , Geol J 2023, 58:3515–3543. The above article, published online on 16 March 2023 in Wiley Online Library (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/gj.4729) has been retracted by agreement between the journal's Editors in Chief, Ian D. Somerville and Yunpeng Dong, and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.The retraction has been agreed following concerns raised by a third party. Further investigation by the publisher has found manipulation of the peer review process. The retraction is warranted due to the compromised integrity of the article's peer review.

Retraction: Socio‐economic impact of natural resource management: How environmental degradation affects the quality of life

Retraction: ‘’ by LiJie An , XiuJing Jiang , Zhen Liu , Qiong Li , Geol J 2023, 58:3310–3325. The above article, published online on 9 July 2023 in Wiley Online Library (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/gj.4787) has been retracted by agreement between the journal's Editors in Chief, Ian D. Somerville and Yunpeng Dong, and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.The retraction has been agreed following concerns raised by a third party. Further investigation by the publisher has found manipulation of the peer review process. The retraction is warranted due to the compromised integrity of the article's peer review.

Interlude 1

This interlude follows the AAH conference, when all of the authors who contribute to the special journal edition are present. Their wide-ranging conversation covers the idea and possibilities of a polyphonic history of art. This interlude is a starting point, a jumping off point from where a group of authors, researchers and artists reflect on new ways of thinking about, and new ways of presenting, art history. Their conversation develops an ambition to move away from the well-trodden and often reductive methodological frameworks of art history, as they debate ideas around transnationalism, globalism, artist-centric art histories and the idea of artist as author. This interlude is about collective endeavours, both by the subjects being discussed in each paper, and by the authors who are writing about them.

Inventing hyperaccumulator plants: improving practice in phytoextraction research and terminology

Toxic metals and metalloids, especially from anthropogenic sources, now pollute substantial areas of our planet. Phytoextraction is a proven technology with the potential to reduce metal/metalloid pollution, and where financially viable, recover valuable metals (‘phytomining’). Toward these aims, there has been a surge of publications over the last two decades. While important progress is being made, ongoing propagation of poor practice, and the resultant drain from funding sources, is hindering this promising research area. This includes mis-ascribing hyperaccumulator species, hydroponics with extremely high dose levels, misuse of Bioconcentration Factors, use of food or biomass crops with low accumulation for phytoextraction, the phenomenon of ‘template papers’ in which a known hyperaccumulator for element X is dosed with element Y, or a common weed species dosed with any variety of elements to make it ‘hyperaccumulate’. Here we highlight these misconceptions with the hope that this will help to: (i) disseminate accurate definitions for in planta metal accumulation; (ii) quash the propagation of poor practice by limiting the inflation of unnecessary publications via the practice of ‘template paper’ writing; (iii) be used by journal editors and reviewers to validate their reasoning to authors; and (iv) contribute to faster progress in delivering this technology to in-the-field practitioners.

Reviewer’s Recognition

Abstract The editor-in-chief and associate editors of the ASME Journal of Turbomachinery sincerely appreciate the time and efforts of the many reviewers listed here for reviews completed in 2023. Impartial reviews by these professionals is an essential and important contribution to the journal to assure the quality of the papers published. Furthermore, these reviewers often provide valuable feedback to the authors that can greatly improve the quality of the papers.

Retraction: "Mesoglycan exerts its fibrinolytic effect through the activation of annexin A2".

Retraction: "Mesoglycan exerts its fibrinolytic effect through the activation of annexin A2" by Raffaella Belvedere, Elva Morretta, Emanuela Pessolano, Nunzia Novizio, Alessandra Tosco, Amalia Porta, James Whiteford, Mauro Perretti, Amelia Filippelli, Maria Chiara Monti, Antonello Petrella, J Cell Physiol. 2020, 236: 4926-4943. The above article, published online on 7 December 2020 in Wiley Online Library (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/jcp.30207) has been retracted by agreement between the journal's Editor in Chief, Alexander Hutchison, and Wiley Periodicals LLC. The retraction has been agreed due to concerns raised by third parties. Some flaws and inconsistencies between results presented and experimental methods described were found. Specifically, manipulations have been detected affecting the Western Blot experiment presented in Figure 3a, and the microscopy images presented in Figure 5 and Figure S7. The corresponding author, Antonello Petrella, acknowledged not having noticed the anomalies at earlier stages and collaborated with the investigation. The original experimental data related to the concerns identified were no longer available; the authors have performed new Western Blot experiments. However, based on the editorial evaluation, the provided material failed to adequately address the concerns. For instance, the data intended to replicate the findings in Figure 3a were provided at a quality too low to ensure its accuracy. Furthermore, the concerns regarding the manipulation of microscopy images in Figure 5 and Figure S7 remained entirely unaddressed. Accordingly, the editors no longer have confidence in the integrity of the data presented in the article and consider the conclusions to be invalid. Antonello Petrella, on behalf of all authors, believes that the conclusions of the article are not affected by the identified issues, in part also corroborated by the new data; all authors disagree with the decision to retract the article.

Retraction: "Safety and immunogenicity of a recombinant receptor-binding domain-based protein subunit vaccine (Noora vaccine™) against COVID-19 in adults: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, Phase 1 trial".

Retraction: "Safety and immunogenicity of a recombinant receptor-binding domain-based protein subunit vaccine (Noora vaccine™) against COVID-19 in adults: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, Phase 1 trial," by Salimian J, Ahmadi A, Amani J, et al. J Med Virol. 2022;95:e28097. The above article, published online on August 27, 2022 in Wiley Online Library (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jmv.28097) has been retracted by agreement between the journal's Editor in Chief, Shou-Jiang (SJ) Gao, and Wiley Periodicals LLC. The retraction has been agreed due to concerns raised by third parties regarding issues with the data presented in the article.1 Several inconsistencies concerning the information provided about the analyzed subjects were additionally identified. Furthermore, the authors failed to disclose the presence of potential conflicts of interest that may have affected the interpretation of the results presented. Accordingly, the editors consider the conclusions of this manuscript to be invalid. The authors have been informed of the decision to retract but did not agree with it. REFERENCE 1. Forthal DN. Comment on the immunogenicity of the Noora vaccine against SARS-CoV-2. J Med Virol. 2023;95:e28731. doi:10.1002/jmv.28731.

Keeping a close watch on Innovation Studies: Opening the black box of journal editorships

Abstract Editors are journals’ entrepreneurs, managers, and stewards. They have the duty of holding high standards of scholarly quality in terms of end product (articles) and due process (adequate peer-review procedures). Given the importance of journals in the contemporary science “ecosystem,” editors emerge as decisive power brokers. Elite board members are scrutinizers but, paradoxically, they are themselves seldom subject to systematic study. This paper presents a comprehensive portrait of the editorship phenomenon in Innovation Studies by probing the structural features of the boards of 20 leading innovation-oriented journals as of 2019 and conducting an editor survey. We account for 2,440 individual editors in 3,005 different roles based in 53 countries. We uncover the overwhelming dominance of U.S.-affiliated editors and the contrasting rare presence of scholars from the Global South. The gender balance tilts toward men, with a weight above 60%. Enhanced journal achievement is associated with editors on multiple boards, diverse national representation, and increased women on boards. Almost 20% of scholars serve on multiple boards, and no single journal is free from this interlocking editorship phenomenon. The journal Research Policy is the most central in the cross-board network, followed by Industrial and Corporate Change. Finally, the implications of editormetrics for journal governance are discussed.

Development and Validation of a Scoring Rubric for Editorial Evaluation of Peer-review Quality: A Pilot Study.

Despite the importance of peer review to publications, there is no generally accepted approach for editorial evaluation of a peer review's value to a journal editor's decision-making. The graduate medical education editors of the Western Journal of Emergency Medicine Special Issue in Educational Research & Practice (Special Issue) developed and studied the holistic editor's scoring rubric (HESR) with the objective of assessing the quality of a review and an emphasis on the degree to which it informs a holistic appreciation for the submission under consideration. Using peer-review guidelines from several journals, the Special Issue's editors formulated the rubric as descriptions of peer reviews of varying degree of quality from the ideal to the unacceptable. Once a review was assessed by each editor using the rubric, the score was submitted to a third party for blinding purposes. We compared the performance of the new rubric to a previously used semantic differential scale instrument. Kane's validity framework guided the evaluation of the new scoring rubric around three basic assumptions: improved distribution of scores; relative consistency rather than absolute inter-rater reliability across editors; and statistical evidence that editors valued peer reviews that contributed most to their decision-making. Ninety peer reviews were the subject of this study, all were assessed by two editors. Compared to the highly skewed distribution of the prior rating scale, the distribution of the new scoring rubric was bell shaped and demonstrated full use of the rubric scale. Absolute agreement between editors was low to moderate, while relative consistency between editor's rubric ratings was high. Finally, we showed that recommendations of higher rated peer reviews were more likely to concur with the editor's formal decision. Early evidence regarding the HESR supports the use of this instrument in determining the quality of peer reviews as well as its relative importance in informing editorial decision-making.

Announcement of the Stata Journal Editors’ Prize 2024

Announcement of the Stata Journal Editors’ Prize 2024

Theorising Support for Interdisciplinary Early-Career Researchers Using Communicative Genre and 'Rules of the Game'.

Qualitative social scientists working in medical faculties have to meet multiple expectations. On the one hand, they are expected to comply with the philosophical and theoretical expectations of the social sciences. On the other hand, they may also be expected to produce publications which align with biomedical definitions and framings of quality. As interdisciplinary scholars, they must handle (at least) two sets of journal editors, peer reviewers, grant-awarding panels, and conference audiences. In this paper, we extend the current knowledge base on the 'dual expectations' challenge by drawing on Orlikowski and Yates' theoretical concept of communicative genres. A 'genre' in this context is a format of communication (e.g. letter, email, academic paper, and conference presentation) aimed at a particular audience, having a particular material form and socio-linguistic style, and governed by both formal requirements and unwritten social rules. Becoming a member of any community of practice involves becoming familiar with its accepted communicative genres and adept in using them. Academic writing, for example, is a craft that is learned through participation in the social process of communicating one's ideas to one's peers in journal articles and other formats. In this reflective paper, we show how the concept of a communicative genre can sensitise us to the conflicting and often dissonant expectations and rule systems governing different academic fields. We use this key concept to suggest ways in which the faculty can support early-career researchers to progress in careers which straddle qualitative social science and medical science.

Endorsements of five reporting guidelines for biomedical research by journals of prominent publishers.

Biomedical research reporting guidelines provide a framework by which journal editors and the researchers who conduct studies can ensure that the reported research is both complete and transparent. With more than 16 different guidelines for the 11 major study types of medical and health research, authors need to be familiar with journal reporting standards. To assess the current endorsements of reporting guidelines for biomedical and health research, this study examined the instructions for authors (IFAs) of 559 biomedical journals by 11 prominent publishers that publish original research or systematic reviews/meta-analyses. Data from the above original sources were cleaned and restructured, and analyzed in a database and text miner. Each journal's instructions or information for authors were examined to code if any of five prominent reporting guidelines were mentioned and what form the guideline adherence demonstration took. Seventeen journals published the reporting guidelines. Four of the five reporting guidelines listed journals as endorsers. For journals with open peer review reports, a sample of journals and peer reviews was analyzed for mention of adherence to reporting guidelines. The endorsement of research guidelines by publishers and their associated journals is inconsistent for some publishers, with only a small number of journals endorsing relevant guidelines. Based on the analysis of open peer reviews, there is evidence that some reviewers check the adherence to the endorsed reporting guidelines. Currently, there is no universal endorsement of reporting guidelines by publishers nor ways of demonstrating adherence to guidelines. Journals may not directly inform authors of their guideline endorsements, making it more difficult for authors to adhere to endorsed guidelines. Suggestions derived from the findings are provided for authors, journals, and reporting guidelines to ensure increased adequate use of endorsed reporting guidelines.

Editorial: TAPPI Journal Best Research Paper for 2023 focuses on black liquor concentration using graphene oxide membranes

TAPPI and the TAPPI Journal (TJ) Editorial Board would like congratulate the authors of the 2023 TAPPI Journal Best Research Paper Award and Honghi Tran Prize: Sam Rae, Ella V. Richards, Max Kleiman-Lynch, Brent D. Keller, and Brandon I. Macdonald. Their paper, “Pilot scale black liquor concentration using pressure driven membrane separation,” appeared on p. 223 of the April 2023 issue. This kraft recovery cycle research was recognized by the TAPPI Journal Editorial Board for its innovation, creativity, scientific merit, and clear expression of ideas.

Sustainable HRM the next hotspot for management research? A study using topic modelling

PurposeSustainable human resource management (SuHRM), which aims to achieve positive environmental, social and economic outcomes at the same time, has gained prominence across industries. However, the challenges of implementing SuHRM across industries are largely under-studied. The purpose of this study is to identify the grey areas in the field of SuHRM by using an unsupervised learning algorithm on the abstracts of 607 papers published in prominent journals from 1995 to 2023. Most of the articles have been published post-2018.Design/methodology/approachThe analysis of the data (abstracts of the selected articles) has been done using topic modelling via latent Dirichlet algorithm (LDA).FindingsThe output from topic modelling-LDA reveals nine primary focus areas of SuHRM research – the link between SuHRM and employee well-being; job satisfaction; challenges of implementing SuHRM; exploring new horizons in SuHRM; reaping the benefits of using SuHRM as a strategic tool; green HRM practices; link between SuHRM and organisational performance; link between corporate social responsible and HRM.Research limitations/implicationsThe insights gained from this study along with the discussions on each topic will be extremely beneficial for researchers, academicians, journal editors and practitioners to channelise their research focus. No other study has used a smart algorithm to identify the research clusters of SuHRM.Originality/valueBy utilizing topic modeling techniques, the study offers a novel approach to analyzing and understanding trends and patterns in HRM research related to sustainability. The significance of the paper would be in its potential to shed light on emerging areas of interest and provide valuable implications for future research and practice in Sustainable HRM.

A reviewer-reputation ranking algorithm to identify high-quality papers during the review process

With the exponential growth in the number of academic researchers, it is crucial for editors of scientific journals to identify the highest-quality papers. While several measures exist to evaluate a paper’s impact post-publication, the challenge of determining the potential impact of a manuscript during the review process remains an understudied issue. In this paper, we propose a reviewer-reputation ranking algorithm to identify high-quality papers based on paper citations, where a reviewer’s reputation is computed from the correlation between their past ratings and the current number of citations received by the papers they have evaluated. During the review process, reviewers with high reputation scores are given more weight to determine the quality of papers. We test the algorithm on an artificial network with 200 reviewers and 600 papers, as well as on the American Physical Society (APS) data set, including in the analysis 308,243 papers and 274,154 mutual citations. We compare our approach with two existing methods, demonstrating that our algorithm significantly outperforms the others in identifying manuscripts with the highest quality. Our findings can help improve the impact of scientific journals, thereby contributing to academic and scientific progress.

Withdrawn: Effect of stress tolerance endophytic bacteria on the growth of Rheum emodi under abiotic stress.

Withdrawn: 'Effect of stress tolerance endophytic bacteria on the growth of Rheum emodi under abiotic stress' by Manpreet Kaur Somal, Arun Karnwal, 2022, 10.1111/plb.13463. The above article, published online on 24 August 2022 in Wiley Online Library (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/plb.13463) has been withdrawn by agreement between the journal's Editors in Chief, Christiane Werner and Theo Elzenga, the German Society for Plant Sciences and the Royal Botanical Society of the Netherlands, and John Wiley & Sons Ltd. The withdrawal has been agreed due to premature acceptance of the article despite not meeting the quality standards required for publication in the journal. The authors have been invited to resubmit the article for a new evaluation.

Should editors with multiple retractions or a record of academic misconduct serve on journal editorial boards?

In the academic world, despite their corrective nature, there is still a negative stigma attached to retractions, even more so if they are based on ethical infractions. Editors-in-chief and editors are role models in academic and scholarly communities. Thus, if they have multiple retractions or a record of academic misconduct, this viewpoint argues that they should not serve on journals’ editorial boards. The exception is where such individuals have displayed a clear path of scholarly reform. Policy and guidance is needed by organizations such as the Committee on Publication Ethics.

A framework for evaluating the diversity of clinical trials

ObjectivesThe topic of diversity in clinical trials is rising to the forefront of many conversations in evidence-based medicine, and efforts are being made to improve the diversity of clinical trials. However, there is little uniformity in the methods used to evaluate these efforts. In this article, we describe our Clinical trial Diversity Rating (CDR) framework and the development process, including the broader considerations for evaluating the demographic diversity of clinical trials and their implications, and demonstrate its use through an illustrative example. Study Design and SettingThe development of the framework was a four-step process, including a scoping review, a cross-sectional study, creation of the tool, and integration of feedback from an advisory group. ResultsOur scoping review identified 110 publications that examined clinical trial diversity. Race/ethnicity, sex, and age were the most common characteristics evaluated. About 85% clearly defined the benchmark used for evaluation, but less than half (48%) used disease prevalence as the benchmark. Only 64% of studies defined what would be considered adequate representation. The cross-sectional study, which applied some of the approaches identified in the literature, helped to identify the complexities of evaluating multinational trials and certain demographic characteristics. Key decisions for the CDR framework, such as the demographic characteristics to be evaluated, the benchmark and thresholds for evaluation, and how these factors contribute to the overall rating of clinical trial diversity, were informed by the two earlier phases and feedback from an advisory group. ConclusionThe CDR framework provides an objective and transparent approach to evaluating clinical trial diversity. Groups such as Health Technology Assessment bodies, clinical trial regulators, policymakers, journal editors, and individual researchers can use this tool to examine, monitor, and improve diversity in clinical trials.

Honorary authorship is highly prevalent in health sciences: systematic review and meta-analysis of surveys.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey research was conducted to estimate honorary authorship prevalence in health sciences. We searched PubMed, Lens.org, and Dimensions.ai. until January 5 2023. Methodological quality was assessed and quantitative syntheses were conducted. Nineteen surveys were included and rated as having low methodological quality. We found a pooled prevalence of 26% [95% CI 21-31] (6 surveys, 2758 respondents) of researchers that perceived co-author(s) as honorary on the publication at issue (when they were not referred to any authorship criteria). That prevalence was 18% [95% CI 15-21] (11 surveys, 4272 respondents) when researchers were referred to Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) authorship criteria, and 51% [95% CI 47-56] (15 surveys, 5111 respondents) when researchers were asked to declare their co-author(s) contributions on the publication at issue (and these were then compared to ICMJE criteria). 10% of researchers [95% CI 9-12] (11 surveys, 3,663 respondents) reported being approached by others to include honorary author(s) on the publication at issue and 16% [95% CI 13-18] (2 surveys, 823 respondents) admitted adding (an) honorary author(s). Survey research consistently indicates that honorary authorship in the health sciences is highly prevalent, however the quality of the surveys' methods and reporting needs improvement.

From Marginalia to Bookends: Industrialization, Capitalism, and Advertising in Hungary’s Modern Literary Journal, <i>Nyugat</i> (1908–41)

This paper examines Nyugat [West], the premier journal of modern Hungarian literature published from 1908 to 1941 and edited by Ernő Osvát (1876–1929), Ignotus (1869–1949), and Miksa Fenyő (1877–1972) until 1917. Although Hungarian scholarship has detailed the role played by Osvát and Ignotus, Fenyő’s contribution to this triumvirate has received less attention, a lack that may have hindered literary historians’ understanding of the more widespread, sociological reasons underlying Nyugat’s long-lasting presence in a highly competitive book market. I argue that examining Fenyő’s editorial position demands the inclusion of marginalia, the term this study utilizes to denote the factory advertisements, banking-related notifications, military supply announcements, railway schedules, and eulogies that display Fenyő’s ties to the industrial lobby organization GyOSz — the National Association of Hungarian Industrialists, also referred to as ‘the Association’ — within the pages of a journal dedicated to promoting fin-de-siècle aestheticism. Exploring what Bernard Lahire would describe as Fenyő’s ‘double life’ thereby paves the way to theorizing what beliefs and ‘rules of the game’ (illusio) may have determined the connection between Hungary’s wealthiest industrialists and Nyugat during a period when the journal’s editors and authors sought to attain both authorial and financial autonomy.