bims-skolko 2023-12-31 papers

Antimicrob Steward Healthc Epidemiol. 2023 ;3(1): e213

Are reporting guidelines used in infectious diseases publications? An analysis of more than 1,000 articles.

Aldo Barajas-Ochoa, Manuel Ramirez-Trejo, Aditee Dash, Jillian E Raybould, Gonzalo Bearman.

Objective: To assess whether 16 reporting guidelines of Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of Health Research (EQUATOR) were used in infectious diseases research publications.
Design: This cross-sectional, audit-type study assessed articles published in five infectious diseases journals in 2019.
Methods: All articles were manually reviewed to assess if a reporting guideline was advisable and searched for the names and acronyms of 16 reporting guidelines. An "advisable use rate" was calculated.
Results: We reviewed 1,251 manuscripts across five infectious diseases journals. Guideline use was advisable for 973 (75%) articles. Reporting guidelines were used in 85 articles, 6.1% of total articles, and 8% (95% CI 6%-9%) of articles for which guidelines were advised. The advisable use rate ranged from 0.06 to 0.17 for any guideline, 0-0.08 for CONSORT, 0.53-1 for Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA), and 0-0.66 for Transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis (TRIPOD) : The TRIPOD statement. No trends were observed across the five journals.
Conclusions: The use of EQUATOR-related reporting guidelines is infrequent, despite journals and publishers promoting their usage. Whether this finding is attributable to knowledge, acceptance, or perceived usefulness of the guidelines still needs to be clarified.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/ash.2023.492

JAMA. 2023 Dec 27.

Affiliation Bias in Peer Review of Abstracts by a Large Language Model.

Dario von Wedel, Rico A Schmitt, Moritz Thiele, Raphael Leuner, Denys Shay, Simone Redaelli, Maximilian S Schaefer.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2023.24641

J Cell Sci. 2023 Dec 15. pii: jcs261826. [Epub ahead of print]136(24):

preLights - curating preprints for the biological community since 2018.

Reinier Prosée.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1242/jcs.261826

Acta Orthop. 2023 Dec 27. 94 625

Adapting to the rapidly moving target artificial intelligence (AI) in scholarly publishing.

Li Felländer-Tsai, Søren Overgaard.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2340/17453674.2023.34900

J Educ Eval Health Prof. 2023 ;20 40

Editorial policies on the use of generative artificial intelligence in article writing and peer-review in the Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions.

Sun Huh.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3352/jeehp.2023.20.40

J Med Internet Res. 2023 Dec 25. 25 e51229

Comparisons of Quality, Correctness, and Similarity Between ChatGPT-Generated and Human-Written Abstracts for Basic Research: Cross-Sectional Study.

Shu-Li Cheng, Shih-Jen Tsai, Ya-Mei Bai, Chih-Hung Ko, Chih-Wei Hsu, Fu-Chi Yang, Chia-Kuang Tsai, Yu-Kang Tu, Szu-Nian Yang, Ping-Tao Tseng, Tien-Wei Hsu, Chih-Sung Liang, Kuan-Pin Su.

BACKGROUND: ChatGPT may act as a research assistant to help organize the direction of thinking and summarize research findings. However, few studies have examined the quality, similarity (abstracts being similar to the original one), and accuracy of the abstracts generated by ChatGPT when researchers provide full-text basic research papers.
OBJECTIVE: We aimed to assess the applicability of an artificial intelligence (AI) model in generating abstracts for basic preclinical research.
METHODS: We selected 30 basic research papers from Nature, Genome Biology, and Biological Psychiatry. Excluding abstracts, we inputted the full text into ChatPDF, an application of a language model based on ChatGPT, and we prompted it to generate abstracts with the same style as used in the original papers. A total of 8 experts were invited to evaluate the quality of these abstracts (based on a Likert scale of 0-10) and identify which abstracts were generated by ChatPDF, using a blind approach. These abstracts were also evaluated for their similarity to the original abstracts and the accuracy of the AI content.
RESULTS: The quality of ChatGPT-generated abstracts was lower than that of the actual abstracts (10-point Likert scale: mean 4.72, SD 2.09 vs mean 8.09, SD 1.03; P<.001). The difference in quality was significant in the unstructured format (mean difference -4.33; 95% CI -4.79 to -3.86; P<.001) but minimal in the 4-subheading structured format (mean difference -2.33; 95% CI -2.79 to -1.86). Among the 30 ChatGPT-generated abstracts, 3 showed wrong conclusions, and 10 were identified as AI content. The mean percentage of similarity between the original and the generated abstracts was not high (2.10%-4.40%). The blinded reviewers achieved a 93% (224/240) accuracy rate in guessing which abstracts were written using ChatGPT.
CONCLUSIONS: Using ChatGPT to generate a scientific abstract may not lead to issues of similarity when using real full texts written by humans. However, the quality of the ChatGPT-generated abstracts was suboptimal, and their accuracy was not 100%.

Keywords: AI-generated scientific content; ChatGPT; LLM; NLP; abstract; abstracts; academic research; artificial intelligence; extract; extraction; generation; generative; language model; language models; natural language processing; plagiarism; publication; publications; scientific research; text; textual

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2196/51229

Med Ultrason. 2023 Dec 27. 25(4): 373-374

What should an Editor do in the beginning of artificial intelligence era?

Daniela Fodor.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.11152/mu-4317

Ann Surg Open. 2023 Dec;4(4): e357

Comment on Published Article "Surgeon or Bot? The Risks of Using Artificial Intelligence in Surgical Journal Publications".

Hinpetch Daungsupawong, Viroj Wiwanitkit.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/AS9.0000000000000357

PRiMER. 2023 ;7 35

Conducting a Manuscript Peer Review.

Christopher P Morley, Jacob Prunuske.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.22454/PRiMER.2023.674484

Pediatr Res. 2023 Dec 26.

How to review a scientific manuscript and get credit!

Eleanor J Molloy, Lauren Overbey, Cynthia F Bearer.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41390-023-02979-3

Ann Occup Environ Med. 2023 ;35 e45

Research misconduct using a ghostwriter in a paper-writing company.

Kyunghee Jung-Choi.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.35371/aoem.2023.35.e45

J Appl Physiol (1985). 2023 Dec 28.

Scientific Writing in Physiology: Confused/Misused Terms and Phrases.

Hirofumi Tanaka, Douglas R Seals.

One aspect of effective scientific writing in physiology is the ability to select the correct words or short phrases to use when developing your narratives. This task is made difficult because many commonly used terms have seemingly viable alternatives, leading to confusion, uncertainty, and possible misuse of those words and phrases. In this perspective, we attempt to provide general guidance when selecting between or among options for commonly confused and misused terms in scientific writing. We have organized inaccurate, confusing, commonly misused, and misleading words and phrases into separate tables categorized as general language, demographic descriptors, general science, physiological sciences, and exercise physiology. Our modest hope is that the current perspective facilitates effective writing and encourages discussion regarding the importance of clarity in writing.

Keywords: career development; physiology terms; scientific writing; word choice

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1152/japplphysiol.00868.2023

JAMA. 2023 Dec 28.

Lifting of Embargoes to Data Sharing in Clinical Trials Published in Top Medical Journals.

Maximilian Siebert, John P A Ioannidis.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2023.25394

J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle. 2023 Dec;14(6): 2981-2983

Ethical guidelines for publishing in the Journal of Cachexia, Sarcopenia and Muscle: Update 2023.

Stephan von Haehling, Andrew J S Coats, Stefan D Anker.

The Journal of Cachexia, Sarcopenia and Muscle (JCSM) aims to publish articles with relevance to wasting disorders and illnesses of the muscle in the broadest sense. In order to avoid publication of inappropriate articles and to avoid protracted disputes, the Editors have established ethical guidelines that detail a number of regulations to be fulfilled prior to submission to the journal. This article updates the principles of ethical authorship and publishing in JCSM and its daughter journal JCSM Rapid Communication. We require the corresponding author, on behalf of all co-authors, to certify adherence to the following principles: All authors listed on a manuscript considered for publication have approved its submission and (if accepted) approve publication in the journal; Each named author has made a material and independent contribution to the work submitted for publication. No person who has a right to be recognized as author has been omitted from the list of authors on the submitted manuscript; The submitted work is original and is neither under consideration elsewhere nor that it has been published previously in whole or in part other than in abstract form; All authors certify that the submitted work is original and does not contain excessive overlap with prior or contemporaneous publication elsewhere, and where the publication reports on cohorts, trials, or data that have been reported on before the facts need to be acknowledged and these other publications must be referenced; All original research work has been approved by the relevant bodies such as institutional review boards or ethics committees; All relevant conflicts of interest, financial or otherwise, that may affect the authors' ability to present data objectively, and relevant sources of funding of the research in question have been duly declared in the manuscript; All authors certify that they will submit the original source data to the editorial office upon request; Authors who have used artificial intelligence, language models, machine learning, or similar technologies need to provide a written statement - as part of the manuscript - that details the use of the respective technology; none of the aforementioned technologies can be listed as an author; The manuscript in its published form will be maintained on the servers of the journal as a valid publication only as long as all statements in these guidelines remain true. If any of the aforementioned statements ceases to be true, the authors have a duty to notify as soon as possible the Editor-in-Chief of the journal, so that the available information regarding the published article can be updated and/or the manuscript can be withdrawn.

Keywords: Ethical guidelines; publishing

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/jcsm.13420

Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2024 Jan;90(1): 4-11

The British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology: The first 50 years.

Serge Cremers, Geoffrey T Tucker, Jeffrey K Aronson, James M Ritter, Adam F Cohen.

The British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology celebrates its 50th anniversary of publication in 2023. Here four previous Editors-in-Chief and the current Editor reflect on the Journal's history and the changes that have occurred during that time.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/bcp.15952

Can Liver J. 2023 Dec;6(4): 373-374

The untitled editorial.

Eric M Yoshida, Natasha Chandok.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3138/canlivj-2023-0029