bims-skolko Biomed News
on Scholarly communication
Issue of 2026–03–22
forty papers selected by
Thomas Krichel, Open Library Society
  1. The Global Cost of Silencing Science.
  2. How should we address non-reproducibility?
  3. Why publish? Perspectives of North African researchers in the medical field.
  4. Broadening the Scope of Meta-Research: From Methodologists to Stakeholders.
  5. Exposing the predators: Unmasking the tactics of predatory journals in academic publishing.
  6. Effect of educational intervention on physicians and researchers' knowledge, practices and perceptions towards predatory journals: an interventional study.
  7. Predatory Medical Journals in Patent Literature: A Hidden Threat.
  8. Can aspects of predatory publishing be applied to some mainstream and grey journals?
  9. Ethical implications of advertising in medical journals.
  10. Prevalence of hyperprolific authors in sports medicine and musculoskeletal health and implications on research attention.
  11. Addressing free rider issues in academic authorship in medical education.
  12. Tracking Scientific Publications in Non-traditional Academic Medical Centers.
  13. Rethinking how research is reviewed and published.
  14. Can ChatGPT write better scientific titles? A comparative evaluation of human-written and AI-generated titles.
  15. Declare the use or non-use of artificial intelligence in peer-review: a relic of the past?
  16. The Silent Author: A Pilot Study Detecting AI-Assisted Writing in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Journals.
  17. Evaluating the accuracy of ChatGPT-4 generated references in oral and maxillofacial surgery: a preliminary observational study.
  18. Generative artificial intelligence in the publishing industry: adoption, use, intellectual property, and other challenges.
  19. Hallucinated citations produced by generative artificial intelligence may constitute research misconduct when citations function as data in scholarly papers.
  20. Academic Integrity Is Coming Increasingly Under Attack From Academics Using AI Tools as a Short-Cut to Publications.
  21. AI humanizers and the crisis of information integrity: implications for scientific writing.
  22. Preserving scientific integrity in academic publishing: Navigating artificial intelligence, journal policies, and the impact factor as a quality indicator.
  23. Fabricated citations: the quiet crisis of AI hallucinations in scientific publishing.
  24. Protecting Peer Review from the Surge of Low Fidelity Systematic Reviews in the Generative AI Era.
  25. The Potential for Artificial Intelligence to Augment Peer Review.
  26. Bot-Tastic: Overload Burden of Unsolicited Peer Review Requests, Field of Expertise, and Narrative Hot-Takes.
  27. Desk Rejection Decisions - Do Co-Editors-In-Chief of This Journal Agree?
  28. Authorship vs Acknowledgement in Article Writing: Deciding Who, When, Where, and Why.
  29. How to write a successful abstract.
  30. Rhetorical Candour: When and How to Say It Straight in Your Academic Manuscript.
  31. Data Governance Lessons From an Unvalidated Dataset.
  32. Open Access as a Launchpad: Educational Pathways in Early-Career Scientific Publishing.
  33. Open science practices in behavioral addictions: An exploratory survey.
  34. The development of Journal of Yeungnam Medical Science: transition from local to international journal.
  35. [The shapeshifting landscape of academic publishing in pediatrics: focus on Open Access].
  36. The Journal of Complementary and Integrative Medicine is switching its publication model to open access.
  37. Artificial Intelligence Across the Society of Laparoscopic and Robotic Surgeons Publication Network.
  38. Should Optometry & Vision Science be a hybrid or fully open access journal?
  39. Looking Back, Looking Forward: Reflections on 23 Years a Editor-in-Chief of the European Journal of Oncology Nursing.
  40. Congratulations Arthroscopy Authors, Researchers, and Readers Who Propelled Our Journal's Impact Into 2026.
  1. Tunis Med. 2025 Aug 01. 103(8): 947-948
    The Global Cost of Silencing Science.
    Frank Frizelle, Kamran Abbasi, Vivienne C Bachelet, Christopher Baethge, Sabine Kleinert, Jin-Hong Yoo, Lilia Zakhama.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.62438/tunismed.v103i8.6311
  2. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2026 Mar 19. pii: 20250057. [Epub ahead of print]381(1946):
    How should we address non-reproducibility?
    Torben Göpel.
      Inter-experimental variability poses a significant challenge to reproducibility in experimental biology, hindering scientific progress and the translation of research findings. This variability arises from numerous factors, including subtle differences in reagents, equipment calibration, environmental conditions and unaccounted biological variation. Despite the existence of guidelines such as ARRIVE (Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments) and MDAR (Materials Design Analysis Reporting), the reporting of crucial experimental details often remains incomplete or inconsistent across studies. Recent analyses have suggested that the insufficient reporting of materials and methods may substantially contribute to non-reproducibility in biological research. This underscores the need for more comprehensive and standardized reporting practices as the best approach to ensure good science. To address this issue, publishers, editors and reviewers must enforce existing standards more rigourously, while authors and researchers should prioritize the comprehensive reporting of experimental details. Innovative approaches such as experimental heterogenization and open science initiatives are emerging to enhance reproducibility. A multifaceted approach involving stricter guideline enforcement, recognition of replication studies and fostering a culture that values reproducibility over publication speed and sensationalization is essential for improving the reliability and credibility of experimental biology research. This article is part of the theme issue 'Embracing variability in comparative physiology: why it matters and what to do with it'.
    Keywords:  open science; publishing policy; reporting guidelines; reproducibility crisis; scientific rigour
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2025.0057
  3. Tunis Med. 2025 Sep 09. 103(9): 1252-1257
    Why publish? Perspectives of North African researchers in the medical field.
    Meriem Gaddas, Rym Fakfekh, Rihem Dahmane, Imen Ben Saida, Soumaya Mougou-Zerelli, Helmi Ben Saad.
      The act of publishing research is not just a procedural step; it is a fundamental part of the scientific process. It ensures transparency, accountability, and the continuous evolution of knowledge. This perspective paper aimed to revisit the theoretical reasons/motivations that lead researchers in the medical field to engaging in the publication process, and to determine those of researchers from a low-income country (Tunisia). When researchers publish their findings, they provide a foundation upon which others can build. This iterative process is what drives innovation and discovery. Moreover, the global nature of scientific research means that publications often transcend borders, enabling international collaboration. In addition, the societal impact of research cannot be overstated. Publications often serve as the bridge between scientific discovery and real-world application. Finally, the ethical dimension of publishing is also significant. By sharing their work, researchers contribute to the democratization of knowledge, ensuring that scientific advancements are accessible to all, rather than being confined to a select few. This is particularly important in addressing global challenges such as climate change, pandemics, and inequality. The responses of a 44 university hospital doctors and doctoral students from a low-income country to the question "why publish?", show a lack of awareness of the importance of publishing, both academically and economically. In summary, the publication of research is a multifaceted endeavor that serves both the scientific community and society. It is a testament to the collaborative and progressive nature of human inquiry, driving us toward a better understanding of the world and our place within it.
    Keywords:  Developing Countries; Global Health; Knowledge Dissemination; Research Ethics; Scientific Communication
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.62438/tunismed.v103i9.6045
  4. J Clin Epidemiol. 2026 Mar 17. pii: S0895-4356(26)00109-5. [Epub ahead of print] 112234
    Broadening the Scope of Meta-Research: From Methodologists to Stakeholders.
    Clovis Mariano Faggion.
      
    Keywords:  Biomedical Research; Evidence-Based Practice; Meta-Analysis; Publication Bias; Reproducibility of Results; Research Design
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2026.112234
  5. Indian J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2026 Apr;42(4): 571-573
    Exposing the predators: Unmasking the tactics of predatory journals in academic publishing.
    Syed Nusrath, Hemanth Nemade, Yogesh Vashisht.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12055-025-02159-4
  6. BMC Med Educ. 2026 Mar 17.
    Effect of educational intervention on physicians and researchers' knowledge, practices and perceptions towards predatory journals: an interventional study.
    Sumayyia D Marar, Amani Abu-Shaheen, Mohsen Ayyash, Alaa Ashraf AlQurashi, Ahmed Hamza, Muaawia A Hamza.
      
    Keywords:  Educational intervention; King Fahad Medical City; Knowledge; Perceptions; Practices; Predatory journals; Pretest–posttest
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-026-08944-y
  7. Adv Pharm Bull. 2025 Nov;15(4): 693-699
    Predatory Medical Journals in Patent Literature: A Hidden Threat.
    Mihály Hegedűs, Mehdi Dadkhah, Lóránt Dénes Dávid.
       Purpose: The negative impact of potential predatory journals has been widely discussed, primarily within academic contexts. However, their influence beyond academia remains underexplored. This study aims to address that gap.
    Methods: The current editorial utilised a sample list of 8 potential predatory medical journals. We compiled a list of potential predatory medical journals using the discontinued titles list in Scopus and the current blocklists. Then their patent-to-paper citations have been examined to understand the dissemination of questionable medical publications outside of academia.
    Results: This indicates that potential predatory medical journals received 483,848 citations from scholarly works and 4,251 citations from patents.
    Conclusion: When patents cite papers from predatory journals, flawed information may propagate, or potentially leading to wrongful patent rejections and wasted resources. This serves as a warning for the patent community to take action against potential predatory journals.
    Keywords:  Circular economy; Intellectual property; Patent; Potential predatory journals; Predatory journals; Sustainable development goals
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.34172/apb.025.46153
  8. Account Res. 2026 Mar 14. 2644380
    Can aspects of predatory publishing be applied to some mainstream and grey journals?
    Simon Turner.
       BACKGROUND: Since the term predatory publishing was coined in the early 2010s, a significant research literature has emerged that carries warnings about journals issued by such publishers, while signaling the virtues of mainstream publishing. Three narratives that support the negative framing of predatory journals were identified: (1) they prioritize profit over scholarship; (2) they are assessed using qualitative warning signs rather than robust quality indicators; and (3) they are seldom named in editorial interventions, generating uncertainty about the domain of predatory publishing.
    METHODS: Challenges of differentiating between the quality standards of mainstream and other journals are examined by applying a "warning list" of criteria to a grey publisher representative of the boundary between legitimate and illegitimate publishing, then analyzing editorial and production attributes of a cross-section of health science journals, with a range of impact factors, indexed within a bibliometric database.
    RESULTS: Use of predatory "warning signs" has affected progress with evaluating the relative qualities of mainstream and other journals, and meant that some innovations associated with some non-mainstream journals have been overlooked (e.g. process efficiencies in peer review and the sharing of production process data).
    CONCLUSIONS: Sources of editorial and production practice data for comparing all journals are incomplete and dispersed. More complete quality indicators for all journals that include authors' experiences of publishing need to be openly shared and externally validated. Research funders can influence publishers' behavior by making open access funding contingent upon journals meeting both quality and timeliness indicators for peer review.
    Keywords:  Journal Citation Reports; Predatory publishing; academic publishing; grey publishers; predatory indicators
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2026.2644380
  9. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2026 Mar 14. pii: S0190-9622(26)00408-1. [Epub ahead of print]
    Ethical implications of advertising in medical journals.
    Lauren Fleshner, Gustavo Freitas, Timothy Klufas, Albert E Zhou, Jane M Grant-Kels.
      
    Keywords:  Ethics; academic publishing; advertising; industry; online journals; open access journals; pharmaceuticals; prescriptions; research
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaad.2026.03.032
  10. PLoS One. 2026 ;21(3): e0343827
    Prevalence of hyperprolific authors in sports medicine and musculoskeletal health and implications on research attention.
    Serena Uppal, Haneef Khan, Michelle Helen Cruickshank, Michelle Ghert.
       PURPOSE: The phenomenon of hyperprolific authorship has raised concerns about research quality, academic integrity, and the sustainability of publication practices across scientific disciplines. Hyperprolific authors (HA) are defined as those publishing 72 or more papers annually, while almost hyperprolific authors (AHA) publish 61-72. This study aimed to identify and characterize extremely productive (EP) authors, defined as HA and AHA, in sports medicine and musculoskeletal health research and assess their scientific impact.
    METHODS: We analyzed publications from the top 20 CiteScore-ranked journals in sports medicine and musculoskeletal health between 2020 and 2024 using the Scopus database. Authors were classified as HA or AHA based on annual publication volume. Metadata was extracted regarding publication counts, authorship positions, institutional affiliations, and geographic distribution. Citation impact and scholarly attention were evaluated using h-index and total citation counts.
    RESULTS: Among 16,983 articles and 68,209 unique authors, 222 (0.45%) were classified as EP authors (125 HA, 97 AHA). Five authors maintained HA status across all five years, with the most prolific author publishing 1,174 papers and a peak annual output of 262. EP authors were concentrated in Europe (42.3%), Asia (28.4%), and the Americas (22.5%), especially in Germany, Japan, China, and the United States. Most EP authors were middle authors (median 59.8%-60.9%), with low first authorship (1.9%-2.1%) and higher last authorship rates (22.6%-27.0%). Despite concerns about volume, EP authors demonstrated substantial research attention, over their entire career, as measured by citation metrics: mean h-index 79.9 and mean total citations 35,654.
    CONCLUSIONS: Extremely productive authors comprise a small but influential subset of researchers. Their high output is not necessarily at the expense of research attention, but the concentration of productivity among a limited group raises important questions about authorship norms, research equity, and global representation.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0343827
  11. Ann Med. 2026 Dec;58(1): 2625580
    Addressing free rider issues in academic authorship in medical education.
    Kadriye O Lewis, Chan Choong Foong, Syeda Sadia Fatima.
       AIM: Authorship is a key marker for academic achievement, yet its integrity is increasingly compromised by "free riding," whereby individuals are listed as co-authors without making any substantive contributions. This commentary examines the nature, drivers, and ethical implications of free riding in academic publishing and proposes strategies to promote fairness, accountability, and integrity in authorship practices.
    MATERIALS AND METHODS: This commentary draws on existing literature, international authorship guidelines (including those of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors), and ethical frameworks in scholarly publishing. Through narrative analysis, it explores the characteristics, motivations, and consequences of free riding in authorship, with particular attention to institutional, cultural, and power-related influences. Emerging challenges related to Generative Artificial Intelligence and authorship integrity are also examined.
    RESULTS: Five primary forms of free riding in authorship are identified: coercive, reciprocal, gratitude, purchased, and entitlement authorship. These practices are driven by pressures to publish, increasing multi-authorship, ambiguous authorship norms, and incentive structures that prioritize quantity over quality. Despite established guidelines, honorary and coercive authorship persist, undermining accountability and trust in scholarly communication. The use of Generative Artificial Intelligence introduces additional complexities regarding contribution attribution and authorship legitimacy. Institutions and journals play a critical role in addressing these issues through clear authorship policies, transparent contribution tracking (e.g., the CRediT taxonomy), ethical training, mentorship, and technologies that verify individual contributions.
    CONCLUSION: Free riding in academic authorship represents an ethical challenge that threatens the credibility, fairness, and trustworthiness of scientific knowledge. Addressing this issue requires coordinated reform across institutions, journals, and researcher training. By strengthening accountability mechanisms, and fostering a culture of ethical authorship, the academic community can ensure that authorship accurately reflects genuine intellectual and practical contributions. Confronting free riding in academic publishing is essential not only for maintaining ethical integrity and fairness but also for preserving public trust and the validity of scientific knowledge.
    Keywords:  Authorship; academic publications; accountability; ethics; free riders; free riding; medical education research; scientific journals
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1080/07853890.2026.2625580
  12. Cureus. 2026 Feb;18(2): e103708
    Tracking Scientific Publications in Non-traditional Academic Medical Centers.
    Elli Gourna Paleoudis.
      Tracking academic publications is inherently challenging for both academic and non-traditional academic centers. Publications are considered crucial for academic success; however, accurately identifying and reporting them is a resource-intensive process. There is a lack of a standardized, readily available solution that focuses on tracking publications linked to human subject research within a large healthcare network. This report presents a home-grown approach to tracking and reporting publications. The aim was to track publications and calculate the publication rate of studies approved by the institutional review board (IRB) between 2021 and 2023 at a large United States hospital network by surveying principal investigators (PI) via REDCap about resulting publications. This semi-automated approach revealed a 30.5% publication rate with publications including full-text articles, abstracts, posters, and conference presentations. Tracking publications within a complex healthcare network is challenging. While the described method facilitated data collection, it was time- and resource-intensive, and reliance on PI self-reporting could have limited the accuracy of the publication rate calculated. However, with further automation, home-grown approaches such as the one presented here could allow for a user-friendly application that other non-traditional academic medical centers can adopt. A widely acceptable and easily adaptable tool for publication tracking is needed, particularly for non-traditional academic centers. Future research should explore AI and machine learning applications to address this need.
    Keywords:  institutional publishing; medical publishing; non-traditional academic medical centers; publication tracker; publication tracking; scientific publications; tracking and reporting publications
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.103708
  13. Elife. 2026 Mar 17. pii: e110392. [Epub ahead of print]15
    Rethinking how research is reviewed and published.
    Timothy E Behrens, Yamini Dalal, Diane M Harper.
      Taking a radical new approach to the publication process resulted in eLife losing its impact factor, but authors, reviewers, editors and funders support the journal and its efforts to reform scientific publishing.
    Keywords:  peer review; preprints; publish-review-curate; research assessment; scientific publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.110392
  14. F1000Res. 2025 ;14 1470
    Can ChatGPT write better scientific titles? A comparative evaluation of human-written and AI-generated titles.
    Paul Sebo, Bing Nie, Ting Wang.
       Background: Large language models (LLMs) such as GPT-4 are increasingly used in scientific writing, yet little is known about how AI-generated scientific titles are perceived by researchers in terms of quality.
    Objective: To compare the perceived alignment with the abstract content (as a surrogate for perceived accuracy), appeal, and overall preference for AI-generated versus human-written scientific titles.
    Methods: We conducted a blinded comparative study with 21 researchers from diverse academic backgrounds. A random sample of 50 original titles was selected from 10 high-impact general internal medicine journals. For each title, an alternative version was generated using GPT-4.0. Each rater evaluated 50 pairs of titles, each pair consisting of one original and one AI-generated version, without knowing the source of the titles or the purpose of the study. For each pair, raters independently assessed both titles on perceived alignment with the abstract content and appeal, and indicated their overall preference. We analyzed alignment and appeal using Wilcoxon signed-rank tests and mixed-effects ordinal logistic regressions, preferences using McNemar's test and mixed-effects logistic regression, and inter-rater agreement with Gwet's AC.
    Results: AI-generated titles received significantly higher ratings for both perceived alignment with the abstract content (mean 7.9 vs. 6.7, p-value <0.001) and appeal (mean 7.1 vs. 6.7, p-value <0.001) than human-written titles. The odds of preferring an AI-generated title were 1.7 times higher ( p-value =0.001), with 61.8% of 1,049 paired judgments favoring the AI version. Inter-rater agreement was moderate to substantial (Gwet's AC: 0.54-0.70).
    Conclusions: AI-generated titles were rated more favorably than human-written titles within the context of this study in terms of perceived alignment with the abstract content, appeal, and preference, suggesting that LLMs may enhance the effectiveness of scientific communication. These findings support the responsible integration of AI tools in research.
    Keywords:  AI; ChatGPT; artificial intelligence; authorship; comparison; rater; reader perception; scientific title; scientific writing; title
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.173647.2
  15. Anaesth Crit Care Pain Med. 2026 Mar 13. pii: S2352-5568(26)00070-6. [Epub ahead of print] 101812
    Declare the use or non-use of artificial intelligence in peer-review: a relic of the past?
    Sacha Rozencwajg, Dan Benhamou.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.accpm.2026.101812
  16. Ann Plast Surg. 2026 Mar 23.
    The Silent Author: A Pilot Study Detecting AI-Assisted Writing in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Journals.
    Harry D I Happonen, Stephanie M Bollard, Roisin T Dolan.
       BACKGROUND: Academic publishing underpins surgical decision-making, but the rapid adoption of generative artificial intelligence (AI) raises concerns about research credibility and patient safety. To the best of our knowledge, no prior pilot study has examined its presence in plastic and reconstructive surgery. Detection tools remain imperfect, and journals lack consensus on disclosure policies, leaving a gap between rapid adoption and effective oversight.
    METHODS: This pilot analysis sampled 10% (n=67) of articles published between July 1, 2024, and July 1, 2025, across leading plastic and reconstructive surgery and burn journals. We assembled a matched control cohort from 2014 to 2015 using identical criteria. Articles were analyzed using a combined RoBERTa classifier and perplexity-based evaluation to flag potential AI-like textual characteristics.
    RESULTS: At the article level, 18 of 67 articles (26.9%, 95% CI: 17.7-38.5) contained ≥1 flagged section, with 20 subsections (5.3%, 95% CI: 3.5-8.1) flagged. Flagged content clustered in methods (9.1%) and abstracts (7.5%), with lower prevalence in other sections. In our control cohort, 3 papers (4.5%, 95% CI: 1.5-12.5) and 3 subsections were flagged (0.9%, 95% CI: 0.3-2.7), representing ~6-fold and 5-fold increases, respectively. This difference was statistically significant at the article level (χ²=11.1, P<0.001).
    CONCLUSIONS: AI-like textual characteristics were more frequently detected in contemporary plastic and reconstructive surgery publications than in the pre-AI cohort. Although detection does not confirm authorship, these findings underscore the need for clearer and more consistent disclosure, standardized and graded reporting policies, and reviewer training to enable responsible integration of AI into surgical publishing.
    Keywords:  AI detection; artificial intelligence; large language models; plastic surgery; scientific publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1097/SAP.0000000000004726
  17. Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2026 Mar 21. pii: 59. [Epub ahead of print]30(1):
    Evaluating the accuracy of ChatGPT-4 generated references in oral and maxillofacial surgery: a preliminary observational study.
    Anuj Jain, Yash Merchant.
      
    Keywords:  Academic integrity; Artificial intelligence in medicine; Biomedical publishing; ChatGPT; Citation accuracy; Large language models (LLMs); Medical writing; Oral and maxillofacial surgery (OMS); Reference fabrication
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10006-026-01550-8
  18. Front Res Metr Anal. 2026 ;11 1759242
    Generative artificial intelligence in the publishing industry: adoption, use, intellectual property, and other challenges.
    Marco Giraldo-Barreto.
      Taking as a starting point how generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) works, this text explores the level of adoption of such technology in the publishing sector (in particular for Latin America), shows examples of legislation challenges faced by states and the publishing industry in terms of intellectual property, and the implications of GenAI misuse in the academic publishing context. Finally, it proposes a course of action for a responsible adoption for the publishing chain of value.
    Keywords:  academic publishing; authorship; creative industries; generative artificial intelligence; intellectual property; publishing industry
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3389/frma.2026.1759242
  19. Account Res. 2026 Mar 15. 2645390
    Hallucinated citations produced by generative artificial intelligence may constitute research misconduct when citations function as data in scholarly papers.
    David B Resnik, Mohammad Hosseini.
      In this article, we discuss the growing problem of hallucinated citations produced by Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) in scholarly research and writing. We argue that GenAI hallucinated citations might qualify as a provable instance of research misconduct under the U.S. federal regulations when a) the researcher uses a GenAI tool to produce hallucinated (i.e., nonexistent) citations for a research document; b) the citations function as data because they directly support research findings, as in, for example, review articles or bibliometric studies; and c) the researcher demonstrates indifference to the risk of fabrication of the data (i.e. citations) because they did not check the GenAI's output for veracity and accuracy. Other types of problematic citations such as bibliometrically incorrect citations, or contextually inaccurate citations, are indicative of poor scholarship and irresponsible behavior, but do not qualify as research misconduct. Recognizing that GenAI hallucinated citations could be regarded as research misconduct in certain cases will hopefully encourage researchers to take this problem more seriously than they do now. In partnership with scientific institutions, funders and professional societies, the scholarly community should work on establishing, promoting, and enforcing standards for responsible use of AI in research, including standards pertaining to citation practices.
    Keywords:  Hallucinated citations; fabrication; generative artificial intelligence; publication ethics; research misconduct
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2026.2645390
  20. Bioethics. 2026 Mar 19.
    Academic Integrity Is Coming Increasingly Under Attack From Academics Using AI Tools as a Short-Cut to Publications.
    Udo Schuklenk.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1111/bioe.70100
  21. Naunyn Schmiedebergs Arch Pharmacol. 2026 Mar 18.
    AI humanizers and the crisis of information integrity: implications for scientific writing.
    Louie Giray.
      AI humanizers are tools designed to disguise AI-generated text as human-written. These tools have triggered a crisis in information integrity. This paper examines the reasons behind the rise of AI humanizers and their damaging effects on scientific writing. The primary reasons for adopting AI humanizers stem from institutional and psychological pressures. Students and researchers face a publish-or-perish culture and rigid academic policies that impose arbitrary AI-percentage thresholds. These tools are increasingly used as compliance mechanisms to avoid being flagged by AI detection. Furthermore, a lack of confidence in information literacy and the pressure of time poverty drive users to seek an information bypass, prioritizing efficient yet shallow output over deep cognitive engagement. The effects of this reliance are ethically and educationally corrosive. By decoupling writing from thinking, AI humanizers produce pseudo-information that mimics scholarly fluency but lacks epistemic grounding. This leads to a decline in critical information processing. Long-term consequences include the stunting of information literacy, the rise of learned helplessness, and the systemic pollution of institutional repositories with content lacking authentic inquiry. The paper argues that information integrity cannot be recovered through technical policing alone; it requires a return to process-oriented assessments that prioritize information provenance and the authentic knowledge engagement.
    Keywords:  AI humanizers; Information ethics; Information integrity; Information literacy; Pseudo-knowledge; Scientific writing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00210-026-05200-4
  22. J ISAKOS. 2027 Mar 23. pii: S2059-7754(25)00557-7. [Epub ahead of print] 100940
    Preserving scientific integrity in academic publishing: Navigating artificial intelligence, journal policies, and the impact factor as a quality indicator.
    Mahmut Enes Kayaalp, Stefano Zaffagnini, Michael A Mont, Jon Karlsson, Bruce Reider, Olufemi Ayeni, Thomas Heyse, Henning Madry, Elmar Herbst, Giuseppe Milano, Volker Musahl, Roland Becker, Michael T Hirschmann.
      The integration of artificial intelligence (AI), the rise of mega-journals, and the manipulation of impact factors present challenges to scientific integrity. These trends threaten the core principles of objectivity, reproducibility, and transparency. This editorial highlights two categories of threats: (1) external pressures, such as AI misuse and metric-driven publishing models, and (2) internal systemic flaws, including the 'publish or perish' culture and methodological fragility. Mega-journals, characterized by high-volume publishing and broad interdisciplinary scopes, improve accessibility and accelerate dissemination. However, the emphasis on publication volume might weaken the rigor of peer review. To navigate these challenges, the authors propose a balanced approach that harnesses innovation without compromising scientific integrity. Proposed solutions include mandating AI transparency through frameworks like CONSORT-AI, and redefining impact metrics to emphasize reproducibility, mentorship, and societal impact alongside citations. Scientific journals should promote career opportunities based less on publication quantity and more on quality. Global cooperation, via initiatives like the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA) and the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), is essential to standardize ethics and address resource disparities. This editorial proposes solutions for researchers, journals, and policymakers to realign academic incentives and uphold the ethical foundation of the science. By fostering transparency, accountability, and equity, the scientific community can preserve its ethical foundations while embracing transformative tools-ultimately advancing knowledge and serving society. FOR CLINICAL TRIALS: n/a. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: V.
    Keywords:  Artificial; Bibliometrics; Ethics in publishing; Intelligence; Peer reviews; Periodicals as topic
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jisako.2025.100940
  23. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2026 Apr 01. 264(4): 382
    Fabricated citations: the quiet crisis of AI hallucinations in scientific publishing.
    Lisa A Fortier.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.2460/javma.264.4.382
  24. J Med Syst. 2026 Mar 18. pii: 35. [Epub ahead of print]50(1):
    Protecting Peer Review from the Surge of Low Fidelity Systematic Reviews in the Generative AI Era.
    Shinji Kobayashi.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10916-026-02364-7
  25. Emerg Med Australas. 2026 Apr;38(2): e70243
    The Potential for Artificial Intelligence to Augment Peer Review.
    W Kenneth Milne, Daniel Fatovich.
      
    Keywords:  artificial intelligence; augmented; peer review
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1111/1742-6723.70243
  26. Acad Emerg Med. 2026 Mar;33(3): e70260
    Bot-Tastic: Overload Burden of Unsolicited Peer Review Requests, Field of Expertise, and Narrative Hot-Takes.
    Shan W Liu, Timothy Horeczko, Jaime Jordan, Samuel O Clarke, Daniel P Runde, Wendy C Coates.
       IMPORTANCE: Unsolicited peer review requests have increased with the expansion of academic publishing, raising concerns about reviewer fatigue. Peer review is a critical component in disseminating scientific discovery requiring time and expertise, often uncompensated.
    OBJECTIVE: We sought to quantify and analyze characteristics of the review solicitation burden on a group of senior faculty.
    METHODS: We conducted a prospective mixed-methods study of 6 senior academic physicians who are peer reviewers and editors. Each participant monitored their email inboxes (9/1-12/13, 2024) for peer review requests. We collected solicitation date, journal name, discipline, reviewer's existing relationship to journal, content relevance, response to request, immediate Plutchik Basic Emotions reaction, narrative comments, using hermeneutic phenomenology. We calculated descriptive statistics and performed a thematic analysis with a constructivist paradigm of narrative comments.
    RESULTS: Participants (5 institutions, 3 males) received 139 solicitations. Over half (52.5%, 73) were requests from a journal with whom the physician had no or unknown previous contact. Less than 1/3 of solicitations were directly relevant (28.1%, 39); 43.2% (60) partially relevant; 28.8% (40) irrelevant. Only 2.3% (3) of requests were accepted; 55.4% (77) were declined and 42.4% (59) were ignored. Of the Plutchik Basic Emotions, most were surprised (36%, 48) or disgusted (31%, 41). Qualitative analysis identified four themes: (1) issues with review process/journal quality, (2) time/effort demands, (3) relevancy to expertise, (4) technology/administrative barriers.
    CONCLUSIONS: Academic faculty received copious peer review requests and declined or ignored many, citing frustration, surprise or disgust. Editors should optimize the review request process to avoid reviewer burnout.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1111/acem.70260
  27. Int J Public Health. 2026 ;71 1608909
    Desk Rejection Decisions - Do Co-Editors-In-Chief of This Journal Agree?
    Nino Künzli, Olaf von dem Knesebeck, Andrea Madarasova Geckova, Sunghea Park, Christopher Woodrow.
       Objectives: Given the growing demand for peer reviews, many public health journals face increasing reluctance from scientists to act as reviewers. The decisions made by pre-screening editors about whether to desk reject a submitted manuscript or initiate peer review are therefore of the utmost importance. The lower the specificity of this decision, the higher the post-peer-review rejection rate, increasing the "rejection cascade" of repeated submissions and peer review cycles. We conducted a two-stage comparison to understand the agreement of pre-screen decisions among the three Co-Editors-in-Chief of the International Journal of Public Health (IJPH), an independent journal of the Swiss School of Public Health (SSPH+).
    Methods: In total, the three Co-editors in chief made pre-screen decisions independently (stage 1) and then again after considering others' views (stage 2).
    Results: Full Stage 1 agreement was observed for only 43% of the 30 manuscripts considered. Taking second opinions into account resulted in 67% agreement at stage 2. The main drivers of disagreement were the "soft" criteria that guide the pre-screen decisions, such as "novelty" and "originality". Stage 1 pre-screen rejection rates of 47%, 80% and 60% for the three editors increased to 57%, 83% and 67% respectively at stage 2.
    Conclusion: Based on these findings, IJPH editors will add a "second opinion" for manuscripts they are considering for peer review.
    Keywords:  desk rejection; novelty criteria; peer review; rejection rates; scientific publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3389/ijph.2026.1608909
  28. Fam Med. 2025 Nov;57(10): 763
    Authorship vs Acknowledgement in Article Writing: Deciding Who, When, Where, and Why.
    Ryaja Johnson, Kendall M Campbell.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.22454/FamMed.2025.159202
  29. Br J Nurs. 2026 Mar 19. 35(6): S9
    How to write a successful abstract.
    Angie Perrin.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.12968/bjon.2026.0111
  30. Perspect Med Educ. 2026 ;15(1): 251-256
    Rhetorical Candour: When and How to Say It Straight in Your Academic Manuscript.
    Lorelei Lingard.
      This Writer's Craft explores rhetorical candour: the art of saying what you mean and saying it straight, while remaining scholarly and credible. Through control of modality and sentence structure, writers can avoid the habitual academic hedge so that their work is nuanced where necessary and plainspoken where effective.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.5334/pme.2269
  31. J Med Internet Res. 2026 Mar 12. 28 e94518
    Data Governance Lessons From an Unvalidated Dataset.
    Cliff Dominy.
      
    Keywords:  artificial intelligence; data integrity; data management; data provenance; data quality; data sharing; research ethics; research integrity; retraction of publication; scientific misconduct
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.2196/94518
  32. Cureus. 2026 Feb;18(2): e103724
    Open Access as a Launchpad: Educational Pathways in Early-Career Scientific Publishing.
    José Emiliano González Flores.
      Open access publishing has transformed the scientific dissemination landscape by expanding accessibility and accelerating knowledge exchange. Beyond democratizing readership, it may also serve as a formative platform for early-career researchers navigating the complexities of academic authorship and scholarly communication. High rejection rates, prolonged review timelines, and limited mentorship exposure often position traditional publishing pathways as barriers to entry for young investigators. In contrast, engagement with open access journals can facilitate experiential learning in manuscript development, peer-review processes, and editorial interaction. Participation in accessible publication environments may support the acquisition of technical competencies, authorship confidence, and academic visibility during formative stages of scholarly development. This article is presented as a reflective editorial perspective rather than an empirical or systematic evaluation, aiming to conceptualize open access publishing as a progressive educational pathway within early-career scientific training. When approached critically and supported by structured mentorship, open access publishing functions not only as a dissemination model but also as a catalyst for the professional development of emerging scientific contributors.
    Keywords:  academic authorship; citation impact; early-career researchers; open access publishing; peer review; publication pathways; research mentorship; research training; scholarly communication; scientific publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.103724
  33. J Behav Addict. 2026 Mar 19. pii: 2006.2025.00398. [Epub ahead of print]
    Open science practices in behavioral addictions: An exploratory survey.
    Charlotte Eben, Robert M Heirene, Lucas Palmer, Joël Billieux, Beáta Bőthe, Damien Brevers, Zhang Chen, Joshua B Grubbs, Anja Kräplin, Karol Lewczuk, Philip Newall, José C Perales, Jan Peters, Ruth J van Holst, Luke Clark.
       Background: The field of behavioral addictions (BA) research addresses activity domains such as excessive gaming, gambling, and other online behaviors that influence public health policies. A failure to embrace open science practices may lead to concerns about the trustworthiness and reliability of its research outputs. This study explored the current use of open science practices among BA researchers, focusing on the adoption, underlying motivations, concerns, and support needs across seven specific open science practices.
    Methods: We distributed an exploratory survey through professional networks, conferences, and social media and received 83 eligible responses (early career researcher [ECRs]: N = 41). The survey covered six domains: general use, frequency, importance, engagement, concerns, and support needs related to open science practices.
    Results: Most respondents reported positive attitudes toward open science, with preregistration (75% of total N) and data sharing (65% of total N) as the most commonly used practices. Descriptively, ECRs placed greater importance on these practices than their established counterparts, suggesting a potential generational shift. ECRs primarily reported concerns about insufficient knowledge and fear of errors, while established researchers emphasized workload and a lack of incentives. Both groups highlighted the need for increased time, resources, institutional support, and training.
    Discussion: Although our findings are descriptive and limited by self-selection and sample bias, they offer initial insights into how open science is perceived and practised in the field. Sustained progress requires coordinated action from individuals, institutions, and professional societies in terms of knowledge transfer and incentives to ensure inclusive and equitable adoption of open science practices.
    Keywords:  behavioral addiction; gambling; gaming; open science; reproducibility
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1556/2006.2025.00398
  34. J Yeungnam Med Sci. 2026 ;43 24
    The development of Journal of Yeungnam Medical Science: transition from local to international journal.
    Eun Il Lee, Min Cheol Chang.
      The medical journal publishing environment in Korea has changed rapidly since the 2010s owing to the expanded influence of international indexing databases, changes in research performance evaluation systems, and the strengthening of research and publication ethics. Amid these changes, the Journal of Yeungnam Medical Science (JYMS) has successfully advanced from a local journal to an international journal through a series of strategic transformations, including the appointment of a Managing Editor in 2011, conversion to an English journal in 2018, introduction of an online manuscript submission and peer review system in 2020, and transition to continuous article publishing in 2025. Consequently, it has been indexed in major international indexing databases, including the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), PubMed, PubMed Central, Scopus, and Emerging Sources Citation Index (ESCI). Notably, in 2025, international submissions increased substantially, with foreign authors accounting for 79.1% of the total submissions. In addition, citation metrics such as Journal Impact Factor and CiteScore increased. These achievements were supported by the dedicated efforts of the editorial board members, volunteer peer reviewers, and the local and international authors who submitted high-quality manuscripts, together with the establishment of standardized editorial policies and systematic quality control procedures. However, practical challenges remain, including financial constraints, staffing structures, workflow continuity, and difficulties securing peer reviewers. The JYMS case demonstrates that journal internationalization is a long-term process enabled by sustained investment, establishment of professional infrastructure, and organizational support. This suggests that collective academic commitment and stable operational systems are essential for the sustainable development of journals.
    Keywords:  Editorial policies; Journal management; Open access publishing; Periodicals as topic
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.12701/jyms.2026.43.24
  35. Andes Pediatr. 2025 Dec;pii: S2452-60532026005000207. [Epub ahead of print]96(6): 730-744
    [The shapeshifting landscape of academic publishing in pediatrics: focus on Open Access].
    Franco Díaz, Oscar Gómez-Lund, Jocelyn Riderelli, Nicolás Monteverde-Fernández, Sebastián González-Dambrauskas, Roberto Jabornisky, Juan Camilo Jaramillo-Bustamante, Paula Caporal.
      Over the past two decades, academic publishing has undergone substantial transformation, largely driven by digitalization and increased global Internet access. In parallel, the Open Access (OA) movement has played a critical role in advancing equitable access to scientific knowledge by eliminating paywalls and licensing restrictions. While these developments have yielded considerable benefits -particularly in enhancing the dissemination and democratization of research- they have also generated complex ethical and structural challenges. Notably, the consolidation of publishing power among a few major editorial houses, the emergence of profit-driven publication models, and the shifting of publication costs onto authors, have contributed to a growing crisis in academic medicine. These trends have raised concerns regarding transparency, editorial independence, and the overall integrity of the scientific record. This manuscript aims to delineate the historical and structural evolution of academic publishing, assess its current landscape, and critically examine the key challenges facing the field in the context of Open Access. Particular attention is given to the implications for pediatric researchers in Latin America, who are disproportionately affected by these systemic barriers.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.32641/andespediatr.v96i6.5684
  36. J Complement Integr Med. 2026 Mar 18.
    The Journal of Complementary and Integrative Medicine is switching its publication model to open access.
    Suzanne Mekking, Jeremy Y Ng.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1515/jcim-2026-0056
  37. JSLS. 2026 Jan-Mar;30(1):pii: e2026.00007. [Epub ahead of print]30(1):
    Artificial Intelligence Across the Society of Laparoscopic and Robotic Surgeons Publication Network.
    Michael S Kavic, Raymond J Lanzafame.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.4293/JSLS.2026.00007
  38. Optom Vis Sci. 2025 Oct 01. 102(10): 587-588
    Should Optometry & Vision Science be a hybrid or fully open access journal?
    David B Elliott.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1097/OPX.0000000000002306
  39. Eur J Oncol Nurs. 2026 Mar 10. pii: S1462-3889(26)00074-8. [Epub ahead of print] 103169
    Looking Back, Looking Forward: Reflections on 23 Years a Editor-in-Chief of the European Journal of Oncology Nursing.
    Alex Molassiotis.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejon.2026.103169
  40. Arthroscopy. 2026 Feb 24.
    Congratulations Arthroscopy Authors, Researchers, and Readers Who Propelled Our Journal's Impact Into 2026.
    Michael J Rossi, Elizabeth Matzkin.
      The truth is, 2025 was quite a year for our Journal celebrating its 40th Anniversary, the transition of Editor-in-Chief, publishing its Third Annual Musculoskeletal Biologics Special Issue, announcing the planned transition to a new publisher, presenting its 300th Arthroscopy Podcast, and the wonderful news that Arthroscopy has earned the top ranking in the most recent Impact Factor results among orthopaedic subspeciality journals. Congratulations to all our authors, researchers, and readers who have propelled Arthroscopy's impact into 2026.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1002/arj.70055
This page is being maintained by Thomas Krichel. It was last updated on 2026‒03‒22 at 17:59.