bims-skolko Biomed News
on Scholarly communication
Issue of 2025–10–05
27 papers selected by
Thomas Krichel, Open Library Society
  1. Editorial Statement in Response to US Policies on Scientific Research and Publishing.
  2. Five strategies for inclusion in academic publishing.
  3. Identifying common patterns in journals that retracted papers from paper mills: a cross-sectional study.
  4. Analysis of Retracted Publications on Methotrexate.
  5. Curbing Paper Mills in Departments and Journals.
  6. JAAD-D-25-02505R2, "Curbing Paper Mills in Departments and Journals".
  7. AI tools could reduce the appeal of predatory journals.
  8. Add a 'speculation box' to research papers.
  9. On and off-the-record correction practices: A survey-based study of how chemistry researchers react to errors.
  10. Tools, Not Ghosts: Artificial Intelligence, Writing, and Responsibility.
  11. RAPM disclosure recommendations for AI use in writing and publishing.
  12. The growing presence of AI-generated content in ophthalmology: a retrospective bibliographic analysis.
  13. Untold reasons for declining review invitations.
  14. Incentivizing Peer Reviewers: Exploring Monetary and Nonmonetary Rewards.
  15. Scientific Integrity, Peer Review and an Interview With Dr Kerry Redican.
  16. Education researchers' beliefs and barriers towards data sharing.
  17. The brushstrokes of scholarship: Special emphasis on writing with references.
  18. Copyright and creative commons licenses in scholarly publishing: A practical guide for researchers.
  19. Why editors go to conferences.
  20. Six journal rejections and a major rethink: why I'm happy to admit to my research failures, and you should too.
  21. How to find the papers you need to read - and avoid the ones you don't.
  22. How long does it take to complete and publish a systematic review of animal studies?
  23. Drawing Guideline for JKMS Manuscript (07) Baseline Table and Plots.
  24. Adherence to CONSORT guidelines in selected general orthopaedic journals.
  25. Setting the record straight: a response to Lior Pachter.
  26. Principles of Scientific Writing and Biomedical Publication: A JAMA Editors Guide for Authors.
  27. Ensuring Scientific Integrity-Plastic and Aesthetic Nursing Adopts International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) Trial Registration Standards.
  1. Prog Community Health Partnersh. 2025 ;19(3): 279
    Editorial Statement in Response to US Policies on Scientific Research and Publishing.
    Valarie Blue Bird Jernigan, Karen Calhoun, Hal Strelnick.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1353/cpr.2025.a970147
  2. CJEM. 2025 Sep;27(9): 671-673
    Five strategies for inclusion in academic publishing.
    Ashifa Jiwa, Tenaaz Irani, Kathleen Qu, Anmol Krishna, Kais Alkhaldi, Teresa M Chan.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s43678-025-01003-3
  3. Res Integr Peer Rev. 2025 Oct 01. 10(1): 21
    Identifying common patterns in journals that retracted papers from paper mills: a cross-sectional study.
    Noa Mascato Fontaíña, Cristina Candal-Pedreira, Guadalupe García, Joseph S Ross, Alberto Ruano-Ravina, Lucía Martin-Gisbert.
       OBJECTIVES: To characterize journals that published and retracted articles retracted for having originated from paper mills and examine associations between paper mill retraction frequency and journal characteristics.
    METHODS: Retraction Watch database was used to identify papers retracted due to originating from paper mills and journals, between January 2020 and December 2022. Data on the total number of articles and journal characteristics were obtained from Web of Science and Journal Citation Reports. Journals were classified based on the frequency of retracted paper mill papers (1, 2-9, ≥ 10 retractions). Logistic regressions were conducted to explore associations between retraction frequency and journal characteristics.
    RESULTS: One hundred forty-two journals were identified that retracted 2,051 articles from paper mills. Among these, 71 (50%) journals had 1 retraction, 36 (25.4%) had 2-9 retractions, and 35 (24.6%) had ≥ 10 retractions; 4 (2.8%) journals had > 100 retractions. These journals, regardless of paper mill retraction number, were mainly in the second (35.2%) and third (29.6%) quartiles by impact factor. Medicine and health emerged as the predominant subject area, comprising 61.2% of all indexed journal categories. Comparing journals with one retraction to those with ten or more, the proportion of open access articles (72.6% vs. 19.2%) and median editorial times (86 vs. 116 days) differed across groups, although these differences were not statistically significant. An inverse correlation was observed between the proportion of paper mill papers and original articles (Spearman's Rho = -0.1891, 95%CI -0.370 to -0.008). Logistic regressions found no significant association between paper mill retraction number and other variables.
    CONCLUSION: This study suggests that paper mill retractions are concentrated in a small number of journals with common characteristics: high open access rates, intermediate impact factor quartiles, a high volume of citable items, and classification in medicine and health categories. Short editorial times may indicate a higher presence of paper mill publications, but more research is needed to examine this factor in depth, as well as the possible influence of acceptance rates.
    Keywords:  Academic journals; Paper mills; Publication ethics; Retractions
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-025-00177-9
  4. J Korean Med Sci. 2025 Sep 29. 40(38): e243
    Analysis of Retracted Publications on Methotrexate.
    Burhan Fatih Kocyigit, Kairat Zhakipbekov, Marlen Yessirkepov.
       BACKGROUND: Methotrexate (MTX) is a frequently used antifolate agent in rheumatology, oncology, and dermatology. Retractions are crucial for preserving scientific integrity by fixing the literature when errors, ethical violations, or data falsification are detected. This study seeks to comprehensively examine retracted MTX publications, detecting trends, reasons, and potential ramifications.
    METHODS: A descriptive cross-sectional study was performed by searching PubMed for retracted MTX publications without temporal constraints. Bibliometric data were retrieved, encompassing publication details, journal indexing, citation metrics, and Altmetric Attention Scores (AAS). Reasons for retraction were categorized.
    RESULTS: Thirty-six retracted papers were identified. The predominant cause for retraction encompassed data concerns (n = 15), fraudulent activity (n = 11), and manipulation of the peer review process (n = 10). China recorded the most retractions (n = 14), followed by the USA (n = 6) and Egypt (n = 3). The median period until retraction was 712 (91-9,893) days. Most retracted articles were published in non-rheumatology journals. Citation analysis showed a median of 5 (0-105) citations. Additionally, the median AAS was 1 (0-14).
    CONCLUSION: Data integrity concerns, fraudulent activities, and manipulation of peer review processes constitute major obstacles in MTX-related research. The considerable number of retractions in certain countries underscores the need to promote research ethics and measures to protect scientific integrity. Enhancing peer review, implementing more intense data transparency, and promoting post-publication evaluation are essential measures to protect scientific integrity and uphold confidence in clinical recommendations.
    Keywords:  Antirheumatic Agents; Ethics; Fraud; Methotrexate; Peer Review; Retraction of Publication
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2025.40.e243
  5. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2025 Sep 25. pii: S0190-9622(25)02893-2. [Epub ahead of print]
    Curbing Paper Mills in Departments and Journals.
    Waseem Hassan, Fred Paas.
      
    Keywords:  Paper mills; publication ethics; research integrity; residency applications; suggestions
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaad.2025.08.124
  6. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2025 Sep 26. pii: S0190-9622(25)02894-4. [Epub ahead of print]
    JAAD-D-25-02505R2, "Curbing Paper Mills in Departments and Journals".
    Albert E Zhou, Brett Sloan, Dedee F Murrell, Jane M Grant-Kels.
      
    Keywords:  Artificial Intelligence; IMGs; International Medical Graduates; authorship validity; ethics; integrity; misinformation; paper mills; peer review; predatory publishing; research; residency selection
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaad.2025.09.071
  7. Nature. 2025 Oct;646(8083): 38
    AI tools could reduce the appeal of predatory journals.
    Alessandro Maria Selvitella, Kathleen Lois Foster.
      
    Keywords:  Authorship; Publishing; Scientific community
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-025-03182-6
  8. Nature. 2025 Oct;646(8083): 38
    Add a 'speculation box' to research papers.
    Milad Malekzadeh.
      
    Keywords:  Publishing; Scientific community
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-025-03186-2
  9. Account Res. 2025 Oct 02. 1-14
    On and off-the-record correction practices: A survey-based study of how chemistry researchers react to errors.
    Frédérique Bordignon.
       AIM: This survey-based study (982 participants) explores chemistry researchers' practices and motivations in correcting errors in scientific publications.
    RESULTS: While respondents believe errors should be corrected in principle, practical challenges arise due to scientific, social, and pragmatic factors. These include the perceived seriousness of the error, its scientific impact, the age of the publication, and the time required. Difficulties also stem from criticizing others, especially senior colleagues. Despite these challenges, researchers are motivated to correct errors to limit their spread, contribute to the common good, and advance their own work. Researchers prefer informal error correction through private correspondence, discussions with colleagues, or teaching situations, over formal corrections to the scholarly record. The peer-review stage is crucial for detecting and correcting errors, but it is criticized for its deficiencies, including lack of professionalism among reviewers and editors. Some authors yield to reviewer pressure knowingly introducing changes that are clearly wrong. While the low participation rate (2%) does not allow generalization, the study shows that science correction is complex, involving a continuum of practices.
    CONCLUSION: To improve science correction, the study suggests that online platforms and repositories can facilitate the transition from off-the-record discussions to on-the-record initiatives, ultimately feeding into the public record.
    Keywords:  Science correction; error correction; research integrity; research on research
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2025.2564106
  10. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2025 Oct 07. pii: S0735-1097(25)07619-3. [Epub ahead of print]86(14): 1015-1016
    Tools, Not Ghosts: Artificial Intelligence, Writing, and Responsibility.
    Harlan M Krumholz.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2025.08.064
  11. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2025 Sep 27. pii: rapm-2025-106979. [Epub ahead of print]
    RAPM disclosure recommendations for AI use in writing and publishing.
    Michael R Fettiplace, Ryan S D'Souza, Vivian H Y Ip, Anuj Bhatia.
      
    Keywords:  EDUCATION; Methods; TECHNOLOGY
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1136/rapm-2025-106979
  12. Can J Ophthalmol. 2025 Sep 25. pii: S0008-4182(25)00379-5. [Epub ahead of print]
    The growing presence of AI-generated content in ophthalmology: a retrospective bibliographic analysis.
    Michael Balas, Xiaole Li, Patrick Ji, Parnian Arjmand.
       BACKGROUND: To quantify the prevalence and trends of artificial intelligence (AI)-generated content in ophthalmology manuscripts, particularly following the public release of OpenAI's ChatGPT on November 30, 2022.
    METHODS: A retrospective bibliographic analysis was conducted on 1 036 manuscripts from 30 ophthalmology journals, divided into pre-December 2022 (519 manuscripts) and post-December 2022 (517 manuscripts) periods. AI-generated content was evaluated using the Originality Standard 2.0.0 model, which calculates AI probability scores (AIPS) ranging from 0% to 100%. Readability metrics (e.g., Flesch-Kincaid Score) and journal impact metrics (e.g., impact factor) were analyzed.
    RESULTS: AIPS remained stable from 2014 to 2022 but increased significantly after December 2022 (p < 0.001). The mean AIPS rose from 4.95% in 2022 to 11.2% by mid-2024, with projections estimating 17.51% by mid-2026. Editorials exhibited the highest mean AIPS (12.8%), while surgical technique studies had the lowest (4.33%). Higher AIPS were associated with lower journal impact factors (Spearman's ρ = -0.54; p < 0.001) and simpler language, as reflected by lower Automated Readability Index scores (Spearman's ρ = -0.12; p < 0.005). None of the included manuscripts disclosed AI usage, including 44 manuscripts with AIPS exceeding 25%.
    CONCLUSIONS: AI-generated content in ophthalmology has risen significantly since ChatGPT's release. Higher AIPS correlates with lower journal impact factors and reduced literary complexity. The lack of AI usage disclosure raises ethical concerns and emphasizes the need for transparent reporting and guidelines to ensure the integrity of scientific research.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcjo.2025.09.004
  13. Can Med Educ J. 2025 Sep;16(4): 83
    Untold reasons for declining review invitations.
    Shigeki Matsubara.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.36834/cmej.81790
  14. Indian J Community Med. 2025 Sep-Oct;50(5):50(5): 872-873
    Incentivizing Peer Reviewers: Exploring Monetary and Nonmonetary Rewards.
    Vipul D Yagnik, Surajit Bhattacharya, Kaushik Bhattacharya, Sushil Dawka.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.4103/ijcm.ijcm_377_24
  15. Am J Health Promot. 2025 Oct 01. 8901171251384086
    Scientific Integrity, Peer Review and an Interview With Dr Kerry Redican.
    Paul E Terry.
      Scientists are experiencing unprecedented challenges to the time honored conventions that usually guide consensus building and health communications. This editorial offers a primer on this journal's peer review process and argues that professional societies, the private sector and non-governmental organizations need to fill the void being created by disinvestments in our federal and state public health infrastructure. The process that guides our peer reviewers and composite reviewers is described. The vital importance of peer reviewers sharing their expertise with fellow scientists via narrative feedback on studies is emphasized. An interview with an exemplary composite reviewer, our Associate Editor in Chief, Dr Kerry Redican, is offered as a way to underscore the rigor needed to preserve the integrity of the scientific method at a time when science is being threatened by ideological clashes.
    Keywords:  health promotion research; peer review; science integrity; study design; study execution; study methods
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1177/08901171251384086
  16. Qual Quant. 2025 ;59(5): 4061-4075
    Education researchers' beliefs and barriers towards data sharing.
    Jessica A R Logan, Allyson L Hayward, Lexi E Swanz, Ayse Busra Ceviren.
      Data sharing is increasingly becoming a highly encouraged or required practice for any federally funded research projects. However, the uptake of these practices in education science has been minimal. Research suggests that many researchers believe data sharing should be practiced always or often, but also suggests that many researchers rarely practice data sharing. This disconnect indicates a general lack of understanding around data sharing and suggests there are salient barriers that prevent education researchers from engaging in the practice. This work examines (a) the prevalence of positive attitudes and perceived barriers to data sharing in a sample of education researchers, and (b) if there is a difference between the perceived barriers for researchers who have different levels of data sharing experience. Results suggest education researchers generally hold positive attitudes towards data sharing, with 70% of the sample agreeing that it benefits their career, increases citations, and is good for science. However, barriers such as concerns about IRB issues and the potential for misinterpretation of shared data were prevalent among respondents. Additionally, researchers with more experience sharing data were less likely to agree with these barriers compared to those with less or no sharing experience.
    Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11135-025-02188-6.
    Keywords:  Data sharing; Data sharing attitudes; Data sharing beliefs; Open science
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-025-02188-6
  17. J Am Assoc Nurse Pract. 2025 Oct 01. 37(10): 527-528
    The brushstrokes of scholarship: Special emphasis on writing with references.
    Kristopher J Jackson, Rodney W Hicks.
      
    Keywords:  Academic integrity; academic writing; citation practices; reference management; scholarly communication
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1097/JXX.0000000000001175
  18. J Clin Imaging Sci. 2025 ;15 32
    Copyright and creative commons licenses in scholarly publishing: A practical guide for researchers.
    Himel Mondal.
      Copyright is a crucial aspect of scholarly publishing, governing the ownership, distribution, and permissible use of academic content. Traditional copyright laws grant exclusive rights to authors or publishers. In the era of open-access publication, Creative Commons (CC) licenses offer the flexibility to share scholarly work more openly while maintaining proper attribution. Understanding these licensing options is essential for researchers. This article explores the fundamental concepts of copyright, licensing, and CC in the context of scholarly publishing. It briefly explains how to search for copyright and licensing information on an article, properly attribute credit, and obtain permission for content reuse from the copyright holder. Failure to comply with copyright regulations can result in consequences such as legal disputes, financial penalties, and reputational damage. Hence, an understanding and responsible application of copyright and licensing principles are therefore essential for ethical and legally compliant scholarly communication.
    Keywords:  Copyright; Creative commons; Dissent and disputes; License; Ownership; Scholarly communication
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.25259/JCIS_22_2025
  19. Nat Microbiol. 2025 Oct;10(10): 2355
    Why editors go to conferences.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41564-025-02151-z
  20. Nature. 2025 Oct;646(8083): 10
    Six journal rejections and a major rethink: why I'm happy to admit to my research failures, and you should too.
    Séverine Toussaert.
      
    Keywords:  Careers; Ethics; Lab life; Publishing; Scientific community
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-025-03146-w
  21. Nature. 2025 Sep 29.
    How to find the papers you need to read - and avoid the ones you don't.
    David Brito, Inês Afonso, Clévio Nóbrega.
      
    Keywords:  Authorship; Careers; Lab life; Scientific community; Technology
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-025-02867-2
  22. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2025 Oct 01. 25(1): 226
    How long does it take to complete and publish a systematic review of animal studies?
    Julia Victoria Bugajska, Bernard Friedrich Hild, David Brüschweiler, Enrico Daniele Meier, Alexandra Bannach-Brown, Kimberley Elaine Wever, Benjamin Victor Ineichen.
       INTRODUCTION: Conducting a rigorous systematic review of animal studies requires a priori registration of a study protocol. However, it remains unknown how many of these registered studies culminate in publication and how long it takes to complete such a systematic review. Thus, this study had two objectives: (1) to assess the proportion of registered protocols that result in publication, and (2) to determine the time required to complete and publish systematic reviews of animal studies after protocol registration.
    METHODS: All available systematic reviews protocols of animal study were manually downloaded from PROSPERO, the international registry of systematic review protocols. Start and completion date as well as topical and demographic data were extracted, complemented by a web-scraping approach. Assessment of publication status was achieved through a systematic literature search.
    RESULTS: From a total of 1,771 protocols, 406 were excluded due to recent start dates. This left 1,365 protocols eligible for the final analysis. Among these, 694 (51%) resulted in a published systematic review. Median time to complete and publish a systematic review was 11.5 months (range: 0.13-44.9 months) and 16.2 months (range: 1.0-49.7 months), respectively. This time was 69% more until submission than anticipated by the authors (6.8 months [range: 0.9-48.0]).
    CONCLUSION: Only half of registered protocols resulted in publication, suggesting possible publication bias. Authors can expect to complete and publish an animal systematic review within approximately one year.
    Keywords:  Animal research; Animal welfare; Evidence synthesis; Meta-analysis; PROSPERO; Pre-registration; Systematic review
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-025-02672-5
  23. J Korean Med Sci. 2025 Sep 29. 40(38): e295
    Drawing Guideline for JKMS Manuscript (07) Baseline Table and Plots.
    Jeehyoung Kim, Jung Soo Lee, Hyunsu Jang.
      The appropriate plot effectively conveys the author's conclusions to the readers. Journal of Korean Medical Science will provide a series of special articles to show you how to make consistent and excellent results easier. In this article, we will cover baseline table and plots. The baseline table is a very popular and essential table introduced in almost all medical papers, but it takes a lot of time and effort to create it. We introduce a simple yet effective tool to make this easy.
    Keywords:  Baseline Table; Plots: Journal of Korean Medical Science
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2025.40.e295
  24. Bone Joint J. 2025 Oct 01. 107-B(10): 983-988
    Adherence to CONSORT guidelines in selected general orthopaedic journals.
    Saskia H van Bergen, Ali Ridha, Andrew Ting, Matt L Costa, Nick R Parsons.
       Aims: The aim of this study was to evaluate the adherence to the CONSORT guidelines in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in general orthopaedic and trauma journals.
    Methods: A total of 100 RCTs published between January 2019 and November 2024 from four general orthopaedic and trauma journals were reviewed for adherence to the 2010 CONSORT guidelines. Each study was assessed by three independent reviewers, with agreement quantified using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). The rates of adherence were calculated for each of the 37 CONSORT checklist items.
    Results: The overall adherence to CONSORT guidelines ranged from 17% to 100%, with a mean rate of adherence of 86% (95% CI 85 to 87). A total of 26 items had rates of adherence of ≥ 90%; 14 achieved perfect adherence. However, significant deficiencies were noted in several areas, including the reporting of roles in the process of randomization (sequence generation and assignment of patients to interventions; 17%), the sharing of original protocols (17%), and the reasons for losses and exclusions after randomization (62%). Adherence to reporting both absolute and relative effect sizes for binary outcomes was also suboptimal, at 52%.
    Conclusion: The quality of reporting in orthopaedic RCTs has improved in recent years, but several areas remain under-reported, highlighting the need for ongoing enforcement and better integration of CONSORT guidelines in the peer review process. Continued efforts by authors and the editors and reviewers of journals should focus on improving the reporting of methodological details and transparency in the handling of data to ensure more reliable and clinically relevant evidence.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.107B10.BJJ-2025-0624
  25. J Comp Physiol A Neuroethol Sens Neural Behav Physiol. 2025 Sep 29.
    Setting the record straight: a response to Lior Pachter.
    Mandyam V Srinivasan.
      In his response to Eric Warrant's editorial, Lior Pachter talks a good game about the importance of truth in the advancement of science. He argues that this is achieved by scientists challenging each other in the pursuit of truth, and that he has done this by reviewing the output from our lab and publishing his findings as a preprint on arXiv. However, a year after we have provided extensive explanations and scientific counter arguments to the claims in his arXiv preprint, debunking his spurious and false allegations of scientific misconduct, he shows no interest in addressing our responses and continues to repeat the same allegations in his response to Eric Warrant's Editorial. Since the publication of Luebbert and Pachter's preprint in May 2024, the relevant journals have examined and found no merit in their accusations, agreeing instead with our admission of inadvertent errors in four papers for which corrections have already been published. By continuing to peddle the same accusations despite evidence to the contrary, Pachter demonstrates that he is unwilling or perhaps incapable of following through on his own "plea for academic truth".
    Keywords:  Ad hominem attacks; Geoff stuart; Honeybee odometer controversy; Laura luebbert; Lior pachter; Mandyam srinivasan; Misinterpretation
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00359-025-01763-4
  26. Dimens Crit Care Nurs. 2025 Nov-Dec 01;44(6):44(6): 362-363
    Principles of Scientific Writing and Biomedical Publication: A JAMA Editors Guide for Authors.
    Kathleen Ahern Gould.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1097/DCC.0000000000000726
  27. Plast Aesthet Nurs (Phila). 2025 Oct-Dec 01;45(4):45(4): 187-188
    Ensuring Scientific Integrity-Plastic and Aesthetic Nursing Adopts International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) Trial Registration Standards.
    Sharon Ann Van Wicklin.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1097/PSN.0000000000000677
This page is being maintained by Thomas Krichel. It was last updated on 2025‒10‒06 at 12:20.