bims-evares Biomed News
on Evaluation of research
Issue of 2026–04–05
twenty-two papers selected by
Thomas Krichel, Open Library Society
  1. Gender and Geographic Representation Among Editors-in-chief of General Internal Medicine Journals: A Cross-sectional Study.
  2. Early Career First and Senior Authorship and Its Relation to Future Neurosurgical Leadership.
  3. Is it worth publishing Open Access? - the scientific impact of Open Access publications in the field of medical education.
  4. Benchmarking Large Language Models Against Web of Science: A Comparative Bibliometric Analysis on Panniculectomy.
  5. Decade of Perseverance and Progress in Women Authorship Trends Across JACC Journals: A Bibliometric Review.
  6. Mapping the Momentum : Evaluating Research Productivity and Collaborative Networks in Bioethics Across the Eastern Mediterranean Region.
  7. Post-publication corrections of rheumatology articles: a comprehensive analysis.
  8. Observatoire de la publication scientifique par les pharmaciens du Québec: une enquête exploratoire.
  9. International collaboration in critical care research: a 5-year bibliometric analysis of disparities between critical care studies in developed in high- and middle-/low-income countries.
  10. How to categorize citation irregularities: A proposal based on an exploration of the literature.
  11. Acknowledgment in the Scientific Literature: An Overlooked Record of Collaboration.
  12. The Power of Open Health Data: Impact, Representation, and Knowledge Diffusion.
  13. The Rise, Impact, and Imbalances of Big-Team Psychology.
  14. Collaborative relationships, disciplinary and global culture, social identity and scientific status shape how scholars cite prior work.
  15. Corruption of the Blood-Brain Barrier Literature Identified by 'Tortured Phrases': A Case Study for Bibliometric Neuroethics.
  16. Will AI-written and AI-reviewed preprints from aiXiv be bibliometrically accepted?
  17. Hallucinated citations are polluting the scientific literature. What can be done?
  18. Indian women in anaesthesia research: Touching the academic peaks.
  19. Considering Bibliometrics.
  20. An analysis of doctoral prestige and faculty composition in Canadian mechanical engineering programs.
  21. Mentorship, memory, and honor: Rita Levi-Montalcini's legacy and the role of academic recognition in promoting women in science.
  22. A responsible authorship culture is needed - it is a collective responsibility.
  1. J Gen Intern Med. 2026 Mar 30.
    Gender and Geographic Representation Among Editors-in-chief of General Internal Medicine Journals: A Cross-sectional Study.
    Paul Sebo, Ting Wang, Amrollah Shamsi.
       BACKGROUND: Gender and geographic inequities persist in academic medicine. This study examined the gender and country of affiliation of editors-in-chief (EICs) of general internal medicine journals and assessed disparities across journal impact levels.
    METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of all journals indexed in the 2024 Journal Citation Reports under "MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL" with an impact factor ≥ 0.2. Gender and country of affiliation of EICs were extracted from journal websites, and journal country from the SCImago Journal & Country Rank. Countries were categorized by World Bank income level. Descriptive statistics and weighted logistic regression models examined differences across impact quartiles (Q1-Q4). To contextualize findings, gender and geographic distributions of EICs in Q1 journals were compared with previously published authorship benchmarks from 202,092 publications in the 50 highest-impact journals (2012-2021).
    RESULTS: Among 304 eligible journals, 347 EICs were identified; 77.8% were men and 22.2% were women, with no significant variation across impact quartiles. Most EICs were affiliated with high-income countries (67.2%), decreasing with journal impact (Q1: 85.9%; Q2: 75.7%; Q3-Q4: 48.6%; p < 0.001). In Q1 journals, 25.0% of EICs were women versus 40.6% female first authors and 33.0% female last authors in the benchmark study, indicating a more pronounced gender imbalance at the leadership level, while geographic patterns were similar.
    CONCLUSION: EICs of general internal medicine journals are predominantly men and mainly affiliated with institutions in high-income countries, especially in high-impact journals. Initiatives promoting equity in scientific publishing should include editorial leadership, where disparities remain substantial.
    Keywords:  academic publishing; authorship; country; disparity; diversity; editor-in-chief; equity; gender; general internal medicine; geographic; impact factor; inequity; journal; leadership; research; woman
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-026-10370-1
  2. Neurosurgery. 2026 Apr 02.
    Early Career First and Senior Authorship and Its Relation to Future Neurosurgical Leadership.
    Diwas Gautam, Allison Liang, Kristin L Kraus, Robert C Rennert, William T Couldwell.
       BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Assessing the future academic potential of neurosurgery residency applicants is challenging. Metrics such as total publications and H-index fail to capture differences in authorship roles. First and senior authors typically contribute the most, reflecting initiative and ownership. We hypothesized that individuals with more first-author or senior-author publications in their first 10 academic years are more likely to later hold departmental leadership roles.
    METHODS: We randomly selected a sample of 50 US academic neurosurgery programs and identified department chairs and program directors. Each leader was matched with a control subject based on academic rank and degree. Using PubMed, we quantified the numbers of total, first-author, senior-author, and combined first-/senior-author publications published in the 10 years after each individual's first publication and the H-index based on that 10-year span and compared these metrics between leaders and controls.
    RESULTS: Among 200 neurosurgeons (100 leaders, 100 controls), there were no significant differences in academic rank (P = .902) or degree (P = .700). Leaders and nonleaders had a similar overall publication output in their first 10 years (P = .077); however, leaders had significantly more first-author-only publications (9.23 vs 6.55, P = .033) and combined first-author and senior-author publications (15.73 vs 9.85, P = .005) and a higher H-index based on early work (13.04 vs 10.20, P = .028). On multivariable analysis controlling for degree, the number of first/senior-author publications was independently associated with higher odds of holding a leadership position (odds ratio 1.054; 95% CI, 1.008-1.108; P = .022). Total publication count and H-index were not significant predictors.
    CONCLUSION: The number of first-author or senior-author publications within the first 10 years of publishing is a stronger predictor of future neurosurgical leadership than overall publication count or early-career H-index. Tracking first/senior authorships-which demand greater initiative, ownership, and dedication-may provide a simple and fast way to identify future academic leaders among neurosurgery applicants.
    Keywords:  Academic performance; Authorship; Internship and residency; Leadership; Neurosurgery; Publications
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1227/neu.0000000000004025
  3. Med Educ Online. 2026 Dec 31. 31(1): 2652722
    Is it worth publishing Open Access? - the scientific impact of Open Access publications in the field of medical education.
    Hendrik Friederichs.
       INTRODUCTION: In medical education research, the transfer of knowledge depends heavily on the visibility of scientific publications. Whether Open Access (OA) actually increases this visibility through a citation advantage (Open Access Citation Advantage, OACA) is still unclear for the field of medical education. This study aims to determine the existence and size of an OACA for medical education articles indexed in PubMed between 2010 and 2019.
    METHOD: In a retrospective bibliometric cohort study, all entries classified as research articles by iCite® with the MeSH term 'Medical Education' (N = 43,275) were analysed. OA was defined by the presence of a PubMed Central identifier (PMCID). Primary endpoints were total citations, citations per year, and the Relative Citation Ratio (RCR). Group comparisons were made using Yuen‑Welch t‑tests (20 % trimmed means, α = 0.05). Sensitivity analyses included negative binomial regression with year and journal fixed effects, and quantile regression for RCR.
    RESULTS: 21.2% of articles had a PMCID. PMCID-indexed publications showed higher trimmed means for total citations (10.31 vs. 7.00), annual citations (1.29 vs. 0.79), and RCR (0.79 vs. 0.49; all p < .001). Robust effect sizes (δˆRAKP, Algina-Keselman-Penfield robust standardized difference) ranged from 0.27 to 0.35 (small to medium). Negative binomial models with year and journal fixed effects confirmed these findings (IRR range: 1.53-1.67).
    CONCLUSIONS: PMCID-indexed articles in the field of medical education are cited significantly more frequently and have higher field‑normalised impact values than non‑OA publications. Despite financial hurdles and methodological limitations including potential selection bias, the moderate OACA supports strategically expanding OA publication funds to maximise the reach and impact of medical education research. Prospective studies should consider different OA types, altmetrics, and potential confounders to pinpoint the impacts of OA.
    Keywords:  Medical education; Open Access; bibliometrics; research article; scientific impact
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1080/10872981.2026.2652722
  4. Ann Plast Surg. 2026 Mar 30.
    Benchmarking Large Language Models Against Web of Science: A Comparative Bibliometric Analysis on Panniculectomy.
    Rohan Mangal, Mark Jessup, Anshumi Desai, Archan Khandekar, Soumil Prasad, Kashyap Komarraju Tadisina, Devinder Singh.
       BACKGROUND: As large language models (LLMs) grow in sophistication, their potential role in scientific writing is being explored with growing interest and caution. However, LLMs vary in their performance, contextual accuracy, and reliability. This study compares the outputs of 3 leading LLMs (ChatGPT-4o, Deepseek, and Claude 3.7) against a manually curated bibliometric analysis of the most highly cited panniculectomy articles.
    METHODS: The 50 most highly cited panniculectomy publications were manually extracted from Web of Science (WoS) to serve as a reference data set. ChatGPT-4o, Deepseek, and Claude 3.7 Sonnet were each prompted to generate their own list of the 50 most cited panniculectomy articles. Outputs were compared across citation totals and averages, publication year trends, journal distribution, author co-occurrence, and article authenticity.
    RESULTS: The manual data set totaled 2494 citations (density: 49.8). ChatGPT-4o, Deepseek, and Claude 3.7 produced 2111 (42.2), 4736 (94.7), and 8592 (171.8) citations, respectively. Overlap with the manual list was limited: ChatGPT-4o (14.00%), Claude 3.7 (4.00%), Deepseek (0.00%) (P<0.001). "Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery" was the most cited journal across all outputs. Unique authors: manual (241), ChatGPT-4o (114), Deepseek (72), and Claude 3.7 (129). Article accuracy: ChatGPT-4o had 34.00% accurate, 26.00% confabulated, and 40.00% hallucinated articles. Claude 3.7: 4.00% accurate, 26.00% confabulated, and 70.00% hallucinated. Deepseek: 100.00% hallucinated (P<0.001). Year trends and journal representation varied notably from the manual set.
    CONCLUSIONS: Current LLMs struggle to replicate accurate bibliometric data. ChatGPT-4o performed best but still showed major limitations. WoS remains the gold standard, and LLM-generated outputs should be treated cautiously in bibliometric analyses.
    Keywords:  LLM; artificial intelligence; bibliometric; panniculectomy
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1097/SAP.0000000000004730
  5. JACC Adv. 2026 Mar 23. pii: S2772-963X(26)00101-8. [Epub ahead of print] 102683
    Decade of Perseverance and Progress in Women Authorship Trends Across JACC Journals: A Bibliometric Review.
    Abhinavya Egala, Satish Kumar Rentapalla, Bhanu Duggal.
      
    Keywords:  authorship; cardiology; gender equity; women
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacadv.2026.102683
  6. J Bioeth Inq. 2026 Mar 30.
    Mapping the Momentum : Evaluating Research Productivity and Collaborative Networks in Bioethics Across the Eastern Mediterranean Region.
    Amirhossein Mardani, Abdalsamd Keramatfar, Mahshad Noroozi, Alireza Parsapoor, Ahmed Mandil, Arash Rashidian, Ehsan Shamsi Gooshki.
      Identifying the trends and patterns of bioethics research in the Eastern Mediterranean Region provides valuable insights into research interests and productivity. This study aimed to evaluate the region's bioethics research outputs between 1974-2022 using a bibliometric approach. Publications from countries in the region indexed in Web of Science, Scopus, and PubMed were analysed. The results showed a clear upward trend, with an average annual growth rate of 39 per cent in bioethics publications, while the growth rate of citations was nearly twice as high. Iran was identified as the most prolific country, followed by Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. However, intra-regional and extra-regional co-authorships accounted for only 7 per cent and 17 per cent of publications, respectively, indicating limited research collaboration. The main non-regional collaborators were the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom. Further development of bioethics research in the region requires strengthened capacity building at both national and regional levels.
    Keywords:  Bibliometrics; Bioethics; Eastern Mediterranean Region; Research productivity
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-025-10532-6
  7. Adv Rheumatol. 2026 Mar 31.
    Post-publication corrections of rheumatology articles: a comprehensive analysis.
    Bekir Torun, Erhan Kaya.
       OBJECTIVES: With the growing volume of scientific publications in recent years, both unintentional errors and instances of scientific misconduct have become increasingly common. These errors may include typographical mistakes, inaccuracies in author information, and issues in figures, tables, references, or other sections of articles. This study aims to identify and categorize the most frequent errors in rheumatology publications instead of to provide insights for improving the accuracy and credibility of scientific literature.
    METHODS: Articles published and subsequently corrected in the field of rheumatology between 2000 and 2024 were retrieved from the Web of Science database. A total of 1,716 corrected articles were systematically analyzed for the type, frequency, and severity of errors.
    RESULTS: A total of 1,825 errors were identified, with 36 articles requiring major corrections. The most frequently affected sections included author names and institutional affiliations (644 errors), tables and figures (537 errors), and the results section (164 errors), followed by funding statements, materials and methods, and references. Less frequent issues included errors related to ethics approval, conflicts of interest, plagiarism, and incorrect data. Proportion of articles with major corrections (36 out of 1,716; 2.1%), 19 of them were retracted and the relative distribution of error types (e.g., author information errors constituted 35.2% of total errors).
    CONCLUSIONS: Authors, editors, and publishers share responsibility for maintaining the integrity of published research. Sections such as author information, tables, figures, and results are shown to be at high risk for errors. Careful review and editorial oversight can minimize errors, prevent misinterpretation, and enhance the overall reliability of scientific publications.
    CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
    Keywords:  Corrigendum; Erratum; Publication errors; Research integrity; Rheumatology; Scientific publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1186/s42358-026-00537-z
  8. Ann Pharm Fr. 2026 Apr 01. pii: S0003-4509(26)00041-6. [Epub ahead of print]
    Observatoire de la publication scientifique par les pharmaciens du Québec: une enquête exploratoire.
    Juliette Mutin, Marine Elluard, Maxime Bergeron, Jean-François Bussières.
       BACKGROUND: Scientific publishing plays a central role in healthcare by supporting knowledge dissemination, clinical decision-making, and professional recognition. An Observatory of Scientific Publications by Quebec Pharmacists was launched in September 2025 (https://observatoireppq.org).
    OBJECTIVE: To assess Quebec hospital pharmacists' knowledge of bibliometrics and their perceptions of scientific publishing and of the provincial observatory.
    METHODS: A descriptive cross-sectional study was conducted using an online survey distributed to Quebec hospital pharmacists and pharmacy residents. The questionnaire collected respondent characteristics, self-reported publication activity, knowledge of bibliometric indicators (impact factor, h-index, i10-index, SIGAPS, SAMPRA), and perceptions of scientific publishing and the observatory measured using Likert scales. Descriptive statistics were used.
    RESULTS: A total of 494 usable responses were obtained. Nearly 40% of respondents were unable to estimate the annual volume of publications by Quebec hospital pharmacists, and only 12% reported knowing what bibliometrics is. The impact factor was known by 64% of respondents, whereas very few knew their h-index (3%) or i10-index (2%), and none had heard of SIGAPS or SAMPRA. Scientific publishing was widely perceived as important, with 98% considering a provincial observatory to be relevant. More than 95% believed that highlighting publications could improve recognition, engagement, and funding for this activity. The observatory was rated as useful and user-friendly by over 95% of respondents, and 94% reported being willing to submit their publications annually.
    CONCLUSION: Despite limited knowledge of bibliometrics, Quebec hospital pharmacists express strong support for the structured valorization of their scientific output and a high level of acceptance of the provincial observatory.
    Keywords:  Hospital pharmacist; Pharmacien hospitalier; enquête; perception; publication; satisfaction; survey
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pharma.2026.03.003
  9. Crit Care Sci. 2026 ;pii: S2965-27742026000101810. [Epub ahead of print]38 e20260420
    International collaboration in critical care research: a 5-year bibliometric analysis of disparities between critical care studies in developed in high- and middle-/low-income countries.
    Renato Daltro-Oliveira, Victor Hugo Ferreira, Amanda Quintairos, Filipe Sousa Amado, Laura Inez de Oliveira Santos, Jorge Ibrain Figueira Salluh, Antonio Paulo Nassar Júnior.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.62675/2965-2774.20260420
  10. Account Res. 2026 Apr 02. 2654564
    How to categorize citation irregularities: A proposal based on an exploration of the literature.
    Qilin Zhang, Yitong Li, Lex Bouter.
       BACKGORUND: Citation irregularities undermine the fairness and reliability of scholarly communication, yet the terms used to describe these behaviors remain fragmented and inconsistently defined.
    METHODS: We employed a backward‑snowballing strategy to identify relevant publications on the historical development of views on citation irregularities, with particular attention to the literal meaning and the conceptual evolution of terms.
    RESULTS: Through an inductive analysis of the 50 distinct terms identified, we propose a classification consisting of nine categories: mis-citation, citation distortion, uncritical citation, irrelevant citation, excessive self-citation, citation manipulation, selective citation, coercive citation, and bibliographic plagiarism.
    CONCLUSIONS: The classification functions as a multi‑dimensional descriptive tool, and an instance of citation irregularity may fall into more than one category. This classification helps to clarify citation irregularities and provides a structured framework for understanding their underlying patterns.
    Keywords:  Citation irregularities; citation misconduct; research integrity; research misconduct
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2026.2654564
  11. Indian J Psychol Med. 2026 Mar 29. 02537176261429867
    Acknowledgment in the Scientific Literature: An Overlooked Record of Collaboration.
    Rajshekhar Bipeta.
      In scientific writing, it is important to recognize research contributions that do not qualify for authorship. However, acknowledgment sections are often short and lack a consistent structure. This article examines how acknowledgment statements document these contributions and reviews bibliometric evidence indicating that acknowledgments reveal types of collaboration not reflected in author lists. Examples from mental health research show how field teams and people with lived experience are recognized. Paying more attention to acknowledgment practices, along with established authorship and contributorship frameworks, could help better represent the many ways people contribute to research.
    Keywords:  Authorship; ethics; professional relationships; publishing; social responsibility
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1177/02537176261429867
  12. medRxiv. 2026 Mar 25. pii: 2026.03.20.26348933. [Epub ahead of print]
    The Power of Open Health Data: Impact, Representation, and Knowledge Diffusion.
    Rahul Gorijavolu, Miguel Ángel Armengol de la Hoz, Catherine Bielick, Sebastian Cajas, Marie-Laure Charpignon, Aya El Mir, Judy W Gichoya, Hyunjung Gloria Kwak, Kaushik Madapati, Heather Mattie, Lucas McCullum, Rogers Mwavu, Vishnu Nair, Luis Filipe Nakayama, Josephine Nanyonjo, Lama Nazer, Milit S Patel, Christopher M Sauer, Leo A Celi.
       Background: Open health data repositories receive billions in public funding, yet no systematic framework exists to evaluate their downstream scholarly impact, the composition of the research communities they cultivate, or the breadth of disciplines they reach. We introduce a two-degree citation methodology to quantify knowledge diffusion from open data, normalized by funding, and apply it to four major health data repositories.
    Methods: Using the OpenAlex bibliometric database (January-February 2026), we identified all first-degree citing publications ( n = 30,049) and their second-degree citing publications ( n = 485,396), defined as papers citing those first-degree publications, for MIMIC (versions I- IV; retrospective EHR data; $14.4M), UK Biobank (prospective cohort with genomics; $525.5M), OpenSAFELY (federated EHR platform; $53.7M), and All of Us (prospective national cohort with biobanking and community engagement; $2,160M). We extracted author demographics (gender via Genderize.io, institutional country income via World Bank 2024 classifications) and research topics. Chi-square tests with odds ratios assessed demographic differences across repositories.
    Results: Funding-normalized first-degree papers per $1M ranged from 689 (MIMIC) to 1 (All of Us), though these figures reflect total program investment, which included community engagement and biobanking for prospective cohorts in addition to data-curation costs. The citation amplification ratio was consistent across these four repositories (9.3-11.5×). Author demographics differed significantly ( p < 0.001): LMIC authorship ranged from 41.8% (MIMIC) to 4.3% (All of Us), while female authorship showed the opposite pattern, lowest for MIMIC (31.8%) and highest for All of Us (43.2%). Female authors were consistently underrepresented in senior (last-author) compared with first-author positions across all repositories. Differences in scope, design, and what funding covers limit direct comparisons.
    Conclusions: Open health data generates a consistent ∼10× indirect citation amplification beyond its direct users, a ratio that held across repositories spanning over two orders of magnitude in funding. The large differences in funding-normalized output partly reflect structural differences between retrospective databases and prospective cohorts. Low-cost access combined with intentional community building attracted globally diverse research communities with LMIC investigators in intellectual leadership positions, while a persistent gender gap in senior authorship across all repositories reflects disciplinary and structural inequities that data access policies alone cannot address. Future evaluations of open data investments should examine who is producing research, from where, in what positions, and whether their participation translates into locally relevant knowledge production.
    Take-home message: Open health data shows a consistent ∼10× citation amplification ratio beyond direct users. Low-barrier access and active community-building are associated with globally diverse research communities, including LMIC researchers in leadership positions, yet representational equity in authorship does not guarantee locally relevant knowledge production. A persistent gender gap in senior authorship across all repositories reflects disciplinary and structural inequities that data access policies alone cannot address.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.03.20.26348933
  13. Psychol Sci. 2026 Apr 03. 9567976261433459
    The Rise, Impact, and Imbalances of Big-Team Psychology.
    Nicholas A Coles, João Francisco Goes Braga Takayanagi, Gabrielle L Grant, Dana M Basnight-Brown.
      The present work evaluates the rise, impact, and imbalances of big-team psychology via an analysis of 3,023,895 articles published in the 21st century. Results indicate that big teams-ranging from 10 to more than 100 authors-are relatively unusual (n = 49,695) but increasing in popularity. More notably, such collaborations generate unusually high impact in terms of yearly mentions in scholarly articles (n = 39,788,158), the news (n = 1,018,639), social media (n = 5,971,965), and policy documents (n = 69,959). An examination of country-level sociocultural indicators revealed that first authors, in general, tend to be in regions that are relatively WEIRD: Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic. However, this imbalance is slightly more pronounced among larger teams. In summary, results suggest that big-team science is an emerging trend in psychology-one that is unevenly deployed across world regions to generate high-impact scientific insights.
    Keywords:  WEIRD; big-team science; collaboration; collective intelligence; metascience; team science
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1177/09567976261433459
  14. Commun Psychol. 2026 Mar 30.
    Collaborative relationships, disciplinary and global culture, social identity and scientific status shape how scholars cite prior work.
    Xiaohuan Xia, Mathieu Ouellet, Shubhankar P Patankar, Isabella C Stallworthy, Julia K Brynildsen, Diana I Tamir, Dani S Bassett.
      Modern science is formally structured around scholarly publication, where scientific knowledge is canonized through citation. Precisely how citations are given and accrued can provide information about the value of discovery, the history of scientific ideas, the structure of fields, and the space or scope of inquiry. Yet parsing this information has been challenging because citations are not simply present or absent; rather, they differ in purpose, function, and sentiment. In this paper, we investigated how critical and favorable sentiments were distributed across citations, and tested the hypothesis that more favorable sentiment would be utilized among ingroup members, whereas more critical sentiment would be utilized toward outgroup members. We considered three group types: collaborators, those with a similar h-index, and those with the same gender. We observed that citation sentiment was more favorable to collaborators than non-collaborators, an effect that was modulated by both gender and h-index. Further, we observed that disciplinary and country-level factors impacting a scholar's perception of the size of their ingroup also explained citation sentiment: Largely experimental fields that engage in regular scholarly synthesis through review articles employed less citation sentiment, as did countries with more collectivist attitudes and greater acceptance of social hierarchies. Collectively, we demonstrated how sociocultural groups displayed ingroup preferences in the use of sentiment in scientific communication. Our study contributes to a broader understanding of how human factors influence the practice of science, and underscores the importance of considering the larger sociocultural contexts in which science progresses.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/s44271-026-00450-7
  15. Curr Alzheimer Res. 2026 Mar 26.
    Corruption of the Blood-Brain Barrier Literature Identified by 'Tortured Phrases': A Case Study for Bibliometric Neuroethics.
    Jaime A Teixeira da Silva, Timothy Daly, Serhii Nazarovets.
      Patients living with a neurological disease depend on the integrity of the neuroscience literature to improve the probability of effective treatments becoming available to them. The BloodBrain Barrier (BBB) is one of the key components of the nervous system, and its dysfunction is implicated in different neurological diseases. Non-standardized terms (or 'tortured phrases'; TP) to describe the BBB have emerged in the indexed and non-indexed literature, and their use is suggestive of low-quality science or even misconduct. A total of 13 variants of BBB TPs were initially discovered on Google Scholar on 18-20 April 2024, followed by new variants and cases on 21-30 May 2025. In total, 260 documents (220 journal papers, 26 book chapters, eight conference proceedings, and six preprints), with and without a DOI, were identified. The three most common variants (i.e., TPs) of BBB were blood-brain obstruction, blood-brain boundary, and blood-cerebrum boundary/hindrance, identified in 84, 58, and 31 documents, respectively. Only two variants (bloodmind boundary and blood-brain obstruction) were found in the Tortured Phrase Detector of the Problematic Paper Screener, while a total of four and one documents in Scopus and Web of Science Core Collections databases, respectively, contained any of these BBB TPs. The existence of these 19 variants of TPs suggests the corruption of the associated BBB literature. This study provides a methodological case study for neuroethicists wishing to use bibliometric methods to identify problematic instances of low-quality or insufficiently vetted neuroscience research via an approach that we term "bibliometric neuroethics."
    Keywords:  Blood-brain barrier; bibliometric methods; misconduct; neuroethics; neuroscience.; tortured phrases
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.2174/0115672050460224260206052444
  16. Health Aff Sch. 2026 Mar;4(3): qxag064
    Will AI-written and AI-reviewed preprints from aiXiv be bibliometrically accepted?
    Jaime A Teixeira da Silva.
      The preprint server aiXiv allows documents to be authored and/or peer-reviewed exclusively by generative artificial intelligence (GAI). Journal editors may find themselves in an ethical bind-either embracing preprints and GAI, or sanctioning them, including by banning the citation of GAI-generated knowledge. Will GAI-generated or GAI-reviewed content become indexed in major scientific databases, including in peer-reviewed articles citing it?
    Keywords:  conflict; editorial standards; publishing ethics; risk; transparency
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1093/haschl/qxag064
  17. Nature. 2026 Apr;652(8108): 26-29
    Hallucinated citations are polluting the scientific literature. What can be done?
    Miryam Naddaf, Elizabeth Quill.
      
    Keywords:  Ethics; Machine learning; Publishing; Scientific community
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-026-00969-z
  18. Indian J Anaesth. 2026 Mar;70(3): 394-398
    Indian women in anaesthesia research: Touching the academic peaks.
    R Sripriya, Ridhima Sharma, Srilata Moningi, Kousalya Chakravarthy.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.4103/ija.ija_331_26
  19. J Perianesth Nurs. 2026 Apr;pii: S1089-9472(26)00022-5. [Epub ahead of print]41(2): 544
    Considering Bibliometrics.
    Susan J Fetzer.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jopan.2026.01.008
  20. PLoS One. 2026 ;21(3): e0344491
    An analysis of doctoral prestige and faculty composition in Canadian mechanical engineering programs.
    W Brent Lievers, Katie A Goggins, Marc Arsenault.
      Faculty positions at institutions of higher education are limited resources for which there is a high level of competition. Previous studies have shown that a hierarchy of prestige exists within academia which leads to 80% of those positions being filled by the doctoral graduates from only 20% of institutions. The goal of the current study is to determine whether such a hierarchy also exists within Canadian mechanical engineering programs and to consider other demographic differences within their faculty complements. Information on over 1100 faculty members from the 38 accredited Canadian mechanical engineering programs were gathered from public sources, including their doctoral training institution, their year of graduation, and the name(s) of their faculty advisor(s). It was found that 22% of institutions were responsible for the doctoral training of 78% of faculty members. A PageRank analysis, coupled with k-means clustering, identified four tiers of doctoral prestige and demonstrated that few trainees are hired by a more prestigious institution. For example, only 9% of those trained at a Tier III institution were hired by a Tier II and none by a Tier I institution. Academic advisors also played an important role; 11 unique advisors had five or more of their trainees currently employed in those 38 programs. Only 16.7% of faculty members were female-presenting, lower than the 17.5% proportion of so-called "self-hires" (i.e., those employed by the institution where they did their doctoral training). This study provides analytical tools for quantifying institutional prestige as well as a demographic snapshot of Canadian mechanical engineering faculty that can be used to analyze other fields and jurisdictions. Further research in faculty hiring will benefit students looking to pursue careers in academia, as well as guide those responsible for ensuring equitable hiring practices.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0344491
  21. Front Mol Neurosci. 2026 ;19 1775988
    Mentorship, memory, and honor: Rita Levi-Montalcini's legacy and the role of academic recognition in promoting women in science.
    Léa Sun, Guila Delouya, Daniel Taussky.
      The contemporary vignette highlights how the mentorship model exemplified by Rita Levi-Montalcini continues to foster scientific identity, confidence, and career progression, especially among women and minorities facing systemic barriers. Through a mixed-methods narrative approach, combining historical-biographical review, qualitative analysis of a contemporary mentee vignette, and bibliometric insights. Levi-Montalcini's own experience under Giuseppe Levi's mentorship demonstrated the critical psychosocial and instrumental support necessary to develop resilience and scientific rigor. This research highlights how mentorship by Giuseppe Levi shaped Levi-Montalcini's scientific rigor and resilience, contributing to her Nobel Prize-winning discoveries. Similarly, modern mentorship and institutional honors serve to counteract stereotype threats and enhance retention by providing recognition through awards and leadership roles, reflecting Levi-Montalcini's legacy of transforming private perseverance into a public authority. This study underscores that structured mentorship programs and transparent recognition systems, inspired by Levi-Montalcini's trajectory, are essential for universities to promote inclusive excellence and empower emerging women scientists in STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) fields.
    Keywords:  Rita Levi-Montalcini; STEM; institutional honors; legacy; mentorship
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3389/fnmol.2026.1775988
  22. Nature. 2026 Apr;652(8108): 266
    A responsible authorship culture is needed - it is a collective responsibility.
    Véronique Kiermer, Kirsten Bibbins-Domingo, Magdalena Skipper.
      
    Keywords:  Authorship; Publishing; Research management; Scientific community
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-026-00997-9
This page is being maintained by Thomas Krichel. It was last updated on 2026‒04‒25 at 23:32.