bims-skolko Biomed News
on Scholarly communication
Issue of 2025–05–11
twenty-two papers selected by
Thomas Krichel, Open Library Society
  1. P hacking - Five ways it could happen to you.
  2. Why the Rise of Predatory Journals: View of the Prey.
  3. The rising threat of predatory journals and paper mills in respiratory medicine and research.
  4. Most, but not all, clinical veterinary journals have improved publication speed of research articles-another look 6 years on.
  5. From ethical or unethical to beneficial or non-beneficial: Shifting viewpoints on ChatGPT use in letter writing.
  6. Using ChatGPT to write a literature review on autologous fat grafting.
  7. Using AI to enhance scientific discourse by transforming journals into learning communities.
  8. Positioning of the editors of the most important journals in Emergency Medicine on the use of artificial intelligence by authors and reviewers.
  9. Artificial Intelligence (AI) and academic publishing in psychiatry.
  10. Beyond Traditional Publishing: Social Media as a Catalyst for Biomedical Research Dissemination and Collaboration.
  11. Data accessibility in the chemical sciences: an analysis of recent practice in organic chemistry journals.
  12. The State of Data Sharing in Plastic Surgery: An Analysis of Journal Practices and Author Adherence.
  13. Recommendations for sharing network data and materials.
  14. A cross-sectional study on the endorsement of reporting guidelines and clinical trial registration among immunology and allergy journals.
  15. Editing geriatric medicine journals: perspectives from the editors-in-chief of Age and Ageing, European Geriatric Medicine and the Journal of the American Geriatrics Society.
  16. Equity, openness, rigor, impact, and investing in people: The Journal of Applied Psychology's values in action.
  17. Good science.
  18. Our approach to reviewer diversity.
  19. Scientific Journal Editing in Challenging Times.
  20. GPP 2022: perspectives, sentiments, and feedback from the publications community.
  21. Why Should You Trust Research Published in Psychological Science?
  22. Editing Geriatric Medicine Journals: Perspectives From the Editors-in-Chief of Age and Ageing, European Geriatric Medicine and the Journal of the American Geriatrics Society.
  1. Nature. 2025 May 08.
    P hacking - Five ways it could happen to you.
    Benjamin Tsang.
      
    Keywords:  Authorship; Careers; Research data
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-025-01246-1
  2. ANZ J Surg. 2025 May 07.
    Why the Rise of Predatory Journals: View of the Prey.
    David A Clark, Michael Solomon.
      For many authors, the publishing world is opaque and complex. With the rise of predatory journals, the sharks are circling inexperienced authors. There have been steps taken by publishers to mitigate the risk to scientific publishing, and this article seeks to approach the issue from the author's view.
    Keywords:  author; predatory journals; publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1111/ans.70173
  3. Lancet Respir Med. 2025 May 02. pii: S2213-2600(25)00117-1. [Epub ahead of print]
    The rising threat of predatory journals and paper mills in respiratory medicine and research.
    Joan B Soriano, Alberto Ruano-Ravina.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/S2213-2600(25)00117-1
  4. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2025 May 02. 1-7
    Most, but not all, clinical veterinary journals have improved publication speed of research articles-another look 6 years on.
    Mark Rishniw, Maurice E White.
       Objective: To analyze the time from submission to acceptance (review time), acceptance to first online appearance (process time), and total publication time (sum of review and process times) of research publications in a select group of veterinary journals and compare these with results from 2018.
    Methods: Data were collected from 30 sequential research articles in each journal in a backward temporal manner starting with December 2024. Data from 2024 and 2018 were compared by use of Mann-Whitney U tests for each journal.
    Results: 15 of 23 journals improved their process time; 8 of 23 also slightly improved their review time. Two journals increased their review time: one by 1.5 months and the other by 2.5 months. Thirteen journals improved their total time: 2 by 12 to 24 months. One journal had a total publication time of almost 20 months, whereas most journals had times between 6 and 10 months. Two journals had total publication times < 2 months, despite publishing more articles than the sum of articles published by 22 of 23 other journals.
    Conclusions: Most journals improved process time, with some exceptions. Two journals had total times considerably faster than other journals, raising concerns about the quality of the review process in those journals. Several journals had considerable room for improvement in the dissemination of scientific information.
    Clinical Relevance: Authors can use our data when choosing a journal for their manuscript submissions to expedite the publication process of their research but should be wary of submitting to journals claiming extraordinary publication speeds.
    Keywords:  predatory; publication speed; publication time; research; veterinary journals
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.2460/javma.25.03.0151
  5. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2025 May;51(5): e16317
    From ethical or unethical to beneficial or non-beneficial: Shifting viewpoints on ChatGPT use in letter writing.
    Shigeki Matsubara.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1111/jog.16317
  6. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2025 Apr 17. pii: S1748-6815(25)00257-8. [Epub ahead of print]105 292-304
    Using ChatGPT to write a literature review on autologous fat grafting.
    Kate Manley, Sophia Salingaros, Abby Chopoorian Fuchsman, Xue Dong, Jason A Spector.
       BACKGROUND: ChatGPT is a large language model (LLM) that has been proposed as a scientific writing tool, though its ethical use remains a highly debated topic within the academic community. This article defines the strengths and weaknesses of ChatGPT in writing a plastic surgery literature review and describes proper methodologies for optimizing GPT-generated output.
    METHODS: ChatGPT-4o was prompted to brainstorm topics for a literature review on plastic surgery. Autologous fat grafting was chosen and ChatGPT generated each section of the literature review with citations, which were subsequently evaluated for accuracy. The ability of medical professionals to discriminate between a ChatGPT-generated and published fat grafting abstract was assessed.
    RESULTS: ChatGPT successfully conceived and performed a literature review on autologous fat grafting. The model performed well in outline creation, article summarization, and editing content. It generated a professional review of fat grafting, though its claims were generalized, not completely factual, and lacked accurate citations. ChatGPT provided 21 citations, 5 of which correctly referenced a real article. Eight contained errors in their publication details, such as publication dates and author lists. The remaining 8 were unable to be found in PubMed (hallucinated). Medical professionals were unable to distinguish ChatGPT-generated material from a published abstract.
    CONCLUSIONS: With appropriate vigilance, ChatGPT may be cautiously used as a writing assistant throughout the literature review process; however, authors must verify all scientific claims and citations. ChatGPT's greatest limitation remains its tendency to hallucinate, which undermines the reliability of a generated manuscript and perpetuates inaccurate information.
    Keywords:  Artificial intelligence; ChatGPT; GPT-4o; Large language models; Literature review
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjps.2025.04.015
  7. Arch Physiother. 2025 Jan-Dec;15:15 90-96
    Using AI to enhance scientific discourse by transforming journals into learning communities.
    Michael Rowe.
      The introduction of generative AI into scientific publishing presents both opportunities and risks for the research ecosystem. While AI could enhance knowledge creation and streamline research processes, it may also amplify existing problems within the system. In this viewpoint article, I suggest that generative AI is likely to reinforce harmful processes unless scientific journals and editors use these technologies to transform themselves into vibrant knowledge communities that facilitate meaningful discourse and collaborative learning. I describe how AI could support this transformation by surfacing connections between researchers' work, making peer review more dialogic, enhancing post-publication discourse, and enabling multimodal knowledge translation. However, implementing this vision faces significant challenges, deeply rooted in the entrenched incentives of the current academic publishing system. Universities evaluate faculty based largely on publication counts, funding bodies rely on traditional metrics for grant decisions, and publishers benefit from maintaining existing models. Making meaningful change, therefore, requires coordinated action across multiple stakeholders who must be willing to accept short-term costs for long-term systemic benefits. The key to success lies in consistently returning to journals' core purpose: advancing scientific knowledge through thoughtful research and professional dialogue. By reimagining journals as AI-supported communities rather than metrics-driven repositories, we can better serve both the scientific community and the broader society it aims to benefit.
    Keywords:  Editor; Generative AI; Journal; Research Industrial complex; Scientific publication
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.33393/aop.2025.3442
  8. Emergencias. 2025 Apr;37(2): 145-148
    Positioning of the editors of the most important journals in Emergency Medicine on the use of artificial intelligence by authors and reviewers.
    Santiago Nogué-Xarau, Montserrat Amigó-Tadin.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.55633/s3me/015.2025
  9. Int J Law Psychiatry. 2025 May 03. pii: S0160-2527(25)00038-X. [Epub ahead of print]101 102105
    Artificial Intelligence (AI) and academic publishing in psychiatry.
    Brendan D Kelly.
      The current and potential impact of various applications of artificial intelligence (AI) to the field of academic publishing in psychiatry is the subject of increasing attention. At present, AI algorithms assist in data analysis, allowing researchers to process large datasets quickly and uncover complex patterns that would be challenging to detect manually. In psychiatry, this capability can potentially help integrate data from genetics, neuroimaging, and clinical assessments. AI-driven natural language processing (NLP) tools might also facilitate systematic reviews and meta-analyses by automating the extraction and synthesis of information from vast bodies of published literature. In publishing, AI can potentially help to streamline the publication process in certain ways. Automated systems might screen manuscripts for methodological rigor, ethical compliance, and potential conflicts of interest, thereby reducing the burden on editors by prompting them to consider certain matters, and possibly accelerating the publication timeline. AI-powered tools are already used to help with dissemination of research findings by generating summaries and identifying key insights, making information more accessible to a broader audience. In the future, AI has the potential to enhance psychiatric publishing in various other ways. Predictive analytics might identify emerging trends and research gaps in the literature, guiding future studies and funding priorities, although this remains speculative for now. AI could also facilitate more robust collaborations by connecting researchers with complementary expertise and interests. Additionally, the integration of AI in digital platforms could democratise access to cutting-edge research, promote global knowledge sharing, and accelerate advancements in clinical care. As AI continues to evolve, its applications in research and publishing hold the potential to drive significant progress in understanding and treating mental disorders. It is essential that these developments are accompanied by openness about the use of AI in publishing, with clear declarations by authors and publishers about the use of specific applications in published work.
    Keywords:  Artificial intelligence; Ethics; Psychiatry; Publishing; Technology
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlp.2025.102105
  10. J Interferon Cytokine Res. 2025 May 07.
    Beyond Traditional Publishing: Social Media as a Catalyst for Biomedical Research Dissemination and Collaboration.
    Jaleel Shujath.
      The expansion of social media has fundamentally transformed biomedical research dissemination and collaboration, particularly within the interferon and cytokine research community. This paper explores recent trends (2024-2025) that have amplified the role of platforms such as Twitter (now "X"), LinkedIn, Mastodon, Threads, and Bluesky. These tools have facilitated rapid knowledge exchange, democratized access to scientific discourse, enabled diverse voices to participate meaningfully, and fostered cross-disciplinary and global collaborations. Additionally, the integration of preprint repositories like bioRxiv and medRxiv, along with the evolution of open access publishing, further accelerates the accessibility and immediacy of scientific communication. Despite evident benefits, the rapid dissemination facilitated by social media also poses ethical challenges, including concerns about misinformation, premature dissemination of preliminary data, and privacy considerations. Practical strategies for researchers and institutions to effectively navigate these platforms responsibly are presented, aiming to optimize the impact of social media on scientific discovery and public engagement.
    Keywords:  biomedical research dissemination; cross-disciplinary collaboration; cytokine research; digital ethics; open access publishing; preprints; science communication; social media
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1089/jir.2025.0074
  11. Beilstein J Org Chem. 2025 ;21 864-876
    Data accessibility in the chemical sciences: an analysis of recent practice in organic chemistry journals.
    Sally Bloodworth, Cerys Willoughby, Simon J Coles.
      The discoverability and reusability of data is critical for machine learning to drive new discovery in the chemical sciences, and the 'FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship' provide a measurable set of guidelines that can be used to ensure the accessibility of reusable data. We investigate the data practice of researchers publishing in specialist organic chemistry journals, by analyzing the outputs of 240 randomly selected research papers from 12 top-ranked journals published in early 2023. We investigate compliance with recommended (but not compulsory) data policies, assess the accessibility and reusability of data, and if the existence of specific recommendations for publishing NMR data by some journals supports author compliance. We find that, although authors meet mandated requirements, there is very limited compliance with data sharing policies that are only recommended by journals. Overall, there is little evidence to suggest that authors' publishing practice meets FAIR data guidance. We suggest first steps that researchers can take to move towards a positive culture of data sharing in organic chemistry. Routine actions that we encourage as standard practice include deposition of raw and metadata to open repositories, and inclusion of machine-readable structure identifiers for all reported compounds.
    Keywords:  FAIR principles; NMR data; data availability; journal guidelines; organic chemistry
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3762/bjoc.21.70
  12. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2025 May;13(5): e6761
    The State of Data Sharing in Plastic Surgery: An Analysis of Journal Practices and Author Adherence.
    Kellen Keefer, Jeanie Marchbanks, Alex Hagood, Taylor Gardner, Brody Dennis, Jacob Duncan, Eli Paul, Alicia Ito Ford, Matt Vassar.
       Background: Data sharing is crucial for transparency and reproducibility in research. We aim to evaluate data sharing practices in plastic surgery research, focusing on data sharing statements (DSSs), identifying key trends, and assessing follow-through.
    Methods: We conducted a systematic review of the top 7 plastic surgery journals, selecting original research articles published from 2018 to 2023. Data extraction was performed in a masked duplicate manner, capturing DSS presence, funding sources, study design, and publication year. Trends in DSS inclusion over time, study designs, and journals were analyzed. A thematic analysis was conducted on DSS content. Corresponding authors of studies that stated data were available upon request were contacted to assess follow-through.
    Results: Our review included 727 articles, with only 1.51% (11 out of 727) including DSS. DSS prevalence varied, with the highest in Aesthetic Plastic Surgery (4.42%, 5 out of 113) and the lowest in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery (0.43%, 1 out of 235). Clinical trials were the most likely to include DSS (1.92%, 9 out of 469), followed by cohort studies (1.16%, 2 out of 173). Private funding and certain publishers were negatively associated with DSS inclusion, whereas journal impact factors showed a positive correlation. Responses from authors were not received, indicating a gap between stated intentions and actual practices.
    Conclusions: Data sharing practices in plastic surgery journals are inconsistent. Although DSS inclusion is encouraged, many studies still lack DSS, and the quality varies. Clearer mandates and enforcement are needed for effective data sharing.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1097/GOX.0000000000006761
  13. Netw Sci (Camb Univ Press). 2024 Dec;12(4): 404-417
    Recommendations for sharing network data and materials.
    Zachary P Neal, Zack W Almquist, James Bagrow, Aaron Clauset, Jana Diesner, Emmanuel Lazega, Juniper Lovato, James Moody, Tiago P Peixoto, Zachary Steinert-Threlkeld, Andreia Sofia Teixeira.
      One of the goals of open science is to promote the transparency and accessibility of research. Sharing data and materials used in network research is critical to these goals. In this paper, we present recommendations for whether, what, when, and where network data and materials should be shared. We recommend that network data and materials should be shared, but access to or use of shared data and materials may be restricted if necessary to avoid harm or comply with regulations. Researchers should share the network data and materials necessary to reproduce reported results via a publicly accessible repository when an associated manuscript is published. To ensure the adoption of these recommendations, network journals should require sharing, and network associations and academic institutions should reward sharing.
    Keywords:  Ethics; data sharing; guidelines; open access; open data; open science
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1017/nws.2024.16
  14. PLoS One. 2025 ;20(5): e0322003
    A cross-sectional study on the endorsement of reporting guidelines and clinical trial registration among immunology and allergy journals.
    Adam Khan, Tim Smith, Asaad Chaudhry, Caleb A Smith, Danya Nees, Griffin Hughes, Kaylyn Rowsey, Matt Vassar.
       BACKGROUND: Healthcare practitioners rely on research based on solid evidence for their clinical decisions, ensuring the provision of safe and effective patient care. The use of reporting guidelines and the registration of clinical trials enhance the reliability and credibility of research findings by promoting transparency and minimizing potential biases. However, it remains uncertain to what extent leading immunology and allergy journals have embraced these tools. This study aims to evaluate how commonly reporting guidelines and clinical trial registration are required and endorsed within leading immunology and allergy journals.
    METHODS: We identified the top 100 journals in the subcategory of "Immunology and Allergy" using the Scopus CiteScore tool for the year 2021. We thoroughly reviewed the "Instructions for Authors" section of each journal, focusing on indications related to specific reporting guidelines as outlined by the Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research (EQUATOR) Network, as well as the practice of clinical trial registration. Our documentation categorized statements as "Not Mentioned," "Recommended," "Not Accepted," or "Required." The category "Not Accepted" specifically indicated that the journal explicitly did not accept the study designs associated with certain reporting guidelines, rather than implying bias against these guidelines. ensure equitable evaluation, we communicated with each journal to confirm the types of articles they accepted.
    RESULTS: Among the 100 journals assessed, the CONSORT guideline emerged as the most frequently cited, with 60 journals recommending adherence and 13 requiring it. Conversely, the QUOROM guideline was the least commonly cited, with merely two journals recommending its adherence and none requiring it. Nineteen journals did not reference a single reporting guideline. Remarkably, clinical trial registration was required by 42 journals and recommended by 34.
    CONCLUSION: This study reveals variation in the adoption of reporting guidelines and clinical trial registration in immunology and allergy journals. While some journals strongly advocate for or require these practices, others do not emphasize them at all. This inconsistency affects research rigor and reproducibility, highlighting the need for stricter enforcement. Editors should encourage these practices to enhance transparency and minimize biases.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0322003
  15. Eur Geriatr Med. 2025 May 07.
    Editing geriatric medicine journals: perspectives from the editors-in-chief of Age and Ageing, European Geriatric Medicine and the Journal of the American Geriatrics Society.
    Roy L Soiza, Alfonso J Cruz Jentoft, Joseph G Ouslander.
      
    Keywords:  ageing; editing; geriatrics; publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s41999-025-01211-1
  16. J Appl Psychol. 2025 May;110(5): 619-622
    Equity, openness, rigor, impact, and investing in people: The Journal of Applied Psychology's values in action.
    Lillian T Eby.
      In this editorial, the author states that the Journal of Applied Psychology (JAP) publishes original empirical, theoretical, and conceptual research that advances our understanding of affective, motivational, cognitive, and behavioral phenomena in the context of work or employment. In terms of its values, JAP strongly endorses the American Psychological Association (APA) journals' commitment to equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) in all aspects of scholarly publishing. Consistent with APA's support of openness and rigor in psychological science, the journal is a leader in promoting open science practices in the fields of industrial-organizational (I-O) psychology and management. In addition, JAP has a strong culture of developmental reviewing, which is carefully balanced with high expectations for methodological rigor, transparency, and reproducibility. Finally, the journal has taken measurable steps to increase the translational impact of work to better bridge the elusive gap between science and practice. Collectively, these characteristics position JAP as a unique outlet for societally relevant, methodologically rigorous, and reproducible science aimed at better understanding the experience of work, as well as improving employee and organizational outcomes. Next, the editorial expands on each of these points in turn. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0001288
  17. J Am Assoc Nurse Pract. 2025 May 01. 37(5): 257-258
    Good science.
    M Elayne DeSimone.
       ABSTRACT: Nurse practitioner (NP) science is a dynamic and evolving field that integrates both natural and social sciences to advance the health and well-being of individuals, families, and communities. As an integral voice in NP scholarship, the Journal of the American Association of Nurse Practitioners (JAANP) is committed to publishing peer-reviewed articles that empower NPs to drive advancements in practice, education, advocacy, research, and leadership. The JAANP is dedicated to building strong, respectful relationships with authors, reviewers, and the broader NP and health care community. The JAANP maintains a steadfast commitment to the integrity of scholarship by cultivating a culture of inquiry that supports patient-centered, high-quality NP practice. We emphasize inclusion, ensuring that our authors, peer reviewers, and editorial board members represent a broad spectrum of perspectives. By amplifying diverse voices in education, research, and policy, we aim to improve health care for all and address the unique needs of varied patient populations.
    Keywords:  Inclusion; NP research; peer reviewers
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1097/JXX.0000000000001134
  18. Nat Metab. 2025 May 08.
    Our approach to reviewer diversity.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/s42255-025-01307-9
  19. Food Technol Biotechnol. 2025 Mar;63(1): 2-3
    Scientific Journal Editing in Challenging Times.
    Iva Grabarić Andonovski, Zrinka Pongrac Habdija.
      
  20. Curr Med Res Opin. 2025 May 09. 1-8
    GPP 2022: perspectives, sentiments, and feedback from the publications community.
    Raghuraj Puthige, Dikran Toroser, Anisha Mehra, Dhanya Mukundan, Anupama Kapadia.
       OBJECTIVE: To identify the impact and integration of GPP 2022 guidelines on the work processes of publications developed in pharmaceutical, publishing, agency, and academic circles.
    METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was conducted for 3 weeks from March 1-22, 2024 among medical publication professionals and healthcare researchers. The survey included questions that have been traditionally challenging in publication workstreams and were disseminated through major medical communications networking groups. The survey results were summarized as a percentage for each answer rounded to one decimal place.
    RESULTS: A total of 100 participants responded to the survey among whom 67.0% were familiar with the GPP 2022 guidelines. To mitigate potential misinterpretation risks, we considered only respondents familiar with the guidelines. More than half of the respondents (55.7%) felt that GPP 2022 was effective in addressing ethical considerations; 34.4% respondents agreed that GPP 2022 provided useful guidance on best practices in transparency and data-sharing. Most survey respondents (54.5%) agreed that the authorship and contributorship criteria were clear in GPP 2022. 37.3% of the survey respondents were familiar with publication extenders and felt that extenders added value to the dissemination of research findings; 39.2% were aware of plain-language summaries and 82.4% viewed them as vital for widespread research accessibility.
    CONCLUSION: The survey suggests a need to improve awareness and support for implementing transparency initiatives that aid in the publication process. Furthermore, although most respondents were aware of publication extenders, there was a need for clarification and harmonization of guidelines on publication extenders.
    Keywords:  GPP 2022; ethics; plain-language summary-publications [PLS-Ps]; publication extenders; publication guidelines; transparency
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1080/03007995.2025.2503975
  21. Psychol Sci. 2025 May 07. 9567976251336246
    Why Should You Trust Research Published in Psychological Science?
    Simine Vazire.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1177/09567976251336246
  22. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2025 May 07.
    Editing Geriatric Medicine Journals: Perspectives From the Editors-in-Chief of Age and Ageing, European Geriatric Medicine and the Journal of the American Geriatrics Society.
    Roy L Soiza, Alfonso J Cruz Jentoft, Joseph G Ouslander.
      This article has been simultaneously published in Journal of the American Geriatrics Society (published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of The American Geriatrics Society), Age and Ageing (published by Oxford University Press on behalf of British Geriatrics Society), and European Geriatric Medicine (published by Springer on behalf of European Geriatric Medicine Society). All rights reserved. The articles are identical except for minor stylistic and spelling differences in keeping with each journal's style.
    Keywords:  ageing; editing; geriatrics; publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1111/jgs.19429
This page is being maintained by Thomas Krichel. It was last updated on 2025‒05‒12 at 13:23.