bims-skolko Biomed News
on Scholarly communication
Issue of 2025–09–14
twenty-one papers selected by
Thomas Krichel, Open Library Society
  1. Self-censorship: should scientific journals decline to publish self-experimentation?
  2. Introducing retractophilia and retractophobia, and an appreciation of the silent "victims" of retracted papers.
  3. Research misconduct: how the scientific community is fighting back.
  4. Enhanced guidance on artificial intelligence for medical publication and communication professionals.
  5. Peer Review-Can AI Help?
  6. Attitudes and perceptions of biomedical journal editors in chief towards the use of artificial intelligence chatbots in the scholarly publishing process: a cross-sectional survey.
  7. AI tool detects LLM-generated text in research papers and peer reviews.
  8. Letter to the Editor: Defining the Boundaries of AI Use in Scientific Writing: A Comparative Review of Editorial Policies.
  9. Conducting Eating Disorder Research in the Era of Generative AI: Researcher Perspectives and Guidelines From the International Journal of Eating Disorders.
  10. Navigating the AI frontier: Balancing efficiency and integrity in orthopaedic peer review.
  11. Opening the conversation in peer review, finally.
  12. Can a bold 'social contract' make data sharing more palatable?
  13. The Chilling of Data Sharing and Reuse: Lives at Greater Risk in the Current Era.
  14. Dealing with manuscript rejections in academic medicine: It takes two hands to clap.
  15. Improving research on developmental psychopathology with Registered Reports.
  16. Open access publishing: is urology ready? A survey of authors, readers, and editorial board's knowledge, impressions and satisfaction.
  17. The Red Journal at Fifty.
  18. A Window Into a Universe of Stars: The Future of the Red Journal (and Maybe All Journals).
  19. Sustaining Progress of the Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society Amidst the Crisis in Korean Healthcare System.
  20. Nursing Science Quarterly: Still Keeping the Dream Alive.
  21. Enhancing academic writing confidence and productivity: The impact of Technological University of Shannon WEWRITE!
  1. J Med Ethics. 2025 Sep 10. pii: jme-2025-110730. [Epub ahead of print]
    Self-censorship: should scientific journals decline to publish self-experimentation?
    Jonathan Pugh, Dominic Wilkinson, Julian Savulescu.
      A virologist recently made headlines after successfully using an experimental form of oncolytic virotherapy to treat her own recurrent breast cancer. This case has come at a time when regulators are increasingly having to grapple with the proliferation of self-experimentation outside of accredited research institutions. There is, therefore, a pressing need to outline the key ethical dimensions of self-experimentation and to develop ethical guidance for journals that may be faced with decisions about whether to publish research involving self-experimentation. In this paper, we aim to provide such guidance. We argue that while self-experimentation is not always ethically problematic, neither is there an in-principle moral reason for exempting it from ethical evaluation. After summarising the details of the recent case report of self-experimentation and briefly placing it in historical context, we suggest that it is possible to navigate the ethical issues raised in cases of self-experimentation by returning to fundamental values in research ethics, focusing on the implications of self-experimentation for respect for autonomy, reasonable risk, and preventing harm to others. We apply these principles to the case report and explain why the publication of this report can be morally justified. We ultimately advocate for a case-by-case assessment of studies involving self-experimentation submitted for publication by ethical review boards and journal editors, and we propose a decision-making algorithm to help guide such decisions.
    Keywords:  Ethics, Research; Informed Consent
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1136/jme-2025-110730
  2. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2025 Sep 11.
    Introducing retractophilia and retractophobia, and an appreciation of the silent "victims" of retracted papers.
    Jaime A Teixeira da Silva.
      The pressure placed on all stakeholders in academic publishing by post-publication peer review (PPPR), coupled with ethics and structural reforms taking place in journals, are leading to a rise in retractions. It is thus expected that the agents of PPPR (e.g., sleuths) will collide with their targets (e.g., authors, editors, publishers). Those collisions with the status quo and challenges to the published literature may result in conflicts between stakeholders. In the context of PPPR, the outcome of conflict resolution is often the retraction of publications. In this paper, the terms retractophilia and retractophobia are introduced to represent the desire to ensure that retractions occur or the fear that a retraction takes place, respectively. Citations tend to be incremental, so they serve as indirect forms of rewards in a citation-based culture that then feeds bibliometric indicators such as the H-index. Even though a paper is retracted, the citations in its reference list remain standing, i.e., the recipients of a citation, namely the authors of papers that appear in the reference list of a retracted paper, do not suffer an equivalent "loss" of a citation, so their H-index is unaffected. Since a negative effect is neither felt nor observed, the recipients of citations, i.e., the authors of papers that appear in the reference lists of retracted papers, are rewarded a citation, but from an "undesirable" (i.e., retracted) publication. There are currently no corrective measures in place to formally deal with this situation. However, as more austere measures are put into place to curb "unfair" citation practices, metrics, like the H-index, may begin to subtract citations that appear in retracted literature, making those whose work was cited "silent" victims. Academics must pay closer attention to the growing culture of retractions, and appreciate its impact on them, their work environment, and careers.
    Keywords:  Citation practices; Conflict and conflict resolution; Consequences; Fear; Opacity vs transparency; Post-publication peer review; Retraction notices; Retractions
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-025-09665-6
  3. Nature. 2025 Sep 08.
    Research misconduct: how the scientific community is fighting back.
    Nick Petrić Howe.
      
    Keywords:  Lab life; Publishing; Society
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-025-02877-0
  4. Curr Med Res Opin. 2025 Sep 12. 1-6
    Enhanced guidance on artificial intelligence for medical publication and communication professionals.
    Keith Goldman, Valerie Moss, Stephen Griffiths, Chirag Jay Patel, Gary Dorrell, Amy Foreman-Wykert, Monica Mody, Jason Gardner, Andy Shepherd, Matt Lewis.
      The International Society for Medical Publication Professionals (ISMPP) position statement and call to action on the use of artificial intelligence (AI), published in 2024, recognized the value of AI while advocating for best practices to guide its use. In this commentary, we offer enhanced guidance on the call to action for ISMPP members and other medical communication professionals on the topics of education and training, implementation and use, and advocacy and community engagement. With AI rapidly revolutionizing scientific communication, members should stay up to date with advancements in the field by completing AI training courses, engaging with ISMPP AI education and training and other external training platforms, developing a practice of lifelong learning, and improving AI literacy. Members can successfully integrate and use AI by complying with organizational policies, ensuring fair access to AI models, complying with authorship guidance, properly disclosing the use of AI models or tools, respecting academic integrity and copyright restrictions, and understanding privacy protections. Members also need to be familiar with the systemic problem of bias with large language models, which can reinforce health inequities, as well as the limits of transparency and explainability with AI models, which can undermine source verification, bias detection, and even scientific integrity. AI models can produce hallucinations, results that are factually incorrect, irrelevant, or nonsensical, which is why all outputs from AI models should be reviewed and verified for accuracy by humans. With respect to advocacy and community engagement, members should advocate for the responsible use of AI, participate in developing AI policy and governance, work with underserved communities to get access to AI tools, and share findings for AI use cases or research results in peer-reviewed journals, conferences, and other professional platforms.
    Keywords:  Artificial intelligence; call to action; enhanced guidance; medical communications; medical publication professional
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1080/03007995.2025.2556012
  5. J Food Sci. 2025 Sep;90(9): e70537
    Peer Review-Can AI Help?
    Richard Hartel.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1111/1750-3841.70537
  6. Res Integr Peer Rev. 2025 Sep 08. 10(1): 19
    Attitudes and perceptions of biomedical journal editors in chief towards the use of artificial intelligence chatbots in the scholarly publishing process: a cross-sectional survey.
    Jeremy Y Ng, Malvika Krishnamurthy, Gursimran Deol, Wid Al-Zahraa Al-Khafaji, Vetrivel Balaji, Magdalene Abebe, Jyot Adhvaryu, Tejas Karrthik, Pranavee Mohanakanthan, Adharva Vellaparambil, Lex M Bouter, R Brian Haynes, Alfonso Iorio, Cynthia Lokker, Hervé Maisonneuve, Ana Marušić, David Moher.
       BACKGROUND: Artificial intelligence chatbots (AICs) are designed to mimic human conversations through text or speech, offering both opportunities and challenges in scholarly publishing. While journal policies of AICs are becoming more defined, there is still a limited understanding of how Editors in chief (EiCs) of biomedical journals' view these tools. This survey examined EiCs' attitudes and perceptions, highlighting positive aspects, such as language and grammar support, and concerns regarding setup time, training requirements, and ethical considerations towards the use of AICs in the scholarly publishing process.
    METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was conducted, targeting EiCs of biomedical journals across multiple publishers. Of 3725 journals screened, 3381 eligible emails were identified through web scraping and manual verification. Survey invitations were sent to all identified EiCs. The survey remained open for five weeks, with three follow-up email reminders.
    RESULTS: The survey had a response rate of 16.5% (510 total responses) and a completion rate of 87.0%. Most respondents were familiar with AIs (66.7%), however, most had not utilized AICs in their editorial work (83.7%) and many expressed interest in further training (64.4%). EiCs acknowledged benefits such as language and grammar support (70.8%) but expressed mixed attitudes on AIC roles in accelerating peer review. Perceptions included the initial time and resources required for setup (83.7%), training needs (83.9%), and ethical considerations (80.6%).
    CONCLUSIONS: This study found that EiCs have mixed attitudes toward AICs, with some EICs acknowledging their potential to enhance editorial efficiency, particularly in tasks like language editing, while others expressed concerns about the ethical implications, the time and resources required for implementation, and the need for additional training.
    Keywords:  Artificial intelligence; Artificial intelligence chatbots; Editor in chief; Medical journals; Scholarly publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-025-00178-8
  7. Nature. 2025 Sep 11.
    AI tool detects LLM-generated text in research papers and peer reviews.
    Miryam Naddaf.
      
    Keywords:  Peer review
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-025-02936-6
  8. J Korean Med Sci. 2025 Sep 08. 40(35): e272
    Letter to the Editor: Defining the Boundaries of AI Use in Scientific Writing: A Comparative Review of Editorial Policies.
    Shigeki Matsubara.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2025.40.e272
  9. Int J Eat Disord. 2025 Sep 07.
    Conducting Eating Disorder Research in the Era of Generative AI: Researcher Perspectives and Guidelines From the International Journal of Eating Disorders.
    Jake Linardon, Jennifer J Thomas, Scott J Crow, Ata Ghaderi, Anja Hilbert, Kelly L Klump, Tracey D Wade, B Timothy Walsh, Ruth Weissman.
       OBJECTIVES: Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) could transform how science is conducted, supporting researchers with writing, coding, peer review, and evidence synthesis. However, it is not yet known how eating disorder researchers utilize generative AI, and uncertainty remains regarding its safe, ethical, and transparent use. The Executive Committee of the International Journal of Eating Disorders disseminated a survey for eating disorder researchers investigating their practices and perspectives on generative AI, with the goal of informing guidelines on appropriate AI use for authors, reviewers, and editors.
    METHOD: A survey was distributed globally via eating disorder organizations, professional networks, and individual researchers. Researchers (N = 158) of various career stages completed the survey.
    RESULTS: Nearly three-quarters (70%) reported using generative AI for research, most commonly for proofreading written work or coding support. Nine in 10 took steps to verify AI-generated output, and 1 in 3 disclosed their use of AI. Only 21% reported using AI for peer review, typically in a limited capacity (e.g., proofreading), and always with full human oversight. Authors were comfortable for editors to use AI to support administrative tasks (i.e., selecting reviewers, detecting plagiarism). However, many participants acknowledged key drawbacks of generative AI, including concerns about inaccurate outputs, ethical issues such as plagiarism, the potential for reduced critical thinking, and anticipated negative impacts on the future of eating disorder research.
    CONCLUSION: These insights informed the development of field-specific guidelines to support authors, reviewers, and editors in the appropriate use of generative AI in eating disorder research and publishing.
    Keywords:  artificial intelligence; editorial board; feeding and eating disorder; guidelines; large language models; science; survey; technology
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1002/eat.24543
  10. J Clin Orthop Trauma. 2025 Oct;69 103183
    Navigating the AI frontier: Balancing efficiency and integrity in orthopaedic peer review.
    Raju Vaishya, Vijay Kumar Jain.
      The rise of artificial intelligence (AI) in orthopaedic peer review brings a mix of exciting possibilities and serious concerns. On one hand, AI tools can streamline the manuscript evaluation process, making it quicker and more efficient. On the other hand, we must navigate significant risks that could compromise the integrity of reviews, such as confidentiality breaches and AI's potential to amplify existing biases. This editorial explores how AI affects the core responsibilities of peer reviewers, highlighting the vital importance of human oversight, transparency, and adaptability to ensure that our commitment to high-quality, rigorous orthopaedic research remains intact.
    Keywords:  Artificial intelligence; Bias mitigation; Confidentiality in research; Manuscript evaluation; Orthopaedic peer review
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcot.2025.103183
  11. Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz. 2025 ;pii: S0074-02762025000100102. [Epub ahead of print]120 e250005
    Opening the conversation in peer review, finally.
    Adeilton Alves Brandão, Ana Carolina P Vicente.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1590/0074-02760250005
  12. Nature. 2025 Sep;645(8080): 309-312
    Can a bold 'social contract' make data sharing more palatable?
    Nchangwi Syntia Munung, Cornelius Ewuoso, Francis E Agamah, Emile R Chimusa.
      
    Keywords:  Databases; Developing world; Ethics; Scientific community
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-025-02817-y
  13. Clin Ther. 2025 Sep 08. pii: S0149-2918(25)00288-7. [Epub ahead of print]
    The Chilling of Data Sharing and Reuse: Lives at Greater Risk in the Current Era.
    Joel Cutcher-Gershenfeld, Paul Beninger, Alan Blatecky, Pat Canavan, Jill Gemmill, Brooks Hanson, John C Klensin, Michael Maffie, Erezi Ogbo-Gebhardt, Rajesh Sampath, Namchul Shin, Susan Winter, Kimberly E Zarecor.
      
    Keywords:  Consortia; Data reuse; Data sharing; Risk
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinthera.2025.08.006
  14. J R Coll Physicians Edinb. 2025 Sep 07. 14782715251372412
    Dealing with manuscript rejections in academic medicine: It takes two hands to clap.
    Isaac Ks Ng, Wilson Gw Goh.
      Academic publishing is increasingly prevalent in clinical training and practice, as part of the burgeoning field of academic medicine, where physicians are expected not only to perform their conventional clinical duties and responsibilities, but also increasingly have to engage in various forms of scholarly activities to contribute to evidence-based practice, as part of their key performance indicators. However, for physicians who are not trained as academics or scientists, the learning curve for scholarly endeavours can be steep and fraught with setbacks and rejections. Therefore, in this editorial article, we offer our perspectives as residents-in-training on the roles of both clinician-authors and journal editorial/peer review teams in facilitating healthy cognitive-emotional processing of unfavourable manuscript decisions in academic medicine.
    Keywords:  academic medicine; manuscript rejection; publishing; research; scholarly projects
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1177/14782715251372412
  15. Dev Psychopathol. 2025 Sep 10. 1-8
    Improving research on developmental psychopathology with Registered Reports.
    Moin Syed, Willem E Frankenhuis.
      The quality of research across psychology needs improvement. Ample evidence has indicated that publication bias, specifically making publication decisions based on a study's results, has led to a distorted literature (e.g., high rates of false positives). Registered Reports, which can now be submitted to Development and Psychopathology, are a recent publication format designed to combat publication bias and problematic research practices. The format represents a shift from a system in which publication decisions are based on the nature of the findings, to one that is based on the quality of the study conceptualization and design. In this invited Views article, we introduce the Registered Reports format to Development and Psychopathology by arguing that they can and should be used in developmental psychopathology research. We first describe what Registered Reports are and why they are useful. We then review 10 commonly expressed concerns about publishing Registered Reports - including that they are not appropriate for studies using preexisting data, that they do not allow for exploratory analyses, and that they take too long to publish - explaining why these concerns are unwarranted. We hope that this article will allay concerns about publishing Registered Reports, and that readers will submit them to Development and Psychopathology.
    Keywords:  Credibility; Registered Reports; replication crisis; reproducibility; transparency
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579425100552
  16. World J Urol. 2025 Sep 08. 43(1): 542
    Open access publishing: is urology ready? A survey of authors, readers, and editorial board's knowledge, impressions and satisfaction.
    Abbas Guennoun, Kahina Bensaadi, Marc-André Simard, Liam Murad, Ryan Schwartz, Kelven Chen, Saud Almousa, Max Levitt, Michael Leveridge, Robert Siemens, Vincent Larivière, Naeem Bhojani.
       PURPOSE: To report the level of knowledge, impressions, and satisfaction of Urology readers, authors, and editorial boards regarding Open Access (OA) publishing in the field of Urology and to determine their satisfaction with the current OA models.
    METHODS: We developed an online, five-section cross-sectional survey including 23 questions. To recruit participants, we used mixed methods to obtain responses based on a simple random sampling and convenience sampling. Herein we present descriptive outcomes of the responses.
    RESULTS: 157 participants from 21 countries responded to the survey between May 2023 and October 2024. The majority of respondents (80.2%) reported having "Acceptable" to "Excellent" knowledge regarding OA publishing. However, of those that responded they were familiar with the concepts, only a minority knew the definitions of Gold, Green, Diamond, and Hybrid OA publishing models. Of all respondents, 49.7% reported having a "Positive" to "Strongly positive" impressions toward OA publishing, whereas 16.6% had "Negative" to "Strongly negative" impressions. Although a majority agreed that OA publishing can offer several advantages, 40.8% thought that the quality of peer-review is lower for OA journals compared to traditional publishing models. The vast majority (82.2%) agreed that articles processing charge (APC) can be overly burdensome for authors. Members of a Urology journal editorial board are more incline to not publish in an OA journal.
    CONCLUSION: Results from this anonymous, international survey among urologists, show high awareness of OA publishing with low knowledge regarding details. Participants are pessimistic regarding the quality of OA journals and peer-review.
    Keywords:  Impression; Knowledge; Open access publishing; Satisfaction.; Urology
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-025-05928-3
  17. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2025 Oct 01. pii: S0360-3016(25)04513-4. [Epub ahead of print]123(2): 336-337
    The Red Journal at Fifty.
    Anthony Zietman.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2025.06.3873
  18. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2025 Oct 01. pii: S0360-3016(25)04637-1. [Epub ahead of print]123(2): 338-340
    A Window Into a Universe of Stars: The Future of the Red Journal (and Maybe All Journals).
    Sue S Yom.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2025.07.050
  19. J Korean Neurosurg Soc. 2025 Sep;68(5): 497-500
    Sustaining Progress of the Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society Amidst the Crisis in Korean Healthcare System.
    Hee-Jin Yang.
      The 2024 Journal Citation Reports (JCR) reveal that the impact factor (IF) for the Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society (JKNS) has risen to 1.7, an increase from 1.4 in 2023. Meanwhile, Republic of Korea has been in turmoil in healthcare system since February 2024, provoked by government's sudden and drastic policy to increase medical school admissions. This situation has profoundly impacted medical research activities, in addition to clinical practice. There is concern about whether the Korean medical community can sustain and build upon its academic achievements once this situation is resolved. Maintaining the growth of a medical journal is becoming increasingly challenging. The JKNS must continue its previous efforts to sustain its current progress. To enhance its IF, JKNS should focus on recruiting high-quality review articles and becoming a preferred journal for authors by offering a rapid review process. Collaboration with subspecialty journals is also crucial to ensure that both JKNS and those journals can grow together.
    Keywords:  Health policy; Impact factor; Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society; Republic of Korea
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3340/jkns.2025.0169
  20. Nurs Sci Q. 2025 Oct;38(4): 349
    Nursing Science Quarterly: Still Keeping the Dream Alive.
    Rosemarie Rizzo Parse.
      
    Keywords:  journal; keeping the dream alive; nursing science; scholarship
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1177/08943184251358370
  21. J Prof Nurs. 2025 Sep-Oct;60:pii: S8755-7223(25)00102-4. [Epub ahead of print]60 32-35
    Enhancing academic writing confidence and productivity: The impact of Technological University of Shannon WEWRITE!
    Jennifer Moran Stritch.
      Effective scholarly writing is essential for academic success, yet it often presents challenges, including feelings of isolation and imposter syndrome. These challenges can lead to avoidance and procrastination, impeding progress in graduate studies and publications. In response to these common struggles, a virtual writing community called TUS WEWRITE! was piloted for twenty master's and PhD students and research-active faculty and administrative staff at the Technological University of the Shannon (TUS) Midlands Midwest in Ireland. This article reflects on the pilot, its impact on participants and potential future iterations of the programme.
    Keywords:  Academic writing; Imposter syndrome; Publish; Writing; Writing groups; Writing support
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.profnurs.2025.06.007
This page is being maintained by Thomas Krichel. It was last updated on 2025‒09‒15 at 10:04.