This episode discusses the retraction of papers, readability of published articles, reporting of negative findings, participation of female authors in the production of manuscripts and the degree to which they collaborate internationally on research papers.

This episode distinguishes among altmetrics, which measures an article’s real-time reach and influence; biased metrics, which relate to favoring authors from elite institutions; and contentious metrics, which aim to measure impact differently from Impact Factors.

This episode acknowledges that some academic libraries are finding it increasingly difficult to meet the costs of current journal subscriptions while also recognizing that many papers that are published defy efforts to replicate their findings because of implausible, unreliable data.

This episode relates how a growth in the number of scientists and publications has resulted in millions of articles being published every year while large bodies of published research are unreliable and reporting biases exist across multiple fields of research and a variety of forms. 

This episode refers to a survey conducted as a way of identifying topics of interest to Journal of Allied Health readers and factors that affect the length of time articles are in the journal’s system before a final decision is made regarding publication acceptance or rejection.

This episode lists some defects associated with the use of Impact Factors, the number of journals that solicit the submission of articles, and the predatory nature of some open access periodicals that employ questionable marketing and peer review practices.

This episode examines the role that paradigms play in possibly constricting the range of problems to be investigated, along with recognizing the importance of having articles submitted to the Journal of Allied Health that examine future allied health workforce needs.

This episode indicates how observational studies preclude the possibility of drawing conclusions between cause and effect, the ever-growing volume of articles published each year in journals, and the relevance of publication bias.

This episode provides data about acceptance rates and the number of days articles submitted to the journal are in the system, along with information about the professions represented in manuscripts and major topics addressed.

This episode discusses the adequacy of the peer review process and refers to examples identified during the Seventh International Congress on Peer Review and Biomedical Publication and also how peer review has been called into question regarding papers funded by the NIH.