Global conservation maps often overlook community lands, impacting decision-making and reducing local agency. We focus on the high-profile and regionally important case of Massaha's ancestral territory (Ibola Dja Bana Ba Massaha). In Gabon, the forest is largely gazetted into logging concessions and described as an Eden-like wilderness despite long-term human presence. We compare Massaha's biocultural maps to global, colonial, and post-colonial maps, in a community peer review process. While these maps show Ibola Dja Bana Ba Massaha as devoid of logging and settlement, Massaha's maps show long-term settlement, sacred areas and industrial logging. Massaha used their maps to request the government to protect their forest from logging and update the forestry code to enable community conserved areas, prompting a national debate on the legal recognition of "territories of life", while revitalising ancestral practices. We show that "big data" conservation mapping must account for biocultural knowledge if it is to be effective in guiding conservation decisions.

Glycoform engineering of a mammalian platform to sculpt a humanized recombinant bioscavenger.

Statistics is a field that provides the methodological basis for modern scientific research, including data collection, analysis, and interpretation. The retraction procedure involves the official removal of a work from the literature due to substantial scientific concerns. Analysis of retracted publications is critical for identifying ethical violations and structural flaws in scientific publishing. This study performed a bibliometric and descriptive analysis of publications labeled as "retracted" in the Scopus database, retrieved via a search utilizing the term "statistics" on August 18, 2025. The analysis of documents was conducted based on year, country, journal, keyword, and reasons for retraction. Collaboration networks of countries and authors were displayed with VOSviewer software, and reasons for retraction were confirmed using the Retraction Watch Database. Temporal trends were assessed by linear regression analysis. A total of 680 retracted papers were examined. Retractions occurred between 2006 and 2025. A statistically significant upward trend was found in the number of retracted articles over time (P = 0.030). The most retracted publications came from China (n = 426), followed by India (n = 67), and the United States (n = 49). The Journal of Healthcare Engineering (n = 35) and Journal of Sensors (n = 25) stood out among the journals with the most retracted publications. The most common retraction reasons were investigation by journal/publisher (n = 297), unreliable results and/or conclusions (n = 189), and concerns/issues about referencing/attributions (n = 153). The number of retracted publications tagged with the keyword "statistics" has increased significantly over the years. This increase can be attributed to strengthening scientific oversight mechanisms and increased awareness of publication ethics. Increasing the involvement of statistical experts in the peer-review process, improving the statistical literacy of authors, and developing training and mentoring mechanisms to prevent ethical violations are crucial.

Targeted genomic editing of human gut Bacteroides species based on CRISPR-associated transposases.

Scalable enumeration and sampling of minimal metabolic pathways for organisms and communities.

Integrated control of redox and energy metabolism by the membrane-bound and soluble transhydrogenases of Pseudomonas putida across metabolic regimes.

High-throughput machine learning-aided antibody discovery for cell surface antigens.

Many randomized clinical trials are poorly designed, address unimportant questions, or are conducted and reported in ways that limit their usefulness and contribute to research waste. Gaining insight into the perspectives of stakeholders is essential for understanding why issues affecting trial informativeness persist. To explore global perspectives on enhancing trial informativeness using a 5-point framework including trial importance, design, feasibility, integrity, and reporting. This qualitative study used semistructured, one-on-one interviews conducted via an online video conferencing platform between October 2024 and March 2025. Participants included professionals involved in the funding, design, sponsorship, and regulatory and ethical overview of randomized clinical trials. Demographic characteristics of the 55 participants were analyzed using descriptive statistics. The primary outcome was participants' views on how the informativeness of randomized clinical trials is assessed, why uninformative trials persist, and potential approaches to reduce design and conduct flaws. Data were analyzed thematically, beginning with a deductive coding framework informed by insight from an earlier global rapid review and further refined through inductive coding to capture new themes. This qualitative study included 55 individuals from 16 countries across 5 continents, primarily from the US (12 [21.8%]) and the United Kingdom (11 [20.0%]), and included investigators (21 [38.2%]), funders (12 [21.8%]), and a range of other stakeholders in randomized clinical trials. Design yielded the greatest number of insights, including further scientific design review after peer review but prior to funding commitment and the need for qualified trial statisticians. Other key insights included building trust through early and meaningful patient partnership (importance) and the need for additional skills-based training beyond good clinical practice to ensure the quality conduct of trials (integrity). Feasibility, often overlooked, was deemed an important factor, with participants stressing the need for compelling, evidence-based plans for recruitment and retention to ensure that research questions are answered reliably. In this qualitative study of 55 international stakeholders in randomized clinical trials, interviews offered context and evidence to guide potential improvements in prefunding and peer review processes, as well as in trial design and best practices. Further action is needed to ensure that randomized clinical trials will consistently produce reliable evidence that improves health and strengthens public trust in science.

Academic peer review is fundamental for scientific knowledge dissemination, and various initiatives are exploring how the peer review process could be more open, efficient and rewarding. We report an exploratory study where a live community-based review approach was integrated into the editorial workflow of an academic journal (Current Research in Neurobiology; CRNEUR). This study was conducted with five manuscripts ('cases') submitted as preprints, which underwent Live Review-a structured collaborative review session led by PREreview, an organization with the mission to advance equity and openness in scholarly evaluation. With each case, PREreview team members facilitated a 90-min online discussion where registered participants provided real-time discussion and worked together on the online structured peer review document. Authors could join as observers or to answer questions. Participants then volunteered to write up the session notes into a final review and summary statement. Review participants had the option to sign the review. The finalized review was then published on PREreview's open preprint review platform approximately two weeks after the Live Review session, and it was assigned a CC BY 4.0 license and Digital Object Identifier (DOI) linked to the DOI of the reviewed preprint allowing reviewers to be recognized for their contribution. The published review was then incorporated into CRNEUR's editorial workflow to inform editorial decisions and manuscript outcomes. We quantified the speed to first and final editorial decision of the community review (n = 5) in comparison to a larger sample (n = 27) of articles that went through a standard review process at CRNEUR during the same timeframe. First decision times in days after manuscript submission of the Live Reviews were within the Inter Quartile Range (IQR) of the standard review process (community review: median = 75, IQR: 41.3; standard review: median 92, IQR: 41.5), as were final decision times (community review: median 138, IQR: 22.5; standard review: median 211, IQR: 166.0). A survey of the Live Review attendees (n = 13; 30% response rate) on a scale of 1 'Highly Disagree' to 5 'Highly Agree' showed median 'Agree' to 'Highly Agree' scores on several questions including the review being respectful, time efficient and scientifically rigorous (median scores: 5, 4, 4, respectively). The innovative Live Review approach was as efficient as the standard review process in the journal and was rated positively by those surveyed. The small sample size inherent to exploratory studies limits conclusions generalizing to larger sample sizes. We discuss how live, community-based review approaches could be further developed, scaled and sustained.

Pancreatic islet oscillation rhythmicity arises from δ and α cell interactions.

BackgroundDespite critiques from across academia, double-anonymised peer review is still considered the ‘gold standard’ quality-assurance tool for the publication of academic research. While some journals make use of ‘open’ peer-review practices to make elements of academic publishing more transparent, anonymised is still used by the majority of academic journals, with anonymity considered the best guarantor of reviewer objectivity. Anonymised peer review remains a ‘black box’ which conceals diverse and idiosyncratic practices by reviewers, editors and journals. This paper seeks to uncover the impact of such practices on the peer review of interdisciplinary research.MethodsThe author first conducted a survey of 164 self-identified interdisciplinary researchers from a range of disciplines at one research-intensive UK university to identify barriers to and enablers of high-quality peer review for interdisciplinary papers. This quantitative/qualitative survey was supplemented by interviews with authors, editors and reviewers from across biological and medical sciences, physical sciences and engineering and social sciences and humanities.ResultsAuthors of interdisciplinary research papers reported experiencing disadvantage in peer review practices, including perceived bias against interdisciplinary research by mono-disciplinary reviewers and the assignment of unsuitable reviewers. Reviewers reported being assigned papers to review that were not within their field of expertise, and insufficient editorial guidance on review processes for interdisciplinary papers. Editors reported that the ‘reviewer crisis’ has further complicated the already challenging process of seeking peer review for interdisciplinary research.In interviews, reviewers shared strategies to overcome weaknesses in the review process for interdisciplinary papers. These included confidence reporting where the reviewer did not feel able to comment on all aspects of the paper, and seeking advice from colleagues to enhance their review. Practices were employed with varying degrees of formality, and in some cases undermined the stated goals of anonymised peer review.ConclusionsConsidering the possible implications of the informal strategies employed by peer reviewers, the paper proposes a framework for interdisciplinary peer review informed by existing open peer review practices that formalises and incorporates existing strategies used by reviewers and editors to enhance the peer review of interdisciplinary research papers.

Unpacking the black box - a questionnaire study of how medical journals identify and manage conflicts of interest of editors and peer reviewers.

Podcasts are a popular educational tool for health professions, known for their availability and flexibility. Skeptics criticize podcasts for often absent editorial oversight, which can threaten quality. The purpose of this pilot project was to introduce and standardize prepublication peer review for a pediatric podcast. The Peer Review Tool was adapted to incorporate reviewer clinical expertise and subjective feedback in a prepublication format. A standardized prepublication peer review process mirrored refereed journals. Volunteer nurse practitioner faculty wrote and reviewed a pediatric podcast series. The article authors and an external reviewer also independently scored episodes. Interrater reliability was evaluated using percent agreement and intraclass correlation coefficient (3,4). Numeric review scores were displayed publicly online in podcast show notes. An 11-episode podcast series was written and reviewed by 23 nurse practitioners. Each reviewer was matched with an episode based on their identified clinical expertise. Most episodes (n = 10; 90.9%) were published with the highest possible score. Percent agreement was very good between two peer reviewers and article authors (90.9%) when compared with the external reviewer (72.7% and 81.8%, respectively). Intraclass correlation coefficient (3,4) was 0.45, reflecting moderate reliability because of limited variability of scores and ceiling effect. A standardized approach to prepublication peer review consistently produced podcasts that met established high-quality standards. Any podcast producer can replicate this process to achieve guideline calls to meet quality standards. More research is needed to adapt prepublication tools to increase rigor and content integrity, train users on their use, and improve transparency for listeners.

Introduction: The Council of Academic Family Medicine (CAFM) Educational Research Alliance (CERA) aims to promote family medicine research. Each year, the members of the four CAFM organizations submit audience-specific survey questions. This paper reviews the methods and demographics of the 2025 General Membership Survey and determine the representativeness of the survey respondents. Methods: CERA opened its call for the annual General Membership Survey proposals in August 2025. Fourteen proposals underwent a peer-review process, with five selected for inclusion in the omnibus survey. CAFM members received invitations to complete the survey via SurveyMonkey between October 6, 2025 and November 14, 2025. Demographics of potential survey respondents were compared to demographics of the actual survey respondents using Fisher’s exact tests with an α of 0.05. Results: Of the 3,834 CAFM members invited to participate, 884 responded, yielding a response rate of 23.1%. After removing missing data and “choose not to disclose” responses, fewer actual respondents self-identified as underrepresented in medicine compared to potential respondents (16.0% vs 19.4%, P<.001), and actual respondants more often had PhDs as their primary degree (11.5% vs 7.4%, P<0.001) compared to nonrespondents. Age and state/province of practice/program were not significantly different between respondents and nonrespondents. We did not perform statistical analysis on gender and race/ethnicity due to response options lacking mutual exclusivity. Gender showed similar distributions whereas race/ethnicity had a higher percentage of White respondents (75.7% vs 68.9%) and lower Black/African American respondents (4.9% vs 7.6%) between respondents and nonrespondents. Conclusion: CERA explores topics vital to family medicine education, enabling stakeholders to develop informed policies important to family medicine education.

Artificial intelligence (AI) has rapidly transformed clinical practice by improving diagnostic accuracy and enhancing decision-making processes. However, its growing role in patient care raises profound ethical concerns regarding patient autonomy. This systematic review synthesizes current evidence on how AI may support, challenge, or reshape patient autonomy in healthcare. This review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Searches were conducted in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Science Direct for studies published between January 2010 and June 2025. The initial search was performed in September 2024 and updated to June 2025 during the peer review process. Eligible studies included empirical, conceptual, or mixed-methods research that addressed AI applications in healthcare and their implications for patient autonomy. Quality assessment was performed using the STROBE, CASP, and MMAT checklists. A narrative synthesis and thematic analysis were conducted. Of 472 records screened from the initial search, 11 studies met the eligibility criteria. The updated search (October 2024 - June 2025) identified 3 additional eligible studies, bringing the final total to 14 studies. Seven overarching themes emerged: (1) philosophical and existential dimensions of autonomy, (2) human-centered and autonomy-supportive design, (3) cognitive threats and diminished agency, (4) moral risks and social inequality, (5) covert control and preference manipulation, (6) balancing human and AI authority in clinical decisions, and (7) the need for transparency, dialogue, and adaptive autonomy. Results show that AI can enhance autonomy through shared decision-making and improved information availability, but significant risks exist, including algorithmic opacity, nudging, clinician de-skilling, and increased inequality. The three 2025 studies independently confirmed all seven themes, with Alnawafleh et al. finding that patient autonomy is the predominant ethical concern (67%) in AI-integrated nursing practice. AI introduces both opportunities and threats to patient autonomy. Healthcare systems must ensure transparent, human-centered, and ethically governed AI deployment. Autonomy should function as a guiding principle in AI design, training, and regulation. Strong policy frameworks, validated measurement tools, implementation science approaches, and clinical education are essential to ensure that AI serves as a tool for empowerment rather than a source of subtle control. Not applicable.

Generative artificial intelligence (AI) technologies might offer new possibilities for the peer review process; however, AI models' possible vulnerability to hidden nudges designed to elicit positive reviews raises concerns about manipulation susceptibility, which remains unexplored. We aimed to evaluate AI model susceptibility to hidden nudges in peer review. This quasi-experimental study was conducted between July and December 2025. Four commercial AI models were evaluated simultaneously: GPT-4 (OpenAI), Gemini 2.5 Flash (Google), DeepSeek-V3 (DeepSeek), and Claude Opus 4 (Anthropic). We used 90 pre-print and 90 published manuscripts in critical care and cardiology to feed the AI models. All manuscripts were converted to individual Microsoft Word files, with identifying information removed, to mimic a manuscript submitted to a journal for peer review. Each manuscript underwent three independent evaluations per model using standardized prompts requesting evaluation and recommendation on whether to accept or reject it for publication. First, we evaluated the manuscript without any nudge. Second, we inserted a hidden nudge opposing the initial recommendation (e.g., a negative nudge if initially accepted). Finally, we evaluated the nudged manuscripts using a modified prompt warning about potential hidden nudges. All recommendations were categorized as accept or reject. The main outcomes were the change rates in recommendations after nudge insertion compared to initial recommendations, and after nudge insertion with the modified prompt, analyzed separately for each AI model. Across all AI models tested, nudge insertion led to a change in the recommendation in 84.4% of the time (608/720), with Deepseek being the most susceptible model (100% of change), followed by Gemini (97.8% of change), Chat GPT (82.8% of change) and Claude (57.2% of change). Using a specific prompt to warn AI models about potential malicious nudge injections in the manuscripts did not substantially alter the results. Recommendations were still modified in 76.8% of cases (553/720). In this quasi-experimental study, all tested AI models were highly susceptible to hidden nudge insertions in manuscripts during simulated peer review. Importantly, explicitly warning AI models about potential nudge injections does not meaningfully reduce their susceptibility to manipulation.

Evaluation of Departmental Peer Review and Implementation into Resident Didactics.

Retraction: M.M. Kumar , A.A. Rani , V. Sundaravazhuthi , “,” Computational Intelligence 36 , no. ( 2020 ): 1493 – 1511 , https://doi.org/10.1111/coin.12282 . The above article, published online on 05 February 2020 in Wiley Online Library ( wileyonlinelibrary.com ), has been retracted by agreement between the Editor‐in‐Chief, Diana Inkpen; and Wiley Periodicals LLC. The article was published as part of a guest‐edited special issue. Following publication, it came to our attention that the individuals named as Guest Editors of this issue were impersonated by a fraudulent entity. An investigation by the publisher found that all the articles, including this one, were accepted solely on the basis of a compromised peer review process. Therefore, a decision has been made to retract this article. The authors have been informed of the decision to retract.

Retraction: A. Selvaraj , J. Selvaraj , S. Maruthaiappan , G. C. Babu , P. M. Kumar , “,” Computational Intelligence 36 , no. ( 2020 ): 1569 – 1579 , https://doi.org/10.1111/coin.12292 . The above article, published online on 22 February 2020 in Wiley Online Library ( wileyonlinelibrary.com ), has been retracted by agreement between the Editor‐in‐Chief, Diana Inkpen; and Wiley Periodicals LLC. The article was published as part of a guest‐edited special issue. Following publication, it came to our attention that the individuals named as Guest Editors of this issue were impersonated by a fraudulent entity. An investigation by the publisher found that all the articles, including this one, were accepted solely on the basis of a compromised peer review process. Therefore, a decision has been made to retract this article. The authors do not agree with the retraction.

Retraction: B. Ponmudi , G. Balasubramanian , “,” Computational Intelligence 36 , no. ( 2020 ): 1723 – 1736 , https://doi.org/10.1111/coin.12311 . The above article, published online on 05 March 2020 in Wiley Online Library ( wileyonlinelibrary.com ), has been retracted by agreement between the Editor‐in‐Chief, Diana Inkpen; and Wiley Periodicals LLC. The article was published as part of a guest‐edited special issue. Following publication, it came to our attention that the individuals named as Guest Editors of this issue were impersonated by a fraudulent entity. An investigation by the publisher found that all the articles, including this one, were accepted solely on the basis of a compromised peer review process. Therefore, a decision has been made to retract this article. The authors have been informed of the decision to retract.