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

Statistical Evaluations of the Reproducibility and Reliability of 3-Tesla High Resolution Magnetization Transfer Brain Images: A Pilot Study on Healthy Subjects

Magnetization transfer imaging (MT) may have considerable promise for early detection and monitoring of subtle brain changes before they are apparent on conventional magnetic resonance images. At 3 Tesla (T), MT affords higher resolution and increased tissue contrast associated with macromolecules. The reliability and reproducibility of a new high-resolution MT strategy were assessed in brain images acquired from 9 healthy subjects. Repeated measures were taken for 12 brain regions of interest (ROIs): genu, splenium, and the left and right hemispheres of the hippocampus, caudate, putamen, thalamus, and cerebral white matter. Spearman's correlation coefficient, coefficient of variation, and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) were computed. Multivariate mixed-effects regression models were used to fit the mean ROI values and to test the significance of the effects due to region, subject, observer, time, and manual repetition. A sensitivity analysis of various model specifications and the corresponding ICCs was conducted. Our statistical methods may be generalized to many similar evaluative studies of the reliability and reproducibility of various imaging modalities

IMPACT: The Journal of the Center for Interdisciplinary Teaching and Learning. Volume 10, Issue 2, Summer 2021

Impact: The Journal of the Center for Interdisciplinary Teaching & Learning is a peer-reviewed, biannual online journal that publishes scholarly and creative non-fiction essays about the theory, practice, and assessment of interdisciplinary education. Impact is produced by the Center for Interdisciplinary Teaching & Learning at Boston University College of General Studies. Impact accepts submissions throughout the year and publishes issues in February and July. Please submit your essays for consideration at https:// citl.submittable.com/submit. Impact provides free and open access to all of its research publications. There is no charge to authors for publication, and the journal abides by a CC-BY license. Authors published in Impact retain copyright on their articles, except for any third-party images and other materials added by Impact, which are subject to copyright of their respective owners. Authors are therefore free to disseminate and re-publish their articles, subject to any requirements of third-party copyright owners and subject to the original publication being fully cited. Visitors may download and forward articles subject to the citation requirements; all copyright notices must be displayed. If readers want to search by journal subject they might use these words: education, graduate, undergraduate, interdisciplinary, disciplines, curriculum, higher education.The theme of this issue is interdisciplinary approaches to, or including, the sciences. STEM disciplines like chemistry, biology, physics, computer science, and math are often taught as separate and distinct from the humanities. The concept of STEAM (STEM + Arts) has attempted to make STEM subjects more interdisciplinary, allowing students to interact with the material from different perspectives. The essays in this issue explore unique ways to design and implement interdisciplinary curricula that combine sciences and humanities/arts

Lisa DeTora, \u2789 (BardCorps)

Lisa DeTora, \u2789, talks about some of her favorite professors, such as Mario Bick, Terence Dewsnap, Hugo Munsterberg, Mary McCarthy, and shares some memories from specific classes. She recalls students driving Mary McCarthy to the grocery store, and having class on couches in the Tobin Poetry Room. She remembers working for the Bard Observer, walking through the woods clutching books, writing under the pen-name the Girl with Pink Glasses, and unexpectedly winning the Lockwood prize. She also recalls life in various dormitories at Bard, and describes strange run-ins with other students.https://digitalcommons.bard.edu/oral_hist/1057/thumbnail.jp

Disclosures and Conflicts of Interest: Solving the Riddle, Wrapped in a Mystery, Inside an Enigma

PURPOSE: Confusion exists around the nature and best practices for authors in biomedical fields seeking to disclose conflicts of interest (COIs) and other information that can produce bias. Guidelines often provide principles for action and to avoid granularity that can limit their general usefulness. Journal editors must also interpret various guidelines to produce and enhance their own disclosure and COI policies. We discussion COIs and present heuristics that can enhance disclosure practices by individual authors and inform policy and practice among medical journal editors. METHODS: The authors reviewed the biomedical literature and drew on professional and academic experience to develop examples and a suggested matrix for decision making. FINDINGS: Most COI commentary centers on financial relationships. Disagreement still exists about the nature and impact of various forms of COI, making critical reasoning essential when making and interpreting disclosures. Journal editors, authors, critics, and other experts express varying opinions about best practices regarding COIs. Policy decisions should be balanced and reasonable. Narrative context may help readers understand the meaning and relevance of disclosures and COIs. IMPLICATIONS: A balance of personal responsibility and critical thinking can enhance disclosure practices as well as confidence in the medical literature. Using a heuristic to think through possible areas of conflict can help authors provide more complete disclosure information. Providing narrative context can ease the burden of peer reviewers, editors, and readers trying to understand disclosures

Disclosures and Conflicts of Interest: Solving the Riddle, Wrapped in a Mystery, Inside an Enigma

PURPOSE: Confusion exists around the nature and best practices for authors in biomedical fields seeking to disclose conflicts of interest (COIs) and other information that can produce bias. Guidelines often provide principles for action and to avoid granularity that can limit their general usefulness. Journal editors must also interpret various guidelines to produce and enhance their own disclosure and COI policies. We discussion COIs and present heuristics that can enhance disclosure practices by individual authors and inform policy and practice among medical journal editors. METHODS: The authors reviewed the biomedical literature and drew on professional and academic experience to develop examples and a suggested matrix for decision making. FINDINGS: Most COI commentary centers on financial relationships. Disagreement still exists about the nature and impact of various forms of COI, making critical reasoning essential when making and interpreting disclosures. Journal editors, authors, critics, and other experts express varying opinions about best practices regarding COIs. Policy decisions should be balanced and reasonable. Narrative context may help readers understand the meaning and relevance of disclosures and COIs. IMPLICATIONS: A balance of personal responsibility and critical thinking can enhance disclosure practices as well as confidence in the medical literature. Using a heuristic to think through possible areas of conflict can help authors provide more complete disclosure information. Providing narrative context can ease the burden of peer reviewers, editors, and readers trying to understand disclosures

Assistant Editors\u27 Interview with Dr. Lisa DeTora of Hofstra University

In issue 1.1 of RHM, Dr. Lisa DeTora, Assistant Professor and Director of STEM Writing at Hofstra University, contributes a research article titled: “The Dangers of Magical Thinking: Situating Right To Try Laws, Patient’s Rights, and the Language of Advocacy To download a transcription of this interview, (will open in a new window). See more on Dr. DeTora\u27s work at: https://www.hofstra.edu/faculty/fac_profiles.cfm?id=4710&t=/Academics/Colleges/HCLAS/WRITING