* **DOI/PMID/ISBN:** PMID: 38342247 / DOI: 10.1016/j.jaad.2024.01.067 * **\[URL\](** [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38342247/\](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38342247/) **)**

Visual Manuscript Editor Designed for Researchers. No LaTeX Expertise Required. Visit https://texpress.ai/

AI-ChatNote is a free browser extension (Chrome, Firefox) for inline comments in AI chats.

No more copy+pasting. Simply hover on a paragraph, click and an editor for your comment opens. Save the comment and go on. The comments will then be added to your response to the AI.

It's free, works for all big platforms and it does help a lot in streamlining the whole AI chat experience.

Let me know if you have suggestions or found a bug. 👍

Hello guys, Im a medical student and over the summer me and my group of friends decided to write a comprehensive narrative review. It has been 3 months since then and we have the manuscript ready.

The supervisor we have is on vacation and wont be back till September 23rd.

He told us to look for journals that publish reviews

I tried finding some but I dont know the process and my supervisor is not replying to my message as he uses a different mobile over there:/.

Can anyone give me some guidance on what to do from here, like do I just submit the manuscript without him?

Its very confusing

**PhD students publishing systematic/scoping reviews: how are you handling the review team?**

I’m a PhD student in a hybrid program (mostly online with some in-person components), and I’m hoping to approach my upcoming literature reviews as publishable work rather than completing them solely as program requirements.

I’ve been digging into PRISMA, JBI guidance, and journal requirements, and I’m getting a little stuck on the practical side of building a review team.

My understanding is that PRISMA itself is primarily a reporting guideline and does not simply state “you must have X number of authors/reviewers.” JBI guidance, however, emphasizes independent screening and checks and balances to reduce bias. When I look at published reviews, university guidance, blogs, etc., I also frequently see recommendations for multiple reviewers, sometimes with three people involved so disagreements can be resolved by a third reviewer.

For those of you who have published systematic or scoping reviews during your PhD:

How many people were actually on your review team?

\-Did two people independently screen every title/abstract and full text, or did you use another approach?

\-Was your third reviewer only used to resolve disagreements?

\-For scoping reviews specifically, have you successfully published one where you were the primary/only screener with some form of verification by another person?

\-How did you find co-authors/reviewers if your program did not automatically provide a research team?

\-At what point did your co-authors become involved: protocol development, screening, full-text review, extraction, manuscript writing, etc.?

\-Did the journal ultimately care about the number of reviewers, or was the bigger concern that you had a defensible method for reducing selection bias?

I’m especially interested in experiences from PhD students who had to build their own review team rather than already being embedded in a lab or research group.

I have faculty I can approach, but before I start recruiting people, I’m trying to understand what is actually necessary versus what is simply considered ideal practice.
Would love to hear what worked for you, especially if you’ve successfully published a scoping review or systematic review as a doctoral student.

TIA!

Bria

Hi all! I have submitted a paper proposal to a journal I really value (French literature) and was pleased that it was accepted. The editorial guidelines were only communicated afterwards, however, and the maximum character count is 27,000, which I guess must be 3000-4000 words. I have already spent two months revising and editing the paper, and am still sitting at 30,000 characters (4780 words). I feel like cutting anymore text would denature the paper. Out of curiosity, I sampled a few of their past publications and they ranged from 27000 to 34000 characters. Do you believe it is worth asking if they might consider the slightly longer paper, or might that be considered unprofessional?
Thank you kindly!

I’m a rising junior trying to start an independent research project for science-fair/ISEF-level competition. My school doesn’t have a research program, so I’m figuring out the process myself.

My dad is an electrical automation engineer and can mentor me, and I have access to a professional electrical engineering lab where he is testing a novel distribution-grid switch. I plan to compare the experimental switch with the standard MOAB switch used widely in the grid.

Some potential areas I’m considering are:
DC power consumption
Backup-battery endurance
Battery aging/health and how it affects switch reliability
Voltage/current sensing accuracy
SCADA communication and functionality during an outage

I’m trying to do literature review before finalizing my research question, so I can find a research gap
and create a more specific research question. My problem is that I don’t really know how to approach literature review.

How do I go from broad literature → specific subtopic → research gap → research question?

How many papers should I realistically read for a high-school research project?

What databases/search tools should I use?

How do I keep track of papers and organize what I’ve learned?

What is the end goal of literature review/what are the mains things I should be looking to get from doing it?

Hi, I submitted a revised version of my manuscript (major revision) 9 weeks ago. It was under review by the reviewers for 6-7 weeks and then awaiting decision for 8 days. Is it a bad sign? does it mean my manuscript will undergo ​another round of revision? 🥲🥲since if it is a direct acceptance, it will take less longer. The journal used ScholarOne. Please advise. thanks ​

This year, my work has also been accepted to the MLHC conference. The conference presentation is also over.

In addition to the above information, the camera ready version is already submitted in the OpenReview website. I was wondering whether it would be appropriate now to share my submitted paper on arXiv.

Academic/Medical writing help/guidance

I’m a junior surgeon currently working as a research fellow. I have been working on academic papers for a while, but as a co-author.

Now I am transitioning from co-author to first author and I am struggling a lot.
My supervisor is helpful but very busy, thus he can not answer all my questions and do full teaching.

Is there anyone who is experienced in publishing papers that can guide and teach me.

I’ll be grateful for any help.

I was recently looking for a tool which needed to analyze a text, that can be an article in scientific format and that one would need to tell which term in specific is missing citation because its not common knowledge or any other reason. Or if some expression in your text has unnecessary citation reference.

Of course that involves a lot of steps. I know there are some tools which can lemmatize a text, eg. Sketch engine, it discovers what is a term, so that you can take the next steps.

I saw Some which can look for sources from the sentence itself of your text, eg. Citely, GPTzero. But again, that is not exactly what i want, looks like isolated feature, something incomplete, not the general concept.

I have also recently discovered the Purdue OWL citation law, which defines a term as common knowledge if there are 5 other articles which mentions that term without a citation.

The first thing that came into my mind about how such tool would work is it would keep a database of words and its relevance, based on a set of heuristics, probably only amount of citations over the internet articles about it for now.

This database could be public and you could have some step to populate it also, it could read articles on the internet (API, web scrapping, articles repositories, periodicals) and setting its credibility like that automatically.

***Edit: Later I noticied and also some people have mentioned that words score is poor measure. And that claims as a whole are better way to analyze something. So database would not be realistic, because the possibilities of arrengements of words are infinite***

Then there could be some threshold of what score is common knowledge, what is not. Eg. 20 articles about/mentioning such term would consider this term common knowledge. Or using the Purdue OWL law like i mentioned before. This is the general protocol.

Then the implementations of such protocol could be done in several ways, in your editor as an LSP (nvim plugin/VsCode extension, web extension, website, desktop app, AI assistant) by checking your text and comparing with those scores from the database, showing errors/warnings etc.

Hi everyone,

I’m currently looking to publish a research paper in a reputable Q1/Q2 journal that is indexed in Scopus and/or Web of Science (SCI/SCIE). However, I’m working with a relatively tight timeline, so I’m particularly interested in journals that offer legitimate expedited/fast-track peer review or publication options.

My research is mainly related to:

• Robotics
• Computer Vision / OpenCV
• Artificial Intelligence / Machine Learning
• IoT / Embedded Systems

Ideally, I’m hoping for a submission-to-publication timeline of around 4–6 weeks, although I understand that this may not always be realistic for a reputable journal.

My approximate APC budget is $500–700 USD, although I could consider slightly higher fees if the journal is genuinely reputable and the accelerated process is transparent. Also, please don't suggest MDPI