Factors Affecting the Intervention of Health-Care Professionals in Radiological Events: A Systematic Review.

This research aims to explore the factors affecting the intervention of health-care professionals regarding a radiological event and to determine what actions they cause. In line with the keywords determined, a search was conducted on Cochrane, Scopus, Web of Science, and PubMed until March 2022. Eighteen peer-reviewed articles that met the inclusion criteria were reviewed. This systematic review was conducted using the PICOS and PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses)guidelines. Of the 18 studies included in the study, 8 were cross-sectional studies, 7 were descriptive studies, 2 were interventional studies, and 1 was a systematic review. As a result of the qualitative analysis, 7 factors affecting the intervention of health-care professionals in a radiological event were identified as follows: rarity of the event; inadequacy of health-care professionals against the radiological event; sensory responses; dilemma and ethical concern; communication, workload; and other factors. The most important factor affecting the intervention of health-care professionals in a radiological event is inadequate education about a radiological event, which influences the formation of other factors. These and other factors cause actions such as delayed treatment, death, and disruption of health services. Further studies are needed on the factors affecting the intervention of health-care professionals.

Lessons learnt from a scientific peer-review training programme designed to support research capacity and professional development in a global community.

High-quality peer-reviewer training open to researchers across the globe has the potential to improve the published literature, however, this type of training is not widely available. In this paper, we describe an online peer-reviewer training programme, highlight its effectiveness in building peer review and writing skills, and discuss challenges and lessons learnt. This training programme, open to researchers across the globe, acquaints participants with challenges to and inequities in publishing and educates them about writing effective peer reviews. A focal point is how to provide specific and respectful feedback to help authors get accepted for peer review at an academic journal. Forty-nine participants from or residing in six continents completed the training. All programme evaluation respondents agreed that the orientation helped them gain a better understanding of their role as a peer reviewer at Pre-Publication Support Service. Most agreed that the training was helpful in improving their peer-review skills, and that the training was helpful in improving their writing skills. Participants wanted more networking and collaboration opportunities with other peer reviewers, inclusion of a qualitatively researched example paper and improved communication about the required time commitment. Our online programme with multiple time options was geographically inclusive but internet connectivity was challenging for some participants. Peer-reviewer training programmes can help researchers build their peer review and writing skills and enhance participants' understanding of disparities in publishing. Integrating a geographically diverse group of researchers has the potential to enrich the discussions and learning in such a programme.

Introduction to the Special Issue-Life Science in Politics: Methodological Innovations and Political Issues.

We introduce the Special Issue on Life Science in Politics: Methodological Innovations and Political Issues. This issue of Politics and the Life Sciences is focused on the use of life science theory and methods to study political phenomena and the exploration of the intersection of science and political attitudes. This issue is the third in a series of special issues funded by the Association for Politics and the Life Sciences that adheres to the Open Science Framework for registered reports. Pre-analysis plans are peer reviewed and given in-principle acceptance before data are collected and/or analyzed, and the articles are published contingent upon the preregistration of the study being followed as proposed. We note various interpretations and challenges associated with studying the science of politics and discuss the contributions.

PreprintMatch: A tool for preprint to publication detection shows global inequities in scientific publication.

Preprints, versions of scientific manuscripts that precede peer review, are growing in popularity. They offer an opportunity to democratize and accelerate research, as they have no publication costs or a lengthy peer review process. Preprints are often later published in peer-reviewed venues, but these publications and the original preprints are frequently not linked in any way. To this end, we developed a tool, PreprintMatch, to find matches between preprints and their corresponding published papers, if they exist. This tool outperforms existing techniques to match preprints and papers, both on matching performance and speed. PreprintMatch was applied to search for matches between preprints (from bioRxiv and medRxiv), and PubMed. The preliminary nature of preprints offers a unique perspective into scientific projects at a relatively early stage, and with better matching between preprint and paper, we explored questions related to research inequity. We found that preprints from low income countries are published as peer-reviewed papers at a lower rate than high income countries (39.6% and 61.1%, respectively), and our data is consistent with previous work that cite a lack of resources, lack of stability, and policy choices to explain this discrepancy. Preprints from low income countries were also found to be published quicker (178 vs 203 days) and with less title, abstract, and author similarity to the published version compared to high income countries. Low income countries add more authors from the preprint to the published version than high income countries (0.42 authors vs 0.32, respectively), a practice that is significantly more frequent in China compared to similar countries. Finally, we find that some publishers publish work with authors from lower income countries more frequently than others.

The pandemic and changes in early career researchers' career prospects, research and publishing practices.

INTRODUCTION: As part of the Harbnger-2 project, this study aimed to discover the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on junior researchers' work-life, career prospects, research and publishing practices and networking. METHODS: An online international survey of 800 early career researchers (ECRs) was conducted in 2022. A questionnaire was developed based on three rounds of interviews and distributed using multiple channels including publishers, social media, and direct email to ECRs. RESULTS: The impact of the pandemic on career prospects, morale, job security, productivity, ability to network and collaborate, and quality and speed of peer review has on the whole been more negative than positive. A quarter of ECRs shifted their research focus to pandemic-related topics and half of those who did, benefited largely due to increased productivity and impact. The majority worked remotely/from home and more than two-thirds of those who did so benefitted from it. While virtual or hybrid conferences have been embraced by the majority of ECRs, around a third still preferred face-to-face only conferences. The use of library online platforms, Sci-Hub, ResearchGate, Google Scholar and smartphone to search and access full-text papers increased. ECRs prioritised journals with fast submission procedures for the publishing of their papers and spent more time on increasing the visibility of their research. Fees were a problem for publishing open access. CONCLUSION: Although, generally, the pandemic negatively impacted many aspects of ECRs' work-life, certain research areas and individuals benefited from being more appreciated and valued, and, in some cases, resulted in increased resources, better productivity and greater impact. Changes, such as the use of digital technologies and remote working created new opportunities for some ECRs. While continuing work flexibility and hybrid conferences might benefit some ECRs, institutions should also take measures to help those ECRs whose career and productivity have been adversely impacted.

Comparison of Clinical Study Results Reported in medRxiv Preprints vs Peer-reviewed Journal Articles.

Importance: Preprints have been widely adopted to enhance the timely dissemination of research across many scientific fields. Concerns remain that early, public access to preliminary medical research has the potential to propagate misleading or faulty research that has been conducted or interpreted in error. Objective: To evaluate the concordance among study characteristics, results, and interpretations described in preprints of clinical studies posted to medRxiv that are subsequently published in peer-reviewed journals (preprint-journal article pairs). Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study assessed all preprints describing clinical studies that were initially posted to medRxiv in September 2020 and subsequently published in a peer-reviewed journal as of September 15, 2022. Main Outcomes and Measures: For preprint-journal article pairs describing clinical trials, observational studies, and meta-analyses that measured health-related outcomes, the sample size, primary end points, corresponding results, and overarching conclusions were abstracted and compared. Sample size and results from primary end points were considered concordant if they had exact numerical equivalence. Results: Among 1399 preprints first posted on medRxiv in September 2020, a total of 1077 (77.0%) had been published as of September 15, 2022, a median of 6 months (IQR, 3-8 months) after preprint posting. Of the 547 preprint-journal article pairs describing clinical trials, observational studies, or meta-analyses, 293 (53.6%) were related to COVID-19. Of the 535 pairs reporting sample sizes in both sources, 462 (86.4%) were concordant; 43 (58.9%) of the 73 pairs with discordant sample sizes had larger samples in the journal publication. There were 534 pairs (97.6%) with concordant and 13 pairs (2.4%) with discordant primary end points. Of the 535 pairs with numerical results for the primary end points, 434 (81.1%) had concordant primary end point results; 66 of the 101 discordant pairs (65.3%) had effect estimates that were in the same direction and were statistically consistent. Overall, 526 pairs (96.2%) had concordant study interpretations, including 82 of the 101 pairs (81.2%) with discordant primary end point results. Conclusions and Relevance: Most clinical studies posted as preprints on medRxiv and subsequently published in peer-reviewed journals had concordant study characteristics, results, and final interpretations. With more than three-fourths of preprints published in journals within 24 months, these results may suggest that many preprints report findings that are consistent with the final peer-reviewed publications.

Institution and gender-related differences in publication speed before and during COVID-19.

The COVID-19 pandemic elicited a substantial hike in journal submissions and a global push to get medical evidence quickly through the review process. Editorial decisions and peer-assessments were made under intensified time constraints, which may have amplified social disparities in the outcomes of peer-reviewing, especially for COVID-19 related research. This study quantifies the differential impact of the pandemic on the duration of the peer-review process for women and men and for scientists at different strata of the institutional-prestige hierarchy. Using mixed-effects regression models with observations clustered at the journal level, we analysed newly available data on the submission and acceptance dates of 78,085 medical research articles published in 2019 and 2020. We found that institution-related disparities in the average time from manuscript submission to acceptance increased marginally in 2020, although half of the observed change was driven by speedy reviews of COVID-19 research. For COVID-19 papers, we found more substantial institution-related disparities in review times in favour of authors from highly-ranked institutions. Descriptive survival plots also indicated that scientists with prestigious affiliations benefitted more from fast-track peer reviewing than did colleagues from less reputed institutions. This difference was more pronounced for journals with a single-blind review procedure compared to journals with a double-blind review procedure. Gender-related changes in the duration of the peer-review process were small and inconsistent, although we observed a minor difference in the average review time of COVID-19 papers first authored by women and men.

Transparency and reporting characteristics of COVID-19 randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are essential to support clinical decision-making. We aimed (1) to assess and compare the reporting characteristics of RCTs between preprints and peer-reviewed publications and (2) to assess whether reporting improves after the peer review process for all preprints subsequently published in peer-reviewed journals. METHODS: We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and L·OVE COVID-19 platform to identify all reports of RCTs assessing pharmacological treatments of COVID-19, up to May 2021. We extracted indicators of transparency (e.g., trial registration, data sharing intentions) and assessed the completeness of reporting (i.e., some important CONSORT items, conflict of interest, ethical approval) using a standardized data extraction form. We also identified paired reports published in preprint and peer-reviewed publications. RESULTS: We identified 251 trial reports: 121 (48%) were first published in peer-reviewed journals, and 130 (52%) were first published as preprints. Transparency was poor. About half of trials were prospectively registered (n = 140, 56%); 38% (n = 95) made their full protocols available, and 29% (n = 72) provided access to their statistical analysis plan report. A data sharing statement was reported in 68% (n = 170) of the reports of which 91% stated their willingness to share. Completeness of reporting was low: only 32% (n = 81) of trials completely defined the pre-specified primary outcome measures; 57% (n = 143) reported the process of allocation concealment. Overall, 51% (n = 127) adequately reported the results for the primary outcomes while only 14% (n = 36) of trials adequately described harms. Primary outcome(s) reported in trial registries and published reports were inconsistent in 49% (n = 104) of trials; of them, only 15% (n = 16) disclosed outcome switching in the report. There were no major differences between preprints and peer-reviewed publications. Of the 130 RCTs published as preprints, 78 were subsequently published in a peer-reviewed journal. There was no major improvement after the journal peer review process for most items. CONCLUSIONS: Transparency, completeness, and consistency of reporting of COVID-19 clinical trials were insufficient both in preprints and peer-reviewed publications. A comparison of paired reports published in preprint and peer-reviewed publication did not indicate major improvement.

Bowel ischaemia in COVID-19 infection: a scoping review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: COVID-19 disease was declared as a pandemic by WHO since March 2020 and can have a myriad of clinical presentations affecting various organ systems. Patients with COVID-19 are known to have an increased risk of thromboembolism, including cardiovascular, pulmonary and cerebral ischaemic events. However, an increasing number of case studies have reported that COVID-19 infection is also associated with gastrointestinal ischaemia. This scoping review aims to collate the current evidence of COVID-19-related gastrointestinal ischaemia and raise awareness among healthcare professionals of this lesser known, but serious, non-pulmonary complication of COVID-19 infection. METHODS: The proposed scoping review will be conducted as per the Arksey and O'Malley methodological framework (2005) the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology for scoping reviews. A systematic search will be undertaken on different databases including EMBASE, PubMed and MEDLINE. Two independent reviewers will screen titles, abstracts and full-text articles according to the inclusion criteria and extract relevant data from the included articles. Results will be presented in a tabular form with a narrative discussion. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval will not be required for this scoping review. This scoping review will provide an extensive overview of the association between COVID-19 infection and bowel ischaemia. Further ethical and methodological challenges will also be discussed in our findings to define a new research agenda. Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and presentations at both national and international conferences.

Use of technology to provide mental health services to youth experiencing homelessness: a scoping review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Despite the importance to address mental health issues as early as possible, youth experiencing homelessness (YEH) often lack prompt and easy access to health services. Recently, there has been a surge of studies focusing on leveraging technology to improve access to mental health services for YEH; however, limited efforts have been made to synthesise this literature, which can have important implications for the planning of mental health service delivery. Thus, this scoping review aims to map and synthesise research on the use of information and communication technologies (ICTs) to provide mental health services and interventions to YEH. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A scoping review of the literature will be conducted, following Arksey and O'Malley's proposed methodology, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews and recent guidelines from the Joanna Briggs Institute. All peer-reviewed papers using ICTs as a means of intervention will be considered, as well as grey literature. Only documents in English or French will be included in the analysis. First, 10 electronic databases will be consulted. Next, all data will be extracted into Covidence. Then, two reviewers will independently conduct the screening and data extraction process, in the case of discrepancies, a third reviewer will be included. Finally, data will be synthesised according to our objectives. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval is not required, as data will be collected from published literature. Findings will be disseminated through conference presentations and peer-reviewed journals.

Reliability of citations of medRxiv preprints in articles published on COVID-19 in the world leading medical journals.

INTRODUCTION: Preprints have been widely cited during the COVID-19 pandemics, even in the major medical journals. However, since subsequent publication of preprint is not always mentioned in preprint repositories, some may be inappropriately cited or quoted. Our objectives were to assess the reliability of preprint citations in articles on COVID-19, to the rate of publication of preprints cited in these articles and to compare, if relevant, the content of the preprints to their published version. METHODS: Articles published on COVID in 2020 in the BMJ, The Lancet, the JAMA and the NEJM were manually screened to identify all articles citing at least one preprint from medRxiv. We searched PubMed, Google and Google Scholar to assess if the preprint had been published in a peer-reviewed journal, and when. Published articles were screened to assess if the title, data or conclusions were identical to the preprint version. RESULTS: Among the 205 research articles on COVID published by the four major medical journals in 2020, 60 (29.3%) cited at least one medRxiv preprint. Among the 182 preprints cited, 124 were published in a peer-reviewed journal, with 51 (41.1%) before the citing article was published online and 73 (58.9%) later. There were differences in the title, the data or the conclusion between the preprint cited and the published version for nearly half of them. MedRxiv did not mentioned the publication for 53 (42.7%) of preprints. CONCLUSIONS: More than a quarter of preprints citations were inappropriate since preprints were in fact already published at the time of publication of the citing article, often with a different content. Authors and editors should check the accuracy of the citations and of the quotations of preprints before publishing manuscripts that cite them.

Assessment of Esophagectomy Videos on YouTube: Is Peer Review Necessary for Quality?

INTRODUCTION: Various online platforms, such as YouTube, are used for surgical education. Esophageal surgery is sophisticated and surgical videos may help reduce the time it takes for surgeons to learn these complicated operations. There is no clear consensus regarding the quality and reliability of esophagectomy videos on YouTube. We aimed to evaluate esophageal surgery videos published on YouTube in terms of quality and reliability. METHODS: The keywords "esophagectomy" and "surgery" were both searched on YouTube and the first 150 results were evaluated. Eighty two videos were included in the analysis. The quality and reliability of the videos were determined using the esophagectomy scoring system (ESS) developed by the authors, the Journal of the American Medical Association benchmark criteria, and the video power index. RESULTS: A total of 82 videos were reviewed. About two-thirds of the videos demonstrated the Ivor Lewis technique and included surgeries performed using the thoracoscopic/laparoscopic method. The videos were analyzed as per the source of the upload: academic (25.7%), industry-sponsored (9.7%), or individual (64.6%). When the scores were compared by the origin of the videos, industry-sponsored videos scored significantly higher than the videos produced by individuals and academic centers (P = 0.01). While the ESS and Journal of the American Medical Association benchmark criteria scores were significantly correlated (P = 0.00), no correlation was found between video length, video power index score, and ESS score. CONCLUSIONS: Conducting a professional evaluation of videos before they are published on YouTube may enhance video quality. Moreover, valuable videos of better quality can be produced by improving the ESS and by assessing more videos.

Brilliant Ideas Can Come in All Sizes: Research Letters.

The Journal of Medical Internet Research is pleased to offer "Research Letter" as a new article type. Research Letters are similar to original and short paper types in that they report the original results of studies in a peer-reviewed, structured scientific communication. The Research Letter article type is optimal for presenting new, early, or sometimes preliminary research findings, including interesting observations from ongoing research with significant implications that justify concise and rapid communication.

A Comparative Survey Study of In-Person Versus Virtual Trauma Peer Review Meetings.

BACKGROUND: The American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma mandates regular peer review meetings for verified trauma centers. The COVID-19 pandemic forced in-person meetings to transition to an online platform. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to assess the opinions of participants regarding the benefits and negative aspects of the virtual peer review process. We hypothesize that physicians and nurses would prefer a virtual meeting format. METHODS: An anonymous online survey of members of the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma and the Society of Trauma Nurses was distributed in May and June of 2021. Demographic data and Likert scale-based responses were collected using the Research Electronic Data Capture platform. RESULTS: Invitations were sent to 1,726 physicians and 2,912 nurses. In total, 137 (8%) physicians and 141 (5%) nurses completed the survey. Both groups felt that either platform was effective in addressing opportunities for improvement in care. Physicians disagreed with the statement that anonymous online voting improved their ability to more accurately address opportunities for improvement. In total, 108 (79%) physicians and 100 (71%) nurses preferred a hybrid meeting. Only 18 (13%) physicians and 23 (16%) nurses wanted virtual meetings, whereas only 29 (21%) physicians and 36 (26%) nurses wanted in-person meetings going forward. CONCLUSIONS: Virtual and in-person trauma peer review meetings are equally effective in terms of case discussion and identifying opportunities for improvement in care. Given that most people preferred a hybrid meeting, future studies evaluating how best to incorporate and implement this format are needed.

NHS librarians collaborate to develop a search bank peer reviewing and sharing COVID-19 searches: an evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Responding to the COVID-19 pandemic, Health Education England (HEE) mobilised a group of expert searchers from NHS libraries in England to develop a platform for librarians to share peer reviewed search strategies and results on the Knowledge for Healthcare website. OBJECTIVES: (1) To document the origins of the COVID-19 search bank, (2) evaluate attitudes of NHS librarians in England towards the search bank and (3) identify lessons learned and consider whether the initiative might be developed further. METHODS: Structured interviews with the peer reviewers (n = 10) were conducted, and a questionnaire survey of the NHS library community using the search bank was undertaken. RESULTS: The interviews confirmed the value of collaboration. Expert searchers worked in pairs to peer review submitted search strategies. The survey (85 responses) indicated that a majority had used the search bank, and approved of the project, with some differences of opinion on functionality and future developments. DISCUSSION: Collaborative working for the search bank probably saved time for individual NHS librarians. The quality of the searches submitted was variable as were librarians' approaches to presentation and development of search strategies. Peer review benefits from a buddy approach among expert searchers and agreement about feedback provided to contributors. CONCLUSION: Search strategies are the most useful element of a search bank. Peer review can be challenging and would benefit from a formal structure, but it is professionally rewarding.

Charting current evidence on the health and non-health benefits and equity impacts of pandemic/epidemic individual-level economic relief programmes: a scoping review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: The emergence of a regional or global scale infectious disease outbreak often requires the implementation of economic relief programmes in affected jurisdictions to sustain societal welfare and, presumably, population health. While economic relief programmes are considered essential during a regional or global health crisis, there is no clear consensus in the literature about their health and non-health benefits and their impact on promoting equity. Thus, our objective is to map the current state of the literature with respect to the types of individual-level economic relief programmes implemented during infectious disease outbreaks and the impact of these programmes on the effectiveness of public health measures, individual and population health, non-health benefits and equity. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Our scoping review is guided by the updated Arksey and O'Malley scoping review framework. Eligible studies will be identified in eight electronic databases and grey literature using text words and subject headings of the different pandemic and epidemic infectious diseases that have occurred, and economic relief programmes. Title and abstract screening and full-text screening will be conducted independently by two trained study reviewers. Data will be extracted using a pretested data extraction form. The charting of the key findings will follow a thematic narrative approach. Our review findings will provide in-depth knowledge on whether and how benefits associated with pandemic/epidemic individual-level economic relief programmes differ across social determinants of health factors.This information is critical for decision-makers as they seek to understand the role of pandemic/epidemic economic mitigation strategies to mitigate the health impact and reduce inequity gap. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Since the scoping review methodology aims to synthesise evidence from literature, this review does not require ethical approval. Findings of our review will be disseminated to health stakeholders at policy meetings and conferences; published in a peer-review scientific journal; and disseminated on various social media platforms.

Reporting of funding and conflicts of interest improved from preprints to peer-reviewed publications of biomedical research.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: To assess changes in the reporting of funding and conflicts of interest (COI) in biomedical research between preprint server publications and their corresponding versions in peer-reviewed journals. METHODS: We selected preprint servers publishing exclusively biomedical research. From these, we screened articles by order of publication date and identified 200 preprints first published in 2020 with subsequent versions in peer-reviewed journals. We judged eligibility and extracted data about authorship, funding, and COI in duplicate and independently. We performed descriptive statistics. RESULTS: A quarter of the studies added at least one author to the peer-reviewed version. Most studies reported funding in both versions (87%), and a quarter of these added at least one funder to the peer-reviewed version. Eighteen studies (9%) reported funding only in the peer-reviewed version. A majority of studies reported COI in both versions (69%) and 5% of these had authors reporting more COI in the peer-reviewed version. A minority of studies (23%) reported COI only in the peer-reviewed version. None of the studies justified any changes in authorship, funding, or COI. CONCLUSION: Reporting of funding and COI improved in peer-reviewed versions. However, substantive percentages of studies added authors, funders, and COI disclosures in their peer-reviewed versions.

Evaluation of Citation Inaccuracies in Surgical Literature by Journal Type, Study Design, and Level of Evidence: Towards Safeguarding the Peer-Review Process.

BACKGROUND: Accurate citation practices are key to furthering knowledge in an efficient and valid manner. The aim of this study is to investigate the prevalence of citation inaccuracies in original research from the top-ranked surgical journals and to evaluate the impact level of evidence has on citation inaccuracy. METHODS: A retrospective study evaluating the citation accuracy of the top 10 ranked surgical journals using the SJCR indicators. For each year between 2015 and 2020, the top 10 cited studies were selected, totaling 60 studies from each journal. From each individual study, 10 citations were randomly selected and evaluated for accuracy. Categories of inaccuracy included fact not found, study not found, contradictory conclusion, citation of a citation, and inaccurate population. RESULTS: A total of 5973 citations were evaluated for accuracy. Of all the citations analyzed, 15.2% of them had an inaccuracy. There was no statistically significant difference in citations inaccuracy rates among the years studied (P = .38) or study level of evidence (P = .21). Annals of Surgery, Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery and Annals of Surgical Oncology had significantly more citation inaccuracies than other journals evaluated (P < .05). JAMA Surgery, The Journal of Endovascular Therapy and The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery had significantly fewer citation inaccuracies. CONCLUSIONS: Although 84.8% of citations from 2015-2020 were determined to be accurate, citation inaccuracies continue to be prevalent throughout highly-ranked surgical literature. There were no significant differences identified in citation inaccuracy rates between the years evaluated or based on study level of evidence.

BDJ Open 2021 - our most successful year to date.

This paper aims to provide an update on the previous version published towards the end of last year, titled 'BDJ Open (2019-2020) and the advantages of open access publishing'. In this paper, we will highlight articles published throughout 2021, in order to focus on which areas authors felt were important to publish open access and also which areas have been expanded upon in the journal. Furthermore, this paper will examine how open access publishing in BDJ Open has enabled the continuous process of hypothesis testing to be shared more widely, as well as how publishing protocols and early results open access gives strength to that by allowing earlier opportunity for comment by other researchers, both through the peer review process and through further correspondence to authors directly and to the journal editors who publish their work.