Original Research Manuscripts Research Articles

A review of the current standing of microRNA expression in canine urothelial carcinoma.

Urothelial carcinoma (UC) is the most common urogenital cancer in dogs. With early diagnosis, the disease can be controlled, to reduce progression of disease, in most dogs with a good quality of life. MicroRNAs (miRNAs) have been identified as a potential diagnostic and prognostic tool due to their stability and presence in both bodily fluids and tissues. MiRNAs have been frequently researched in human medicine and human UC; however, few manuscripts regarding miRNAs in canine UC are available. A search was performed on both PubMed and Google Scholar evaluating original research manuscripts with experimentally validated results for the terms "canine" or "dog"; "urothelial carcinoma," "bladder cancer," "transitional cell carcinoma," "TCC," "MIBC," "IMBUC," or "BLCA"; and "miRNA" or "microRNA." We identified 3 peer-reviewed manuscripts evaluating miRNA expression in canine UC and compared the reported miRNA expression studies to human UC to identify experimentally validated targets of the dysregulated miRNA. In this review, we highlight the similarities and differences between what is reported in canine UC and human UC and discuss the literature gaps that call for further evaluation.

(026) Ten Years of Authorship by Women in Sexual Medicine Journals: Are We Making Progress?

Abstract Introduction Women are historically underrepresented in Urology, but the demographics are slowly changing. As of 2023, only 10.9% of urology attendings are women; however, women represent 37% of the accepted residency class of 2028. With increasing representation of women in urology, we hypothesized this would reflect in women’s authorship patterns in published manuscripts. Objective We sought to identify if the increasing representation of women in urology is reflected in first or last authorship in sexual medicine journals. Methods All manuscripts published in the Journal of Sexual Medicine and Sexual Medicine from 2013 to 2023 were reviewed. Original research manuscripts were included; manuscripts submitted under Psychology subsections, Paraphilia subsections, as well as systematic reviews, meta-analyses, communications, commentaries, replies, and those involving psychometrics were excluded. Single author manuscripts were classified under first author for the analysis. First and last authors were identified and internet search was performed to best determine gender, relying on, in order of preference: listed pronouns, picture, or traditionally masculine versus feminine name. We recognize this method of determining gender identity based on conventional gender presentations is imperfect and may not represent the full spectrum of gender diversity of the included authors. Institutional information was also collected. Chi-square analyses and odds ratio were performed to compare authorship patterns. Results 2156 manuscripts met criteria, 1717 from Journal of Sexual Medicine and 439 from Sexual Medicine. From 2013-2023, women composed 44.1% (951/2156) of first authors and 32.5% (691/2156) of last authors. Overall, first authorship by women increased from 2013 (110/271, 41%) to 2023 (59/104, 57%) (p<0.005) [Figure 1]. In 2022 and 2023, women were the majority of first authors (50.3% and 56.7%, respectively). Manuscripts with women as first authors were more likely to have women as last authors (OR: 1.64, CI: 1.45-1.86, p<0.0001). In the US and Canada, the majority of first (61.1%, 214/350) and last (61.6%, 157/254) authors who are women came from public rather than private institutions, but this was non-significant. First authors who are women predominantly came from North America (38.6%), Europe (36.3%), Asia (17.7%), South America (3.9%), Australia/New Zealand (2.6%), followed by Africa (0.9%); last authors who are women had a similar breakdown by continent. The greatest percentage of authorship by women came from Australia/New Zealand with 50.8% (32/63) of first authors and 45% (27/60) of last authors. The largest disparity was seen in Africa with 22.2% (10/45) of first authors and a mere 16.3% (7/43) of last authors being women. Conclusions Authorship by women in sexual medicine journals is increasing over time, with positive trends observed in both first and last authorship. The effect is more pronounced in first authorship as compared to last, possibly reflecting the increasing numbers of trainees who are women. Manuscripts with women as first authors are correlated with last authors who are women, supporting a positive relationship in gender concordant mentorship. Disclosure No.

Molecular and Genetic Advances in Small Cell Lung Cancer Landscape: From Homogeneity to Diversity.

Small cell lung cancer (SCLC) has been historically considered a homogeneous disease and thus approached as a single entity when it comes to clinical studies design and new treatments developments. However, increasing knowledge in the genetic and molecular landscape of this disease challenges this concept, opening the possibility that different subtypes might show differential vulnerability to treatments. In this narrative review, we gather the most relevant advances in genetic and molecular characterization of SCLC, focusing on how these discoveries may be used to design the path for a personalized treatment approach. Indeed, we discuss the new classification based on differential protein expression, the prevalence and significance of oncogenic drivers (e.g., EGFR mutations and ALK rearrangements) in SCLC, the genetic characteristics of SCLC in patients with no smoking history, and the existing evidence supporting the use of liquid biopsy for capturing the heterogeneity of the disease. We use the keywords "small cell lung cancer", "SCLC", "EGFR", "ALK", "histological transformation", and "transcriptional factors" to identify original research manuscripts, clinical trials, case reports, and case series from PubMed.

Peer reviewers' willingness to review, their recommendations and quality of reviews after the Finnish Medical Journal switched from single-blind to double-blind peer review

BackgroundThere is a power imbalance between authors and reviewers in single-blind peer review. We explored how switching from single-blind to double-blind peer review affected 1) the willingness of experts to review, 2) their publication recommendations, and 3) the quality of review reports.MethodsThe Finnish Medical Journal switched from single-blind to double-blind peer review in September 2017. The proportion of review invitations that resulted in a received review report was counted. The reviewers’ recommendations of “accept as is”, “minor revision”, “major revision” or “reject” were explored. The content of the reviews was assessed by two experienced reviewers using the Review Quality Instrument modified to apply to both original research and review manuscripts. The study material comprised reviews submitted from September 2017 to February 2018. The controls were the reviews submitted between September 2015 and February 2016 and between September 2016 and February 2017. The reviewers’ recommendations and the scorings of quality assessments were tested with the Chi square test, and the means of quality assessments with the independent-samples t test.ResultsA total of 118 double-blind first-round reviews of 59 manuscripts were compared with 232 single-blind first-round reviews of 116 manuscripts. The proportion of successful review invitations when reviewing single-blinded was 67%, and when reviewing double-blinded, 66%. When reviewing double-blinded, the reviewers recommended accept as is or minor revision less often than during the control period (59% vs. 73%), and major revision or rejection more often (41% vs 27%, P = 0.010). For the quality assessment, 116 reviews from the double-blind period were compared with 104 reviews conducted between September 2016 and February 2017. On a 1–5 scale (1 poor, 5 excellent), double-blind reviews received higher overall proportion of ratings of 4 and 5 than single-blind reviews (56% vs. 49%, P < 0.001). Means for the overall quality of double-blind reviews were 3.38 (IQR, 3.33–3.44) vs. 3.22 (3.17–3.28; P < 0.001) for single-blind reviews.ConclusionsThe quality of the reviews conducted double-blind was better than of those conducted single-blind. Switching to double-blind review did not alter the reviewers’ willingness to review. The reviewers became slightly more critical.

Plagiarism detection in manuscripts submitted to the &lt;i&gt;Journal of Surgical Sciences&lt;/i&gt; between 2020 and 2021: a case study

The aim of this study was to share our experience with plagiarism detection in manuscripts submitted to the &lt;i&gt;Journal of Surgical Sciences&lt;/i&gt;, a Romania-based medical journal, between 2020 and 2021. We analyzed similarity score reports from 200 articles submitted consecutively for publication between 2020 and 2021 generated by PlagScan, a software tool for plagiarism detection. The similarity score ranged from 0% to 92.4%, and 45 articles presented scores over 25.0%. According to PlagScan’s results, more than half of the submitted articles had a similarity score of more than 10% and one-third of them had a similarity score above 20%. Among submitted manuscripts with a similarity score of less than 20%, a larger proportion of the original research and review manuscripts than case reports used more than 10 sources. All articles with a similarity score below 20% were evaluated qualitatively before the final decision of rejection.

Editor’s Letter

My role as editor-in-chief is twofold: to help scholars bring their work to press and to publish content that scholars, educators, students, and practitioners will want to read. In addition to welcoming original research manuscripts, I also encourage the submission of systematic literature reviews,

Practical Guidance for Crafting Original Research Manuscripts.

Scientific writing relies on an extensive array of written and unwritten rules to balance clarity, relevance, and economy. Careful development can strengthen each element of original research manuscripts. Some strategies are straightforward, including general organization and compliance with submission guidelines. Some aspects are more controversial, such as the subtleties of organizational structure, including claims of novelty, and presentation of limitations in the text. Manuscript crafting is usually improved through mindfulness of economy in presentation and objective restraint in interpretations. Submission to credible peer-reviewed journals can help refine the product. Practical guidelines can help develop reports that are readable, objective, and informative.

Advancements in Offshore Vertical Axis Wind Turbines

In the past few years, the journal Energies received various original research manuscripts on offshore vertical axis wind turbines (VAWTs) [...]

JACEP open annual report 2022.

JACEP open annual report 2022.

Advances in the molecular neurobiology of posttraumatic stress disorder from global contexts: A systematic review of longitudinal studies.

Trauma exposure is prevalent globally and is a defining event for the development of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), characterised by intrusive thoughts, avoidance behaviours, hypervigilance and negative alterations in cognition and mood. Exposure to trauma elicits a range of physiological responses which can interact with environmental factors to confer relative risk or resilience for PTSD. This systematic review summarises the findings of longitudinal studies examining biological correlates predictive of PTSD symptomology. Databases (Pubmed, Scopus and Web of Science) were systematically searched using relevant keywords for studies published between 1 January 2021 and 31 December 2022. English language studies were included if they were original research manuscripts or meta-analyses of cohort investigations that assessed longitudinal relationships between one or more molecular-level measures and either PTSD status or symptoms. Eighteen of the 1,042 records identified were included. Studies primarily included military veterans/personnel, individuals admitted to hospitals after acute traumatic injury, and women exposed to interpersonal violence or rape. Genomic, inflammation and endocrine measures were the most commonly assessed molecular markers and highlighted processes related to inflammation, stress responding, and learning and memory. Quality assessments were done using the Systematic Appraisal of Quality in Observational Research, and the majority of studies were rated as being of high quality, with the remainder of moderate quality. Studies were predominantly conducted in upper-income countries. Those performed in low- and middle-income countries were not broadly representative in terms of demographic, trauma type and geographic profiles, with three out of the four studies conducted assessing only female participants, rape exposure and South Africa, respectively. They also did not generate multimodal data or use machine learning or multilevel modelling, potentially reflecting greater resource limitations in LMICs. Research examining molecular contributions to PTSD does not adequately reflect the global burden of the disorder.

Investigation of potential gender bias in the peer review system at Reproduction

AbstractThis study examined whether publication outcome was affected by the gender of author, handling associate editor (AE), or reviewer, and whether there was gender bias in reviewer selection, in the journal Reproduction. Analyses were carried out on 4289 original research manuscripts submitted to the journal between 2007 and 2019. Both female and male AEs appointed more male reviewers than female reviewers, but female AEs were significantly more likely to appoint female reviewers than male AEs were (p &lt; 0.001). When examining the gender of either first or last author manuscripts, those with female authors that were reviewed by female reviewers received better scores than those with male authors that were reviewed by female reviewers (p &lt; 0.05): where the reviewer was male, no such effect was observed. Acceptance rates of manuscripts were similar for both female and male authors, whether first or last, regardless of AE gender. Overall, there was no significant correlation between gender of first or last author, or of AE, on the likelihood of acceptance of a research paper. These data suggest no bias against female authors during the peer review process in this reproductive biology journal.

An invitation to association of physicians' fellows from the Quarterly Journal of Medicine (QJM).

The Quarterly Journal of Medicine (QJM) is the official Journal of the Association of Physicians of Great Britain & Ireland (www.aopgbi.org). We extend an invitation to our members to consider submitting topical commentary pieces, reviews and original research manuscripts to their Journal. We live in a highly competitive scientific global environment and now that our impact factor has increased to 14.04, we believe that the QJM now offers a suitable platform to share your original work with the global scientific community. For potentially high-impact papers, we offer a fast-track review service, ×72 h to first decision. Should you wish to avail of this facility, authors are encouraged to liaise in advance with Professor Seamas Donnelly, Editor-in-Chief for the journal at seamas.donnelly@tcd.ie. We also welcome suggestions from our members on how we can further improve the Journal. The QJM has been at the forefront of providing a platform for the highlighting of the range of side effects associated with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccinations.1–8

S1511 Gender Differences in Gastroenterology and Hepatology Authorship: 2000-2020

Introduction: Considering peer-reviewed publications affect female's practice and career in gastroenterology and hepatology field, barriers to female's publishing must be removed. In this study, we aimed to describe gender trends of first and last authors in published manuscripts of gastroenterology and hepatology journals from 2000 to 2020. Furthermore, we assessed the predictors associated with female authorship. Methods: Ten highest impact factor gastroenterology and hepatology journals were selected on the basis of the 2020 Web of Science InCite Journal Citation Report impact factor rankings. Using the online archives on each journal's website, we reviewed all original research manuscripts published in 2000, 2005, 2010, 2015, and 2020. Gender of first and last authors was determined using a validated algorithm, genderize.io. We described female first and last authorship percentages by journal and by year of publication. Linear by linear association trend test was used to evaluate for gender trend over time, while logistic regression analysis was performed to identified predictors of female first and last authorship. Results: Overall, 7,853 first authors with 2,138 females (27.2%) and 8,034 last authors with 1,156 females (14.4%) were included in final analysis. The proportion of female first authors in the selected journals combined increased from 20.7% (383/1852) in 2000 to 32.8% (370/1128) in 2020 with a statistically nonsignificant time trend (P value for trend = 0.054). Similarly, the proportion of female senior authors increased from 9.8% (182/1852) in 2000 to 17.5% (222/1271) in 2020 (P value for trend = 0.058). On multivariable analysis, journal, year of publication, and author’s continent remained significantly predictive of female first and last authorship. Conclusion: Overall, gender disparities persist within gastroenteroly and hepatology original publications, and the rate of improvement may be slowing. Today, the challenges facing women in the fields of gastroenterology and hepatology are yet to be overcome.

Community Members as Reviewers of Medical Journal Manuscripts: a Randomized Controlled Trial.

Community members may provide useful perspectives on manuscripts submitted to medical journals. To determine the impact of community members reviewing medical journal manuscripts. Randomized controlled trial involving 578 original research manuscripts submitted to two medical journals from June 2018 to November 2021. Twenty-eight community members who were trained, supervised, and compensated. A total of 289 randomly selected control manuscripts were reviewed by scientific reviewers only. And 289 randomly selected intervention manuscripts were reviewed by scientific reviewers and one community member. Journal editorial teams used all reviews to make decisions about acceptance, revision, or rejection of manuscripts. Usefulness of reviews to editors, content of community reviews, and changes made to published articles in response to community reviewer comments. Editor ratings of community and scientific reviews averaged 3.1 and 3.3, respectively (difference 0.2, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.1 to 0.3), on a 5-point scale where a higher score indicates a more useful review. Qualitative analysis of the content of community reviews identified two taxonomies of themes: study attributes and viewpoints. Study attributes are the sections, topics, and components of manuscripts commented on by reviewers. Viewpoints are reviewer perceptions and perspectives on the research described in manuscripts and consisted of four major themes: (1) diversity of study participants, (2) relevance to patients and communities, (3) cultural considerations and social context, and (4) implementation of research by patients and communities. A total of 186 community reviewer comments were integrated into 64 published intervention group articles. Viewpoint themes were present more often in 66 published intervention articles compared to 54 published control articles (2.8 vs. 1.7 themes/article, difference 1.1, 95% CI 0.4 to 1.8). With training, supervision, and compensation, community members are able to review manuscripts submitted to medical journals. Their comments are useful to editors, address topics relevant to patients and communities, and are reflected in published articles. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03432143.

Occurrence of mycotoxins in pulses.

Pulses, dry grains of the Fabaceae family used for food and feed, are particularly important agricultural products with increasing commercial and nutritional relevance. Similar to other plant commodities, pulses can be affected by fungi in the field and during postharvest. Some of these fungi produce mycotoxins, which can seriously threaten human and animal health by causing acute poisoning and chronic effects. In this review, information referring to the analysis and occurrence of these compounds in pulses is summarized. An overview of the aims pursued, and of the methodologies employed for mycotoxin analysis in the different reports is presented, followed by a comprehensive review of relevant articles on mycotoxins in pulses, categorized according to the geographical region, among other considerations. Moreover, special attention was given to the effect of climatic conditions on microorganism infestation and mycotoxin accumulation. Furthermore, the limited literature available was considered to look for possible correlations between the degree of fungal infection and the mycotoxin incidence in pulses. In addition, the potential effect of certain phenolic compounds on reducing fungi infestation and mycotoxin accumulation was reviewed with examples on beans. Emphasis was also given to a specific group of mycotoxins, the phomopsins, that mainly impact lupin. Finally, the negative consequences of mycotoxin accumulation on the physiology and development of contaminated seeds and seedlings are presented, focusing on the few reports available on pulses. Given the agricultural and nutritional potential that pulses offer for human well-being, their promotion should be accompanied by attention to food safety issues, and mycotoxins might be among the most serious threats. Practical Application: According to the manuscript template available in the website, this section is for "JFS original research manuscripts ONLY; optional". Since we are publishing in CRFSFS this requirement will not be done.

Influence of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Author Sex and Manuscript Acceptance Rates among Pulmonary and Critical Care Journals.

Rationale: The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic has negatively affected women more than men and may influence the publication of non-COVID-19 research. Objectives: To evaluate whether the COVID-19 pandemic is associated with changes in manuscript acceptance rates among pulmonary/critical care journals and sex-based disparities in these rates. Methods: We analyzed first, senior, and corresponding author sex (female vs. male, identified by matching first names in a validated Genderize database) of manuscripts submitted to four pulmonary/critical care journals between January 1, 2018 and December 31, 2020. We constructed interrupted time series regression models to evaluate whether the proportion of female first and senior authors of non-COVID-19 original research manuscripts changed with the pandemic. Next, we performed multivariable logistic regressions to evaluate the association of author sex with acceptance of original research manuscripts. Results: Among 8,332 original research submissions, women represented 39.9% and 28.3% of first and senior authors, respectively. We found no change in the proportion of female first or senior authors of non-COVID-19 or COVID-19 submitted research manuscripts during the COVID-19 era. Non-COVID-19 manuscripts submitted during the COVID-19 era had reduced odds of acceptance, regardless of author sex (first author adjusted OR [aOR], 0.46 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.36-0.59]; senior author aOR, 0.46 [95% CI, 0.37-0.57]). Female senior authorship was associated with decreased acceptance of non-COVID-19 research manuscripts (crude rates, 14.4% [male] vs. 13.2% [female]; aOR, 0.84 [95% CI, 0.71-0.99]). Conclusions: Although female author submissions were not disproportionately influenced by COVID-19, we found evidence suggesting sex disparities in manuscript acceptance rates. Journals may need to consider strategies to reduce this disparity, and academic institutions may need to factor our findings, including lower acceptance rates for non-COVID-19 manuscripts, into promotion decisions.

Reasons for unsuccessful research submissions to JAAPA.

PA authors face many barriers to publication and may benefit from additional transparency in the editorial decision-making process. This study examined the most common reasons for rejection of original research submissions to JAAPA. Senior JAAPA editors conducted a thematic analysis of reviewer and editor comments and used these broad themes to classify the reasons for rejection of original research manuscripts submitted to JAAPA. From October 2015 through December 2018, 77 research manuscripts were submitted to JAAPA. Fifty-six manuscripts were rejected, resulting in an overall rejection rate of 73.7%. Common reasons for rejection included: methodologic issues (55.4%), content outside the journal's scope (42.9%), poor writing quality (17.9%), guideline nonadherence (3.6%), lack of novelty (3.6%), and author(s) declining to revise the manuscript (1.8%). The most common reasons for manuscript rejection can be overcome through research planning and manuscript preparation.

The impact of mandatory conflict of interest disclosures on editors' manuscript acceptance decisions: A cross-sectional observational study.

ObjectiveAlthough current ethical standards mandate conflict of interest (COI) disclosure by authors of peer‐reviewed publications, it is unknown whether disclosure affects a manuscript's fate. Our objective was to identify associations between author COI disclosure and editorial decision to publish.MethodsWe performed a cross‐sectional observational study of editorial decisions for original research and brief research report manuscripts submitted to Annals of Emergency Medicine between June 2014 and January 2018 using data from the journal's editorial decision software and data from a prior study that characterized author COI for the same manuscripts. Outcomes of interest included final editor decision to publish (primary), initial editor decision, and number of revisions. We compared outcomes for manuscripts with COI versus those without and by type of COI (commercial/government/other).ResultsOut of 1312 manuscripts in the sample, 65.1% had no COI declarations, and 34.9% had one or more. Overall likelihood of editorial decision to publish was 13.5% (115/854) for articles without COI and 26.9% (123/458) for those with COI. Overall likelihood of editorial decision to publish was 19.8% (19/96) for articles with commercial COI only versus 33.3% (35/105) for those with government COI only.ConclusionsArticles with author‐reported COI were more likely to be published than those without such a declaration. Additionally, results suggest that reports of government COI are associated with improved chance of publication. Authorities should consider relaxing COI requirements temporarily to allow investigators to perform larger scale, randomized controlled studies of the impact of mandated COI disclosure.

Fate of Manuscripts Rejected by a Specialty Psychiatry Journal: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

Background:Little is known about the publication outcomes of submissions rejected by specialty psychiatry journals. We aimed to investigate the publication fate of original research manuscripts previously rejected by the Indian Journal of Psychological Medicine (IJPM).Methods:A random sampling of manuscripts was drawn from all submissions rejected between January 1, 2018, and December 31, 2019. Using the titles of these papers and the author names, a systematic search of electronic databases was carried out to examine if these manuscripts have been published elsewhere or not. We extracted data on a range of scientific and nonscientific parameters from the journal’s manuscript management portal for every rejected manuscript. Multivariable analysis was used to detect factors associated with eventual publication.Results:Out of 302 manuscripts analyzed, 139 (46.0%) were published elsewhere; of these, only 18 articles (13.0%) were published in a journal with higher standing than IJPM. Manuscripts of foreign origin (odds ratio [OR] 1.77, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.06–2.97) and rejection following peer review or editorial re-review (OR 2.41, 95% CI = 1.22–4.74) were significantly associated with publication.Conclusion:Nearly half of the papers rejected by IJPM were eventually published in other journals, though such papers are more often published in journals with lower standing. Manuscripts rejected following peer review were more likely to reach full publication status compared to those which were desk rejected.

Use of adipose-derived stem cells in lymphatic tissue engineering and regeneration.

The potential to differentiate into different cell lines, added to the easy and cost-effective method of extraction, makes adipose-derived stem cells (ADSCs) an object of interest in lymphedema treatment. Our study’s goal was to conduct a comprehensive systematic review of the use of ADSCs in lymphatic tissue engineering and regeneration. On July 23, 2019, using PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Clinical Answers, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Embase databases, we conducted a systematic review of published literature on the use of ADSCs in lymphatic tissue engineering and regeneration. There were no language or time frame limitations, and the following search strategy was applied: ((Adipose stem cell) OR Adipose-derived stem cell)) AND ((Lymphedema) OR Breast Cancer Lymphedema). Only original research manuscripts were included. Fourteen studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Eleven studies were experimental (in vitro or in vivo in animals), and only three were clinical. Publications on the topic demonstrated that ADSCs promote lymphangiogenesis, and its effect could be enhanced by modulation of vascular endothelial growth factor-C, interleukin-7, prospero homeobox protein 1, and transforming growth factor-β1. Pilot clinical studies included 11 patients with breast cancer-related lymphedema, and no significant side effects were present at 12-month follow-up. Literature on the use of ADSCs in lymphatic tissue engineering and regeneration demonstrated promising data. Clinical evidence is still in its infancy, but the scientific community agrees that ADSCs can be useful in regenerative lymphangiogenesis. Data collected in this review indicate that unprecedented advances in lymphedema treatment can be anticipated in the upcoming years.