bims-skolko Biomed News
on Scholarly communication
Issue of 2023–11–26
nineteen papers selected by
Thomas Krichel, Open Library Society
  1. Metadata analysis of retracted fake papers in Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's Archives of Pharmacology.
  2. ChatGPT in academic writing: Maximizing its benefits and minimizing the risks.
  3. AI-enabled ChatGPT or LLM: A new algorithm is required for plagiarism free scientific writing.
  4. [Scientific integrity faces plagiarism fabricated with the ChatGPT].
  5. A reviewer-friendly review system: To be able to follow a review process in real time.
  6. The Influence of the Reviewer in Academic Studies: May the Paper Make or Break?
  7. Predatory journals: How to recognise and keep clear!
  8. Plagiarism: A Bird's Eye View.
  9. Making progress in early-career publishing: evolutions of the women's publication mentorship programme.
  10. "On the ruins of seriality": The scientific journal and the nature of the scientific life.
  11. Response to: Concerns about the use of artificial intelligence in composing Letters to the Editors.
  12. Openness in Scientific Research: A Historical and Philosophical Perspective.
  13. Global health collaborative research: beyond mandatory collaboration to mandatory authorship.
  14. Cross-Sectional Evaluation of Open Science Practices at Imaging Journals: A Meta-Research Study.
  15. Author instructions in biomedical journals infrequently address systematic review reporting and methodology: a cross-sectional study.
  16. Enhancing your research: how JEB supports research papers from submission to publication and public outreach.
  17. Journey through the history of Journal of Experimental Biology: a timeline.
  18. [Revista Médica del IMSS: Institutional heritage and Important reference].
  19. JMIR Perioperative Medicine: A Global Journal for Publishing Interdisciplinary Innovations, Research, and Perspectives.
  1. Naunyn Schmiedebergs Arch Pharmacol. 2023 Nov 23.
    Metadata analysis of retracted fake papers in Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's Archives of Pharmacology.
    Jonathan Wittau, Roland Seifert.
      An increasing fake paper problem is a cause for concern in the scientific community. These papers look scientific but contain manipulated data or are completely fictitious. So-called paper mills produce fake papers on a large scale and publish them in the name of people who buy authorship. The aim of this study was to learn more about the characteristics of fake papers at the metadata level. We also investigated whether some of these characteristics could be used to detect fake papers. For that purpose, we examined metadata of 12 fake papers that were retracted by Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's Archives of Pharmacology (NSAP) in recent years. We also compared many of these metadata with those of a reference group of 733 articles published by NSAP. It turned out that in many characteristics the fake papers we examined did not differ substantially from the other articles. It was only noticeable that the fake papers came almost exclusively from a certain country, used non-institutional email addresses more often than average, and referenced dubious literature significantly more often. However, these three features are only of limited use in identifying fake papers. We were also able to show that fake papers not only contaminate the scientific record while they are unidentified but also continue to do so even after retraction. Our results indicate that fake papers are well made and resemble honest papers even at the metadata level. Because they contaminate the scientific record in the long term and this cannot be fully contained even by their retraction, it is particularly important to identify them before publication. Further research on the topic of fake papers is therefore urgently needed.
    Keywords:  Fake paper; Metadata; Naunyn-Schmiedeberg’s Archives of Pharmacology; Paper mill; Retracted
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00210-023-02850-6
  2. Indian J Ophthalmol. 2023 Dec 01. 71(12): 3600-3606
    ChatGPT in academic writing: Maximizing its benefits and minimizing the risks.
    Himel Mondal, Shaikat Mondal.
      This review article explores the use of ChatGPT in academic writing and provides insights on how to utilize it judiciously. With the increasing popularity of AI-powered language models, ChatGPT has emerged as a potential tool for assisting writers in the research and writing process. We have provided a list of potential uses of ChatGPT by a novice researcher for getting help during research proposal preparation and manuscript writing. However, there are concerns regarding its reliability and potential risks associated with its use. The review highlights the importance of maintaining human judgment in the writing process and using ChatGPT as a complementary tool rather than a replacement for human effort. The article concludes with recommendations for researchers and writers to ensure responsible and effective use of ChatGPT in academic writing.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.4103/IJO.IJO_718_23
  3. Int J Surg. 2023 Nov 24.
    AI-enabled ChatGPT or LLM: A new algorithm is required for plagiarism free scientific writing.
    Soumen Pal, Manojit Bhattacharya, Md Aminul Islam, Chiranjib Chakraborty.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1097/JS9.0000000000000939
  4. Rev Med Inst Mex Seguro Soc. 2023 11 06. pii: 10.5281/zenodo.10064458. [Epub ahead of print]61(6): 857-862
    [Scientific integrity faces plagiarism fabricated with the ChatGPT].
    Horacio Rivera.
      Among the malpractices that undermine research integrity, plagiarism is a major threat given its frequency and evolving presentations. Plagiarism implies the intentional grabbing of texts, ideas, images, or data belonging to others and without crediting them. However, the different and even masked forms of plagiarism often difficult a clear identification. Currently, the many kinds of fraud and plagiarism account for most retractions in traditional and open access journals. Further, the rate of retracted articles is higher in the Latin American databases LILACS and Scielo than in PubMed and Web of Science. This difference has been related to the typical laxity of our culture and the lack of English writing skills of non-Anglophone researchers. These features explain the conflict experienced by Latin American students in USA where they face a stricter culture regarding academic and scientific plagiarism. In the internet era, the ease of accessing scientific literature has increased the temptation to plagiarize but this ethical breach has been countered by antiplagiarism software. Now, the so-called "paraphragiarism" prompted by paraphrasing tools exceeds the infamous "copy-paste". For instance, the innovative ChatGPT can be used for plagiarizing and paraphragiarizing. Moreover, its inclusion as coauthor in scientific papers has been banned by prestigious journals and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors because such chatbot cannot meet the required public responsibility criterium. To avoid plagiarism, it is enough to always give due credit in the proper way. Lastly, I question the ill-fated and now prevailing conjunction of blind faith in progress and zero skepticism that prevents us from foreseeing the negative consequences of technological advances.
    Keywords:  Scientific Integrity Review; Plagiarism; Artificial Intelligence; Revisión de Integridad Científica; Plagio; Inteligencia Artificial; ChatGPT
  5. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2023 Nov 22.
    A reviewer-friendly review system: To be able to follow a review process in real time.
    Shigeki Matsubara.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1111/jog.15839
  6. J Craniofac Surg. 2023 Nov 20.
    The Influence of the Reviewer in Academic Studies: May the Paper Make or Break?
    İlhan Bahşi, Ayşe Balat.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0000000000009907
  7. J R Coll Physicians Edinb. 2023 Nov 24. 14782715231215525
    Predatory journals: How to recognise and keep clear!
    Keerthi Talari, Vinod Ravindran.
      Predatory publishing poses a major threat to the integrity of academic research. While publication in scientific journals has traditionally been a hallmark of authentic information, the 'publish or perish' culture has fuelled and enhanced the growth of predatory journals. Predatory publishers prioritise profit over academic integrity, often charge exorbitant fees for a nearly non-existent peer review. Lack of awareness, pressure to publish and the prohibitive cost of open-access publishing contribute to the dubious cause of predatory journals. Identifying predatory journals is essential, and multiple resources exist to assist in identifying them.
    Keywords:  open access; predatory; publication ethics; research misconduct
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1177/14782715231215525
  8. J Korean Med Sci. 2023 Nov 20. 38(45): e373
    Plagiarism: A Bird's Eye View.
    Farrokh Habibzadeh.
      Plagiarism is among the prevalent misconducts reported in scientific writing and common causes of article retraction in scholarly journals. Plagiarism of idea is not acceptable by any means. However, plagiarism of text is a matter of debate from culture to culture. Herein, I wish to reflect on a bird's eye view of plagiarism, particularly plagiarism of text, in scientific writing. Text similarity score as a signal of text plagiarism is not an appropriate index and an expert should examine the similarity with enough scrutiny. Text recycling in certain instances might be acceptable in scientific writing provided that the authors could correctly construe the text piece they borrowed. With introduction of artificial intelligence-based units, which help authors to write their manuscripts, the incidence of text plagiarism might increase. However, after a while, when a universal artificial unit takes over, no one will need to worry about text plagiarism as the incentive to commit plagiarism will be abolished, I believe.
    Keywords:  Ethics; Medical Writing; Plagiarism; Publishing; Scientific Misconduct
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2023.38.e373
  9. Health Policy Plan. 2023 Nov 16. 38(Supplement_2): ii72-ii76
    Making progress in early-career publishing: evolutions of the women's publication mentorship programme.
    Nanuka Jalaghonia, Aku Kwamie.
      Mentorship is vital for early-career researchers, especially women from low- and middle-income countries seeking to publish their work. This paper explores the evolution of the Women's Publication Mentorship Programme, a collaborative initiative pioneered by the Alliance for Health Policy and Systems Research, further strengthened through the partnership of Health Systems Global, and Health Policy and Planning. Over a span of five years and encompassing three cohorts, the program supported 45 early-career researchers from 24 countries, resulting in insightful papers on equity-oriented health system topics. Beyond the direct outcomes of strengthening the writing skills of first-time women authors and facilitating paper publications, the Programme has also influenced Health System Global's strategic approach and conceptual framework for systemic capacity strengthening in health policy and systems research. It has also played a pivotal role in addressing the longstanding gender imbalance in global health authorship. Amid these achievements, our program consistently evolved, drawing from lessons of the past cohort. Challenges, such as the need for extended paper development timelines, addressing language barriers, and strengthening methodological rigor in initial manuscripts, were met with solutions. Insights and experiences from previous participants translated into tangible results, notably elevating the quality of journal supplement publications. This commentary explores key lessons from the second cohort's journey and its evolving nature. It also highlights persistent challenges and provides practical recommendations for organizations to enhance their mentorship programs, ultimately fostering the career growth of early-career researchers in health policy and systems research.
    Keywords:  Health systems; capacity strengthening; mentorship; science; women
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1093/heapol/czad047
  10. Endeavour. 2023 Nov 18. pii: S0160-9327(23)00042-X. [Epub ahead of print]47(4): 100885
    "On the ruins of seriality": The scientific journal and the nature of the scientific life.
    Dorien Daling.
      Twenty-first-century discourse on science has been marked by narratives of crisis. Science is said to be experiencing crises of public trust, of peer review and publishing, of reproducibility and replicability, and of recognition and reward. The dominant response has been to "repair" the scientific literature and the system of scientific publishing through open science. This paper places the current predicament of scholarly communication in historical perspective by exploring the evolution of the scientific journal in the second half of the twentieth century. I focus on a new genre of scientific journal invented by Dutch commercial publishers shortly after World War II, and on its effects on the nature of the scientific life. I show that profit-oriented publishers and discipline-building scientists worked together to make postwar science more open, while also arguing that formats of scientific publication have their own agency.
    Keywords:  Elsevier; Open science; Scientific journal; Scientific publishing; Scientific vocation; Seriality
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.endeavour.2023.100885
  11. Can J Cardiol. 2023 Nov 16. pii: S0828-282X(23)01938-4. [Epub ahead of print]
    Response to: Concerns about the use of artificial intelligence in composing Letters to the Editors.
    Rameen Damani, Muhammad Usman.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cjca.2023.11.016
  12. J Open Access Law. 2023 Sep 21. pii: 132. [Epub ahead of print]11(1):
    Openness in Scientific Research: A Historical and Philosophical Perspective.
    David Resnik.
      Openness is widely regarded as a pillar of scientific ethics because it promotes reproducibility and progress in science and benefits society. However, the sharing of scientific information can sometimes adversely impact the interests of human research participants, human communities or populations, scientists, and private research sponsors; and may threaten national security. Because openness may conflict with other important social values, solutions to ethical and policy dilemmas should include meaningful input from those who are impacted by the sharing and use of scientific information, including research participants, communities, and the public. Data sharing and use policies should be reviewed and revised periodically to account for ongoing changes in science, technology, and society.
    Keywords:  data sharing; ethics; history; openness; philosophy; progress; reproducibility; science; transparency
  13. Glob Health Res Policy. 2023 Nov 22. 8(1): 48
    Global health collaborative research: beyond mandatory collaboration to mandatory authorship.
    Wongani John Nyangulu.
      Collaborative research between the global north and global south is common and growing in number. Due to inability of local governments to fund research, global north actors provide the bulk of research funding. While providing mutual benefits, global collaborative research projects are far from ideal. In this paper, we review the authorship discrepancies in global collaborative research, discuss preventive measures in place and their shortfalls, and recommend an intervention to address the problem. Malawi research guidelines recommend collaboration between foreign and local researchers in locally conducted research. However, there is no provision requiring joint authorship in final published papers. Journal recommendations on authorship criteria exist, but they can disadvantage low- and middle-income country researchers in collaborative projects because of exclusionary interpretations of guidelines. For example, the requirement for authors to make substantial contributions to conception or design of the work may favor research grant holders, often from the global north. Systematic and holistic changes proposed to address power asymmetries at the core of the problem have been proposed. However, these proposals may take a long time to produce change. Ad interim, local institutions can take more direct action to address inequalities by establishing offices of research integrity to enforce mandates to increase opportunities for authorship in collaborative research.
    Keywords:  Authorship in global health research; Global health research partnerships; Power asymmetry in global health research; Questionable authorship practices
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1186/s41256-023-00334-x
  14. Can Assoc Radiol J. 2023 Nov 24. 8465371231211290
    Cross-Sectional Evaluation of Open Science Practices at Imaging Journals: A Meta-Research Study.
    Mohammed Kashif Al-Ghita, Kelly Cobey, David Moher, Mariska M G Leeflang, Sanam Ebrahimzadeh, Eric Lam, Paul Rooprai, Ahmed Al Khalil, Nabil Islam, Hamza Algodi, Haben Dawit, Robert Adamo, Mahdi Zeghal, Matthew D F McInnes.
      Objective: To evaluate open science policies of imaging journals, and compliance to these policies in published articles. Methods: From imaging journals listed we extracted open science policy details: protocol registration, reporting guidelines, funding, ethics and conflicts of interest (COI), data sharing, and open access publishing. The 10 most recently published studies from each journal were assessed to determine adherence to these policies. We calculated the proportion of open science policies into an Open Science Score (OSS) for all journals and articles. We evaluated relationships between OSS and journal/article level variables. Results: 82 journals/820 articles were included. The OSS of journals and articles was 58.3% and 31.8%, respectively. Of the journals, 65.9% had registration and 78.1% had reporting guideline policies. 79.3% of journals were members of COPE, 81.7% had plagiarism policies, 100% required disclosure of funding, and 97.6% required disclosure of COI and ethics approval. 81.7% had data sharing policies and 15.9% were fully open access. 7.8% of articles had a registered protocol, 8.4% followed a reporting guideline, 77.4% disclosed funding, 88.7% disclosed COI, and 85.6% reported ethics approval. 12.3% of articles shared their data. 51% of articles were available through open access or as a preprint. OSS was higher for journal with DOAJ membership (80% vs 54.2%; P < .0001). Impact factor was not correlated with journal OSS. Knowledge synthesis articles has a higher OSS scores (44.5%) than prospective/retrospective studies (32.6%, 30.0%, P < .0001). Conclusion: Imaging journals endorsed just over half of open science practices considered; however, the application of these practices at the article level was lower.
    Keywords:  Knowledge Synthesis; Open Access; Open Science; Research Methods; meta-research
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1177/08465371231211290
  15. J Clin Epidemiol. 2023 Nov 20. pii: S0895-4356(23)00302-5. [Epub ahead of print]
    Author instructions in biomedical journals infrequently address systematic review reporting and methodology: a cross-sectional study.
    Daniel Rehlicki, Mia Plenkovic, Ljerka Delac, Dawid Pieper, Ana Marušić, Livia Puljak.
       OBJECTIVE: We aimed to analyse how instructions for authors in journals indexed in MEDLINE address systematic review (SR) reporting and methodology.
    STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We analyzed instructions for authors in 20% of MEDLINE-indexed journals listed in the online catalogue of the National Library of Medicine (NLM) on July 27, 2021. We extracted data only from the instructions published in English. We extracted data on the existence of instructions for reporting and methodology of SRs.
    RESULTS: Instructions from 1237 journals mentioned SRs in 45% (n=560) of the cases. SR registration was mentioned in 104/1237 (8%) of instructions. Guidelines for reporting SR protocols were found in 155/1237 (13%) of instructions. Guidelines for reporting SRs were explicitly mentioned in 461/1237 (37%), whereas the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) network was referred to in 474/1237 (38%) of instructions. Less than 2% (n=20) of instructions mentioned risk of bias and meta-analyses; less than 1% mentioned certainty of evidence assessment, methodological expectations, updating of SRs, overviews of SRs or scoping reviews.
    CONCLUSION: Journals indexed in MEDLINE rarely provide instructions for authors regarding SR reporting and methodology. Such instructions could potentially raise authors' awareness and improve how SRs are prepared and reported.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2023.11.008
  16. J Exp Biol. 2023 Dec 01. pii: jeb246916. [Epub ahead of print]226(23):
    Enhancing your research: how JEB supports research papers from submission to publication and public outreach.
    Kathryn Knight, Michaela Handel.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.246916
  17. J Exp Biol. 2023 Nov 15. pii: jeb246868. [Epub ahead of print]226(22):
    Journey through the history of Journal of Experimental Biology: a timeline.
    Kathryn Knight.
      In the cut-throat industry of academic publishing, some journals barely survive a decade, let alone a century, but in October 2023, Journal of Experimental Biology is celebrating 100 years at the forefront of comparative physiology, neuroethology and biomechanics. In this Commentary article and the accompanying poster, I explore the journal's history from its inception, through the guidance of nine Editors-in-Chief, to achieving its aims of championing the comparative approach, disseminating and promoting high-quality research and supporting our community of researchers. I discuss technological developments in publishing and classic articles that have cemented the journal in its position at the forefront of comparative physiology.
    Keywords:  Centenary; History; Journal of Experimental Biology
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.246868
  18. Rev Med Inst Mex Seguro Soc. 2023 Nov 06. 61(6): 713-716
    [Revista Médica del IMSS: Institutional heritage and Important reference].
    Omar Chávez-Martínez, Guillermo Fajardo-Ortíz, Alejandro Moctezuma-Paz.
      In a context that has tended towards globalization, in which obtaining economic resources is usually the driving force of societies, information resources have frequently been treated as private goods for which one must pay. A strategy for the above has been open and free access to information, a factor of great importance for the construction of more open media.
    Keywords:  Bases de Datos Bibliográficas; Bibliometrics; Bibliometría; Comunicación y Divulgación Científica; Databases, Bibliographic; Open Access Publishing; Publicación de Acceso Abierto; Scientific Communication and Diffusion
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10064233
  19. JMIR Perioper Med. 2023 Nov 21. 6 e54344
    JMIR Perioperative Medicine: A Global Journal for Publishing Interdisciplinary Innovations, Research, and Perspectives.
    Nidhi Rohatgi.
      JMIR Perioperative Medicine supports the dissemination of technological and data science-driven innovative research conducted by interdisciplinary teams in perioperative medicine. We invite contributions on a broad range of topics from clinicians, scientists, and allied health professionals from across the globe.
    Keywords:  JMIR Perioperative Medicine; digital health; innovation; interdisciplinary; perioperative medicine; research; technology
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.2196/54344
This page is being maintained by Thomas Krichel. It was last updated on 2024‒11‒22 at 4:28.