Peer review in the global digital age: perspectives of publishing industry stakeholders

Peer review is a crucial component of the scientific publication process, enabling validation of research, identification of errors, and removal of potential bias. However, there are some well-known limitations, including slow publication cycles and overstringent gatekeeping. Artificial intelligence and digital technology are revolutionizing peer review and publishing by addressing some of the limitations, and fostering closer collaboration among scholars worldwide.1-3 This paradigm shift aligns with the principles of open science, enhancing the reach and impact of scholarly work. Digital tools for peer review are already transforming many aspects of this process, by enhancing quality control, automation of routine tasks, and expediting laborious aspects of the peer review process, thereby enhancing speed and efficiency. Digital platforms are reducing publication times and potentially allowing for the promotion of diversity and inclusivity of the peer reviewer pool by vastly enhancing global connectivity. Selecting qualified and impartial global reviewers in the digital context is vital for the future of our rapidly evolving and increasingly diverse publication landscape. Editors play a key role in oversight while providing reviewers with clear guidelines and training. In conclusion, digital tools assisting peer review will inevitably play an increasingly useful role in enhancing the efficiency, and potentially the inclusivity and objectivity of the process

Age-associated perturbations in glutathione synthesis in mouse liver

The nature of the mechanisms underlying the age-related decline in glutathione (GSH) synthetic capacity is at present unclear. Steady-state kinetic parameters of mouse liver GCL (glutamate–cysteine ligase), the rate-limiting enzyme in GSH synthesis, and levels of hepatic GSH synthesis precursors from the trans-sulfuration pathway, such as homocysteine, cystathionine and cysteine, were compared between young and old C57BL/6 mice (6- and 24-month-old respectively). There were no agerelated differences in GCL Vmax, but the apparent Km for its substrates, cysteine and glutamate, was higher in the old mice compared with the young mice (∼800 compared with ∼300 μM, and ∼710 compared with 450 μM, P<0.05 for cysteine and glutamate in young and old mice respectively). Amounts of cysteine, cystathionine and Cys-Gly increased with age by 91, 24 and 28% respectively. Glutathione (GSH) levels remained unchanged with age, whereas GSSG content showed an 84% increase, suggesting a significant pro-oxidizing shift in the 2GSH/GSSG ratio. The amount of the toxic trans-sulfuration/glutathione biosynthetic pathway intermediate, homocysteine, was 154% higher (P<0.005) in the liver of old mice compared with young mice. The conversion of homocysteine into cystathionine, a rate-limiting step in trans-sulfuration catalysed by cystathionine β-synthase, was comparatively less efficient in the old mice, as indicated by cystathionine/homocysteine ratios. Incubation of tissue homogenates with physiological concentrations of homocysteine caused an up to 4.4-fold increase in the apparent Km of GCL for its glutamate substrate, but had no effect on Vmax. The results suggest that perturbation of the catalytic efficiency of GCL and accumulation of homocysteine from the trans-sulfuration pathway may adversely affect de novo GSH synthesis during aging

The sunshine act and medical publications: Guidance from professional medical associations

<div><p></p><p> <i>Objective.</i> To review guidance from professional medical associations to physicians on the Sunshine Act, with a focus on industry support for medical publications. <i>Methods.</i> Using ‘Sunshine Act’ as a search term, we searched PubMed (dates February 2013 to November 2014) and the ‘grey literature’ using Google and Google Scholar. Online information was extracted from websites of pre-identified professional medical associations. <i>Results.</i> Some professional medical associations have published peer-reviewed recommendations, position statements or general advice on their websites and in journals around the Sunshine Act. Associations also provided broad online educational resources for physicians. There was universal agreement between peer-reviewed publications, including guidelines, for the need for full transparency and disclosure of industry support. Surveys by some professional associations showed variance in opinion on the forecasted impact of the Sunshine Act on physician–industry relationships. There was scarce information specifically related to reporting requirements for industry-supported medical publications. <i>Conclusions.</i> There is a shortage of information for physicians from professional associations regarding the Sunshine Act and support for medical publications. Due to the lack of clear guidance regarding support for publications, there are presently varying interpretations of the Sunshine Act. The literature debates the potential impact of the Sunshine Act and expresses some concerns that physician-enabled innovation in drug development may be hindered.</p></div

Good Publication Practice (GPP) Guidelines for Company-Sponsored Biomedical Research: 2022 Update

These updated Good Publication Practice (GPP) guidelines include recommendations for publishing company-sponsored biomedical research. The GPP guidelines apply to peer-reviewed or peer-oriented biomedical publications, such as manuscripts, meeting presentations, posters, and abstracts, as well as enhanced content, such as plain-language summaries. The current GPP guidelines incorporate guidance on ethics and transparency as well as the planning, development, review, and approval of biomedical publications and policies and procedures that describe these practices. Supplemental materials lay out processes for steering committees, publication plans, publication working groups, determining authorship, and documentation. Information about new topics, such as alliances and working with patients, has been included where appropriate within these supplemental materials. Incorporating the principles and best practices presented in these GPP guidelines will result in increased transparency and a firm ethical footing. This guidance is also intended to enable the compliant incorporation of new and emerging publication tools for the ethical publication of company-sponsored research

Systematic review of reports describing potential impact of the Sunshine Act on peer-reviewed medical publications

<p><b>Objective:</b></p> <p>The Physician Payments Sunshine Act, enacted in 2010, is intended to increase the transparency of relationships between US physicians and teaching hospitals and manufacturers of drugs, biologics, and medical devices. We examined current opinion regarding the impact of the Sunshine Act on peer-reviewed medical publications.</p> <p><b>Research design and methods:</b></p> <p>We searched indexed databases (NLM/PubMed, EMBASE, and Scopus) and nonindexed sources (lay and medical press, medical websites, congress abstracts) for articles published between January 2010 and June 2015 that contained terms indicative of content related to the Sunshine Act (e.g., ‘Sunshine Act’, ‘open payment program’). Nine publication professionals then systematically reviewed identified articles for publications-related content.</p> <p><b>Main outcome measures:</b></p> <p>Quantification and characterization of publications that focused on the Sunshine Act and its implications for medical publishing.</p> <p><b>Results:</b></p> <p>Among 1200 indexed publications, 113 had content on the Sunshine Act. Thirty-one discussed its implications for publications; nine distinguished between financial and nonfinancial transfers of value. Of the 117 nonindexed publications with content on the Sunshine Act, 16 discussed implications for publications, and seven distinguished between financial and nonfinancial transfers of value. Reporting of such transfers of value was viewed as a potential barrier to participation in publications with industry support.</p> <p><b>Conclusions:</b></p> <p>There is limited literature on the impact of the Sunshine Act on peer-reviewed publications and limited physician awareness that publication support may be reported as a transfer of value.</p