Explore the vast range of titles available.

In times of public crises, including the current COVID-19 pandemic, rapid dissemination of relevant scientific knowledge is of paramount importance. The duration of scholarly journals’ publication process is one of the main factors that may hinder quick delivery of new information. Following initiatives of medical journals to accelerate their publication process, this study assesses whether medical journals have managed to speed up their publication process for coronavirus-related articles. It studies the duration of 14 medical journals’ publication processes both during and prior to the current pandemic. Assessing 669 articles, the study concludes that medical journals have indeed strongly accelerated their publication process for coronavirus-related articles since the outbreak of the pandemic: The time between submission and publication has decreased on average by 49%. The largest decrease in number of days between submission and publication of articles was due to a decrease in time required for peer review. For articles not related to COVID-19, no acceleration of the publication process is found. While the acceleration of the publication process is laudable from the perspective of quick information dissemination, it also may raise concerns relating to the quality of the peer review process and of the resulting publications.

In this edition of Editors' Newsroom, Managing Editor, Alex Cheyne, interviews our two Publishing Editors, Leisha Gomez and Kelly Baildon, to get their insights into the production process: your manuscript's journey from acceptance to publication. Read on for more about this process and what Leisha and Kelly recommend doing to ensure the best result for your manuscripts.

In this edition of Editors' Newsroom, we take a look behind the scenes of the copyediting process with an interview of Senior Copyeditor, Sarah Krivan. Managing Editor, Alex Cheyne, asks what authors can expect from this stage of manuscript publication, and we get Sarah's tips for authors to take advantage of the comprehensive in-house support.

PurposeThis paper explores how digitalization affects the academic research publication process by taking into account the perspective of management scholars. It provides an overview of the digital professional services dedicated to academic research, and investigates academics' awareness of, the impact on the publication process of, and scholars' expectations regarding digital services and software.Design/methodology/approachThis explorative study adopted a qualitative approach by performing direct observations of websites regarding digital professional research services and in-depth interviews with national and international management scholars.FindingsThe multiple digital professional services dedicated to academic research enable authors to develop a scientific paper independently or with the support of professionals. The scholars' awareness regarding the digital services and software was limited, because of both the plethora of options on the market and the frequent use of the same digital tools over time. In impact terms, these tools enable scholars to improve research quality and to increase productivity. However, the negative effects led scholars to express different expectations about how they can be improved and what difficulties should be overcome to favor the publication process.Practical implicationsThe results of this study provide suggestions both for scholars who engage in academic research and digital services and software providers.Originality/valueTo the best of the authors' knowledge, this is the first study to examine the ongoing development of digitalization in support of the research publication process from the perspective of academics.

What does it mean to expand the epistemological terrain in education research to improve educational equity? This feature article attends to this question by opening a national conversation with education researchers who take up intersectionality in their study of Black women in higher education, specifically, the application of Kimberlé Crenshaw’s intersectionality dimensions—structural, political, and representational. We surveyed the authors of 23 peer-reviewed research studies that engaged intersectionality across Crenshaw’s dimensions. Findings showed that the majority of the studies were published in journals with low-impact factors. Additionally, authors indicated that they experienced pushback in the publishing process, including having to justify their work to journal editors and responding to reviewers who did not value their work. Implications are discussed.

Aims To provide an overview of the peer review process, its various types, selection of peer reviewers, the purpose and significance of the peer review with regard to the assessment and management of quality of publications in academic journals. Design Discussion paper. Methods This paper draws on information gained from literature on the peer review process and the authors' knowledge and experience of contributing as peer reviewers and editors in the field of health care, including nursing. Results There are various types of peer review: single blind; double blind; open; and post‐publication review. The role of the reviewers in reviewing manuscripts and their contribution to the scientific and academic community remains important.

Background Medical student master’s theses are often carried out as research projects, and some are published as research papers in journals. We investigated the percentage of master’s theses conducted by 5th -year students at the Medical Degree Program at Lund University, Sweden, that subsequently served as the basis for research publications. In addition, we explored both student and supervisor experiences with the publishing process. Methods A cohort of four semesters of student data covering the period from 2019 to 2020 ( n  = 446) was searched in PubMed, Embase and the Web of Science to assess whether they had been published as research papers. Surveys were sent to students ( n  = 121) and supervisors ( n  = 77) to explore their experiences with the publishing process. Results We found that 33% (149 of 446) of the students in the 2019–2020 cohort subsequently published their theses, and 50% of these students were listed as first authors. Most students published original research. Students ( n  = 21) and supervisors ( n  = 44) reported that the publishing process was time-consuming and that students needed multilevel support from supervisors to achieve successful publication. The publishing process was reported by 79% of the students to have led to additional learning. Most of the papers (126 of 149, 85%) had a clinical or patient-oriented focus. Conclusion A high percentage of the student publications in which students are listed as first authors require engagement from both students and supervisors. Supervisors play an essential role in supporting students in a successful publication process. Most of the published papers were either clinical or patient-oriented research.

The Covid-19 pandemic introduced new complicating factors for the process of scientific publication, such as an unprecedented volume of article submissions. These changes have the potential to significantly alter how scientific communication is done, thus demanding scrutiny. To assess how the scientific publication system responded to the challenges brought by the Covid-19 pandemic. The following topics of interest were analyzed with the help of a review of the pertinent scientific literature: a) How were review quality and publication speed affected by the increased volume of Covid-19-related submissions; b) How were Covid-19 retraction and citation rates affected; and c) How was the scientific communication process impacted by the widespread use of “preprints” as a valid (“citable”) source of information. Concerning review quality, some extremely dubious articles on Covid-19 treatment managed to be published, some of which were in relatively prestigious journals. Regarding retractions (contrary to initial reports), no increase in retractions rate was evident as time passed and the system reached its “steady state”. As for preprints, problems associated with their use are the practice of “retracting” (withdrawing) preprints with no adequate retraction standards and how to evaluate preprint quality effectively. As a whole, the scientific publication system seems to have survived the unusual circumstances arising from the pandemic; e.g., no increase in retractions rates was observed. Problems remain to be dealt with, particularly regarding improving the peer review quality and the citation/evaluation/retracting of preprints.

ABSTRACTPerioperative 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.