bims-skolko Biomed News
on Scholarly communication
Issue of 2026–08–23
thirty-six papers selected by
Thomas Krichel, Open Library Society



  1. Med Teach. 2026 Aug 21. 1-6
       INTRODUCTION: Artificial intelligence (AI) is being widely used by authors, reviewers and editors in the academic publishing process. However, there remains ambiguity about the boundaries of AI use. Amid this growing uncertainty, editors and publishers face an ongoing tension between a desire to advance the academic publishing process and a need to uphold scientific integrity. This study examined advisory and guideline statements about AI use by health professions education (HPE) journals.
    METHODS: We collected a corpus of texts relating to the use of AI in HPE journals from 22 HPE journals, 6 respective publishers and the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) policies in January 2026 relating to the use of AI in academic publishing. The corpus was examined using content analysis.
    RESULTS: Five main themes were identified from the analysis: 1) Accountable governance, 2) Protection of ethical standards, 3) Safeguarding of research integrity, 4) Maintenance of human oversight, and 5) Balancing of opportunities and risk.
    DISCUSSION: Overall, HPE journals predominantly frame the use of AI in academic publishing as a risk rather than an opportunity, with the overarching concern being a potential compromise of scientific integrity. Editors need to manage various tensions related to AI use and disclosure, including ensuring that policies keep up with the speed of technological advancement, and potentially broader impacts on the scholarly HPE field. As guidance on AI use continues to evolve, authors, reviewers and editors must ensure that they actively maintain and optimise their policies and practices in response to emerging evidence, including of unintended consequences.
    Keywords:  Artificial intelligence; academic publishing; education; health professions
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2026.2712427
  2. J Med Internet Res. 2026 Aug 21. 28 e109033
       Unlabelled: Detecting and dismantling paper mills is a persistent and increasing problem in science. In this News and Perspectives article, JMIR Correspondent Cliff Dominy continues his series on fraudulent science, reporting on tools and practices for detecting paper mills and other authorship-for-sale schemes.
    Keywords:  AI; artificial intelligence; fraudulent research; paper mills; peer review; research integrity ; scholarly publishing; scientific misconduct; scientometrics
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.2196/109033
  3. Autophagy. 2026 Sep;22(9): 2057-2058
      The journal Autophagy is now in its twenty-second year. Unlike many, perhaps most, other journals we have instituted various requirements to help ensure scientific clarity and reproducibility. Two of the most important requirements are the use of standardized nomenclature and the inclusion of specific ordering information for reagents. These are not arbitrary formatting issues - there are specific reasons they are required, which we will remind you of below. The point of this editor's corner is to explain that these requirements are now going to be enforced upon manuscript submission.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1080/15548627.2026.2692832
  4. Elife. 2026 Aug 19. pii: e112853. [Epub ahead of print]15
      What murder mysteries can tell us about how not to write a scientific article.
    Keywords:  academia; literature; murder mystery; none; publication; science writing; sherlock holmes
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.112853
  5. Res Integr Peer Rev. 2026 Aug 15. pii: 47. [Epub ahead of print]11(1):
       BACKGROUND: Generative AI is increasingly used in scholarly research, writing, and publication workflows. Many journal and publisher policies ask authors to disclose relevant AI use, but disclosure alone rarely clarifies how AI-assisted work was performed, what information was entered, how outputs were evaluated, or how human responsibility was maintained. This creates a gap between AI-use disclosure as a publication requirement and AI-use documentation as an open science practice.
    METHODS: This article develops a conceptual and practical framework for documenting generative AI use in scholarly workflows. The framework was informed by exploratory, non-systematic source and policy mapping, AI-assisted exploratory evidence mapping, manual review of selected recent literature, and development of accompanying Open Science Framework materials. These steps were used to identify recurring documentation expectations and unresolved policy gaps and to translate them into practical documentation domains, with particular attention to task specificity, proportionality, role-specific documentation, privacy-sensitive transparency, and clinically sensitive contexts.
    RESULTS: The framework distinguishes disclosure from documentation and proposes documentation fields for minimal and extended AI use. Minimal documentation is intended for low-risk uses such as limited language polishing, whereas extended documentation is recommended when AI supports literature synthesis, coding, analysis, interpretation, manuscript drafting, peer-review-related work, clinical material, or research procedures. The framework is accompanied by reusable OSF materials, including documentation templates, prompt-log structures, declaration examples, checklists, clinical redaction guidance, and source-tracking materials.
    CONCLUSIONS: AI-use disclosure communicates that AI was used; documentation makes the AI-assisted workflow traceable, inspectable, and accountable. A task-specific, proportionate, role-specific, and privacy-sensitive documentation approach can support responsible AI use while protecting confidential, patient-related, peer-review-related, and methodologically sensitive information. The accompanying bilingual materials are openly available on OSF: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/A439J .
    Keywords:  AI disclosure; AI-use documentation; Clinical psychology; Generative AI; Large language models; Open science; Peer review; Publication ethics; Research integrity; Scholarly publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-026-00245-8
  6. Front Res Metr Anal. 2026 ;11 1931866
      
    Keywords:  artificial intelligence; editorial; publishing; research ethics; research integrity
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3389/frma.2026.1931866
  7. Pediatr Cardiol. 2026 Aug 21.
      Editors of pediatric cardiology journals have an important role at the intersection of clinical science, education, ethics, and academic leadership. They help shape research standards, scholarly discussion, and the dissemination of evidence. Relatively little attention has been given to the challenges they face or to how the editorial workforce in pediatric cardiology is developed and supported. This perspective considers current challenges in pediatric cardiology publishing and practical approaches to strengthening editorial practice and future leadership. Editors must navigate increasing methodological complexity, difficulties recruiting appropriately qualified reviewers, and growing expectations around transparency and equity. They must also respond to rapid technological change while maintaining editorial independence within evolving publishing models and performance metrics. The specialized nature of pediatric and congenital cardiology creates additional challenges. Patient populations are often small, conditions may be rare, and clinical presentations can be heterogeneous. Research methods are also becoming more complex. Together, these factors can make the assessment of scientific quality, methodological rigor, and clinical relevance more difficult. Several practical approaches may help strengthen editorial practice. These include structured training and onboarding, mentorship and succession pathways, and reviewer development. Broader and more internationally representative editorial and reviewer networks are also important. Greater recognition and support for editorial work are needed, alongside the responsible integration of emerging technologies with appropriate human oversight. The field now needs to move beyond identifying editorial challenges toward developing practical and adaptable solutions. These should promote scientific rigor, fairness, efficiency, accessibility, and innovation. Strengthening the systems used to recruit, train, support, and develop editors will be important for maintaining the integrity, sustainability, and global relevance of pediatric cardiology publishing.
    Keywords:  Academic; Artificial intelligence; Editor; Pediatric cardiology; Peer-review; Publication
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00246-026-04439-1
  8. Nature. 2026 Aug 20.
      
    Keywords:  Computer science; Publishing; Scientific community
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-026-02551-z
  9. Ophthalmology. 2026 Sep;pii: S0161-6420(26)00419-7. [Epub ahead of print]133(9): 1083-1084
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2026.06.015
  10. Acad Radiol. 2026 Sep;pii: S1076-6332(26)00365-X. [Epub ahead of print]33(9): 3642-3650
       RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the reproducibility of editorial re--ations by Large Language Models, agreement across different models, prompt-sensitivity, and fidelity of critique statements to source manuscripts in a simulated peer-review setting.
    MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifteen open-access radiology manuscripts were anonymized and reviewed by eight large language models (LLMs) across four developer families (ChatGPT, DeepSeek, Gemini, Grok) with two different prompts. Each manuscript-model-prompt condition was repeated across three independent runs, yielding 720 reviews. Intra-model stability was defined as identical decisions across runs. Inter-model agreement was assessed with Fleiss' kappa. A stratified random sample of 128 reviews underwent manual verification against the source manuscripts and was categorized as grounded, distorted, or hallucinated.
    RESULTS: Across all reviews, decisions were Minor Revision in 51.3% (369 of 720), Major Revision in 43.9% (316 of 720), Accept in 4.9% (35 of 720), and Reject in 0% (0 of 720). Prompt strictness shifted decision severity (p < 0.001): Prompt 1 yielded 9.7% Accept, 64.7% Minor Revision, and 25.6% Major Revision, whereas Prompt 2 eliminated Accept and increased Major Revision to 62.2%. Inter-model agreement was fair (Fleiss' κ = 0.25). In the audit, 94.0% of statements were grounded and 6.0% were distorted, with no hallucinated statements observed.
    CONCLUSION: Large language model editorial re--ations were prompt sensitive and showed fair agreement across models despite critique statements that were largely grounded in manuscript text, supporting assistive use with human oversight.
    Keywords:  Editorial decision; Large language models; Peer review; Publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2026.04.046
  11. BMC Res Notes. 2026 08 20. pii: 331. [Epub ahead of print]19(1):
      The recent integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into academia could usher in transformative efficiencies across scholarly workflows-from manuscript drafting to data analysis-yet it also presents problematic ethical challenges that urgently require intense attention. While some surveys suggest that over 50% of researchers employ AI chatbots like ChatGPT and DeepSeek for tasks such as language refinement and administrative coordination, their adoption raises potential concerns about cognitive dependency, systemic bias, and accountability gaps. AI tools can enhance productivity by automating repetitive tasks, democratizing access for non-native English speakers, and streamlining literature synthesis. However, reliance on these systems could gradually erode critical thinking skills, particularly among early-career researchers pressured to prioritize publication quantity over rigor. Ethical ambiguities seem to persist: AI-generated content may complicate authorship norms, potentially entrench biases against Global South scholarship, and introduce risks of misinformation. Transparency deficits could further undermine trust, as undisclosed AI use might compromise peer review integrity and patient privacy in medical research. To balance innovation with ethical imperatives, this study advocates a tripartite framework: [1] ethical governance, including mandated disclosure of AI contributions and inclusive dataset curation to mitigate bias; [2] symbiotic human-AI collaboration, preserving human oversight in critical analysis and interpretation; and [3] equitable innovation, leveraging AI to bridge global research disparities. Unresolved challenges-such as accountability for AI errors and the potential cognitive consequences of prolonged dependency-appear to underscore the urgent need for global standards to clarify liability and preserve academic rigor while fostering equitable innovation. Proactive engagement from journals, institutions, and developers may be essential to ensure AI augments, rather than undermines, the integrity and equity of scholarly ecosystems.
    Keywords:  Academic integrity; Algorithmic bias; Artificial intelligence; Ethical governance; Human-AI collaboration
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1186/s13104-025-07605-5
  12. Acad Radiol. 2026 Sep;pii: S1076-6332(26)00472-1. [Epub ahead of print]33(9): 3640-3641
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2026.06.058
  13. Nefrologia (Engl Ed). 2026 Aug-Sep;46(7):pii: S2013-2514(26)00178-1. [Epub ahead of print]46(7): 501616
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nefroe.2026.501616
  14. AME Clin Trials Rev. 2026 Apr 25. 4
       Background and Objective: Clinical trials are crucial for evidence-based medicine; however, substantial challenges remain. This review aims to provide an overview of recurring challenges in clinical trials and offer potential strategies to overcome practical barriers for stakeholders.
    Methods: A search of PubMed for English-language papers, published from January 1, 2021 to July 31, 2025 was conducted, focusing on reflections on trial registration, protocols, statistical analysis plans (SAP), sample size, risk of bias, transparency, reporting, peer review, dissemination, and emerging areas such as artificial intelligence (AI).
    Key Content and Findings: The clinical trial landscape has expanded dramatically, surpassing one million trials in total. However, it is marked by significant redundancy, waste, and lack of reproducibility. Transparency remains hampered by inadequate prospective registration, unreported results, limited protocol and SAP availability, substandard registration quality, and a lack of core requirements on registration platforms, despite improvements under a series of policy initiatives. Regarding quality and integrity, many trials have a high risk of bias, design flaws, underpowered sample sizes, or uncertain findings. Data fabrication and retractions due to dishonesty contribute to the complexity of this landscape, along with a peer-review workflow that underutilizes appraisal in the pre-submission, preprint, and post-publication stages. Regarding reporting and dissemination, challenges include poor adherence to the CONSORT and SPIRIT guidelines, ambiguous adoption of reporting guidelines by journals, heavy burdens on researchers using reporting guidelines, severe spin reporting of results, and inaccurate public dissemination. In emerging areas, AI is rapidly developing in almost every aspect of clinical trials, including its use in assisting with reviewing the risk of bias and integrity. The most problematic issues are the insufficient disclosure of AI use and inadequate human verification. This review proposes 18 suggestions and 19 strategies to address these concerns, such as requiring registration prior to ethical approval by ethical committees, founding journals dedicated to statistically negative trials, and developing an integrated trial quality feedback and fixing mechanism.
    Conclusions: There are pressing challenges with uncontrolled trial expansion, insufficient transparency, poor quality, dishonest or wrong practices, biased reporting and dissemination, and insufficient disclosure and verification of AI. The proposed suggestions and strategies may contribute to a healthier clinical trial ecosystem if implemented.
    Keywords:  Clinical trials; artificial intelligence (AI); quality; registry; reporting
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.21037/actr-25-132
  15. Acad Med. 2026 Aug 18. pii: wvag259. [Epub ahead of print]
      
    Keywords:  armed conflicts; global health; health equity; medical education; scholarly publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1093/acamed/wvag259
  16. J Clin Epidemiol. 2026 Aug 20. pii: S0895-4356(26)00340-9. [Epub ahead of print] 112464
       OBJECTIVE: Recent studies have raised concerns arising from the exploitation ("mining") of public health databases for low-quality, mass-produced papers. However, it remains challenging to disambiguate whether such papers originate from paper mills (commercial entities that sell authorships on mass-produced papers) or from the uncoordinated action of individuals facilitated by AI tools and templated workflows. Our study aims to address this question for one particular database, the Global Burden of Disease Study (GBD). We selected this database after noticing that one of our papers on Bayesian age-period-cohort models has recently been experiencing a rapid surge in geographically clustered citations from GBD papers with Chinese affiliations.
    METHODS: We collected bibliometric and article-level metadata from GBD papers to search for indicators of mass-produced research. Moreover, we assessed 713 full-text articles for reported R versions, availability of code and data, and declaration of generative AI use. For 180 articles, we qualitatively screened the figures for graphical similarities. Finally, we conducted an exploratory scoping investigation of online platforms (social media sites, vendor websites) dedicated to do-it-yourself workflows for secondary analyses of public health data.
    RESULTS: Although we cannot rule out paper mill involvement, our findings suggest that the geographically clustered increase in GBD publications from China is at least partially driven by independent authors. The wide variety of R versions listed in 477 articles points against centralized paper production. Moreover, despite broad graphical similarities in figure styles that suggest the use of shared visualization tools, substantial variation in ancillary details suggest independent authors finalizing figures. This is corroborated by the identification of an online ecosystem of proprietary tools and services specializing in streamlined do-it-yourself workflows for conducting, writing, and publishing secondary analyses of public health data.
    CONCLUSION: Appropriate efforts should be directed towards evaluating the quality of the identified workflows. Stakeholders in scientific integrity should monitor online platforms dedicated to the rapid production of papers, especially in light of the increasing focus on AI-assisted workflows. Code sharing should be mandated for data-driven secondary analyses. Paywalls and proprietary software licenses hinder transparency and reusability, underscoring the importance of free and open-source software for trustworthy and reproducible research.
    Keywords:  Research integrity; open data; open science; paper mills; public health data
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2026.112464
  17. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2026 Aug 18.
      To broaden and diversify the perspectives and experiences informing the editorial work for this journal, 27 affiliate editors have joined the ranks of the editorial board since 2023. They each work together with one of the 20 joint editors. As an early-career scientist practitioner who sees both papers as well as patients (Dagan) and a late-career scientist seeing papers only (Schuengel), we have worked together in handling submissions within the broad domain of clinically relevant research on young people and their families. Our editorial dialogue picks up on an earlier editorial, raising the issue of limited 'translational dividend' of our science. We identify structural and practical barriers that stand in the way of scientific knowledge transitioning into practice, and we conclude by considering how the subject matters in our field require intellectual humility in our research and editorial decision-making with respect to contrast with actual practice.
    Keywords:  Science‐practice gap; intervention research and intellectual humility; knowledge translation; scientist–practitioner model
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.70223
  18. Interdiscip Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2026 Aug 17. pii: ivag224. [Epub ahead of print]
      
    Keywords:  Cardiothoracic surgery; academics; authorship; scientific article
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1093/icvts/ivag224
  19. Science. 2026 Aug 20. 393(6813): 751-752
      More than one-fifth of papers at some IEEE conferences appear linked to authorship for sale.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.ael6249
  20. Front Artif Intell. 2026 ;9 1877344
      The rapid shift of large language models from conversational use to agentic reasoning is changing how scientific outputs must be structured for machine consumption. Agriculture stands to gain the most from this transition but currently has the least of the centralized, machine-ready infrastructure that biomedicine has built over decades. Agricultural knowledge remains dispersed across peer-reviewed journals, extension bulletins, technical reports, and multimedia field demonstrations, with associated code, data, and models often inaccessible to autonomous agents. We argue that the foundational FAIR principles and FAIR for Research Software (FAIR4RS) must be extended to a new standard of agent-actionability, and propose FAIR4AG2 as that extension for agricultural research. Across three modalities of knowledge units (text, multimedia, and databases), we offer concrete, implementation-ready practices: structured publishing formats and machine-readable licensing for documents; signal isolation, time-aligned visuals, and domain-aware curation for multimedia; and standardized APIs, Agent Skills, and Model Context Protocol (MCP) servers for databases and model repositories. Realizing FAIR4AG2 will require parallel investment in equitable participation, careful curation, human-in-the-loop verification, and governance norms that credit the data curators and infrastructure builders whose work agents now operate upon.
    Keywords:  FAIR (findable accessible interoperable and reusable) principles; agentic AI; agricultural research; large language model (LLM); research data infrastructure
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3389/frai.2026.1877344
  21. Med Humanit. 2026 Aug 17. pii: medhum-2025-013638. [Epub ahead of print]
      
    Keywords:  creative writing; health care education; medical education; poetry and prose; therapeutic writing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1136/medhum-2025-013638