Scientific publishing faces growing challenges from rapid technological change, artificial intelligence (AI), research integrity concerns, and resource limitations, particularly in low- and middle-income countries. Editors, authors, and peer reviewers must navigate increasingly complex editorial requirements while operating within constrained institutional and financial environments. The emergence of AI-generated content and fabricated citations further threatens scholarly integrity and adds to editorial burdens. The unique challenges confronting regional journals necessitate strengthening editorial capacity, ethical governance, reviewer competency, and requires collaborative effort to sustain scientific publication that is relevant to the region.

Scientific publishing faces growing challenges from rapid technological change, artificial intelligence (AI), research integrity concerns, and resource limitations, particularly in low- and middle-income countries. Editors, authors, and peer reviewers must navigate increasingly complex editorial requirements while operating within constrained institutional and financial environments. The emergence of AI-generated content and fabricated citations further threatens scholarly integrity and adds to editorial burdens. The unique challenges confronting regional journals necessitate strengthening editorial capacity, ethical governance, reviewer competency, and requires collaborative effort to sustain scientific publication that is relevant to the region.

Humans ; Peer Review

No abstract available.
Dentistry ; Endodontics ; Peer Review

Inappropriate authorship and other fraudulent publication strategies are pervasive. Here, I deal with contribution disclosures, authorship disputes versus plagiarism among collaborators, kin co-authorship, gender bias, authorship trade, and fake peer review (FPR). In contrast to underserved authorship and other ubiquitous malpractices, authorship trade and FPR appear to concentrate in some Asian countries that exhibit a mixed academic pattern of rapid growth and poor ethics. It seems that strong pressures to publish coupled with the incessantly growing number of publications entail a lower quality of published science in part attributable to a poor, compromised or even absent (in predatory journals) peer review. In this regard, the commitment of Publons to strengthen this fundamental process and ultimately ensure the quality and integrity of the published articles is laudable. Because the many recommendations for adherence to authorship guidelines and rules of honest and transparent research reporting have been rather ineffective, strong deterrents should be established to end manipulated peer review, undeserved authorship, and related fakeries.
Asian Continental Ancestry Group ; Authorship* ; Dissent and Disputes ; Ethics ; Humans ; Peer Review* ; Plagiarism ; Publications ; Research Report ; Sexism

Scholarly article writing and publishing in international peer-reviewed journals can become an overwhelming task for many medical, nursing, and healthcare professionals in a university setting, especially in countries whose native language is not English. To help improve their scientific writing skills and publishing capacity, a university-based editing system and writing programs can be developed as educational platforms. These are delivered by a team of specialist editors composed of tenured faculty members who have a strong medical background and extensive experience in teaching courses on medical research, editing, writing, and publishing. For the editing system, the specialist editors provide comprehensive editing, personalized consultation, full editorial support after peer review, guidance with online submissions/resubmissions, and detailed editorial review at different stages of the manuscript writing. In addition, the specialist editors can develop writing programs such as medical writing and editing internships, academic courses in medical writing or research study designs and reporting standards, special interactive lectures and sessions on predatory publishing, seminars on updated editorial guidance of global editorial associations, academic visits on medical writing and editing, medical writing mentoring program, networking programs in scholarly communication, and publication resources in medical writing and scholarly publishing. These editing system and writing programs can serve as integrated platforms for improving scientific writing skills and publishing capacity by providing continuing education in medical writing, editing, publishing, and publication ethics.
Delivery of Health Care ; Education, Continuing ; Ethics ; Humans ; Internship and Residency ; Lectures ; Medical Writing ; Mentors ; Nursing ; Peer Review ; Publications ; Specialization ; Writing*

No abstract available.
Dentistry ; Endodontics ; Peer Review

Access to Information ; Biomedical Research ; Editorial Policies ; Ethics, Research ; Humans ; Internet ; Journal Impact Factor ; Open Access Publishing ; Peer Review ; Periodicals as Topic ; Singapore

PURPOSE: The quality assurance (QA) chart rounds are multidisciplinary meetings to review radiation therapy (RT) treatment plans. This study focus on describing the changes in RT management based on QA round reviews in a single institution. MATERIALS AND METHODS: After 9 full years of implementation, a retrospective review of all patients whose charts passed through departmental QA chart rounds from 2007 to 2015. The reviewed cases were presented for RT plan review; subcategorized based on decision in QA rounds into: approved, minor modifications or major modifications. Major modification defined as any substantial change which required patient re-simulation orre-planning prior to commencement of RT. Minor modification included treatment plan changes which didn’t necessarily require RT re-planning. RESULTS: Overall 7,149 RT treatment plans for different anatomical sites were reviewed at QA rounds. From these treatment plans, 6,654 (93%) were approved, 144 (2%) required minor modifications, while 351 (5%) required major modifications. Major modification included changes in: selected RT dose (96/351, 27%), target volume definition (127/351, 36%), organs-at-risk contouring (10/351, 3%), dose volume objectives/constraints criteria (90/351, 26%), and intent of treatment (28/351, 8%). The RT plans which required major modification according to the tumor subtype were as follows: head and neck (104/904, 12%), thoracic (12/199, 6%), gastrointestinal (33/687,5%), skin (5/106, 5%), genitourinary (16/359, 4%), breast (104/2387, 4%), central nervous system (36/846, 4%), sarcoma (11/277, 4%), pediatric (7/251, 3%), lymphoma (10/423, 2%), gynecological tumors (2/359, 1%), and others (11/351, 3%). CONCLUSION: Multi-disciplinary standardized QA chart rounds provide a comprehensive and an influential method on RT plans and/ or treatment decisions.
Breast ; Central Nervous System ; Head ; Humans ; Jordan ; Lymphoma ; Methods ; Neck ; Peer Review ; Radiotherapy ; Retrospective Studies ; Sarcoma ; Skin

No abstract available.
Peer Review ; Plastics ; Surgery, Plastic