Background: s/Aims: The definition of textbook outcome (TO) for liver surgery in patients with intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) varies depending on the data and TO model utilized in the study. This study aimed to clarify the separate estimation of TO in relation to its negative predictors, using two validated TO models for ICC surgery. Methods: We assessed the rates of achieving TO and failure of TO for both models in liver resection. Independent predictors of nonTO were identified through logistic regression and validated using AUC estimation. Results: TO was achieved in a similar proportion of patients across both models: 40% and 43%. The TO models did not differ in preoperative data affecting TO achievement. Independent predictors of non-TO for both models included tumor size > 10 cm,, open surgical approach, and biliary resection. TO achievement significantly differed among sub-groups that were homogeneous concerning the opposing values of the independent predictors, regardless of the TO model. The ratio of the frequency of negative predictors in the TO and non-TO groups, referred to as the TO coefficient, determines the likelihood of achieving TO given the presence of that predictor. Predictors were ranked by their negative impact on TO achievement, from the highest risk of TO failure (tumor size > 10 cm) to the lowest risk (open approach). Conclusions Independent predictors of non-TO may improve the transparency of TO assessment and reduce biases related to unaccounted negative prognostic factors. The impact of these independent predictors on TO realization can be estimated and ranked using TO coefficient calculations.

Background: s/Aims: Robotic surgery for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma is in the developmental and exploratory phase. The objective of this study was to compare the short-term outcomes and survival rates of robotic versus open resection for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma in a single center, and to determine the reliable scope of robotic interventions. Methods: A comparative analysis of outcomes from open and robotic resections at a single center was conducted using propensity score matching (PSM). The balance of covariates was assessed using standardized mean differences, and the robotic resection procedures adhered to the standards of open surgery. Results: PSM was effectively applied between 41 robotic and 82 open resections. No differences were observed in blood loss, overall and severe morbidity, 90-day mortality, or length of hospital stay. Robotic resections were longer but resulted in better immediate oncological outcomes. Median overall survival for the robotic and open groups was 44 and 30 months (p = 0.259) before PSM and 44 and 29 months (p = 0.164) after PSM respectively. Conversion was required in 8 cases. A subgroup analysis excluding conversions revealed no differences in immediate and long-term outcomes. All patients undergoing robotic resection for Bismuth types I and II were alive at a mean follow-up of 37 months. Conclusions The robotic approach is comparable to open resection regarding immediate outcomes and survival in select patients with perihilar cholangiocarcinoma. For patients with Bismuth type I and II tumors and early (stages I and II) TNM stages, robotic resection is a reliable treatment option when aligned with the principles of open surgery.

Background: s/Aims: Robotic surgery for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma is in the developmental and exploratory phase. The objective of this study was to compare the short-term outcomes and survival rates of robotic versus open resection for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma in a single center, and to determine the reliable scope of robotic interventions. Methods: A comparative analysis of outcomes from open and robotic resections at a single center was conducted using propensity score matching (PSM). The balance of covariates was assessed using standardized mean differences, and the robotic resection procedures adhered to the standards of open surgery. Results: PSM was effectively applied between 41 robotic and 82 open resections. No differences were observed in blood loss, overall and severe morbidity, 90-day mortality, or length of hospital stay. Robotic resections were longer but resulted in better immediate oncological outcomes. Median overall survival for the robotic and open groups was 44 and 30 months (p = 0.259) before PSM and 44 and 29 months (p = 0.164) after PSM respectively. Conversion was required in 8 cases. A subgroup analysis excluding conversions revealed no differences in immediate and long-term outcomes. All patients undergoing robotic resection for Bismuth types I and II were alive at a mean follow-up of 37 months. Conclusions The robotic approach is comparable to open resection regarding immediate outcomes and survival in select patients with perihilar cholangiocarcinoma. For patients with Bismuth type I and II tumors and early (stages I and II) TNM stages, robotic resection is a reliable treatment option when aligned with the principles of open surgery.

Background: s/Aims: Robotic surgery for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma is in the developmental and exploratory phase. The objective of this study was to compare the short-term outcomes and survival rates of robotic versus open resection for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma in a single center, and to determine the reliable scope of robotic interventions. Methods: A comparative analysis of outcomes from open and robotic resections at a single center was conducted using propensity score matching (PSM). The balance of covariates was assessed using standardized mean differences, and the robotic resection procedures adhered to the standards of open surgery. Results: PSM was effectively applied between 41 robotic and 82 open resections. No differences were observed in blood loss, overall and severe morbidity, 90-day mortality, or length of hospital stay. Robotic resections were longer but resulted in better immediate oncological outcomes. Median overall survival for the robotic and open groups was 44 and 30 months (p = 0.259) before PSM and 44 and 29 months (p = 0.164) after PSM respectively. Conversion was required in 8 cases. A subgroup analysis excluding conversions revealed no differences in immediate and long-term outcomes. All patients undergoing robotic resection for Bismuth types I and II were alive at a mean follow-up of 37 months. Conclusions The robotic approach is comparable to open resection regarding immediate outcomes and survival in select patients with perihilar cholangiocarcinoma. For patients with Bismuth type I and II tumors and early (stages I and II) TNM stages, robotic resection is a reliable treatment option when aligned with the principles of open surgery.

The Open Access Initiative is gaining momentum due to the worldwide availability of advanced digital tools, online publishing platforms, and systems for tracking academic contributions. Several declarations and initiatives, including Plan S, have already laid a foundation for moving away from subscription to full and immediate open-access publishing. The global initiatives imply targeting journals satisfying the upgraded quality and visibility criteria. To meet these criteria, a comprehensive approach to Open Access is recommended. This article overviews the essential components of the comprehensive approach, increasing transparency, adherence to ethical standards, and diversification of evaluation metrics. With the increasing volume of quality open-access journals, their indexing with free databases and search engines is becoming increasingly important. The Directory of Open Access Journals and PubMed Central currently free searches of open-access sources. These services, however, cannot fully satisfy the increasing demands of the users, and attempts are underway to upgrade the indexing and archiving of open-access sources in China, Japan, Korea, Russia, and elsewhere. The wide use of identifiers is essential for transparency of scholarly communications. Peer reviewers are now offered credits from Publons. These credits are transferrable to their Open Researcher and Contributor iDs. Various social media channels are increasingly used by scholars to comment on articles. All these comments are tracked by related metric systems, such as Altmetrics. Combined with traditional citation evaluations, the alternative metrics can help timely identify and promote publications influencing education, research, and practice.
Abstracting and Indexing as Topic ; Access to Information ; Bibliography as Topic ; China ; Education ; Japan ; Korea ; Metric System ; Open Access Publishing ; Peer Review ; Periodicals as Topic ; Russia ; Search Engine ; Social Media

Over the past few years, updated editorial policy statements of several associations have provided a platform for improving the quality of scientific research and publishing. The updates have particularly pointed to the need for following research reporting standards, authorship and contributorship regulations, implementing digital tools for the identification and crediting academic contributors, and moving towards optimal ethical open-access models. This article overviews some of the recent editorial policy statements of global editorial associations and reflects on the role of the regional counterparts in advancing scholarly publishing. One of the globally promoted documents is the Recommendations of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). Its latest versions contain statements on proper research reporting, reviewing, editing, and publishing. Points on ethical target journals and ‘predatory’ sources are also available. This year, in a move to update its editorial policy, the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) released the Core Practices, comprehensively reflecting on the major issues in publication ethics. Updated joint statements of medical writers associations are also available to implement transparent policy on contributorship in sponsor-supported research projects and related reports. Several suggestions are put forward to improve global editorial statements on online profiling, crediting, and referencing. It is also highlighted that knowledge and implementation of updated editorial guidance is essential for editors' good standing.
Authorship ; Editorial Policies ; Ethics ; Information Storage and Retrieval ; Joints ; Medical Writing ; Periodicals as Topic ; Publications ; Quality Control ; Research Report ; Social Control, Formal

This article highlights the issue of wasteful publishing practices that primarily affect non-mainstream science countries and rapidly growing academic disciplines. Numerous start-up open access publishers with soft or nonexistent quality checks and huge commercial interests have created a global crisis in the publishing market. Their publishing practices have been thoroughly examined, leading to the blacklisting of many journals by Jeffrey Beall. However, it appears that some subscription journals are also falling short of adhering to the international recommendations of global editorial associations. Unethical editing agencies that promote their services in non-mainstream science countries create more problems for inexperienced authors. It is suggested to regularly monitor the quality of already indexed journals and upgrade criteria of covering new sources by the Emerging Sources Citation Index (Web of Science), Scopus, and specialist bibliographic databases. Regional awareness campaigns to inform stakeholders of science communication about the importance of ethical writing, transparency of editing services, and permanent archiving can be also helpful for eradicating unethical publishing practices.
Accidental Falls ; Databases, Bibliographic ; Periodicals as Topic ; Specialization ; Writing

This article overviews unethical publishing practices in connection with the pressure to publish more. Both open-access and subscription publishing models can be abused by 'predatory' authors, editors, and publishing outlets. Relevant examples of ‘prolific’ scholars are viewed through the prism of the violation of ethical authorship in established journals and indiscriminately boosting publication records elsewhere. The instances of ethical transgressions by brokering editorial agencies and agents, operating predominantly in non-Anglophone countries, are presented to raise awareness of predatory activities. The scheme of predatory publishing activities is presented, and several measures are proposed to tackle the issue of predatory publishing. The awareness campaigns by professional societies, consultations with information facilitators, implementation of the criteria of best target journals, and crediting of scholars with use of integrative citation metrics, such as the h-index, are believed to make a difference.
Authorship ; Publications ; Referral and Consultation

The digitization and related developments in journal editing and publishing necessitate increasing the awareness of all stakeholders of science communication in the emerging global problems and possible solutions. Journal editors and publishers are frequently encountered with the fast-growing problems of authorship, conflicts of interest, peer review, research misconduct, unethical citations, and inappropriate journal impact metrics. While the number of erroneous and unethical research papers and wasteful, or 'predatory', journals is increasing exponentially, responsible editors are urged to 'clean' the literature by correcting or retracting related articles. Indexers are advised to implement measures for accepting truly influential and ethical journals and delisting sources with predatory publishing practices. Updating knowledge and skills of authors, editors and publishers, developing and endorsing recommendations of global editorial associations, and (re)drafting journal instructions can be viewed as potential tools for improving ethics of academic journals. The aim of this Statement is to increase awareness of all stakeholders of science communication of the emerging ethical issues in journal editing and publishing and initiate a campaign of upgrading and enforcing related journal instructions.
Authorship ; Editorial Policies ; Ethics* ; Peer Review, Research ; Periodicals as Topic ; Publications*