bims-skolko Biomed News
on Scholarly communication
Issue of 2023–04–30
twenty-two papers selected by
Thomas Krichel, Open Library Society
  1. Comparing scientific abstracts generated by ChatGPT to real abstracts with detectors and blinded human reviewers.
  2. Prolific non-research authors in high impact scientific journals: meta-research study.
  3. How are authors' contributions verified in the ICMJE model?
  4. A Place for Large Language Models in Scientific Publishing, Apart from Credited Authorship.
  5. The evolution of academic publishing: mega journals and artificial intelligence-authored articles.
  6. Is open science a double-edged sword?: data sharing and the changing citation pattern of Chinese economics articles.
  7. Better pre-submission inquiries.
  8. Unsolicited solicitations: identifying characteristics of unsolicited emails from potentially predatory journals and the role of librarians.
  9. Scientific sinkhole: estimating the cost of peer review based on survey data with snowball sampling.
  10. The editorial process in medical journals: reconciling different perspectives
  11. Better guidance is needed for editorial expressions of concern.
  12. Non-publication and selective outcome reporting.
  13. Health sciences and medical librarians conducting research and their experiences asking for co-authorship.
  14. Teaching Professional Peer Review With the Use of Simulation.
  15. Peer Review: How to Review a Plastic Surgery Manuscript.
  16. Increasing Undergraduate Student Knowledge about Journal Peer Review Using Outside Reading and In-Class Discussion.
  17. ACS Environmental Au-How to Improve the Reach of Your Open Access Research.
  18. Racial inequalities in journals highlighted in giant study.
  19. Large Language Models Like ChatGPT in ABME: Author Guidelines.
  20. Benefits and implications of integrating artificial intelligence in manuscripts submitted to Headache.
  21. What Artificial Intelligence Chatbots Mean for Editors, Authors, and Readers of Peer-Reviewed Ophthalmic Literature.
  22. New Guidelines for Presenting Electrochemical Data in All ACS Journals.
  1. NPJ Digit Med. 2023 Apr 26. 6(1): 75
    Comparing scientific abstracts generated by ChatGPT to real abstracts with detectors and blinded human reviewers.
    Catherine A Gao, Frederick M Howard, Nikolay S Markov, Emma C Dyer, Siddhi Ramesh, Yuan Luo, Alexander T Pearson.
      Large language models such as ChatGPT can produce increasingly realistic text, with unknown information on the accuracy and integrity of using these models in scientific writing. We gathered fifth research abstracts from five high-impact factor medical journals and asked ChatGPT to generate research abstracts based on their titles and journals. Most generated abstracts were detected using an AI output detector, 'GPT-2 Output Detector', with % 'fake' scores (higher meaning more likely to be generated) of median [interquartile range] of 99.98% 'fake' [12.73%, 99.98%] compared with median 0.02% [IQR 0.02%, 0.09%] for the original abstracts. The AUROC of the AI output detector was 0.94. Generated abstracts scored lower than original abstracts when run through a plagiarism detector website and iThenticate (higher scores meaning more matching text found). When given a mixture of original and general abstracts, blinded human reviewers correctly identified 68% of generated abstracts as being generated by ChatGPT, but incorrectly identified 14% of original abstracts as being generated. Reviewers indicated that it was surprisingly difficult to differentiate between the two, though abstracts they suspected were generated were vaguer and more formulaic. ChatGPT writes believable scientific abstracts, though with completely generated data. Depending on publisher-specific guidelines, AI output detectors may serve as an editorial tool to help maintain scientific standards. The boundaries of ethical and acceptable use of large language models to help scientific writing are still being discussed, and different journals and conferences are adopting varying policies.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41746-023-00819-6
  2. Scientometrics. 2023 ;128(5): 3171-3184
    Prolific non-research authors in high impact scientific journals: meta-research study.
    John P A Ioannidis.
      Journalistic papers published in high impact scientific journals can be very influential, especially in hot fields. This meta-research analysis aimed to evaluate the publication profiles, impact, and disclosures of conflicts of interest of non-research authors who had published > 200 Scopus-indexed papers in Nature, Science, PNAS, Cell, BMJ, Lancet, JAMA or New England Journal of Medicine. 154 prolific authors were identified, 148 of whom had published 67,825 papers in their main affiliated journal in a non-researcher capacity. Nature, Science, and BMJ have the lion's share of such authors. Scopus characterized 35% of the journalistic publications as full articles and another 11% as short surveys. 264 papers had received more than 100 citations. 40/41 most-cited papers in 2020-2022 were on hot COVID-19 topics. Of 25 massively prolific authors with > 700 publications in one of these journals, many were highly-cited (median citations 2273), almost all had published little or nothing in the Scopus-indexed literature other than in their main affiliated journal, and their influential writing covered diverse hot topics over the years. Of the 25, only 3 had a PhD degree in any subject matter, and 7 had a Master's degree in journalism. Only the BMJ offered conflicts of interest disclosures for prolific science writers in its website, but even then only 2 of the 25 massively prolific authors disclosed potential conflicts with some specificity. The practice of assigning so much power to non-researchers in shaping scientific discourse should be further debated and disclosures of potential conflicts of interest should be emphasized.
    Keywords:  Bias; Citations; Editorship; Impact; Science communication; Science writers
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-023-04687-5
  3. Plant Cell Rep. 2023 Apr 27.
    How are authors' contributions verified in the ICMJE model?
    Jaime A Teixeira da Silva.
      A recent editorial in Plant Cell Reports reaffirms what has been known for years, namely, that it follows the four ICMJE clauses of authorship. That editorial even provides a "perfect" model contribution statement. In this letter, I argue that in reality and in practice, authorship delimitations are not that clear-cut, nor are all contributions equal or equally weighted. More importantly, I opine that no matter how eloquently an author contribution statement is written, editors have no way to verify the veracity of those claims. In essence, absent authorship contribution verification, the ICMJE guidelines are practically useless. The responsibility for verification, even to determine authorship associated with papermills or the "ghost" contribution of text by AI like ChatGPT, lies entirely with editors and publishers. Although an unpopular meme, there is need for academic publishing to return to a state of no blind trust.
    Keywords:  Honorary (guest) and ghost authors; ICMJE; Integrity; ORCID; Paper mills; Trust
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00299-023-03022-9
  4. Cell Mol Bioeng. 2023 Apr;16(2): 95-98
    A Place for Large Language Models in Scientific Publishing, Apart from Credited Authorship.
    Michael R King.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12195-023-00765-z
  5. Eur J Emerg Med. 2023 Jun 01. 30(3): 151-152
    The evolution of academic publishing: mega journals and artificial intelligence-authored articles.
    Barbra Backus, Ben Bloom, Chiara Lazzeri, Youri Yordanov, Yonathan Freund.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1097/MEJ.0000000000001036
  6. Scientometrics. 2023 ;128(5): 2803-2818
    Is open science a double-edged sword?: data sharing and the changing citation pattern of Chinese economics articles.
    Liwei Zhang, Liang Ma.
      Data sharing is an important part of open science (OS), and more and more institutions and journals have been enforcing open data (OD) policies. OD is advocated to help increase academic influences and promote scientific discovery and development, but such a proposition has not been elaborated on well. This study explores the nuanced effects of the OD policies on the citation pattern of articles by using the case of Chinese economics journals. China Industrial Economics (CIE) is the first and only Chinese social science journal so far to adopt a compulsory OD policy, requiring all published articles to share original data and processing codes. We use the article-level data and difference-in-differences (DID) approach to compare the citation performance of articles published in CIE and 36 comparable journals. Firstly, we find that the OD policy quickly increased the number of citations, and each article on average received 0.25, 1.19, 0.86, and 0.44 more citations in the first four years after publication respectively. Furthermore, we also found that the citation benefit of the OD policy rapidly decreased over time, and even became negative in the fifth year after publication. In conclusion, this changing citation pattern suggests that an OD policy can be double edged sword, which can quickly increase citation performance but simultaneously accelerate the aging of articles.
    Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11192-023-04684-8.
    Keywords:  Citations; Citing life; Open data; Open science; Research quality
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-023-04684-8
  7. Nat Aging. 2022 Mar;2(3): 181
    Better pre-submission inquiries.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/s43587-022-00199-8
  8. J Med Libr Assoc. 2022 Oct 01. 110(4): 520-524
    Unsolicited solicitations: identifying characteristics of unsolicited emails from potentially predatory journals and the role of librarians.
    Paije Wilson.
      Email solicitations for manuscript submissions are a common tactic employed by predatory journals to attract potential victims. Both new and established researchers alike have fallen prey to this tactic, justifying the need for librarians to provide further education and support in this area. This commentary provides a succinct overview of predatory journals; briefly describes the problem of predatory journal email solicitations; explains the role librarians can play in their identification; and lists some red flags and tactics librarians can tell researchers to look out for, as informed by the literature and the author's analysis of 60 unsolicited journal emails she received in her own institutional inbox.
    Keywords:  Commentary; fraud; librarians; predatory journals; publishing; scholarly communications
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2022.1554
  9. Res Integr Peer Rev. 2023 Apr 24. 8(1): 3
    Scientific sinkhole: estimating the cost of peer review based on survey data with snowball sampling.
    Allana G LeBlanc, Joel D Barnes, Travis J Saunders, Mark S Tremblay, Jean-Philippe Chaput.
       BACKGROUND: There are a variety of costs associated with publication of scientific findings. The purpose of this work was to estimate the cost of peer review in scientific publishing per reviewer, per year and for the entire scientific community.
    METHODS: Internet-based self-report, cross-sectional survey, live between June 28, 2021 and August 2, 2021 was used. Participants were recruited via snowball sampling. No restrictions were placed on geographic location or field of study. Respondents who were asked to act as a peer-reviewer for at least one manuscript submitted to a scientific journal in 2020 were eligible. The primary outcome measure was the cost of peer review per person, per year (calculated as wage-cost x number of initial reviews and number of re-reviews per year). The secondary outcome was the cost of peer review globally (calculated as the number of peer-reviewed papers in Scopus x median wage-cost of initial review and re-review).
    RESULTS: A total of 354 participants completed at least one question of the survey, and information necessary to calculate the cost of peer-review was available for 308 participants from 33 countries (44% from Canada). The cost of peer review was estimated at $US1,272 per person, per year ($US1,015 for initial review and $US256 for re-review), or US$1.1-1.7 billion for the scientific community per year. The global cost of peer-review was estimated at US$6 billion in 2020 when relying on the Dimensions database and taking into account reviewed-but-rejected manuscripts.
    CONCLUSIONS: Peer review represents an important financial piece of scientific publishing. Our results may not represent all countries or fields of study, but are consistent with previous estimates and provide additional context from peer reviewers themselves. Researchers and scientists have long provided peer review as a contribution to the scientific community. Recognizing the importance of peer-review, institutions should acknowledge these costs in job descriptions, performance measurement, promotion packages, and funding applications. Journals should develop methods to compensate reviewers for their time and improve transparency while maintaining the integrity of the peer-review process.
    Keywords:  Article; Cost; Manuscript; Paper; Peer-review; Publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-023-00128-2
  10. Rev Colomb Obstet Ginecol. 2023 03 30. 74(1): 7-14
    The editorial process in medical journals: reconciling different perspectives
    Hernando Gaitán-Duarte.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.18597/rcog.4033
  11. Account Res. 2023 Apr 24.
    Better guidance is needed for editorial expressions of concern.
    Jaime A Teixeira da Silva, Maryna Nazarovets.
      On occasion, following the publication of a paper, serious concerns might be raised, either about the study, the author(s), or background processes. When editors-in-chief (EiCs) have sufficient evidence in the case of a serious ethical offense or methodological errors that may invalidate the paper's findings or ethical standing, they can retract the paper rapidly. However, in the interim period between receiving a report and seeking a solution, several weeks, months or even years might pass, and readers need to be alerted to its potential unreliability. In such an instance, the current alertive (but not corrective) document takes the form of an editorial expression of concern (EoC). However, a case might be unresolved for a long time, with an EoC attached to it, so EiCs are encouraged to seek a resolution as promptly as possible because there are academics who might need to cite and/or rely on that paper. Curiously, even though a comprehensive debate is provided by COPE ethics guidelines and ICMJE recommendations, which refer to EoCs, guidance is not entirely clear. This paper makes an attempt to improve guidelines that editors could consider when faced with the dilemma of whether to issue an EoC, or not.
    Keywords:  Errata; expressions of concern; literature correction; peer review; post-publication peer review; retractions
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2023.2206021
  12. Br Dent J. 2023 Apr;234(8): 589
    Non-publication and selective outcome reporting.
    Reena Wadia.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41415-023-5802-0
  13. J Med Libr Assoc. 2022 Oct 01. 110(4): 449-462
    Health sciences and medical librarians conducting research and their experiences asking for co-authorship.
    Jamie E Bloss, Kerry Sewell, Jana Schellinger, Amanda Haberstroh.
       Objective: Health sciences librarians frequently engage in scholarly publication, both with other librarians undertaking intradisciplinary scholarship, and increasingly as members of research teams centered in other disciplines. We sought to assess the emotional and institutional context of authorship among health sciences librarians, including emotions experienced during authorship negotiation, the frequency with which authorship is denied, and the correlation of perceived support from supervisors and the research community with the number of publications produced.
    Methods: 342 medical and health sciences librarians took an online survey of 47 questions regarding emotions experienced when asking for authorship, denial of authorship, if they have been given authorship without asking, and the extent to which they felt supported to conduct research in their current job.
    Results: Authorship negotiation creates varied and complex emotions among librarians. The emotions reported differed when negotiating authorship with librarian colleagues and when negotiating authorship with professionals in another field. Negative emotions were reported when asking either type of colleague for authorship. Respondents reported feeling mostly supported and encouraged by their supervisors, research communities, and workplaces. Nearly one quarter (24.4%) of respondents reported being denied authorship by colleagues outside of their departments. Perceived research appreciation and support by the research community is correlated with the total number of articles or publications produced by librarians.
    Conclusion: Authorship negotiation among health sciences librarians involves complex and frequently negative emotions. Denial of authorship is frequently reported. Institutional and professional support appear to be critical to publication among health sciences librarians.
    Keywords:  Authorship; health science librarians; intradisciplinary scholarship; librarians; medical librarians; negotiation; professional support; research ethics
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2022.1485
  14. J Perinat Neonatal Nurs. 2023 Apr-Jun 01;37(2):37(2): E3
    Teaching Professional Peer Review With the Use of Simulation.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1097/JPN.0000000000000744
  15. Ann Plast Surg. 2023 Apr 01. 90(4): 281-287
    Peer Review: How to Review a Plastic Surgery Manuscript.
    Eric Swanson.
       ABSTRACT: Little information is available regarding how to review a plastic surgery manuscript. This vital responsibility ensures that publications meet an acceptable scientific standard. Thoughtful and thorough reviews are essential to protect patients and surgeons from unscientific practices and products. This discussion provides information for the reviewer, gained from the author's experience, including examples of a thorough review, likely to be useful to the editor, and a cursory one that is unhelpful.The first consideration is relevance. Prerequisites for publication include institutional review board approval, disclosure of financial conflicts, and discussion of the regulatory status of devices. Particular attention is needed to check for conflicts of interest, which are endemic in plastic surgery today. In view of the common practice of using computer-generated imaging, reviewers need to be especially vigilant for inauthentic "photoshopped" photographs. Examples of published images that have been digitally altered are provided.If data are available, it may be possible to check the statistical tests. Reviewers need to be aware of the practice of p-hacking. A quick literature search can identify relevant but unreferenced publications. The manuscript needs to be properly organized into sections. Minor points may be made regarding style. The study design and methodology need to be evaluated to be sure that the conclusions are well supported by data. Randomized studies are rarely feasible. Fortunately, well-done prospective observational studies in consecutive patients can be just as useful. Realistic complication rates are expected. Meta-analyses in plastic surgery are often subject to confounding variables. Comments should be available to the authors; confidential comments hidden from authors are discouraged. Like honesty, transparency is the best policy. Manuscripts should be evaluated solely for merit, not the identity of the author or institution. Timeliness of submission of the review is appreciated by authors.Evidence-based medicine is concerned solely with the facts. The 2 basic criteria are a solid scientific basis and reliable evidence of efficacy. Reviewers need to keep an open mind. Studies that challenge the status quo are often the most valuable ones and are needed for the advancement of the specialty.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1097/SAP.0000000000003502
  16. J Microbiol Biol Educ. 2023 Apr;pii: e00156-22. [Epub ahead of print]24(1):
    Increasing Undergraduate Student Knowledge about Journal Peer Review Using Outside Reading and In-Class Discussion.
    Rachael M Barry.
      Peer review is an important part of the scientific publishing process that serves as a key quality control step. Learning that scientific publications go through peer review builds scientific literacy and may increase trust in published findings. Though the publication and peer review process is an established part of the practice of communicating science, this topic is not commonly taught at the undergraduate level, even in classes that regularly require students to read primary literature or author manuscripts. Often, undergraduate course lessons on peer review focus on the practice of performing peer review on other students' writing rather than explaining how this process works for independent scientists publishing their novel work as primary literature articles. As a result, there is a need for more resources related to teaching about publication and peer review. This work presents a plan for out-of-class reading and an in-class lesson on peer review practices in biology. In this module, students learn the order of events in scientific publishing and consider the relationship between peer review and public trust in science by analyzing survey data. Students completing this activity reported knowledge gains related to scientific publishing and peer review and demonstrated their knowledge on an in-class assessment. Though this activity was developed for a biochemistry course, it may be implemented in various life sciences classes from introductory to advanced levels to improve student scientific literacy.
    Keywords:  communications; peer review; publishing; science trust; teaching; undergraduate; writing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1128/jmbe.00156-22
  17. ACS Environ Au. 2022 Sep 21. 2(5): 373-375
    ACS Environmental Au-How to Improve the Reach of Your Open Access Research.
    Antonia Praetorius, Ian T Cousins.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1021/acsenvironau.2c00052
  18. Nature. 2023 Apr 28.
    Racial inequalities in journals highlighted in giant study.
    Amanda Heidt.
      
    Keywords:  Careers; Policy; Publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-01457-4
  19. Ann Biomed Eng. 2023 Apr 24.
    Large Language Models Like ChatGPT in ABME: Author Guidelines.
    Carly Norris.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10439-023-03212-2
  20. Headache. 2023 Apr 27.
    Benefits and implications of integrating artificial intelligence in manuscripts submitted to Headache.
    Amy A Gelfand, Jenn Vallimont, Emily Sargent, Rashmi Halker Singh.
      
    Keywords:  artificial intelligence; chatGPT; editorial
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1111/head.14502
  21. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2023 Apr 27.
    What Artificial Intelligence Chatbots Mean for Editors, Authors, and Readers of Peer-Reviewed Ophthalmic Literature.
    Neil M Bressler.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2023.1370
  22. ACS Meas Sci Au. 2023 Apr 19. 3(2): 82-83
    New Guidelines for Presenting Electrochemical Data in All ACS Journals.
    Shelley Minteer, Jingguang Chen, Song Lin, Cathleen Crudden, Stefanie Dehnen, Prashant V Kamat, Marisa Kozlowski, Géraldine Masson, Scott J Miller.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1021/acsmeasuresciau.3c00008
This page is being maintained by Thomas Krichel. It was last updated on 2024‒11‒22 at 4:28.