Abstract
Healthy curiosity, dissent from the main stream and open debate are essential to progress in science and must be welcome at all times. Peter Rhodes, 2026 (3)
Dear colleagues,
We are happy to share the news of the released Impact Factors (IF): we received an IF of 0.9, which is slightly up from the Journal’s score of the last year (0.8).
We make a difference! We do!
In the third issue of the International Journal of Risk & Safety in Medicine (IJRSM) for the year 2026 (37.3) the Editorial board is excited to present to our global audiences 26 new articles, which is a record number of contributions per issue!
With this issue we celebrate our outstanding authors, who work for research integrity, the values of independent health research and individual thinking, who enlighten us with new ideas and research hypotheses, equip us with strong evidence, and call for health interventions and health systems becoming effective and safe for all the people of the globe.
The 37 (3) August issue welcomes important papers from universities, academia, health institutions, NGOs and R&D departments of manufacturers from all over the world: Australia, Brazil, Canada, Check Republic, China, Denmark, Egypt, India, Iraq, Italy, Japan, Malta, Morocco, Nigeria, Norway, Sweden, Tanzania, Turkey, and the United Kingdom.
This issue is also rich in the diversity of article genres: we have two review papers, three opinion essays, a letter to the editor, an expression of concern, two short communications, 4 case reports and 13 research articles.
Methods and study designs used in the articles range from surveys and cross-sectional studies, retrospective cohort and case studies or observations to prospective studies, reviews, including a systematic review and a new analysis the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) for ocular adverse reactions associated with intraocular pressure-reducing medicines.
As a whole, all the 26 papers of the issue make a great learning read for all of us. Together the papers emphasise that progress in managing risks and fostering safety in medicine depend on the same core principles across all levels of health care and all available research designs: patient safety first, independent individual thinking, responsibility and liability.
The Editorial Board opens this issue with two review articles to draw attention to the potential of risk prevention and proactive activities for patient safety. The authors of the review “Preventable in-body hydrogen explosions from high-concentration H2 inhalers in Japan — Switch to safe, low-concentration hydrogen therapy” advocate for immediate transition to low-concentration H2 inhalers (≤10% v/v) to eliminate life-threatening risks for patients without compromising clinical effectiveness by providing effective concentration. 1
The systematic review “Proactive risk analysis in chemotherapy nursing processes: a systematic review of FMEA/FMECA applications” by the author team from Italy provides evidence of effects and recommend use of proactive risk analysis tools (Failure Mode and Effects Analysis, FMEA, and its variant with Criticality Analysis, FMECA) in chemotherapy practice with the active involvement of nurses to enhance patient safety. 2
The important highlight, the keynote of this issue is the opinion essay by Dr Peter Rhodes from Universities of Cambridge, UK, and Queensland, Australia, “Medical science and the madness of crowds; context for our COVID pandemic years,” 3 which opens the series of opinion essays of the current issue.
This essay comes as a logical thinking lesson and continuation of the series of papers, published over the last and this year by a number of our distinguished authors, that bring together a more balanced understanding of COVID-19 vaccines effects, in particular, research on the vaccines’ potential harm and possible contributing to excess mortality, with important academic discourse in the Journal.4–9
In the second opinion essay of the current issue, Dr Raphael Lataster from Okay Then News, Sydney, Australia, critically analyses all these papers and the active discussion they created in the Journal. 10
Dr Lataster calls for methodological clarity and concludes that the criticisms of the research papers, which suggest potential harm of the COVID-19 vaccines, raised by the discussing authors5,7 are unsuccessful in toning down the concerns raised by the new research findings, and that ongoing scrutiny on COVID-19 vaccines is warranted and necessary. This essay is the “Must read,” recommended editors’ choice for all researchers.
Dr Rhodes in his paper provides beautiful explanation to this important discussion by referring to classical philosophy and building his stance on philosophical basics, starting from Friedrich Nietzsche.
Dr Rhodes explains that “Loss of the individual to the group can occur on any scale, from ‘group-think’ cognitive bias, through the eager madness of a literal crowd, to the modern global reach of propaganda and technocratic totalitarianism.” 3
The editors recommend this excellent thought-provoking work as a “Must read”, as it is a foundation for both, research and clinical practical work in health systems.
The COVID-19 theme is further explored for risks and safety in two publications of the current issue.
Dr Vibeke Manniche with coauthors from Denmark, Sweden and Czech Republic in their short communication present nationwide analysis of suspected adverse events following COVID-19 vaccination in Germany and report preliminary results of batch-dependent safety signals, advocating for more studies into the batch problem safety. 7
Dr Raphael Lataster from the University of Sydney, NSW, Australia, as an individual thinker and author, reports on the results of an ecological study considering COVID-19, the lockdowns, and the vaccines, analysing the causes of excess deaths of Australians in 2021, and beyond. 9 Both papers provide new lessons that we keep learning from COVID-19 pandemic.
Among the valuable research papers, the editors would like to showcase the value of pioneering research of another individual, Dr Joel Lexchin from School of Health Policy and Management, York University, Toronto, and the Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of Toronto, Canada, its contribution to the global knowledge in pharmaceuticals’ regulatory research.
Dr Lexchin’s cross-sectional study “Risk Management Plans and Drug Safety in Canada” provides the critique to the regulatory practice on the basis of his analysis of available information on risk management for 385 new active substances approved by Health Canada between 2015 and 2025. 11
Dr Lexchin calls for public disclosure and regular updates of risk management plans, for clear monitoring frameworks as the core safety principles articulated in other research contributions in this issue. This research has clear policy implications for Health Canada and globally to enhance pharmaceutical safety and minimise potential risks of medicine use.
In a short editorial it is not possible to reflect on every published paper of the issue, but they all are very important.
All the research papers, short communications, case reports, commentaries and letters to the editor of this issue come together in doing more than documenting risk in medicine, the papers offer a roadmap for a more responsive health policy and regulatory systems, for safety culture and culture of thinking in medical science and healthcare, for values of critical individual thinking, demanding evidence, centring equity, prioritising prevention and education and ultimately the individual patient.
On behalf of the editorial board, we heartily thank all the authors of this powerful issue for their valuable contributions, for their brilliant individual and team work!
The editors invite you to use this issue as a handbook-on-your-desk in your day-to-day work and life, as a source of many important lessons in health/medical science, health education, health policy research and practice and everyday clinical practice in patient safety and risk prevention and management at all levels of care and at all levels of research-informed health policy decision-making.
We have no doubt that you appreciate the brilliant thoughts and ideas of the authors and enjoy reading this issue.
We cannot resist from finalising the Editorial with the words of Dr Rhodes:
“Science is characterised by empathy between the observer and the observed. No one is exempt from the risks of a totalitarised mindset, but each and everyone of us can protect autonomy, embrace creativity, cultivate doubt and uphold the timeless nature…”