bims-skolko Biomed News
on Scholarly communication
Issue of 2025–08–10
48 papers selected by
Thomas Krichel, Open Library Society
  1. The entities enabling scientific fraud at scale are large, resilient, and growing rapidly.
  2. Study reveals industrial-scale publishing fraud.
  3. [Scientific fraud and dubious publication practices].
  4. Open science falling behind in the era of artificial intelligence.
  5. Conflicts of Interest Publication Disclosures: Descriptive Study.
  6. Processes to achieve integrity assessments need improvement Inconsistency in publishers' responses to integrity concerns about published research Evidence and suggested improvements.
  7. VERACITY AND FRAUD IN MEDICAL RESEARCH.
  8. Ensuring Integrity in Orthopaedic Research: Addressing Unethical Practices and Promoting Ethical Standards.
  9. Intervention to Promote Ethical Authorship Practices in Graduate Education.
  10. Rethinking peer review in medicine: From trust to transformation.
  11. RE: How Artificial Intelligence Differs From Humans in Peer Review.
  12. Exclusive: retraction-prone editors identified at megajournal PLoS ONE.
  13. REPLY: How Artificial Intelligence Differs From Humans in Peer Review.
  14. The peer-review crisis: how to fix an overloaded system.
  15. Quantifying large language model usage in scientific papers.
  16. The "Migraines" epidemic: Exposing the challenges of artificial intelligence in scientific writing.
  17. Dermatology Publishing Revenues and Reviewer Compensation: A Data-Driven Study.
  18. AI-generated text surges in research papers.
  19. Artificial intelligence as author: Can scientific reviewers recognize GPT-4o-generated manuscripts?
  20. Artificial Intelligence in Publishing.
  21. Can we trust academic AI detective? Accuracy and limitations of AI-output detectors.
  22. AI disclosure, moral shame, and the punishment of honesty.
  23. The Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Academic Research: A Review of the Consensus App.
  24. Differences Between Nursing Studies Posted as Preprints on medRxiv or SSRN and Published in Peer-Reviewed Journals.
  25. Key Concepts in Clinical Epidemiology: FAIRification of Biomedical Research Data.
  26. A comprehensive review of data sharing practices in addiction research: Trends, challenges, and future directions.
  27. Identifying Barriers and Areas of Focus to Improve the Publication Practices among Paediatricians in Nepal.
  28. Three Seeds of Inspiration: How I Published My First Case Study Without a PhD.
  29. Invited Response to "Writing an Abstract: Humans or ChatGPT?"
  30. Academic writing retreats for healthcare professionals: development of the Oxford WRITE toolkit.
  31. GAIDeT (Generative AI Delegation Taxonomy): A taxonomy for humans to delegate tasks to generative artificial intelligence in scientific research and publishing.
  32. IMPROVE YOUR SCIENTIFIC WRITING WITH PRINCIPLES OF LANDSCAPE ART COMPOSITION.
  33. Where should I publish my scientific article? Insights from the editors of Critical Care Science and Critical Care Resuscitation.
  34. Peer Review in Nursing: A Guide for Early Career Scholars.
  35. Effective Scientific Writing.
  36. RE: Tang JB, Chung K. Textbooks vs. journal articles: how to appreciate and understand their limitations.
  37. Features and signals in precocious citation impact: A meta-research study.
  38. Confronting the Threat of Predatory Journals: Time for Nepalese Academia to be Aware.
  39. [Open Access: In Between the Bright and the Dark Side].
  40. Statement on the publication of research with a focus on Indigenous peoples.
  41. The importance of peer reviewed, PubMed® listed journals in the age of Open Access journal publishing.
  42. Does ResearchGate have a growing credibility problem?
  43. Writing for JOOT: raising standards in clinical research and evidence synthesis.
  44. Why our journals limit the number of words, figures, and tables.
  45. Open research data in human movement analysis: Swiss-initiated-guidelines for broader scientific communities.
  46. UK Royal Society adopts 'subscribe to open' publishing model.
  47. Academic writing in medicine and healthcare.
  48. Metrics, integrity, and editorial responsibility: responding to Clarivate's new policy.
  1. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2025 Aug 12. 122(32): e2420092122
    The entities enabling scientific fraud at scale are large, resilient, and growing rapidly.
    Reese A K Richardson, Spencer S Hong, Jennifer A Byrne, Thomas Stoeger, Luís A Nunes Amaral.
      Science is characterized by collaboration and cooperation, but also by uncertainty, competition, and inequality. While there has always been some concern that these pressures may compel some to defect from the scientific research ethos-i.e., fail to make genuine contributions to the production of knowledge or to the training of an expert workforce-the focus has largely been on the actions of lone individuals. Recently, however, reports of coordinated scientific fraud activities have increased. Some suggest that the ease of communication provided by the internet and open-access publishing have created the conditions for the emergence of entities-paper mills (i.e., sellers of mass-produced low quality and fabricated research), brokers (i.e., conduits between producers and publishers of fraudulent research), predatory journals, who do not conduct any quality controls on submissions-that facilitate systematic scientific fraud. Here, we demonstrate through case studies that i) individuals have cooperated to publish papers that were eventually retracted in a number of journals, ii) brokers have enabled publication in targeted journals at scale, and iii), within a field of science, not all subfields are equally targeted for scientific fraud. Our results reveal some of the strategies that enable the entities promoting scientific fraud to evade interventions. Our final analysis suggests that this ability to evade interventions is enabling the number of fraudulent publications to grow at a rate far outpacing that of legitimate science.
    Keywords:  fraud; metascience; organizations
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2420092122
  2. Science. 2025 Aug 07. 389(6760): 557-558
    Study reveals industrial-scale publishing fraud.
    Cathleen O'Grady.
      Sophisticated global networks are infiltrating journals to publish fake papers.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aeb2398
  3. Med Klin Intensivmed Notfmed. 2025 Aug 07.
    [Scientific fraud and dubious publication practices].
    Peter Nydahl, Mohamed Chahdi, Pia Goetze, Roland Eßl-Maurer, Carsten Hermes, Andreas Kocks, Anna-Henrikje Seidlein, Susanne Krotsetis.
      Questionable publication practices and predatory journals pose an increasing challenge to scientific integrity. These publication models advertise rapid publication times but lack essential quality controls such as peer-review processes, transparency, and charge high fees, which facilitates the dissemination of unreliable research findings. There is an increased risk, particularly for less experienced researchers, of unknowingly publishing in such journals or using their content uncritically. This can negatively impact individual career paths, the scientific community, and public perception of scientific knowledge. The article outlines the key characteristics of predatory journals and analyzes their potential consequences for science, as well as the quality and dissemination of research findings. Practical tools, such as checklists and established resources, are also presented to assist researchers in identifying and avoiding dubious publication offers. Finally, the article emphasizes the importance of raising awareness about this issue to uphold scientific standards and ensure the long-term reliability of research.
    Keywords:  Fake Science; Peer-review standards; Predatory journals; Research ethics; Scientific integrity
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00063-025-01307-3
  4. Front Res Metr Anal. 2025 ;10 1595824
    Open science falling behind in the era of artificial intelligence.
    Guanxiong Pei, Huajian Huang.
      
    Keywords:  AI for science; governance policies; open science; public sector initiatives; systematic policy innovations
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3389/frma.2025.1595824
  5. JMIR Data. 2024 ;pii: e57779. [Epub ahead of print]5
    Conflicts of Interest Publication Disclosures: Descriptive Study.
    S Scott Graham, Jade Shiva, Nandini Sharma, Joshua B Barbour, Zoltan P Majdik, Justin F Rousseau.
       Background: Multiple lines of prior research have documented that author conflicts of interest (COI) can compromise the integrity of the biomedical research enterprise. However, continuing research that would investigate why, how, and in what circumstances COI is most risky is stymied by the difficulty in accessing disclosure statements, which are not widely represented in available databases.
    Objective: In this study, we describe a new open access dataset of COI disclosures extracted from published biomedical journals articles.
    Methods: To develop the dataset, we used ClinCalc's Top 300 drugs lists for 2017 and 2018 to identify 319 of the most commonly used drugs. Search strategies for each product were developed using the National Library of Medicine's Medical Subject Headings browser and deployed using the eUtilities API in April 2021. We identified the 150 most relevant articles for each product and extracted COI disclosure statements from PubMed, PubMed Central, or retrieved articles as necessary.
    Results: Conflicts of Interest PublicatiON Disclosures (COIPonD) is a new dataset that captures author-reported COI disclosures for biomedical research articles published in a wide range of journals and subspecialties. COIPonD captures author-reported disclosure information (including lack of disclosure) for over 38,000 PubMed-indexed articles published between 1949 and 2022. The collected articles are indexed by discussed drug products with a focus on the 319 most commonly used drugs in the United States.
    Conclusions: COIPonD should accelerate research efforts to understand the effects of COI on the biomedical research enterprise. In particular, this dataset should facilitate new studies of COI effects across disciplines and subspecialties.
    Keywords:  Conflicts of interest; biomedical publishing; dataset; research integrity
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.2196/57779
  6. J Clin Epidemiol. 2025 Aug 04. pii: S0895-4356(25)00251-3. [Epub ahead of print] 111918
    Processes to achieve integrity assessments need improvement Inconsistency in publishers' responses to integrity concerns about published research Evidence and suggested improvements.
    Andrew Grey, Alison Avenell, Alan Gaby, Mark J Bolland.
       OBJECTIVE: To collate, review and comment upon publishers' response to integrity concerns STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We conducted a narrative review of publications reporting the responses of publishers to concerns about the integrity of research published in their journals. We also drew upon extensive personal experience and a new analysis of publisher responses to integrity concerns about 172 clinical trial publications by a single research group 5 years after the concerns were raised simultaneously with affected publishers.
    RESULTS: Existing evidence reports that slow, incomplete and opaque responses from publishers to integrity concerns are common, in both clinical and preclinical disciplines. When we raised very similar concerns about a large set of journal articles simultaneously with publishers, times to resolution varied markedly, and outcomes ranged from no editorial action to all papers retracted.
    CONCLUSION: Publishers' responses to notification of concerns about the integrity of publications in their journals are markedly inconsistent, both in their timing and the nature of their editorial decisions. The reasons for these inconsistencies are unknown, but could be addressed by a collaborative and transparent process involving publisher integrity staff and academics with expertise in publication integrity. Understanding the reasons for the disparate outcomes is likely to facilitate improvements which will enhance the trustworthiness of the biomedical literature.
    Keywords:  Expression of concern; Publication integrity; Publishers; Research integrity; Retraction
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2025.111918
  7. Trans Am Clin Climatol Assoc. 2025 ;135 222-230
    VERACITY AND FRAUD IN MEDICAL RESEARCH.
    Jane E Freedman.
      Scientific fraud, particularly within medical journals, is a critical and complex issue due to the potential consequences for public health. Medical research plays a crucial role in informing scientific innovation, guiding clinical practice, and driving advancements in treatments. False or misleading research can influence future discovery, lead to ineffective or harmful treatments, waste valuable resources, and erode public trust. A troubling increase in misconduct, including data fabrication and falsification, has been recently noted, although it's unclear whether this partially reflects the development of better methods of detection. Addressing the issue of scientific fraud in medical journals requires a concerted effort from all stakeholders involved, including researchers, journal editors, peer reviewers, funding agencies, and regulatory bodies. Implementing robust measures for detecting and preventing fraud, promoting transparency and accountability in research practices, and fostering a culture of integrity and ethical conduct are all essential steps toward safeguarding the integrity of medical research.
  8. J Nepal Health Res Counc. 2025 Jun 29. 23(1): 1-7
    Ensuring Integrity in Orthopaedic Research: Addressing Unethical Practices and Promoting Ethical Standards.
    Raju Vaishya, Janki Sharan Bhadani, Abhishek Vaish, Pramod Joshi.
      This review discusses the prevalence of these unethical behaviours, their far-reaching consequences on patient care, and the Orthopaedic field's credibility. It highlights the need for effective strategies to promote ethical standards, emphasizing the importance of awareness among researchers and clinicians. The article outlines specific unethical practices, including data manipulation, which distorts treatment efficacy, and plagiarism, which diminishes originality and wastes peer review resources. Additionally, it addresses biased reporting and conflicts of interest, which can compromise objectivity in research findings. The review advocates for collaborative efforts among institutions and journals to foster accountability and transparency, ultimately encouraging a culture of ethical conduct within the Orthopaedic community. By ensuring rigorous standards and practices, the future of Orthopaedic research can be aligned with patient safety and trust, propelling the field toward meaningful advancements in patient care and treatment outcomes. Keywords: Conflict of interest; data fabrication; ethics; plagiarism; research; research Integrity.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.33314/jnhrc.v23i01.5564
  9. Sci Eng Ethics. 2025 Aug 05. 31(4): 22
    Intervention to Promote Ethical Authorship Practices in Graduate Education.
    Elise Demeter, Andrew McBride, Holly Holladay-Sandidge, Lisa M Rasmussen, George Banks, Katherine Hall-Hertel.
      Authorship credit is essential for researchers' success in academia. For academics collaborating with others, differing perceptions of how to value different contributions, disciplinary differences in authorship conventions, and power differences among collaborators can make authorship decisions more difficult to navigate in ways that feel fair and transparent to all involved. Graduate students may feel particularly disadvantaged in authorship decisions due to their relative lack of publishing experience. Here we tested the effectiveness of an educational training intervention designed to promote ethical authorship practices by supporting graduate students' knowledge of authorship and authorship ethics and their ability to effectively navigate authorship conversations with collaborators. Students (n = 185) underwent an online training program and used an authorship agreement form to discuss authorship on a research project with their faculty mentor. We randomly assigned half of the students to undergo an additional small group workshop to test the level of institutional investments needed to see benefits for students. We found the online training and authorship agreement forms boosted students' perceptions of their authorship knowledge and confidence effectively navigating authorship conversations with collaborators. The additional workshop did not yield further benefits for students' outcomes, suggesting that institutions can help promote ethical authorship through low-cost, scalable educational resources.
    Keywords:  Authorship; Authorship agreement; Authorship policy; Collaboration; Graduate education; Research ethics training
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-025-00548-x
  10. J Crit Care Med (Targu Mures). 2025 Jul;11(3): 205-207
    Rethinking peer review in medicine: From trust to transformation.
    Dan Longrois, Sacha Rozencwaig, Pierre-Grégoire Guinot.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.2478/jccm-2025-0035
  11. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2025 Aug;pii: S0278-2391(25)00247-2. [Epub ahead of print]83(8): 925
    RE: How Artificial Intelligence Differs From Humans in Peer Review.
    Gauthier Largarde, Grégoire Micicoi, Elise Lupon.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2025.04.014
  12. Nature. 2025 Aug 04.
    Exclusive: retraction-prone editors identified at megajournal PLoS ONE.
    Miryam Naddaf.
      
    Keywords:  Ethics; Publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-025-02446-5
  13. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2025 Aug;pii: S0278-2391(25)00248-4. [Epub ahead of print]83(8): 925-926
    REPLY: How Artificial Intelligence Differs From Humans in Peer Review.
    Michael V Joachim, Thomas B Dodson, Amir Laviv.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2025.04.015
  14. Nature. 2025 Aug;644(8075): 24-27
    The peer-review crisis: how to fix an overloaded system.
    David Adam.
      
    Keywords:  Funding; Peer review; Publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-025-02457-2
  15. Nat Hum Behav. 2025 Aug 04.
    Quantifying large language model usage in scientific papers.
    Weixin Liang, Yaohui Zhang, Zhengxuan Wu, Haley Lepp, Wenlong Ji, Xuandong Zhao, Hancheng Cao, Sheng Liu, Siyu He, Zhi Huang, Diyi Yang, Christopher Potts, Christopher D Manning, James Zou.
      Scientific publishing is the primary means of disseminating research findings. There has been speculation about how extensively large language models (LLMs) are being used in academic writing. Here we conduct a systematic analysis across 1,121,912 preprints and published papers from January 2020 to September 2024 on arXiv, bioRxiv and Nature portfolio journals, using a population-level framework based on word frequency shifts to estimate the prevalence of LLM-modified content over time. Our findings suggest a steady increase in LLM usage, with the largest and fastest growth estimated for computer science papers (up to 22%). By comparison, mathematics papers and the Nature portfolio showed lower evidence of LLM modification (up to 9%). LLM modification estimates were higher among papers from first authors who post preprints more frequently, papers in more crowded research areas and papers of shorter lengths. Our findings suggest that LLMs are being broadly used in scientific writing.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-025-02273-8
  16. Cephalalgia. 2025 Aug;45(8): 3331024251365833
    The "Migraines" epidemic: Exposing the challenges of artificial intelligence in scientific writing.
    Simona Sacco.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1177/03331024251365833
  17. Clin Dermatol. 2025 Jul 31. pii: S0738-081X(25)00208-1. [Epub ahead of print]
    Dermatology Publishing Revenues and Reviewer Compensation: A Data-Driven Study.
    Waseem Hassan, Fred Paas.
      
    Keywords:  APC; Dermatology; Peer Review; Reviewer Compensation
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clindermatol.2025.07.007
  18. Science. 2025 Aug 07. 389(6760): 558-559
    AI-generated text surges in research papers.
    Phie Jacobs.
      One-fifth of computer science papers may include AI-written sentences.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aeb2399
  19. Am J Emerg Med. 2025 Jul 30. pii: S0735-6757(25)00495-4. [Epub ahead of print]97 216-219
    Artificial intelligence as author: Can scientific reviewers recognize GPT-4o-generated manuscripts?
    Ahmet Öztürk, Anılcan Tahsin Karahan, Serkan Günay, Abdul Samed Erdal, Seval Komut, Erdal Komut, Yavuz Yiğit.
       INTRODUCTION: Chat Generative Pre-Trained Transformer (ChatGPT) is a natural language processing model. It can be argued that ChatGPT has recently begun to assume the role of a technological assistant capable of supporting academics in the process of scientific writing. ChatGPT may contribute to the spread of incorrect or incomplete information within academic literature, leading to conceptual confusion and potential academic misconduct. The aim of this study is to determine whether a scientific article entirely generated by an AI application such as ChatGPT can be detected by an academic journal editor or peer reviewer.
    METHODS: This study was conducted between November 1, 2024, and December 1, 2024. GPT-4o, was utilized in this study. ChatGPT was instructed to write a scientific article focused on predicting mortality and return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) in OHCA cases. The manuscript written by ChatGPT-4o was sent to 14 different reviewers who had previously served as reviewers or editors. The reviewers were asked to evaluate the manuscript as if they were an SCI-E journal editor or peer reviewer. The reviewers were informed that the article had been written by ChatGPT and were asked whether they had identified this during their review.
    RESULTS: Among the reviewers, 42.9 % (n = 6) decided to reject the manuscript at the editorial stage, whereas another 42.9 % (n = 6) opted to forward it to a peer reviewer. During the peer review stage, 42.9 % (n = 6) of the reviewers recommended rejection, while 28.6 % (n = 4) suggested major revisions. 78.6 % (n = 11) of the reviewers did not realize that the manuscript had been generated by an artificial intelligence model.
    CONCLUSION: The findings of our study highlight the necessity for journal editors and peer reviewers to be well-informed about ChatGPT and to develop systems capable of identifying whether a manuscript has been written by a human or generated by artificial intelligence.
    Keywords:  Artificial intelligence; ChatGPT; Editor; Journal; Reviewer
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajem.2025.07.034
  20. Radiol Technol. 2025 Jan-Feb;96(3):96(3): 173
    Artificial Intelligence in Publishing.
    Kayla R Zehr.
      
  21. Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2025 Aug 07. 167(1): 214
    Can we trust academic AI detective? Accuracy and limitations of AI-output detectors.
    Gökberk Erol, Anıl Ergen, Büşra Gülşen Erol, Şebnem Kaya Ergen, Tevfik Serhan Bora, Ali Deniz Çölgeçen, Büşra Araz, Cansel Şahin, Günsu Bostancı, İlayda Kılıç, Zeynep Birce Macit, Umut Tan Sevgi, Abuzer Güngör.
       OBJECTIVE: This study evaluates the reliability and accuracy of AI-generated text detection tools in distinguishing human-authored academic content from AI-generated texts, highlighting potential challenges and ethical considerations in their application within the scientific community.
    METHODS: This study analyzed the detectability of AI-generated academic content using abstracts and introductions created by ChatGPT versions 3.5, 4, and 4o, alongside human-written originals from the pre-ChatGPT era. Articles were sourced from four high impact neurosurgery journals and categorized into four categories: originals and generated by ChatGPT 3.5, ChatGPT 4, and ChatGPT 4o. AI-output detectors (GPTZero, ZeroGPT, Corrector App) were employed to classify 1,000 texts as human- or AI-generated. Additionally, plagiarism checks were performed on AI-generated content to evaluate uniqueness.
    RESULTS: A total of 250 human-authored articles and 750 ChatGPT-generated texts were analyzed using three AI-output detectors (Corrector, ZeroGPT, GPTZero). Human-authored texts consistently had the lowest AI likelihood scores, while AI-generated texts exhibited significantly higher scores across all versions of ChatGPT (p < 0.01). Plagiarism detection revealed high originality for ChatGPT-generated content, with no significant differences among versions (p > 0.05). ROC analysis demonstrated that AI-output detectors effectively distinguished AI-generated content from human-written texts, with areas under the curve (AUC) ranging from 0.75 to 1.00 for all models. However, none of the detectors achieved 100% reliability in distinguishing AI-generated content.
    CONCLUSIONS: While models like ChatGPT enhance content creation and efficiency, they raise ethical concerns, particularly in fields demanding trust and precision. AI-output detectors exhibit moderate to high success in distinguishing AI-generated texts, but false positives pose risks to researchers. Improving detector reliability and establishing clear policies on AI usage are critical to mitigate misuse while fully leveraging AI's benefits.
    Keywords:  AI-output detector; Academic writing; Artificial intelligence; ChatGPT; Ethical considerations; Plagiarism detection
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00701-025-06622-4
  22. Account Res. 2025 Aug 07. 1-14
    AI disclosure, moral shame, and the punishment of honesty.
    Aorigele Bao, Yi Zeng.
       BACKGROUND: Disclosure of AI use is seen as a sign of the author's honesty and commitment to the principle of transparency. However, existing discussions have paid little attention to a special case: authors who honestly disclose their use of AI feel ashamed because of their honesty.
    METHODS AND RESULTS: The main issue discussed in this paper is why authors experience shame in the process of responsible disclosure of AI use. We redefine this emotion and its causes from the perspective of moral emotions. We argue that current disclosure policies only emphasize honesty but do not address how this honesty should be fairly treated.
    CONCLUSIONS: Current disclosure guidelines should ensure that authors feel more secure when disclosing AI use honestly in academic papers, thereby promoting an effective and responsible culture of disclosure. This requires more constructive narrative support. Expressing appreciation and respect for the honesty represented by disclosure is an appropriate way to address the issues discussed in this paper.
    Keywords:  Artificial intelligence ethics; dissertation writing; moral shame
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2025.2542197
  23. Cureus. 2025 Jul;17(7): e87297
    The Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Academic Research: A Review of the Consensus App.
    Olukayode E Apata, Oi-Man Kwok, Yuan-Hsuan Lee.
      Consensus App is an academic search engine designed to change how researchers access and synthesize information. It helps researchers quickly browse the growing body of academic literature by offering insights at both the topic and paper levels. We evaluate the Consensus App's potential to transform academic research, its ethical implications, and the reasons behind its underrepresentation in academic literature. We seek to provide a balanced perspective on the app's current and future influence in academic research. This paper is based on a rapid review of the literature to see how the Consensus App is used and reported in the literature. Our review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. We focused on identifying applications, benefits, and ethical concerns related to the Consensus App. The search was conducted on December 23, 2024, across 210 academic databases. The databases from which articles were retrieved include Web of Science (N=6), MEDLINE (N=2), Academic Search Ultimate (N=1), and Fuente Académica Plus (N=1). In addition to the database searches, five additional editorials were identified through targeted manual searches of high-impact journals. In total, 10 papers were included in the final review. ChatGPT-4.5 was used to assist in synthesizing key themes across the articles, focusing on application, benefits, and ethical concerns related to the Consensus App and the broader use of artificial intelligence (AI) in scholarly work. The reviewed articles revealed that the use of the Consensus App is surprisingly low, which may suggest underreporting by its users. Researchers may also not be aware of it. These studies showed how the app has been limitedly used in the literature. Despite its advantages, we identified ethical concerns in the reviewed studies. Despite its potential, the Consensus App remains underutilized and significantly underreported in academic literature. Therefore, it is important for academic institutions, journal editors, and researchers to collaboratively develop standardized reporting guidelines when AI is involved in the process of manuscript development. The eventual goal is to lead to a more transparent reporting of AI usage in research.
    Keywords:  academic integrity; consensus app; ethical concerns; reporting practices; transparency
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.87297
  24. Int Nurs Rev. 2025 Sep;72(3): e70088
    Differences Between Nursing Studies Posted as Preprints on medRxiv or SSRN and Published in Peer-Reviewed Journals.
    Iva Mikulić, Drita Puharić, Mario Malički.
       AIM: To analyze differences in titles, authorship, abstracts, texts, tables, figures, and references of first nursing studies posted as preprints on medRxiv's nursing subsection and the Social Science Research Network's (SSRN) Nursing Network.
    BACKGROUND: Previous studies indicated high similarity between preprints and published papers, but no such studies were done in nursing.
    METHODS: This is a cross-sectional study in which we examined all preprints posted on medRxiv nursing subsection since its inception till February 2021, and the equivalent number of preprints first posted on the SSRN Nursing Network. Differences between changes of manuscripts belonging to the two servers were analyzed with a series of χ2 tests and Mann-Whitney U tests. The study adheres to the Strengthening of the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guidelines.
    RESULTS: While all 51 preprint-journal pairs analyzed exhibited some changes, the majority of changes were stylistic or involved the addition of information in the methods or results sections. Only 2% of studies had significant changes in their primary conclusions. We found a similar frequency of changes between the two servers.
    DISCUSSION: Our study has shown that the first nursing preprints posted on medRxiv and SSRN showed very high similarity with their peer-reviewed publications.
    CONCLUSIONS: Nursing preprints are still very rare, but current evidence indicates their quality is on par with their peer-reviewed counterparts.
    IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING AND/OR HEALTH POLICY: Funders, universities, hospitals, research organizations, and nursing journals should actively promote the use of preprints for the rapid dissemination of nursing research findings. Additionally, they should incorporate preprints into their educational and hiring processes. Nurses and nursing researchers should follow nursing preprints to stay up to date with nursing research.
    Keywords:  differences; nursing; peer review; preprints; scholarly publishing; transparency
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1111/inr.70088
  25. J Clin Epidemiol. 2025 Aug 05. pii: S0895-4356(25)00253-7. [Epub ahead of print] 111920
    Key Concepts in Clinical Epidemiology: FAIRification of Biomedical Research Data.
    Ka Hin Tai, Marcel Müller, Ulrich Mansmann, Anna Catharina Vieira Armond, Evelyne Decullier, Anne Le Louarn, Nchangwi Syntia Munung, Florian Naudet, Fabian Prasser, Ulrich Sax.
      The FAIR guiding principles promote Findability, Accessibility, Interoperability, and Reuse of data to enhance data management and stewardship. In biomedicine, particular ethical, legal, and technical barriers complicate research data sharing. To help researchers overcome these challenges, we propose a framework of FAIRification from three dimensions - scientific, technical, and legal/ethical. We advocate for prospective FAIRification of study data, starting with a strong emphasis on planning for data-sharing from the beginning. Reflective questions throughout the process guide researchers to reflect on their situation. Researchers should assess resources and feasibility, secure technical and legal support, consider stakeholder needs, and devise an appropriate data sharing process. Given the sensitivity of biomedical data, confidentiality and security require careful attention. The data sharing strategy should be finalised before the study starts, and documented in relevant study materials. Technical preparation for data sharing follows planning. Data should be well-documented with a data dictionary and metadata to facilitate reuse, and provided in an accessible format. The data can be hosted on a repository to promote sharing and reuse. While a secure repository provides the technical foundation for data protection, effective administration is required to enforce data use agreements and licensing. We also discuss the importance of subsequent management upon data upload. Continued support for researchers and data maintenance are essential for effective reuse. Examples and resources to facilitate FAIRification are included to help researchers navigate challenges and ensure biomedical data is FAIR and reusable.
    Keywords:  Biomedical research; Data sharing; FAIR principle; Metadata standards; Open science; Responsible research
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2025.111920
  26. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2025 Jul 22. pii: S0376-8716(25)00247-9. [Epub ahead of print]275 112794
    A comprehensive review of data sharing practices in addiction research: Trends, challenges, and future directions.
    Logan Corwin, Christopher Tran, Eli Paul, Eli Oldham, Jacob Duncan, Annes Elfar, Alexis Hagood, Alicia Ito Ford, Matt Vassar.
       AIM: To evaluate the current state of data sharing practices in addiction medicine (AM) research, focusing on data sharing statements (DSS).
    BACKGROUND: Data sharing is essential for transparency and reproducibility, yet its adoption in AM research remains unclear.
    MEASUREMENT: We reviewed articles from the top 10 AM journals (2018-2023). Data were extracted using a standardized form. Logistic regression, latent class analysis, and thematic analysis were conducted to examine factors associated with DSS inclusion. Authors were also contacted to assess willingness to share data.
    FINDINGS: Only 22.75 % of articles included a DSS, though this rose to 52 % by 2023. DSS inclusion was higher in clinical trials than cohort studies (24.49 % vs. 16.59 %), and more common in open access articles (24.36 %) than non-open access ones (19.55 %). Journals with both journal and publisher "Requires" policies had the highest inclusion rate (43.07 %). Logistic regression confirmed policy alignment as the strongest predictor of DSS presence. Thematic analysis showed most DSS offered conditional access (74.14 %), with few using public repositories (12.07 %). Among authors contacted, 62 % were willing to share data, though many imposed conditions related to ethics, privacy, or resource limitations.
    CONCLUSION: The implementation of DSS is increasing in AM research, but most indicate restricted access. Additionally, journal and publisher policies play a crucial role in promoting data sharing. Efforts to address the barriers to data sharing and use of open data repositories are needed to improve addiction research.
    Keywords:  Addiction medicine; Data availability; Data sharing policies; Data sharing statements; Open science
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2025.112794
  27. J Nepal Health Res Counc. 2025 Jun 29. 23(1): 190-199
    Identifying Barriers and Areas of Focus to Improve the Publication Practices among Paediatricians in Nepal.
    Ajaya Kumar Dhakal, Arun Kumar Neopane, Moon Thapa, Neeti Singh, Devendra Shrestha.
       BACKGROUND: Medical research publications in Nepal have remained relatively uncommon over the last decade. However, recent growing research interest among clinicians in Nepal has emphasised the need to identify and address key barriers to strengthen the research-publication process. This study aimed to identify these barriers and focus areas for improving publication practices among paediatricians in Nepal.
    METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted among Nepali paediatricians from 15 January to 15 May 2024 using a semi-structured questionnaire distributed via Google Forms. The survey included Likert-scale, open-ended, and closed-ended questions on research-publication barriers, research practices, motivation, and recommendations for improvement.
    RESULTS: A total of 293 participants (male: 60.1%) responded to the survey. Of these, 35.2% worked in government hospitals, 38.6% were subspecialists, and 54.9% had additional responsibilities beyond their paediatric work. Furthermore, 77.5% of paediatricians had publications, with 78% and 95.15% as principal authors and co-authors, respectively. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses were deemed to be the most challenging, whereas cross-sectional studies were the easiest to conduct. Academic recognition (73.7%) was the primary motivation for publishing, whereas the most significant barrier was being overwhelmed by clinical work (64.5%). Time management (96.1%) and clinical work responsibilities (93.2%) were the main challenges in the manuscript preparation. Ghost authorship (14%) and gift authorship (32.6%) were the most common issues related to authorship. Most participants (80.5%) believed that training in manuscript writing and research methodology could improve the quality and quantity of the research publications.
    CONCLUSIONS: Paediatricians in Nepal face several publication barriers, which can be addressed through increased funding, improved resources, and enhanced research training.
    Keywords:  Barriers; Nepal; paediatrician; publication; research.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.33314/jnhrc.v23i01.5497
  28. J Hum Lact. 2025 Aug 03. 8903344251355194
    Three Seeds of Inspiration: How I Published My First Case Study Without a PhD.
    Indira Lopez-Bassols.
      This article narrates a lived experience of how to write a case study. The essential ingredient to get started is wonder-some sparkle of awe. As International Board Certified Lactation Consultants, we are in privileged position as we witness how families find the strength and courage to overcome puzzling situations to forge their own breastfeeding paths. In addition to a story, the author explains that she also needed a map and compass to write her first case study. She explored the medical literature and read many cases studies where she found guidance on developing the backbone of her first case study. This article explains how writing should be accessible to all-even to those who are not in academia. One does not have to have a PhD to get published.
    Keywords:  International Board Certified Lactation Consultant; breastfeeding; case study; lactation; lactation education; methodology; qualitative methods
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1177/08903344251355194
  29. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2025 Aug 05.
    Invited Response to "Writing an Abstract: Humans or ChatGPT?"
    Sophia M Pressman, Cesar A Gomez-Cabello, Antonio Jorge Forte.
      In response to Matsubara's commentary on our study of ChatGPT-generated abstracts, we clarify that our work represents an early exploration of AI's potential to support researchers in academic medicine. While AI has limitations, our findings suggest that tools like ChatGPT may assist with abstract writing. We emphasize the importance of responsible and transparent use. NO LEVEL ASSIGNED: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each submission to which Evidence-Based Medicine rankings are applicable. This excludes Review Articles, Book Reviews, and manuscripts that concern Basic Science, Animal Studies, Cadaver Studies, and Experimental Studies. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .
    Keywords:  Academic integrity; Artificial intelligence; ChatGPT; Large language models; Research; Scientific communication
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-025-05127-w
  30. Nurse Res. 2025 Aug 06.
    Academic writing retreats for healthcare professionals: development of the Oxford WRITE toolkit.
    Catherine Henshall, Tamara Lewin, Garry Tew, Lydia Harris, Sarah Daniel, Benita Olivier.
       BACKGROUND: Academic writing retreats offer nurses, midwives and allied health professionals (NMAHPs) opportunities to engage in research, enhance their research capabilities and produce publishable outputs. However, there are deterrents to running retreats, including time-consuming administrative loads. A toolkit to facilitate the organisation of retreats may therefore increase their number and quality by reducing administrative burdens.
    AIM: To report on the development and piloting of the Oxford Writing Retreat Implementation Tools for Excellence (WRITE) toolkit.
    DISCUSSION: The authors created a toolkit to facilitate the organisation of high-quality writing retreats for NMAHPs. They evaluated WRITE using a pilot and interviews with the pilot retreat's organisers. Their findings indicate the toolkit is comprehensive, user-friendly and adaptable to local contexts. It also reduces the time and resources required to organise writing retreats, which gives NMAHPs more frequent writing opportunities. They also found toolkit components needed clearer labelling and application forms for attendees should be more detailed.
    CONCLUSION: WRITE is a valuable resource for organising high-quality, reproducible, writing retreats for NMAHPs. Its availability and adaptability make it suitable for widespread implementation internationally.
    IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: WRITE facilitates the efficient organisation of writing retreats, potentially increasing their frequency and accessibility. Its user-friendliness may lower barriers to retreat organisation, expanding opportunities for NMAHPs to engage in academic writing activities. This may lead to increased research outputs and scholarly contributions from this healthcare demographic.
    Keywords:  communication; instrument design; narrative; research; research methods; writing for publication
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.7748/nr.2025.e1972
  31. Account Res. 2025 Aug 08. 1-27
    GAIDeT (Generative AI Delegation Taxonomy): A taxonomy for humans to delegate tasks to generative artificial intelligence in scientific research and publishing.
    Yana Suchikova, Natalia Tsybuliak, Jaime A Teixeira da Silva, Serhii Nazarovets.
       BACKGROUND: The integration of generative artificial intelligence (GAI) in research raises concerns about transparency, accountability, and task delegation. While frameworks such as CRediT and the NIST AI Use Taxonomy address contributions to research, they either exclude AI-assisted input (CRediT) or do not provide a stage-specific approach (NIST). A structured taxonomy is needed to delineate GAI's contributions across research stages while preserving human oversight and research integrity.
    METHODS: This study introduces the Generative AI Delegation Taxonomy (GAIDeT), informed by existing contributor role taxonomies, peer-reviewed literature, and an iterative consensus-building approach. It categorizes GAI's contributions at macro and corresponding micro levels, specifying the degree of human oversight required.
    RESULTS: GAIDeT provides a structured framework for documenting GAI's role in scholarly research. It classifies research activities into key domains - conceptualization, literature review, methodology, data analysis, writing, supervision, and ethical review - ensuring transparency and human accountability. A GitHub-based interactive tool - the GAIDeT Declaration Generator - was developed to help researchers document delegation choices transparently.
    CONCLUSIONS: By standardizing GAI task delegation, GAIDeT enhances research integrity and transparency. Future work should focus on empirical validation, cross-disciplinary adaptability, and policy implications for GAI governance.
    Keywords:  Human-AI collaboration; Large language models; research workflow; taxonomy
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2025.2544331
  32. Trans Am Clin Climatol Assoc. 2025 ;135 130-145
    IMPROVE YOUR SCIENTIFIC WRITING WITH PRINCIPLES OF LANDSCAPE ART COMPOSITION.
    Virginia B Kraus.
      The scientific research article is a careful balance of factual information and social interaction in which academic writers need to make the results of their research public and persuasive. Although scientific communication through journal articles has a history spanning over 350 years, there remains significant potential for improvement. I hypothesize that compositional strategies employed by artists-particularly landscape artists-can enhance academic scientific writing by promoting interaction and improving persuasive communication. This article explores how principles fundamental to landscape art, such as notan, focal point, element hierarchy, the 80/20 rule, simplification, and repetition, can enhance scientific writing. Awareness and adoption of these artistic techniques can make the scientific writing process more engaging and enjoyable for lovers of science and art alike.
  33. Crit Care Sci. 2025 ;pii: S2965-27742025000100107. [Epub ahead of print]37 e20250188
    Where should I publish my scientific article? Insights from the editors of Critical Care Science and Critical Care Resuscitation.
    Jorge Ibrain Figueira Salluh, Pedro Henrique Rigotti Soares, Elisa Estenssoro, Ary Serpa Neto, Rinaldo Bellomo, Antonio Paulo Nassar.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.62675/2965-2774.20250188
  34. J Clin Nurs. 2025 Aug 06.
    Peer Review in Nursing: A Guide for Early Career Scholars.
    Hye Ri Choi, Jed Montayre.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.70054
  35. J Dent Hyg. 2025 Aug;99(4): 61-65
    Effective Scientific Writing.
    Katy Battani, Jacquelyn L Fried.
      Effective scientific writing is a keystone to success in higher education. To excel and advance, aspiring academicians need to master the art and science of scientific writing. The following brief report describes the types of manuscripts accepted by research publications. More specifically, it highlights the parts of a research report, their inclusions, and guidelines on how to write them effectively and comprehensively. Suggestions on the writing process are also provided. Mastering scientific writing has a steep learning curve that requires perseverance, practice, collegiality, and hours of revising and editing.
    Keywords:  communication skills; research reports; scientific writing
  36. J Hand Surg Eur Vol. 2025 Aug 05. 17531934251362692
    RE: Tang JB, Chung K. Textbooks vs. journal articles: how to appreciate and understand their limitations.
    With Gratitude And Respect Raman Mehrzad.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1177/17531934251362692
  37. PLoS One. 2025 ;20(8): e0328531
    Features and signals in precocious citation impact: A meta-research study.
    John P A Ioannidis.
      The current analysis aimed to evaluate the profiles of scientists who reach top citation impact in a very short time once they start publishing. Precocious citation impact was defined as rising to become a top-cited scientist within t ≤ 8 years after the first publication year. Ultra-precocious citation impact was defined similarly for t ≤ 5 years. Top-cited authors included those in the top-2% of a previously validated composite citation indicator across 174 subfields of science or in the top-100,000 authors of that composite citation indicator across all science based on Scopus. Annual data between 2017 and 2023 show a strong increase over time, with 469 precocious and 66 ultra-precocious citation impact author profiles in 2023. In-depth assessment of validated ultra-precocious scientists in 2023, showed significantly higher frequency of less developed country affiliation; clustering in 4 high-risk subfields; high self-citations for their field; being top-cited only when self-citations were included; high citations to citing papers ratio for their field; extreme publishing behavior; extreme citation orchestration metric c/h2; and high percentage of citations given to first-authored papers compared with all top-cited authors (p < 0.005 for all signals). The 17 ultra-precocious citation impact authors in the 2017-2020 top-cited lists who had retractions showed on average 4.1 of these 8 signal indicators at the time they entered the top-cited list. In conclusion, while some authors with precocious citation impact may be stellar scientists, others probably herald massive manipulative or fraudulent behaviors infiltrating the scientific literature.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0328531
  38. J Nepal Health Res Counc. 2025 Jun 29. 23(1): I-II
    Confronting the Threat of Predatory Journals: Time for Nepalese Academia to be Aware.
    Pawan Kumar Hamal, Pravakar Dawadi, Prajwala Yogi.
      N/A.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.33314/jnhrc.v23i01.5704
  39. Handchir Mikrochir Plast Chir. 2025 Aug 05.
    [Open Access: In Between the Bright and the Dark Side].
    Paolo Alberton, Paul Severin Wiggenhauser, Nicholas Möllhoff, Konstantin Christoph Koban, Riccardo E Giunta.
      The open access movement began in the 1990s, but it is only in recent years that the phenomenon has really taken hold and has become a tangible commitment for the scientific community. While open access is fundamentally intended to enhance knowledge accessibility and promote data transparency, its rapid expansion has exposed significant systemic vulnerabilities. Most notably, the emergence of so-called "predatory journals" - criticized for prioritizing publication volumes over rigorous peer review - poses a serious threat to the integrity of scientific research. As a result, many institutions have come to view them with scepticism or disregard them entirely. In this review, we aim to provide an impartial perspective on open access in scientific publishing, with particular attention to the potential drawbacks and pitfalls for the scientific community. While the benefits of open access are evident and widely acknowledged, this review specifically examines areas where it has drawn criticism. Finally, after highlighting these challenges, we explored how institutions currently support researchers - and how they could further strengthen this support - in meeting their obligations.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2654-7594
  40. Addiction. 2025 Aug 06.
    Statement on the publication of research with a focus on Indigenous peoples.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1111/add.70167
  41. J Hip Preserv Surg. 2025 Jul;12(2): 85-86
    The importance of peer reviewed, PubMed® listed journals in the age of Open Access journal publishing.
    Richard E Field.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1093/jhps/hnaf031
  42. Nature. 2025 Aug 05.
    Does ResearchGate have a growing credibility problem?
    Dalmeet Singh Chawla.
      
    Keywords:  Authorship; Publishing; Research data; Scientific community
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-025-02182-w
  43. J Orthop Traumatol. 2025 Aug 04. 26(1): 52
    Writing for JOOT: raising standards in clinical research and evidence synthesis.
    Filippo Migliorini, Filippo Randelli, Alberto Di Martino, Fabrizio Rivera.
      This editorial aims to guide prospective authors in effectively preparing and structuring a manuscript for submission to JOOT. Despite the increasing scientific quality of many submissions, the Editorial Board frequently receives manuscripts that fail to meet fundamental standards in structure, style or adherence to journal requirements, which may compromise their chances of acceptance. Scientific writing is a crucial skill, and tailoring a manuscript to the expectations and guidelines of the target journal is vital for successful publication. This article offers practical recommendations to enhance manuscript preparation, improve clarity and align submissions with the editorial standards of JOOT.
    Keywords:  Guidelines; Journal submission; Manuscript preparation; Publication strategy; Recommendations; Research; Scientific writing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1186/s10195-025-00868-5
  44. Am J Vet Res. 2025 Jul 24. pii: ajvr.86.08.editorial. [Epub ahead of print]86(8):
    Why our journals limit the number of words, figures, and tables.
    Lisa A Fortier.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.2460/ajvr.86.08.editorial
  45. Data Brief. 2025 Aug;61 111884
    Open research data in human movement analysis: Swiss-initiated-guidelines for broader scientific communities.
    Michelle C Haas, Bettina B Sommer, Felix Moerman, Simon van Rekum, Eveline S Graf.
      Sharing of data and code leverages transparency and reproducibility of data collection and analysis. However, in biomechanics, such sharing practices are still underdeveloped, possibly due to a lack of knowledge or support. Existing community standards as of today do not yet cover the entire data life cycle and are limited to reporting only one component of movement analysis such as kinematics, kinetics, or surface electromyography, rather than combining these elements. To address this gap, we developed comprehensive guidelines for reporting and sharing human movement data collected with various measurement systems. These guidelines were iteratively developed between January and June 2024, based on requirements which were informed by a survey and workshop within the scientific community. Survey and workshop results highlighted common data sharing practices among movement laboratories, but also significant challenges in standardizing formats, managing metadata, and navigating ethical and legal regulations. The resulting guidelines, structured along the data life cycle, provide detailed recommendations for each stage of the life cycle. Key recommendations include ensuring informed consent for data sharing, maintaining comprehensive metadata, using open formats, and selecting appropriate repositories. Unlike existing standards, which are typically specific to one measurement system, our guidelines integrate and extend upon these recommendations, emphasizing data sharing perspectives tailored to the Swiss and European legal frameworks. To facilitate reporting of metadata, templates are provided. By adhering to these guidelines, researchers can foster a more collaborative, transparent, and impactful scientific community in the field of human movement analysis.
    Keywords:  Current practices; Data sharing; Electromyography; Kinematics; Kinetics; Metadata; Recommendations
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dib.2025.111884
  46. Nature. 2025 Aug 06.
    UK Royal Society adopts 'subscribe to open' publishing model.
    Miryam Naddaf.
      
    Keywords:  Publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-025-02483-0
  47. Front Med (Lausanne). 2025 ;12 1617752
    Academic writing in medicine and healthcare.
    Airazat M Kazaryan, Martin Hagve, Knut Magne Augestad, Tom Nordby, Bjørn Edwin, Waleed Ghanima.
      The article highlights factors that can motivate doctors to do medical research. Various types of medical publications are presented. In addition, prerequisites that can contribute to successful publication are described. An overview of trends in research publication is given as well as an explanation of the terms discovery and innovation. The role and importance of research and scientific writing for progress in medicine and healthcare are discussed here. The connection between medical practice and research is also highlighted. Not least, the need for support from supervisors and management in the research and publication process is highlighted.
    Keywords:  management; motives; practice; publication; recruitment; research
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2025.1617752
  48. J Spinal Cord Med. 2025 Sep;48(5): 761-762
    Metrics, integrity, and editorial responsibility: responding to Clarivate's new policy.
    Carol Ann Murphy, Florian P Thomas.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1080/10790268.2025.2541501
This page is being maintained by Thomas Krichel. It was last updated on 2025‒08‒10 at 19:09.