Background: The five Central Asian republics comprise of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan. Their research and publication activities are gradually improving but there is limited data on how good their peer reviewing practices are. Methods: We have use the Publons database to extract information on the reviewers registered including the number of verified review, Publons award winners, and top universities in the domain of peer reviewing. This has been analysed overall and country wise. Results: Of 15,764 researchers registered on Publons, only 370 (11.7%) have verified records of peer-reviewing. There are 8 Publons award winners. There is great heterogeneity in the number of active reviewers across the five countries. Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan account for more than 90% of verified reviewers. Only Kazakhstan has more than 100 active reviewers and 6 Publons award recipients. Amongst the top 20 reviewers from Central Asia, half of them are from the Nazarbayev University, Nur-Sultan, Kazakhstan. Three countries have less than 10 universities registered on Publons. Conclusion Central Asia has a good number of peer reviewers on Publons though only a minority of researchers are involved in peer reviewing. However, the heterogeneity between the nations can be best dealt with by promoting awareness and international networking including e-learning and mentoring programs.

Background: The five Central Asian republics comprise of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan. Their research and publication activities are gradually improving but there is limited data on how good their peer reviewing practices are. Methods: We have use the Publons database to extract information on the reviewers registered including the number of verified review, Publons award winners, and top universities in the domain of peer reviewing. This has been analysed overall and country wise. Results: Of 15,764 researchers registered on Publons, only 370 (11.7%) have verified records of peer-reviewing. There are 8 Publons award winners. There is great heterogeneity in the number of active reviewers across the five countries. Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan account for more than 90% of verified reviewers. Only Kazakhstan has more than 100 active reviewers and 6 Publons award recipients. Amongst the top 20 reviewers from Central Asia, half of them are from the Nazarbayev University, Nur-Sultan, Kazakhstan. Three countries have less than 10 universities registered on Publons. Conclusion Central Asia has a good number of peer reviewers on Publons though only a minority of researchers are involved in peer reviewing. However, the heterogeneity between the nations can be best dealt with by promoting awareness and international networking including e-learning and mentoring programs.

Background: The Publons platform provides integrated information on researchers, peer reviewers, publications and certain author metrics. Central Asia is a potentially growing region in terms of young researchers. Methods: Using the inbuilt Publons search, the top institutes of nine countries of Central Asia and neighbours were identified and data on their reviewers, number of publications, number of peer reviews completed were extracted. These were compared with demographics of the countries such as population, gross domestic product, number of physicians and proportion of population enrolled for higher education. Results: Amongst the top 15 institutes in Central Asia, China has claim to 12 while Kazakhstan has two and Iran has one. The number of top peer reviewers, number of verified reviews and Web of Science indexed publications from these top institutes varied directly with the number of researchers each had. Afghanistan, Tajikistan and Turkmenistan are not performing well on most of these while China seems to be an outlier on the upper edge of the graphs. There is good correlation between the number of researchers in the top institutes per country and both number of publications and number of completed reviews. The number of total publications per top ten institutes of each country has high correlation with various demographic parameters like total population (Spearman rho, ρ = 0.85), gross domestic product (ρ = 0.82), total number of physicians (ρ =0.72), and number enrolled for higher education (ρ = 0.93). Conclusion There appears to be much disparity among the rankings, number of researchers, reviewers and published manuscripts across various countries in Central Asia. The gross heterogeneity of Central Asia needs to be minimized by nurturing and mentoring potentially upcoming researchers in publication, peer reviewing as well as in ethics involved.

Background: The Publons platform provides integrated information on researchers, peer reviewers, publications and certain author metrics. Central Asia is a potentially growing region in terms of young researchers. Methods: Using the inbuilt Publons search, the top institutes of nine countries of Central Asia and neighbours were identified and data on their reviewers, number of publications, number of peer reviews completed were extracted. These were compared with demographics of the countries such as population, gross domestic product, number of physicians and proportion of population enrolled for higher education. Results: Amongst the top 15 institutes in Central Asia, China has claim to 12 while Kazakhstan has two and Iran has one. The number of top peer reviewers, number of verified reviews and Web of Science indexed publications from these top institutes varied directly with the number of researchers each had. Afghanistan, Tajikistan and Turkmenistan are not performing well on most of these while China seems to be an outlier on the upper edge of the graphs. There is good correlation between the number of researchers in the top institutes per country and both number of publications and number of completed reviews. The number of total publications per top ten institutes of each country has high correlation with various demographic parameters like total population (Spearman rho, ρ = 0.85), gross domestic product (ρ = 0.82), total number of physicians (ρ =0.72), and number enrolled for higher education (ρ = 0.93). Conclusion There appears to be much disparity among the rankings, number of researchers, reviewers and published manuscripts across various countries in Central Asia. The gross heterogeneity of Central Asia needs to be minimized by nurturing and mentoring potentially upcoming researchers in publication, peer reviewing as well as in ethics involved.

No abstract available.
Fires ; Open Access Publishing

Background: Reactive arthritis (ReA) is an often neglected disease that received some attention during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. There is some evidence that infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 can lead to “reactive” arthritis. However, this does not follow the classical definition of ReA that limits the organisms leading to this condition. Also, there is no recommendation by any international society on the management of ReA during the current pandemic. Thus, a survey was conducted to gather information about how modern clinicians across the world approach ReA. Methods: An e-survey was carried out based on convenient sampling via social media platforms. Twenty questions were validated on the pathogenesis, clinical presentation, and management of ReA. These also included information on post-COVID-19 arthritis. Duplicate entries were prevented and standard guidelines were followed for reporting internet-based surveys. Results: There were 193 respondents from 24 countries. Around one-fifth knew the classical definition of ReA. Nearly half considered the triad of conjunctivitis, urethritis and asymmetric oligoarthritis a “must” for diagnosis of ReA. Other common manifestations reported include enthesitis, dermatitis, dactylitis, uveitis, and oral or genital ulcers. Threefourths opined that no test was specific for ReA. Drugs for ReA were non-steroidal antiinflammatory drugs, intra-articular injections, and conventional disease-modifying agents with less than 10% supporting biological use. Conclusion The survey brought out the gap in existing concepts of ReA. The current definition needs to be updated. There is an unmet need for consensus recommendations for the management of ReA, including the use of biologicals.