Search

A questionnaire was prepared in advance of the 26th triennial conference of the International Academy of Legal Medicine (IALM) and sent to 474 email addresses included in the IALM mailing list. The questionnaire addressed three current challenges faced by the International Journal of Legal Medicine (IJLM): the publication of guidelines and validation studies in the field of legal medicine, the publication ethics of case reports, and the recruitment of new reviewers for the IJLM. The response rate was 20%. The survey results highlight the need for international guidelines in various areas of legal medicine. Some desired guidelines already exist. To provide visibility and knowledge of the existing national guidelines, the IJLM has launched a Topical Collection on Quality Assurance in Legal Medicine. This collection aims to inform readers about country-specific characteristics of legal medicine structures and the existing national guidelines.Around 80% of the participants stated that there are legal or ethical requirements for the publication of forensic case reports or case series. Various options for obtaining consent for publication are discussed. Eighty-six of the 97 participants indicated their willingness to review manuscripts for the IJLM. It is emphasized that the contributions of reviewers should be duly recognized and valued. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Journals and publishers are increasingly using artificial intelligence (AI) to screen submissions for potential misconduct, including plagiarism and data or image manipulation. While using AI can enhance the integrity of published manuscripts, it can also increase the risk of false/unsubstantiated allegations. Ambiguities related to journals' and publishers' responsibilities concerning fairness and transparency also raise ethical concerns. In this Topic Piece, we offer the following guidance: (1) All cases of suspected misconduct identified by AI tools should be carefully reviewed by humans to verify accuracy and ensure accountability; (2) Journals/publishers that use AI tools to detect misconduct should use only well-tested and reliable tools, remain vigilant concerning forms of misconduct that cannot be detected by these tools, and stay abreast of advancements in technology; (3) Journals/publishers should inform authors about irregularities identified by AI tools and give them a chance to respond before forwarding allegations to their institutions in accordance with Committee on Publication Ethics guidelines; (4) Journals/publishers that use AI tools to detect misconduct should screen all relevant submissions and not just random/purposefully selected submissions; and (5) Journals should inform authors about their definition of misconduct, their use of AI tools to detect misconduct, and their policies and procedures for responding to suspected cases of misconduct. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aim of the study was to characterize retractions due to randomly generated content. A cross-sectional study was performed, using Retraction Watch database, Journal Citation Reports, Scopus, and journal official websites as data sources. Papers retracted up to 28 May 2024 with reasons related to randomly generated content were included. A total of 3540 retractions were identified. The first retraction was conducted in 2010, and the number of retractions per year escalated from 3 in 2010 to 2302 in 2023. The delay in retraction for papers published between 2020 and 2023 was shorter than that for those published prior to 2020 [2248 (1293, 2687) days vs. 387 (335, 516) days, P < 0.001]. The papers were distributed across the seven primary subject categories classified by the Retraction Watch database. Most retractions fell under the primary category of "business and technology" (2445/69.07%), with technology, computer science, and data science being the most susceptible specific fields. Hindawi published the majority of the retracted papers (68.98%), significantly more than other publishers combined. Of the top 20 journals with the most retractions, 19 were open access journals with a large volume of publications. Six of these 20 journals have ceased submissions and will stop publishing soon, while three have already ceased publication and no longer accept submissions. These retractions spanned 73 countries, with Asian countries making up a significant portion, particularly China (2827 papers, 79.86%) and India (556 papers, 15.71%). These results suggest that the number of retractions due to randomly generated content is on the rise, highlighting an urgent need to establish guidelines for the responsible and transparent use of AI tools and implement disciplinary measures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Journal editors instruct authors to describe human participant protections in original research reports. However, little is known about African biomedical journal authors' adherence to such journal editors' instructions. This study investigated changes in editors' instructions to authors and authors' reporting of research ethics information in selected African biomedical journals between 2008 and 2017. Twelve selected journal websites and online articles were reviewed in Eastern, Southern, and Western African [ESWA] countries. A pre-tested schema and a checklist were used to collect data from journal websites and articles published in 2008 and 2017, and the data were analysed using descriptive and inferential statistics. Half of the journals requested prospective authors to disclose ethics approval and related issues in their manuscripts between 2008 and 2017. There was a significant increase in instructions to authors regarding information on the protection of research participants within this period; more authors complied with these requirements in 2017 than in 2007. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Rapid developments in digital technologies have fundamentally changed writing practices leading to an explosion in the number of textual products. The result is a "textocalypse" – a deep crisis in knowledge production and dissemination. Instead of pushing back, academics fuel these degenerations because their careers have become subject to the capitalist imperative to produce and consume – measured in the form of research outputs and citation metrics. Against this background, this commentary argues for a reframing of academic publishing as community building and introduces Language on the Move, an alternative sociolinguistics portal that is both a publication platform and a research community. Motivated by a feminist ethics of care, we decenter the textual product and recenter the lived experience of researchers, particularly those writing from the margins. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Open-access journals of Library and Information Science (LIS) have been a key medium for library professionals and academicians to publish their research results. The publication policy of the journals is a significant aspect for the authors, editors, reviewers, and publishers, which becomes guidelines to assist all the stakeholders' work under policies. Purpose: The study is conducted to find out the status of the publication policy and editorial policies of Open Access (OA) journals of Library and Information Science which are indexed by publishers from various countries in the SCOPUS, Web of Science, University Grant Commission (UGC) Care List, Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), etc. The study was conducted to find out and assess the indexing of OA journals in the citation database and their countries, factors of publication and editorial policy, periodicity, archiving policy, publication fees, and ethical perspectives in the societal context. Design/methodology/approach: The study was initiated by the selection of 151 OA journals of library and information science that are indexed in the citation database, UGC Care List, DOAJ, etc., and after scrutinizing the websites, the database was worked out in an Excel sheet made for this purpose. This is needed because the policies differ from journal to journal, and researchers are often confused as to which one would be the best to follow for their research results. Findings: The USA has indexed the highest number of 21.38% of OA journals in the LIS database. It was found that 82.12% of OA journals preferred the "Double Blind Peer Review" review process; the CC-BY copyright licensing policy is adopted by 46.36% of OA journals; more than 88.74% of journals do not charge for article processing; and 93.37% of OA journals levied an article submission charge. 58.94% of OA journals have a plagiarism policy that ensures the purity and authenticity of the publications; however, it is very low and needs to be adopted for the integrity of the research. Practical implications: In order to conduct a study that was dispersed among all journals separately and make use of the material that was available to stakeholders-- researchers, librarians, academicians, etc.--the authors faced the issue of gathering all the necessary information in one location. The analysis of the LIS journals served as the study's sole foundation. Originality/value: In order to evaluate trends, kinds, and natures of policy patterns, this research shows how to analyze editorial and publication policies in a thorough and instructive manner. In order to support scientists, academics, and researchers in their work as they prepare research articles for journal publication, it is also necessary to develop inclusive policies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Publication ethics aim to protect intellectual property rights, ensure the originality of research work, and avoid plagiarism, including self-plagiarism. This study employed bibliometric methods to systematically research the field of publication ethics from 1972–2022; 659 articles on publication ethics were identified. This study included 1336 authors from 762 institutions in 67 countries. Publication ethics in biomedical journals are receiving increasing attention. Misconduct in scientific publishing remains a prominent theme, indicating ongoing development in the field. The literature highlights current research trends and emphasizes the need for increased collaboration among countries, authors, and institutions to enhance the quality and efficiency of research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Journal of Higher Education & Science / Yüksekögretim ve Bilim Dergisi is the property of Zonguldak Bulent Ecevit Universitesi and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The scholarly community is now dealing with a serious issue with predatory journals. It might be difficult for authors to identify predatory publications apart from reputable ones. The purpose of this study is to investigate the academic staff members of the Faculty of Management Studies and Commerce, University of Jaffna, Sri Lanka on awareness of predatory publications and open access. The research methodology used in this study to gauge participants' knowledge of "open access" and "predatory publishing" was a questionnaire survey. Data collection involved the use of a pretested questionnaire. The permanent academic staff members affiliated with the Faculty of Management Studies and Commerce, university of Jaffna comprised the study's population. A link to an online survey was shared with every one of the faculty's fifty-two academic staff members. The response rate of the study was 67.30 %. MS Excel was used for the data analysis to describe the data in frequencies, percentages and rank orders of responses. Socio demographic details shows that, highest number of respondents are female (57.14%), completed master/MPhil (51.42%), senior lecturer (57.14%) and interested in marketing (28.57%) as their research discipline. Respondents expressed their priority order for the factors considered to select journal to submit manuscript for publications, journal indexing is the highest priority. All the respondents have an idea about the open access publishing system. Respondents are expected to publish in open access journals because of high visibility, increasing citation number, prestigious journals and fast publication process in a frequency order. The result of the survey shows that, 97.15% of the respondents are knowledgeable about predatory publishing. Majority of the respondents are characterized, the predatory journals are, no insufficient peer review process, and Beall's list of predatory journals used by the high number of respondents to differentiate legitimate journals from predatory journals. More than half of the respondents are satisfied with the services provided by the library to avoid publishing in predatory journals. Responses are summarized for each of the 8 statements about the impact of publishing in predatory journals. Almost all the statements are agreed by the respondents other than the statement of "Articles published in predatory journals are poor in quality". Highest agreement found for the statement 3 which is "Predatory publications are not considered for any academic reward" in which 14out of 35 were strongly agreed and followed by the statement 2 "many researchers published articles due to lack of awareness about predatory publication" (13 out of 35). Finally respondents are suggested to organize more awareness session on open access publishing and journal selection to avoid predatory publishing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Health sciences librarians often lack knowledge of the motivations behind faculty publishing behavior. This study establishes some understanding of their choices through interviews with academic health sciences faculty members. Knowledge of the concepts of open access was lacking, as was the differences between open access and predatory publishing. Faculty had varied opinions on publication without robust peer review, its ethical implications, manuscript quality, and trust in scientific publishing. Evidence from this study suggests that librarians must take an active role in shaping the future of scholarly communication through education, advocacy, and a commitment to moving science forward equitably and ethically. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Authorship of academic publications is central to scientists' careers, but decisions about how to include and order authors on publications are often fraught with difficult ethical issues. To better understand scholars' experiences with authorship, we developed a novel concept, authorship climate, which assesses perceptions of the procedural, informational, and distributive justice associated with authorship decisions. We conducted a representative survey of more than 3,000 doctoral students, postdoctoral researchers, and assistant professors from a stratified random sample of U.S. biology, economics, physics, and psychology departments. We found that individuals who tend to have more power on science teams perceived authorship climate to be more positive than those who tend to have less power. Alphabetical approaches for assigning authorship were associated with higher perceptions of procedural justice and informational justice but lower perceptions of distributive justice. Individuals with more marginalized identities also tended to perceive authorship climate more negatively than those with no marginalized identities. These results illustrate how the concept of authorship climate can facilitate enhanced understanding of early-career scholars' authorship experiences, and they highlight potential steps that can be taken to promote more positive authorship experiences for scholars of all identities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study reports on a novel phenomenon observed in scholarly publications. Some research articles unrelated to the field of artificial intelligence (AI)–generated content (AIGC) contain phrases such as 'As an AI language model ...' The authors conceptualize this phenomenon as 'AIGC footprints.' To provide early evidence, they conducted a small-scale sample investigation by collecting twenty-five articles. These articles were published by authors from countries in Central Asia, South Asia, and Africa. Among these authors, there were assistant professors, doctoral and master's students. Single authors and single affiliations were more common. Analysis of the article content revealed that some authors utilized ChatGPT for literature reviews or idea generation. The twenty-five articles with AIGC footprints were published in eighteen different academic journals. The emergence of AIGC footprints reflects the potential challenges faced by scholarly publishing and higher education. The authors also provide several recommendations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Predatory journals offer the promise of prompt publication to those willing to pay the article submission or processing fee. However, these journals do not offer rigorous peer review. Studies have shown that a substantial share of corresponding authors in predatory journals come from South Asia, particularly India. This scoping review aims to assess what is known about the reasons why healthcare researchers working in South Asia publish in predatory journals. 66 reports (14 editorials, 20 letters, 5 research reports, 10 opinion articles, 14 reviews, 2 commentaries and 1 news report) were included in the data charting and analysis. The analysis of the reports identified three main reasons that made South Asian healthcare researchers publish in predatory journals: pressure to publish, lack of research support, and pseudo benefits. The review shows that predatory publishing in South Asia is a complex phenomenon. Combating predatory publications requires a holistic strategy that supersedes merely blacklisting these journals or listing criteria for journals that do meet academic standards. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in scientific writing, specifically exploring current trends in early 2024, and it does not delve into other applications of AI in scientific inquiry. It discusses the evolution of AI from its origins to the recent breakthrough of publicly accessible large language models like ChatGPT, emphasizing the difference between AI and automation and how AI, through processes like machine learning and natural language processing.

Author affiliation disclosures are arguably a critical yet poorly understood and largely unregulated phenomenon in scholarly and scientific publishing. First, this paper argues that affiliation attribution practices are burdened by misunderstandings and misuses. Second, it suggests that universities, research institutions and publishers should urgently engage in a conversation aimed at clearly defining expectations and promoting best practices. Third, it introduces affiliation contribution statements as a concrete initiative in the direction of increased accuracy, transparency, and accountability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aim was to describe biomedical retractions and analyse those retracted in 2000–2021 due to research misconduct among authors affiliated with European institutions. A cross-sectional study was conducted, using Retraction Watch database, Journal Citation Reports and PubMed as data sources. Biomedical original papers, reviews, case reports and letters with at least one author affiliated with an European institution retracted between 01/01/2000 and 30/06/2021 were included. We characterized rates over time and conducted an analysis on the 4 countries with the highest number of retractions: Germany, United Kingdom, Italy and Spain. 2069 publications were identified. Retraction rates increased from 10.7 to 44.8 per 100,000 publications between 2000 and 2020. Research misconduct accounted for most retractions (66.8%). The reasons for misconduct-related retractions shifted over time, ranging from problems of copyright and authorship in 2000 (2.5 per 100,000 publications) to duplication in 2020 (8.6 per 100,000 publications). In 2020, the main reason was fabrication and falsification in the United Kingdom (6.2 per 100,000 publications) and duplication in Spain (13.2 per 100,000 publications).Retractions of papers by authors affiliated with European institutions are increasing and are primarily due to research misconduct. The type of misconduct has changed over time and differ between European countries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Doctoral students in clinical, counseling, and school psychology programs often collaborate with faculty on research projects in their training as scientist-practitioners. Yet, the determination of publications' credit and order of authorship on resulting manuscripts continues to be a major concern and challenging process for professional psychologists and student collaborators. This article describes the use of case-based learning and semi-structured interview approaches to instruct first-year clinical psychology doctoral students in publication ethics during a research seminar. The instructor models ethical decision-making with 1) a discussion of four cases from his own professional experiences and 2) a description of the Authorship Eligibility Assessment form, which he developed for use with junior researchers. The authors advocate for more educational strategies to supplement the APA standards in teaching the ethics of the publication process. Implications in terms of graduate student development and research collaborations in the field of professional psychology were discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Research in sports medicine and exercise science has experienced significant growth over recent years. With this expansion, there has been a concomitant rise in ethical challenges specific to these disciplines. While various ethical guidelines exist for numerous scientific fields, a comprehensive set tailored specifically for sports medicine and exercise science is lacking. Aiming to bridge this gap, this paper proposes a comprehensive, updated set of ethical guidelines specifically targeted at researchers in sports medicine and exercise science, providing them with a thorough framework to ensure research integrity. Methods: A collaborative approach was adopted, involving contributions from a diverse group of international experts in the field. A thorough review of existing ethical guidelines was conducted, followed by the identification and detailed examination of 15 specific ethical topics relevant to the discipline. Each topic was discussed in terms of its definition, consequences, and preventive measures. Results: The research in sports medicine and exercise science has grown significantly, bringing to the fore ethical challenges unique to these disciplines. Our comprehensive review identifies 15 key ethical challenges: plagiarism, data falsification, role of artificial intelligence chatbots in academic writing, overstating results, excessive/strategic self-citation, duplicate publications, nondisclosure of conflicts of interest, image manipulation, misuse of peer review, ghost and gift authorship, inadequate data retention, data fabrication, falsification of IRB approvals, lack of informed consent, and unethical human or animal experimentation. For each identified challenge, we propose practical solutions and best practices, enriched by the diverse perspectives of our collaborative international expert panel. This endeavor aims to offer a foundational set of ethical guidelines tailored to the nuanced needs of sports medicine and exercise science, ensuring research integrity and promoting ethical responsibility across these vital fields. Conclusion: This article represents a seminal contribution to the establishment of essential ethical guidelines specifically designed for the fields of sports medicine and exercise science. This article charts a clear course for researchers, clinicians, and policymakers by integrating these ethical principles at the heart of our scholarly and clinical activities. Consequently, it envisions a future where the principles of research integrity and ethical responsibility consistently inform every scientific discovery and every clinical engagement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Expressions of concern (EoC) can reduce the adverse effects of unreliable publications by alerting readers to concerns about publication integrity while assessment is undertaken. We investigated the use of EoC for 463 publications by two research groups for which we notified concerns about publication integrity to 142 journals and 44 publishers between March 2013 and February 2020. By December 2021, 95 papers had had an EoC, and 83 were retracted without an EoC. Median times from notification of concerns to EoC (10.4mo) or retraction without EoC (13.1mo) were similar. Among the 95 EoCs, 29 (30.5%) were followed by retraction after a median of 5.4mo, none was lifted, and 66 (69.5%) remained in place after a median of 18.1mo. Publishers with >10 notified publications issued EoCs for 0–81.8% of papers: for several publishers the proportions of notified papers for which EoCs were issued varied considerably between the 2 research groups. EoCs were issued for >30% of notified publications of randomized clinical trials and letters to the editor, and <20% of other types of research. These results demonstrate inconsistent application of EoCs between and within publishers, and prolonged times to issue and resolve EoCs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There has been a widespread increase in research on the topic of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in both predatory and non-predatory journals. It is important to understand the origin, content, funding, and reach of predatory articles to gauge the detrimental effects of such articles. In this study, the authors, therefore, investigated 210 randomly selected predatory articles with COVID-19-based research published online between February 2020 and February 2021 in journals included in Cabells' Predatory Reports. Their research shows that although India is still among the major contributors of articles published in predatory journals, predatory publishing should no longer be regarded as only a problem in the developing world. The authors also found funded research and articles reporting dangerous treatments with no clinical trials and small sample sizes with unconvincing or misleading scientific evidence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The phenomenon of plagiarism in peer-review evaluation reports remained surprisingly unrecognized, despite a notable rise of such cases in recent years. This study reports multiple cases of peer-review plagiarism recently detected in 50 different scientific articles published in 19 journals. Their in-depth analysis reveals that such reviews tend to be nonsensical, vague and unrelated to the actual manuscript. The analysis is followed by a discussion of the roots of such plagiarism, its consequences and measures that could counteract its further spreading. In addition, we demonstrate how increased availability and access to AI technologies through recent emergence of chatbots may be misused to write or conceal plagiarized peer-reviews. Plagiarizing reviews is a severe misconduct that requires urgent attention and action from all affected parties. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Ascribing authorship of scientific publications to artificial intelligence is a complex and controversial issue. However, it is a challenging and uncertain problem that, given the growing development of artificial intelligence-based technologies that go beyond the performance of purely technical tasks and even contribute to the development of aspects such as the incorporation of scientific research information published in languages other than English, also contributing to potential insights in research, is becoming unavoidable when considering scientific publishing. This paper aims to add to this discussion by arguing that, although this is a challenging and even controversial position, it is inevitable and even ethically desirable to accept artificial intelligence, if it subsidizes sufficiently, as a (co-)author of any scientific publication. It is a matter of starting to think about how this attribution can be controlled and achieved with increasing respect for the ethics of scientific publication. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Key points: Our policy and implementation successfully identified references from predatory publishers, which authors without hesitation agreed to remove before publication.Higher predatory reference patterns emerged among authors in low‐income countries, those with non‐English primary languages, and sole authorship.After a year of implementing our policy, the editors changed our policy and workflow to better handle references from predatory publishers cited in literature reviews and meta‐analyses.Editorial responsibility is discussed, particularly concerning support for authors from lower‐ and middle‐income countries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Turkish Journal of Business Ethics is the property of Economic Enterprise & Business Ethics Association and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

This document, titled "Predatory journals: How to recognise and keep clear!" discusses the issue of predatory publishing in the medical academic field. Predatory journals are defined as entities that prioritize self-interest over scholarship and engage in false or misleading practices. The document explores the factors that contribute to the growth of predatory practices, such as lack of awareness and pressure to publish. It also provides guidance on how to identify predatory journals and offers resources to help researchers avoid them. The document emphasizes the importance of raising awareness, promoting legitimate open access alternatives, and implementing stringent guidelines to combat predatory publishing. [Extracted from the article]

This paper presents the extent of retractions in scientific publications of BRICS countries indexed in the SCOPUS database from 1989 to 2021. The scientific publication of BRICS countries has increased in recent years, which has given way to an increase in retraction. However, much money is being invested in research and development work resulting in more publications by BRICS than any other developing country. Out of 11,764 retracted publications, 72.67% of papers are written by two–five authors, in that 230 retracted articles are published by top 20 authors, it sums up to 1.99%. Retraction on conference proceedings share is 77.90% in that IEEE Computing Society retracts 99.04% of papers. Springer publisher retracts 29.69% journal articles. In the source of journal publication the Arabian Journal of Geosciences has 6.19% retractions. Out of 689 retraced citations, 40.64% are post-citations, and 59.36% are pre-citations. Three articles noticed self-citations in pre-retracted publications but no self-citations in the top 10 post-retracted articles. Unless the academic and research communities enforce severe action to address the growing problems of fabrication and plagiarism, research will be futile. More retraction would result in the degradation of the authors as well as the institution; both have to join hands and follow the publication ethics to stop or at least avoid retraction in the future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Publication is a means of communicating one's research. The word publication is derived from the Latin, "publicare," meaning "to make public". Articles reporting clinical research/trials are used as evidence to make treatment decisions to improve patient health. Therefore, it is imperative that such publications adhere to publication ethics. Major biomedical journals are tightening their submission rules to ensure the transparency of clinical research/ trials and associated articles. Of the scientific publications covered by Medline, 95% are in English. Thus, it is essential to comply with the ever-changing international standards for publication, including clinical trial disclosures. When preparing to submit a medical research manuscript, the authors encounter various practical issues requiring ethically correct decisions and timely responses. Therefore, pharmaceutical companies assign a person with expertise in ethics, publication management and planning to ensure ethical practice. Some hire medical writers to assist authors. However, although publication is vital in academia, as represented by the words "Publish or perish", manuscript preparation is often left to individual busy researchers without sufficient support. Employing publication specialists could be an option to increase the number of clinical research papers in English by Japanese researchers while ensuring adherence to publication ethics. However, comprehensive ethical training and resource allocation are prerequisites for creating an environment conducive to success in academia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this article, we discuss ethical issues related to using and disclosing artificial intelligence (AI) tools, such as ChatGPT and other systems based on large language models (LLMs), to write or edit scholarly manuscripts. Some journals, such as Science, have banned the use of LLMs because of the ethical problems they raise concerning responsible authorship. We argue that this is not a reasonable response to the moral conundrums created by the use of LLMs because bans are unenforceable and would encourage undisclosed use of LLMs. Furthermore, LLMs can be useful in writing, reviewing and editing text, and promote equity in science. Others have argued that LLMs should be mentioned in the acknowledgments since they do not meet all the authorship criteria. We argue that naming LLMs as authors or mentioning them in the acknowledgments are both inappropriate forms of recognition because LLMs do not have free will and therefore cannot be held morally or legally responsible for what they do. Tools in general, and software in particular, are usually cited in-text, followed by being mentioned in the references. We provide suggestions to improve APA Style for referencing ChatGPT to specifically indicate the contributor who used LLMs (because interactions are stored on personal user accounts), the used version and model (because the same version could use different language models and generate dissimilar responses, e.g., ChatGPT May 12 Version GPT3.5 or GPT4), and the time of usage (because LLMs evolve fast and generate dissimilar responses over time). We recommend that researchers who use LLMs: (1) disclose their use in the introduction or methods section to transparently describe details such as used prompts and note which parts of the text are affected, (2) use in-text citations and references (to recognize their used applications and improve findability and indexing), and (3) record and submit their relevant interactions with LLMs as supplementary material or appendices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The research quality and publication of journals in any field are crucial because they show the development in the field. This study aimed to examine the research and publication ethics policies of the professional journals that continue to publish in the field of veterinary sciences and reveal the current situation. In this study, journals publishing in the field of veterinary sciences were searched through DergiPark, Web of Science database, and their websites. The features of these journals, the indexes in which they are indexed, statements about research-publication ethics, and the national and international academic institutions were gathered under appropriate headings. The obtained data were analyzed using descriptive statistical techniques such as frequency and percentage. Moreover, 11.5% (n = 3) of the veterinary journals in Türkiye were indexed in SCI-E, 3.8% (n = 1) were indexed in E-SCI, 57.7% (n = 15) were university journals, 42.3% (n = 11) published two issues per year, and 57.7% (n = 15) of journals had publication languages as Turkish and English. Therefore, the number and quality of publications in journals in veterinary sciences have increased in recent years. They comply with "national peer-reviewed journal" criteria and the COPE and ICMJE criteria, wherein the TR index, one of the most comprehensive scanning platforms in Türkiye, has also adopted their principles in several parameters. However, there is no common standard for journals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Authorship can be a source of tension on research teams, in academic/industry collaborations, and between mentors/mentees. Authorship misconduct is prevalent among biomedical researchers, and disputes about authorship can generate tensions that have the potential to disrupt professional relationships and damage careers. Early-career researchers may experience particular challenges navigating authorship both because of inexperience and power differentials; in effect, they lack the language and confidence to have these conversations and may feel unwilling to challenge the status quo. The authors implemented an Authorship Agreement for use when collaborating on a manuscript and hypothesized that using this agreement would reduce authorship tensions and speed time to manuscript submission by helping early-career investigators manage authorship conversations more effectively. The authors surveyed trainees (n = 65) on the prevalence of authorship-related tensions and compared the results from the first survey in 2017 to the final survey in 2020. The decrease in tensions around meeting deadlines was significant (z = 2.59, p = 0.010). The authors believe the effect of an Authorship Agreement on authorship-related tensions has not previously been investigated. This work extends what is known about the prevalence of commonly cited authorship tensions, and provides evidence of the effectiveness of steps that can be taken to alleviate them. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Retraction is a mechanism for eliminating and correcting serious problems in the scientific literature and increasing awareness among members of the scientific community about unreliable literature. The objectives of this study were to identify the characteristics and reasons for retraction, analyze citations, and describe the scientific, altmetrics, and technological impacts of hematology retracted papers. Retracted papers were searched using the hematology category of the Web of Science database. The search yielded 101 retracted papers in WoS. Statistics methods such as frequency, mean, interquartile range (IQR), and Pearson's Correlation were used for data analysis. The findings showed the retracted papers were published in 28 different hematology journals. The majority of retracted documents were in Article type (n = 81). The mean time interval of the retracted papers from the first publication to retraction was 50.83 months. The largest number of retracted papers belonged to the United States (n = 46). The most frequently reported reason for retraction was misconduct (n = 55). The findings of this study provide a landscape into the characteristics and citations of retracted papers before and after retraction in addition to the scientific, technological, and altmetrics impacts of hematology retracted papers in the scientific community. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Several studies suggest that deviations from proper authorship practices are commonplace in medicine. The aim of this study was to explore experiences of and attitudes towards the handling of authorship in PhD theses at medical faculties in Denmark, Norway, and Sweden. Methods: Those who defended their PhD thesis at a medical faculty in Scandinavia during the second half of 2020 were offered, by e-mail, to participate in an online survey. Survey questions dealt with experiences of violations of the first three of the ICMJE authorship criteria and misuse of authorship order in the thesis articles, as well as respondents' attitudes to these matters. Both questions with fixed response alternatives and questions with free-text responses were used. Quantitative data were analysed statistically using the Table functions in SPSS 25 and Chi-2 tests. Free-text responses were analysed qualitatively using manifest content analysis. Results: 287 valid questionnaires were returned (response rate: 34.1%). Almost half (46.0%) of the respondents reported that the ICMJE authorship criteria were not fully respected in at least one of the papers in their thesis, while a vast majority (96.7%) found it important that authorship is handled according to the ICMJE authorship criteria. 24.4% reported inadequate handling of authorship order in at least one paper. The qualitative results provide a wide spectrum of examples of how the ICMJE authorship criteria are circumvented. Conclusion: Despite increasing educational efforts to reduce deviations from good research practice at Scandinavian universities, the handling of authorship in medical papers remains problematic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Evidence syntheses cite retracted publications. However, citation is not necessarily endorsement, as authors may be criticizing or refuting its findings. We investigated the sentiment of these citations—whether they were critical or supportive—and associations with the methodological quality of the evidence synthesis, reason for the retraction, and time between publication and retraction. Methods: Using a sample of 286 evidence syntheses containing 324 citations to retracted publications in the field of pharmacy, we used AMSTAR-2 to assess methodological quality. We used scite.ai and a human screener to determine citation sentiment. We conducted a Pearson’s chi-square test to assess associations between citation sentiment, methodological quality, and reason for retraction, and one-way ANOVAs to investigate association between time, methodological quality, and citation sentiment. Results: Almost 70% of the evidence syntheses in our sample were of critically low quality. We found that these critically low-quality evidence syntheses were more associated with positive statements while high-quality evidence syntheses were more associated with negative citation of retracted publications. In our sample of 324 citations, 20.4% of citations to retracted publications noted that the publication had been retracted. Conclusion: The association between high-quality evidence syntheses and recognition of a publication’s retracted status may indicate that best practices are sufficient. However, the volume of critically low-quality evidence syntheses ultimately perpetuates the citation of retracted publications with no indication of their retracted status. Strengthening journal requirements around the quality of evidence syntheses may lessen the inappropriate citation of retracted publications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study explores retracted journal articles in the engineering literature indexed in Scopus in order to determine how easy it is for non-expert users to identify retracted publications and interpret the reasons for retractions. The authors also analyzed citations both pre- and post-retraction to compare the methods Scopus uses to alert readers to the retracted status of an article. The results show that the current practice is inconsistent and the methods Scopus uses for indicating retraction status are equally inefficient in preventing the accumulation of post-retraction citations. Engineering librarians can use these results to educate engineering students and researchers on retraction-related topics and scholarly communication practices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A prevailing lay understanding of retraction in the scientific literature is to correct for misconduct and honest errors. Nonetheless, though historically rare, retractions to limit the spread of results deemed socially harmful (i.e., information hazards), have gained increasing traction and become increasingly common. This study sought primarily to determine the extent to which information hazard-based retraction is supported in the scientific community and as a secondary goal whether individual difference variables moderate receptivity. We tasked a diverse sample of researchers across various disciplines who use social media to evaluate scenarios in which a paper was retracted for misconduct, honest errors, and information hazards. Overall, support for retraction on the basis of information hazards was low, suggesting that researchers overwhelmingly support academic freedom as a concept. Nonetheless, left-leaning ideologies predicted slightly greater defensibility of the practice among individuals early in their careers. We provide training suggestions to mitigate reactance toward controversial scientific findings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: When authorship disputes arise in academic publishing, research institutions may be asked to investigate the circumstances. We evaluated the association between the prevalence of misattributed authorship and trust in the institution involved. Methods: We measured trust using a newly validated Opinion on the Institution's Research and Publication Values (OIRPV) scale (range 1–4). Mayer and Davies' Organizational Trust for Management Instrument served as control. Association between publication misconduct, gender, institution type, policies, and OIRPV-derived Trust Scores were evaluated. Results: A total of 197 responses were analyzed. Increased reporting of authorship misconduct, such as gift authorship, author displacement within the authors' order on the byline, and ghost authorship, were associated with low Trust Scores (P<0.001). Respondents from institutions whose administration had made known (declared or published) their policy on authorship in academic publications awarded the highest Trust Scores (median 3.06, interquartile range 2.25 to 3.56). Only 17.8% favored their administration as the best authority to investigate authorship dispute honestly. Of those who did not list the administration as their preferred option for resolving disputes, 58.6% (95/162) provided a Trust Score <2.5, which conveys mistrust in the institution. Conclusions: Increased reporting of publication misconducts such as gift authorship, author displacement within the order of the authors' byline, and ghost authorship was associated with lower Trust Scores in the research institutions. Institutions that made their policies known were awarded the highest Trust Scores. Our results question whether the research institutions' administrations are the appropriate authority for clarifying author disputes in all cases. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Journals have been described as "duty bearers" of upholding fundamental ethical principles that are essential for maintaining the ethical integrity of newly generated and disseminated knowledge. To play our part, we evaluated diversity and inclusion in the leadership and management of global and international health journals. We developed Journal Diversity Index (JDI) to measure three parameters of diversity and representation (gender, geographic, socioeconomic status). Relevant information regarding editorial board members of systematically screened journals was sequentially extracted and job titles were categorized into five editorial roles. Chi-squared test was utilized to study associations between gender and geographic distribution of editors along with the Medline indexing of the journal and its impact factor. Out of 43 journals included, 62.7% were published from two high-income countries. Women comprised 44% of the total editors. Among all the editorial board members, we did not find any information suggesting the representation of non-binary and transgender individuals. Furthermore, 68.2% of editors were based in high-income countries with 67.3% of the editors belonging to the Global North. This disparity in geographic region and socioeconomic level was observed across all five editorial roles. Among all women editors, more than 70% worked in non-Medline and non-impact factor journals. Only two journals scored "excellent" on JDI. Despite the continuous evolution of the definition of global health ethics, marginalized individuals, and their perspectives remain underrepresented in this field. Thus, we call for swift action regarding the decentralization and redistribution of global and international health journal editorial boards. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Evidence suggests a limited contribution to the total research output in leading obstetrics and gynaecology journals by researchers from the developing world. Editorial bias, quality of scientific research produced and language barriers have been attributed as possible causes for this phenomenon. The aim of this study was to understand the prevalence of editorial board members based out of low and lower-middle income countries in leading journals in the field of obstetrics and gynaecology. The top 21 journals in the field of obstetrics and gynaecology were selected based on their impact factor, SCImago ranking and literature search. The composition of the editorial boards of these journals was studied based on World Bank Income Criteria to understand the representation status of researchers from low and lower-middle income countries. A total of 1315 board members make up the editorial composition of leading obstetrics and gynaecology journals. The majority of these editors belong to high-income countries (n = 1148; 87.3%). Low (n = 6; 0.45%) and lower-middle income (n = 55; 4.18%) countries make up for a very minuscule proportion of editorial board members. Only a meagre 9 out of 21 journals have editorial board members from these countries (42.85%). Low and low-middle countries have poor representation in the editorial boards of leading obstetrics and gynaecology journals. Poor representation in research from these countries has grave consequences for a large proportion of the global population and multidisciplinary collaborative efforts must be taken to rapidly change this statistic with immediate effect. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Popular text-matching software generates a percentage of similarity – called a "similarity score" or "Similarity Index" – that quantifies the matching text between a particular manuscript and content in the software's archives, on the Internet and in electronic databases. Many evaluators rely on these simple figures as a proxy for plagiarism and thus avoid the burdensome task of inspecting the longer, detailed Similarity Reports. Yet similarity scores, though alluringly straightforward, are never enough to judge the presence (or absence) of plagiarism. Ideally, evaluators should always examine the Similarity Reports. Given the persistent use of simplistic similarity score thresholds at some academic journals and educational institutions, however, and the time that can be saved by relying on the scores, a method is arguably needed that encourages examining the Similarity Reports but still also allows evaluators to rely on the scores in some instances. This article proposes a four-band method to accomplish this. Used together, the bands oblige evaluators to acknowledge the risk of relying on the similarity scores yet still allow them to ultimately determine whether they wish to accept that risk. The bands – for most rigor, high rigor, moderate rigor and less rigor – should be tailored to an evaluator's particular needs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the issue of inappropriate authorship in academic publishing, including disputes, plagiarism, and mistrust in institutions. The authors question the effectiveness of a proposed numerical calculation for authorship based on perceived contributions, as it may not address coercive authorship or the influence of institutions. They argue that authorship disputes are indicative of larger problems and should not be dismissed as mere disagreements. The article emphasizes the need for institutions to actively address and prevent authorship disputes through clear policies and equitable resolution processes. [Extracted from the article]

The paper aims to detect publication contributions of editorial board members (EBMs) to academic journal ranking as exemplified by Russian LIS serials divided into three groups according to their authority. To reveal the EBMs' contribution in each group, papers by EBMs in their parent journals as well as other sources were studied with comparative analyses of EBMs' papers in parent journals and papers by other authors in the same journals. The Russian Science Citation Index (RSCI) was used for collecting indicators that reflect journal ranks and scholarly output of EBMs. We found no relationship between journal ranking and a share of EBMs' papers in a parent journal. Citation analyses of EBMs' papers as well as citations of parent journals made by EBMs from other sources reveals a significant effect of EBMs on the rank of top-tiered and low-tiered journals pointing at active participation of EBMs in the development of parent journals. Zero or even negative impact of EBMs' papers on the journal rank is registered in the middle-tiered group implying formalistic engagement of researchers to join the editorial boards, lack of interest in the journal work, or possible violation of the publication ethics by publishing poorly cited or uncited papers in parent journals due to less strict peer-review processes. The paper adds to a better understanding of the nature of journal ranking, particularly, impact factors, as well as performance of EBMs in the field of LIS publications. The ethics and possible conflict of interests related to publishing in parent journals are discussed. The results of the study can be useful for revising journal policy or editorial board composition. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This essay seeks to provide further critique and clarity to the peer review process and the ways in which management of peer review is evolving. These changes occur within a context of massive growth in the knowledge production process: global trends, information technologies, and policies that encourage more people globally to take part in the research process. Associated with these global changes are stressors on the peer review process and particularly questions about who gets to be a peer reviewer and who has the right to produce knowledge under these processes. Less a formal review and analysis of peer review across LIS, this essay takes the form of an autoethnograpic narrative that that seeks to draw upon the researcher’s personal observations, experience, and reflections to critically examine changes to the peer review system that are taking place. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Public participation and survivor research in mental health are widely recognized as vital to the field. At the same time, contributions of patient collaborators can present unique challenges to determining authorship. Using an unresolved dispute around research contributions to the American Psychiatric Association's Psychiatric Services journal, authorship and contribution are addressed. Recommendations are suggested to prevent dilemmas and achieve responsible research credit inclusion, especially among researchers with different backgrounds and asymmetric power relations. Researchers and publishers can prepare proactively for conflict through consensus on authorship criteria, prior agreements around author inclusion, arrangement for third party dispute resolution, transparency in communication and contracts, notification to prospective publications of pending disputes, a contributor-guarantor model of contribution, journal editor "expressions of concern" when authorship disputes go unresolved, and expectation of conflict as generative. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Predatory journals, with low standards of publication, means flawed or fraudulent research can compromise future research. Often called 'predatory' or 'deceptive' publishers, both these terms have an implication that the editors and publishers behind them have a motivation to deceive or con authors. However, the motivations remain an assumption because little is known about the individuals behind these journals. This research intended to use qualitative, in-depth interviews to find out more about the individuals behind predatory journals. By engaging with them directly, we hoped to gain an understanding of how they see themselves in the publishing landscape, what value they add and how they achieve these aims. Emails received by the authors were mined for contact information of suspected predatory journals. Over the course of a year, 2552 emails were sent inviting respondents to an interview, for which there would be a small monetary compensation. Despite sending 2552 emails, only three responses were received, and all three did not schedule an interview when prompted. Two of the three requested that a translator be present. A significant percentage of the emails (36.2 per cent) bounced back, indicating the contact information was not valid. While the information gained was limited, it would appear many are aware of the dubious nature of their journal and do not wish further scrutiny by being contacted. Others may lack the English-language skills necessary to be engaged in basic written communication, let alone the more complex language and grammar of scientific publishing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article explores academic freedom as it relates to scholarly publishing. While most discussions of academic freedom as a human right focus on threats to individuals' personal safety and careers, we open this out to include the 'soft repression' that it is possible to encounter during the publication process, and its potential impact on the scholarly record. An overview is given of some of the ethical issues encountered by editors and publishers working with authors experiencing academic, intellectual, or political repression – for example, the manifestation of these issues in authorship, metadata, transparency and reproducibility, research ethics, and competing interests. We go on to formulate suggestions on managing such conflicts while upholding academic freedoms and the integrity of the scholarly record. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Journal of Library & Information Studies is the property of Department of Library & Information Science, National Taiwan University and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Peer review underpins the integrity of the scientific archive and has done so for over 350 years. Over the past ten years or so, this integrity has come under pressure due to the introduction of predatory publishers and journals. Papers in predatory journals have, typically, not gone through robust peer review, if any at all. If these papers enter the scientific archive, its integrity will deteriorate. Moreover, legitimate journals will cite papers from predatory journals, which further dilutes the integrity of the scientific archive. The scholarly community has struggled to address the problems brought about by predatory publishers and journals. In this paper, we propose an approach, which draws on the fine art world. They use the concept of a catalogue raisonné to list all the validated work by a given artist and, by extension, identify fakes. A scholarly version will have some differences to the art discipline, but the central idea is the same. A publisher is analyzed, through a peer reviewed paper. This catalogue can be used by authors, and other stakeholders (e.g. librarians, promotion panels and hiring committees), to make more informed decisions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Retraction is a mechanism for alerting readers to unreliable material and other problems in the published scientific and scholarly record. Retracted publications generally remain visible and searchable, but the intention of retraction is to mark them as "removed" from the citable record of scholarship. However, in practice, some retracted articles continue to be treated by researchers and the public as valid content as they are often unaware of the retraction. Research over the past decade has identified a number of factors contributing to the unintentional spread of retracted research. The goal of the Reducing the Inadvertent Spread of Retracted Science: Shaping a Research and Implementation Agenda (RISRS) project was to develop an actionable agenda for reducing the inadvertent spread of retracted science. This included identifying how retraction status could be more thoroughly disseminated, and determining what actions are feasible and relevant for particular stakeholders who play a role in the distribution of knowledge. Methods: These recommendations were developed as part of a year-long process that included a scoping review of empirical literature and successive rounds of stakeholder consultation, culminating in a three-part online workshop that brought together a diverse body of 65 stakeholders in October–November 2020 to engage in collaborative problem solving and dialogue. Stakeholders held roles such as publishers, editors, researchers, librarians, standards developers, funding program officers, and technologists and worked for institutions such as universities, governmental agencies, funding organizations, publishing houses, libraries, standards organizations, and technology providers. Workshop discussions were seeded by materials derived from stakeholder interviews (N = 47) and short original discussion pieces contributed by stakeholders. The online workshop resulted in a set of recommendations to address the complexities of retracted research throughout the scholarly communications ecosystem. Results: The RISRS recommendations are: (1) Develop a systematic cross-industry approach to ensure the public availability of consistent, standardized, interoperable, and timely information about retractions; (2) Recommend a taxonomy of retraction categories/classifications and corresponding retraction metadata that can be adopted by all stakeholders; (3) Develop best practices for coordinating the retraction process to enable timely, fair, unbiased outcomes; and (4) Educate stakeholders about pre- and post-publication stewardship, including retraction and correction of the scholarly record. Conclusions: Our stakeholder engagement study led to 4 recommendations to address inadvertent citation of retracted research, and formation of a working group to develop the Communication of Retractions, Removals, and Expressions of Concern (CORREC) Recommended Practice. Further work will be needed to determine how well retractions are currently documented, how retraction of code and datasets impacts related publications, and to identify if retraction metadata (fails to) propagate. Outcomes of all this work should lead to ensuring retracted papers are never cited without awareness of the retraction, and that, in public fora outside of science, retracted papers are not treated as valid scientific outputs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Increasingly, sport and exercise psychology researchers are using systematic review methods to examine the evidence on a particular topic. Unfortunately, not all systematic reviews are created equal and the methodological quality of the review will depend on the quality of the methods used in the review process. The purpose of this paper is to provide an overview of essential methods and resources used in systematic reviews that serve to increase transparency, replicability, robustness, ethics, and translation of results. To achieve our purpose, we describe aspects of the systematic review process including best standards for planning and conducting a systematic review, coherence, literature searches, article screening, data extraction, reporting guidelines, open science practices, publication ethics, and disseminating results. In providing an overview of these methods for systematic reviews, we highlight relevant literature, resources, and examples from the sport and exercise psychology literature. Finally, we offer nine guidelines to follow to enhance systematic review methods used in sport and exercise psychology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]