To gain insight into the integrity of research in Otolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery (OHNS) literature through characterising retracted articles, analysing the reason for their retraction, and the trends in the collected data.

Pubmed, Embase, and Retraction Watch Database were queried for retracted articles published between the dates of 1/31/92 and 9/30/22. Articles with titles relating to OHNS subjects and published in OHNS journals, as determined by Scimago Journal and Country Ranking, were selected for further analysis. Variables recorded included journal name, journal impact factor, article type, article subspecialty subject, reason for retraction, whether re-published, number of authors, time to retraction, and article citations.

Based on title and article content, 245 articles related to the field of OHNS were identified, of which 68 were published in OHNS journals and analysed for reason of retraction. Of those, 16 (23.5%) were replaced due to erratum concerns (spelling, formatting, etc.) rather than content or data-related issues and were excluded. Among the 52 (76.5%) permanent retractions the most common reasons for retraction include article duplication (n = 26), concerns/issues/errors with data (n = 7), and plagiarism (n = 5). The median time between publication and retraction was 2 years (range, 0-19). The median impact factor was 1.64 (range, 0.08-4.68). The median number of citations per article was 7 (range, 0-86).

Retractions continue to occur in the field of OHNS despite increasing education in ethical publication standards and safeguards. There are, however, improved time intervals to retraction indicating improved surveillance of published articles.

There is a substantial body of scientific literature on the use of third-party services (TPS) by academics to assist as "publication consultants" in scholarly publishing. TPS provide a wide range of scholarly services to research teams that lack the equipment, skills, motivation, or time to produce a paper without external assistance. While services such as language editing, statistical support, or graphic design are common and often legitimate, some TPS also provide illegitimate services and send unsolicited e-mails (spam) to academics offering these services. Such illegitimate types of TPS have the potential to threaten the integrity of the peer-reviewed scientific literature. In extreme cases, for-profit agencies known as "paper mills" even offer fake scientific publications or authorship slots for sale. The use of such illegitimate services as well as the failure to acknowledge their use is an ethical violation in academic publishing, while the failure to declare support for a TPS can be considered a form of contract fraud. We discuss some literature on TPS, highlight services currently offered by ten of the largest commercial publishers and expect authors to be transparent about the use of these services in their publications. From an ethical/moral (i.e., non-commercial) point of view, it is the responsibility of editors, journals, and publishers, and it should be in their best interest to ensure that illegitimate TPS are identified and prohibited, while publisher-employed TPS should be properly disclosed in their publications.

Editors-in-chief (EICs) have a significant amount of control over the publications that are accepted in their journals, which may result in ethical predicaments. This study investigates the potential conflict of interest of EICs from various dental journals by quantifying the number of their self-published articles during their years as EIC. Based on representation across many dental disciplines and high impact factors, 67 EICs from 19 dental journals during 1990-2023 were studied. To keep anonymity, each journal was randomly assigned a letter A-S and each editor-in-chief (EIC) was given the same letter as their journal with a random number 1-67. After gathering the years each EIC served, online library resources were searched to enumerate each EIC's lifetime publications and total self-publications during their term, excluding editorials for both counts. Descriptive statistics were performed to evaluate the results. The results indicate that 16 EICs self-published more than the average of 23.27 articles during their term. When considering EIC tenure, a ratio of self-publications per year was calculated, averaging 2.12 publications. Twenty-two EICs authored more articles annually than the average ratio. After calculating the impact factors of each EIC from the years they serviced their journal, a total of 22 impact factors exceeded the established mean of 2.45. Lastly, when comparing the percentage of self-publications from total lifetime publications, 24 of 67 EICs were above the average. Overall, a significantly increased number of self-publications was detected, presenting potential conflicts of interest for EICs. Therefore, it remains essential to develop clear guidelines and international standards regarding the practice of EICs self-publishing in their journals during their service term.

The process of preparing a scientific manuscript is intricate, encompassing several critical stages, including pre-writing, research development, drafting, peer review, editing, publication, dissemination, and access. Among these, the peer review process (PRP) stands out as a pivotal component requiring seamless collaboration among editors, reviewers, and authors. Reviewers play a crucial role in assessing the manuscript's quality and providing constructive feedback, which authors must adeptly navigate to enhance their work and meet journal standards. This process can often appear daunting and time-consuming, as authors are required to address numerous comments and requested changes. Authors are encouraged to perceive reviewers as consultants rather than adversaries, viewing their critiques as opportunities for improvement rather than personal attacks.

Opinion article.

To equip authors with practical strategies for engaging effectively in the PRP and improving their publication acceptance rates.

Key guidelines include thoroughly understanding and prioritizing feedback, maintaining professionalism, and systematically addressing each comment. In cases of significant disagreement or misunderstanding, authors have the option to refer the issue to the editor. Crafting a well-organized and scientific "response to reviews" along with the revised manuscript can substantially increase the likelihood of acceptance. Best practices for writing an effective response to reviews include expressing gratitude, addressing major revisions first, seeking opinions from co-authors and colleagues, and adhering strictly to journal guidelines. Emphasizing the importance of planning responses, highlighting changes in the revised manuscript, and conducting a final review ensures all corrections are properly documented.

By following these guidelines, authors can enhance their manuscripts' quality, foster positive relationships with reviewers, and ultimately contribute to scholarly advancement.

The peer review process is a fundamental aspect of modern scientific paper publishing, underpinning essential quality control. First conceptualised in the 1700s, it is an iterative process that aims to elevate scientific literature to the highest standards whilst preventing publication of scientifically unsound, potentially misleading, and even plagiarised information. It is widely accepted that the peer review of scientific papers is an irreplaceable and fundamental aspect of the research process. However, the rapid growth of research and technology has led to a huge increase in the number of publications. This has led to increased pressure on the peer review system. There are several established peer review methodologies, ranging from single and double blind to open and transparent review, but their implementation across journals and research fields varies greatly. Some journals are testing entirely novel approaches (such as collaborative reviews), whilst others are piloting changes to established methods. Given the unprecedented growth in publication numbers, and the ensuing burden on journals, editors, and reviewers, it is imperative to improve the quality and efficiency of the peer review process. Herein we evaluate the peer review process, from its historical origins to current practice and future directions.

The peer review process is critical to maintaining quality, reliability, novelty, and innovation in the scientific literature. However, the teaching of scientific peer review is rarely a component of formal scientific or clinical training, and even the most experienced peer reviewers express interest in continuing education. The objective of this review article is to summarize the collective perspectives of experienced journal editors about how to be a good reviewer in a step-by-step guide that can serve as a resource for the performance of peer review of a scientific manuscript.

This is a narrative review.

A review of the history and an overview of the modern-day peer review process are provided with attention to the role played by the reviewer, including important reasons for involvement in scientific peer review. The general components of a scientific peer review are described, and a model for how to structure a peer review report is provided. These concepts are also summarized in a reviewer checklist that can be used in real-time to develop and double-check one's reviewer report before submitting it.

Peer review is a critically important service for maintaining quality in the scientific literature. Peer review of a scientific manuscript and the associated reviewer's report should assess specific details related to the accuracy, validity, novelty, and interpretation of a study's results. We hope that this article will serve as a resource and guide for reviewers of all levels of experience in the performance of peer review of a scientific manuscript.

Perioperative nurses can share their expertise by writing for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. Writing can help perioperative nurses grow their professional careers and advance the science of the perioperative nursing specialty. Despite the value and importance of publishing, perioperative nurses may lack confidence and fear rejection and negative feedback; increasing their knowledge and understanding of the authoring and publishing processes can assuage these fears. This education article describes concepts associated with scholarly publishing for authors and offers strategies to encourage perioperative nurses to share their practice experiences or research via peer-reviewed journals. Key steps associated with the writing and publication process are described. The article also explains the editorial and peer-review processes and provides supportive strategies for authors when a manuscript is not accepted initially.

Peer review is the established method for evaluating the quality and validity of research manuscripts in scholarly publishing. However, scientific peer review faces challenges as the volume of submitted research has steadily increased in recent years. Time constraints and peer review quality assurance can place burdens on reviewers, potentially discouraging their participation. Some artificial intelligence (AI) tools might assist in relieving these pressures. This study explores the efficiency and effectiveness of one of the artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots, ChatGPT (Generative Pre-trained Transformer), in the peer review process.

Twenty-one peer-reviewed research articles were anonymised to ensure unbiased evaluation. Each article was reviewed by two humans and by versions 3.5 and 4.0 of ChatGPT. The AI was instructed to provide three positive and three negative comments on the articles and recommend whether they should be accepted or rejected. The human and AI results were compared using a 5-point Likert scale to determine the level of agreement. The correlation between ChatGPT responses and the acceptance or rejection of the papers was also examined.

Subjective review similarity between human reviewers and ChatGPT showed a mean score of 3.6/5 for ChatGPT 3.5 and 3.76/5 for ChatGPT 4.0. The correlation between human and AI review scores was statistically significant for ChatGPT 3.5, but not for ChatGPT 4.0.

ChatGPT can complement human scientific peer review, enhancing efficiency and promptness in the editorial process. However, a fully automated AI review process is currently not advisable, and ChatGPT's role should be regarded as highly constrained for the present and near future.

In part 1 of this Perspective, I discussed general principles of scientific peer review in the biomedical sciences aimed at early-stage investigators (i.e., graduate students, postdoctoral fellows, and junior faculty). Here in part 2, I share my thoughts specifically on the topic of peer review of manuscripts. I begin by defining manuscript peer review and discussing the goals and importance of the concept. I then describe the organizational structure of the process, including the two distinct stages involved. Next, I emphasize several important considerations for manuscript reviewers, both general points and key considerations when evaluating specific types of papers, including original research manuscripts, reviews, methods articles, and opinion pieces. I then advance some practical suggestions for developing the written critique document, offer advice for making an overall recommendation to the editor (i.e., accept, revise, reject), and describe the unique issues involved when assessing a revised manuscript. Finally, I comment on how best to gain experience in the essential academic research skill of manuscript peer review. In part 3 of the series, I will discuss the topic of reviewing grant applications submitted to research funding agencies.

In Part 1 of this Perspective, I share my thoughts on several basic principles of scientific peer review for early career-stage investigators. I begin by defining scientific peer review and its primary goals and briefly discuss the historical development of peer review. I then describe the reputed benefits of the process for science and society. Next, I characterize the "2-stage" structure of peer review, as well as the most prevalent evaluation formats used for determining scientific merit of peer-reviewed documents, including grant applications and manuscripts. I then discuss the primary responsibilities and core values of scientific peer review and offer several general tips for how to be an effective scientific peer reviewer. I next share commonly voiced concerns about the peer review process and oft-cited suggestions for improving the system. I finish the commentary by emphasizing numerous benefits of having a sound working knowledge of peer review for enhancing research career development and describe various opportunities for obtaining experience in peer review. This discussion of general issues is intended to lay a proper foundation upon which to address specific aspects of peer review of manuscripts in part 2 and grant applications in part 3 of the Perspective.