Search

In the rapid evolving landscape of artificial intelligence (AI), scientific publishing is experiencing significant transformations. AI tools, while offering unparalleled efficiencies in paper drafting and peer review, also introduce notable ethical concerns. This study delineates AI's dual role in scientific publishing: as a co-creator in the writing and review of scientific papers and as an ethical challenge. We first explore the potential of AI as an enhancer of efficiency, efficacy, and quality in creating scientific papers. A critical assessment follows, evaluating the risks vs. rewards for researchers, especially those early in their careers, emphasizing the need to maintain a balance between AI's capabilities and fostering independent reasoning and creativity. Subsequently, we delve into the ethical dilemmas of AI's involvement, particularly concerning originality, plagiarism, and preserving the genuine essence of scientific discourse. The evolving dynamics further highlight an overlooked aspect: the inadequate recognition of human reviewers in the academic community. With the increasing volume of scientific literature, tangible metrics and incentives for reviewers are proposed as essential to ensure a balanced academic environment. AI's incorporation in scientific publishing is promising yet comes with significant ethical and operational challenges. The role of human reviewers is accentuated, ensuring authenticity in an AI-influenced environment. As the scientific community treads the path of AI integration, a balanced symbiosis between AI's efficiency and human discernment is pivotal. Emphasizing human expertise, while exploit artificial intelligence responsibly, will determine the trajectory of an ethically sound and efficient AI-augmented future in scientific publishing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Authorship of peer-reviewed journal articles and abstracts has become the primary currency and reward unit in academia. Such a reward is crucial for students and postdocs who are often under-compensated and thus highly value authorship as an incentive. While numerous scientific and publishing organizations have written guidelines for determining author qualifications and author order, there remains much ambiguity when it comes to how these criteria are weighed by research faculty. Here, we sought to provide some initial insight on how faculty view the relative importance of 11 criteria for scientific authorship. We distributed an online survey to 564 biomedical engineering, biology, and bioengineering faculty members at 10 research institutions across the United States. The response rate was approximately 18%, resulting in a final sample of 102 respondents. Results revealed an agreement on some criteria, such as time spent conducting experiments, but there was a lack of agreement regarding the role of funding procurement. This study provides quantitative assessments of how faculty members in the biosciences evaluate authorship criteria. We discuss the implications of these findings for researchers, especially new graduate students, to help navigate the discrepancy between official policies for authorship and the contributions that faculty truly value.

Moderate-to-severe psoriasis is associated with significant comorbidity, an impaired quality of life, and increased medical costs, including those associated with treatments. Systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs) of randomized clinical trials are considered two of the best approaches to the summarization of high-quality evidence. However, methodological bias can reduce the validity of conclusions from these types of studies and subsequently impair the quality of decision making. As co-authorship is among the most well-documented forms of research collaboration, the present study aimed to explore whether authors' collaboration methods might influence the methodological quality of SRs and MAs of psoriasis. Methodological quality was assessed by two raters who extracted information from full articles. After calculating total and per-item Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) scores, reviews were classified as low (0-4), medium (5-8), or high (9-11) quality. Article metadata and journal-related bibliometric indices were also obtained. A total of 741 authors from 520 different institutions and 32 countries published 220 reviews that were classified as high (17.2%), moderate (55%), or low (27.7%) methodological quality. The high methodological quality subnetwork was larger but had a lower connection density than the low and moderate methodological quality subnetworks; specifically, the former contained relatively fewer nodes (authors and reviews), reviews by authors, and collaborators per author. Furthermore, the high methodological quality subnetwork was highly compartmentalized, with several modules representing few poorly interconnected communities. In conclusion, structural differences in author-paper affiliation network may influence the methodological quality of SRs and MAs on psoriasis. As the author-paper affiliation network structure affects study quality in this research field, authors who maintain an appropriate balance between scientific quality and productivity are more likely to develop higher quality reviews.

Abstract: The "publish and flourish" culture in the biomedical field has led to an increase in the number of publications worldwide, creating pressure on researchers to publish frequently. However, this focus on quantity over quality has resulted in an inflation of the number of authors listed in articles, leading to authorship issues and the rise of fraudulent or predatory scientific and medical journals. To maintain the credibility of scientific research, it is necessary to reform the publication metrics and explore innovative ways of evaluating an author's contributions. Traditional metrics, such as publication counts, fail to capture the research's quality, significance, and impact. As a result, this viewpoint explores and highlights different metrics and novel methods by which an author's productivity and impact can be assessed beyond traditional metrics, such as the H index, i10 index, FWCI, HCP, ALEF, AIF, AAS, JIF, CNA, awards/honors, citation percentile, n-index, and ACI. By using multiple metrics, one can determine the true impact and productivity of an author, and other measures such as awards and honors, research collaborations, research output diversity, and journal impact factors can further aid in serving the purpose. Accurately assessing an author's productivity and impact has significant implications on their academic career, institution, and the broader scientific community. It can also help funding agencies make informed decisions, improve resource allocation, and enhance public trust in scientific research. Therefore, it is crucial to address these issues and continue the ongoing discussion on best method to evaluate and recognize the contributions of authors in today's rapidly changing academic landscape., (Copyright © 2024 Copyright: © 2024 Journal of Postgraduate Medicine.)

The frequency of conflicts about authorship of publications has increased along with the increase in the number of people involved in scientific work. Some of the factors that strongly influence the generation of conflicts and malpractices in authorship definition of scientific publications are the pressure of academia, economic incentives from the pharmaceutical industry in the field of biomedicine and authors’ wishes and expectations of recognition, among other factors. The article analyzes this problem, increasingly common in the field of medicine and related areas. Special attention is devoted to the prevailing laws in our country and international guidelines related to intellectual property and authorship of scientific publications, respectively. However, the ethical commitment, intellectual honesty and truthfulness of each of the authors about what is reported seems to be the decisive factor for the solution to these authorship conflicts.

Identifying the factors that influence the citation of articles helps authors improve the impact and reach of their research. Analysis of publications in the Journal of Fish Biology between 2008 and 2021 revealed that variables such as the number of keywords, abstract length, number of authors, and page length were associated with higher impact papers. These trends applied to both review and regular papers. These findings suggest that papers that are more informative, have higher numbers of authors, and have more keywords are more likely to be cited. Adoption of some simple "best‐practice" behaviors can improve the likelihood that a paper is cited. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Manuscript writing support services using AI technology have become increasingly available in recent years. In keeping with this trend, we need to sort out issues related to authorship in academic writing. Authorship is attached to the contribution of researchers who report innovative research, the originality of which forms the core of their identity. The most important originality is demonstrated in the discussion of study findings. In the discussion section of this paper, we argue that if a researcher uses AI-based manuscript writing support to draft the discussion section, this does not necessarily diminish the researcher’s originality. Rather, AI support may allow the researcher to perform creative work in a more refined fashion. Presumably, selecting which AI support to use or evaluating and properly adjusting AI would still remain an important aspect of research for researchers. It is thus reasonable to view a researcher as a cooperative existence realized through a network of cooperative work that includes the use of AI. Discussions on this topic will be scientifically and socially important as AI technology advances in the future.

Literature being an expression of an author, its commodification historically has assigned a value to it primarily in terms of authorship credit. Arguably reproducing published content without attributing the requisite source, termed as plagiarism is ethically discrediting to this premise. However, simply weighing its proportion based on digitally assigned semantic similarity may not be completely justifiable in the present-day digital atmosphere. It should be noted that while technology can facilitate plagiarism detection, digitization by way of providing greater access to published content is also the facilitator of plagiarism. While the scientific community is often severe in its approach toward the act of plagiarism, there is still a lack of clarity around the code of conduct of the same as there are several grey areas related to such a misconduct on which the law remains silent. By revisiting the historical evolution of the credit of authorship and the copyright law this piece presents an analytical vista pertaining to plagiarism in a different light. By identifying the gaps in the present-day handling of these age-old concepts, one may find that there is an unmet need to revisit the legal aspects of handling cases of plagiarism taking into consideration the digital environment., (Copyright © 2024 Copyright: © 2024 Indian Journal of Public Health.)

This essay studies the cultural consequences that the spread of paper money had in late nineteenth-century Brazil. First, I examine how these tensions are called into question through the analysis of a political scandal that took place in Rio de Janeiro, in 1900, concerning a two thousand reales banknote. Second, I offer a close reading of Machado de Assis' "Anedota pecuniária", a short-story included in Histórias sem data (1884). My goal is to interrogate the relation between paper money and the economy of credit work, and the narrative devices of literary fiction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Scientists of many countries in which English is not the primary language routinely use a variety of manuscript preparation, correction or editing services, a practice that is openly endorsed by many journals and scientific institutions. These services vary tremendously in their scope; at one end there is simple proof-reading, and at the other extreme there is in-depth and extensive peer-reviewing, proposal preparation, statistical analyses, re-writing and co-writing. In this paper, the various types of service are reviewed, along with authorship guidelines, and the question is raised of whether the high-end services surpass most guidelines' criteria for authorship. Three other factors are considered. First, the ease of collaboration possible in the internet era allows multiple iterations between the author(s) and the "editing service", so essentially, papers can be co-written. Second, "editing services" often offer subject-specific experts who comment not only on the language, but interpret and improve scientific content. Third, the trend towards heavily multi-authored papers implies that the threshold necessary to earn authorship is declining. The inevitable conclusion is that at some point the contributions by "editing services" should be deemed sufficient to warrant authorship. Trying to enforce any guidelines would likely be futile, but nevertheless, it might be time to revisit the ethics of using some of the high-end "editing services". In an increasingly international job market, awareness of this problem might prove increasingly important in authorship disputes, the allocation of research grants, and hiring decisions.

The article provides a guide on writing original research papers, emphasizing the importance of adhering to international guidelines and journal-specific instructions for successful publication. It also discusses the preparation of research papers from early study phases, the use of guidelines such as CONSORT and STROBE for different research types, and the need for clear, concise scientific language.

A recent editorial in Plant Cell Reports reaffirms what has been known for years, namely, that it follows the four ICMJE clauses of authorship. That editorial even provides a "perfect" model contribution statement. In this letter, I argue that in reality and in practice, authorship delimitations are not that clear-cut, nor are all contributions equal or equally weighted. More importantly, I opine that no matter how eloquently an author contribution statement is written, editors have no way to verify the veracity of those claims. In essence, absent authorship contribution verification, the ICMJE guidelines are practically useless. The responsibility for verification, even to determine authorship associated with papermills or the "ghost" contribution of text by AI like ChatGPT, lies entirely with editors and publishers. Although an unpopular meme, there is need for academic publishing to return to a state of no blind trust., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)

Although popular, I argue that the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) account of authorship is flawed. It inadvertently allows for practices that it was designed to prevent. In addition, it creates a new category of authorless papers--orphan papers. The original World Association of Medical Editors (WAME) criterion is preferable.

From the hypothesis that the development of scientific papers, mainly in interdisciplinary areas such as Health Informatics, may bring difficulties to the author, as had its communicative efficacy decreased or compromising their approval for publication; we aim to make considerations on the main items to good players making this kind of text. The scientific writing has peculiarities that must be taken into consideration when it writes: general characteristics, such as simplicity and objectivity, and characteristics of each area of knowledge, such as terminology, formatting and standardization. The research methodology adopted is bibliographical. The information was based on literature review and the authors' experience, teachers and assessors of scientific methodology in peer review publications in the area. As a result, we designed a checklist of items to be checked before submission of a paper to a scientific publication vehicle in order to contribute to the promotion of research, facilitating the publication and increase its capacity in this important area of knowledge.

Background: The research of alcohol consumption-related problems is a multidisciplinary field. The aim of this study is to analyze the worldwide scientific production in the area of alcohol-drinking and alcohol-related problems from 2005 to 2009., Methods: A MEDLINE and Scopus search on alcohol (alcohol-drinking and alcohol-related problems) published from 2005 to 2009 was carried out. Using bibliometric indicators, the distribution of the publications was determined within the journals that publish said articles, specialty of the journal (broad subject terms), article type, language of the publication, and country where the journal is published. Also, authorship characteristics were assessed (collaboration index and number of authors who have published more than 9 documents). The existing research groups were also determined., Results: About 24,100 documents on alcohol, published in 3,862 journals, and authored by 69,640 authors were retrieved from MEDLINE and Scopus between the years 2005 and 2009. The collaboration index of the articles was 4.83 ± 3.7. The number of consolidated research groups in the field was identified as 383, with 1,933 authors. Documents on alcohol were published mainly in journals covering the field of "Substance-Related Disorders," 23.18%, followed by "Medicine," 8.7%, "Psychiatry," 6.17%, and "Gastroenterology," 5.25%., Conclusions: Research on alcohol is a consolidated field, with an average of 4,820 documents published each year between 2005 and 2009 in MEDLINE and Scopus. Alcohol-related publications have a marked multidisciplinary nature. Collaboration was common among alcohol researchers. There is an underrepresentation of alcohol-related publications in languages other than English and from developing countries, in MEDLINE and Scopus databases., (Copyright © 2012 by the Research Society on Alcoholism.)

Background: Large language models (LLM) have unknown implications for medical research. This study assessed whether LLM-generated abstracts are distinguishable from human-written abstracts and to compare their perceived quality., Methods: The LLM ChatGPT was used to generate 20 arthroplasty abstracts (AI-generated) based on full-text manuscripts, which were compared to originally published abstracts (human-written). Six blinded orthopaedic surgeons rated abstracts on overall quality, communication, and confidence in the authorship source. Authorship-confidence scores were compared to a test value representing complete inability to discern authorship., Results: Modestly increased confidence in human authorship was observed for human-written abstracts compared with AI-generated abstracts (p = 0.028), though AI-generated abstract authorship-confidence scores were statistically consistent with inability to discern authorship (p = 0.999). Overall abstract quality was higher for human-written abstracts (p = 0.019)., Conclusions: AI-generated abstracts' absolute authorship-confidence ratings demonstrated difficulty in discerning authorship but did not achieve the perceived quality of human-written abstracts. Caution is warranted in implementing LLMs into scientific writing., (© 2024 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

In this series we address key topics for clinicians who conduct research as part of their work in the ED. Analysis of research data does not represent the completion of a project as the findings need to be communicated to clinicians and other researchers in the field. In this section, we describe how to write up clinical research data for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. We also describe the editorial and peer-review process., (© 2012 The Authors. EMA © 2012 Australasian College for Emergency Medicine and Australasian Society for Emergency Medicine.)

Chagas disease is a chronic, tropical, parasitic disease, endemic throughout Latin America. The large-scale migration of populations has increased the geographic distribution of the disease and cases have been observed in many other countries around the world. To strengthen the critical mass of knowledge generated in different countries, it is essential to promote cooperative and translational research initiatives. We analyzed authorship of scientific documents on Chagas disease indexed in the Medline database from 1940 to 2009. Bibliometrics was used to analyze the evolution of collaboration patterns. A Social Network Analysis was carried out to identify the main research groups in the area by applying clustering methods. We then analyzed 13,989 papers produced by 21,350 authors. Collaboration among authors dramatically increased over the study period, reaching an average of 6.2 authors per paper in the last five-year period. Applying a threshold of collaboration of five or more papers signed in co-authorship, we identified 148 consolidated research groups made up of 1,750 authors. The Chagas disease network identified constitutes a "small world," characterized by a high degree of clustering and a notably high number of Brazilian researchers.

Background: An author is generally regarded as an individual "who has made substantial intellectual academic contributions to a published study". However, the extent of the contribution that laboratory medicine professionals have made as authors of research papers in high-impact medical journals remains unclear., Methods: From 1 January 2004 to 31 March 2009, 4837 original research articles appeared in the: New England Journal of Medicine, Lancet, Annals of Internal Medicine, JAMA and BMJ. Using authorship as an indicator of intellectual contribution, we analyzed articles that included laboratory medicine parameters in their titles in an observational cross-sectional study. We also extracted data regarding radiological topics that were published during the same time within the same journals., Results: Out of 481 articles concerning laboratory medicine topics, 380 provided information on the affiliations of the authors. At least one author from an institution within the field of laboratory medicine was listed in 212 articles (55.8%). Out of 3943 co-authors, only 756 (19.2%) were affiliated with laboratory medicine institutions. Authors from laboratory medicine institutions were listed as the first, last or corresponding authors in 99 articles (26.1%). The comparative proportions for author affiliation from 55 radiology articles were significantly higher, as 72.7% (p=0.026) of articles and 24.8% (p=0.001) of authors indicated an affiliation with a radiology institution. Radiology professionals from 72.7% of the articles were listed as either the first, last or corresponding authors (p<0.0001). The subgroup analysis revealed that laboratory medicine professionals from North America were significantly less frequently involved as co-authors than were their colleagues from Europe (p=0.04)., Conclusions: Laboratory medicine professionals are underrepresented as co-authors in laboratory medicine studies appearing in high-impact general medicine journals.

Background: The publication of basic science and clinical research findings, as well as new clinical diagnosis and treatment techniques, is widely disseminated. These days there is considerable competition to publish so the selection process is even more competitive., Aim: To present advice as to how to enhance the chances of being published and more importantly how to prepare a paper for submission., Method: Instructions are presented as to the steps to be taken in writing a scientific manuscript. This covers Introduction, Materials and Methods, Results and Discussion. Guidance is given as to what should be included and also what should be left out. The precision of writing is paramount and scientific text needs to be simple, easily read and translated by those whose day-to-day language is not English. Advice is given on journal selection and how to ensure the best chance of manuscript acceptance.

Background: Despite increasing numbers of women attending medical school and completing residencies, women continue to lag behind men in academic achievement. Other specialties have found that women publish fewer journal articles than men. While family medicine is becoming increasingly gender balanced, the aim of this study was to evaluate the gender balance of published material within family medicine journals., Methods: All original articles were reviewed in five family medicine journals published in the United States (Family Medicine, Journal of Family Practice, Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine, Annals of Family Medicine, and American Family Physician) between 2006-2008. The articles were categorized based on type of publication and gender of first author. The editorial boards of each of the journals were examined to determine gender breakdown., Results: A total of 2,126 articles were included in the study. Females were first author on 712 (33.5%) of the articles, and males authored 1,414 (66.5%). There was no significant difference between years. More female authors wrote original research, and fewer wrote letters to the editor. Only Family Medicine had gender parity on its editorial board., Conclusions: Female authors wrote about a third of all original publications in family medicine journals between 2006-2009 even though they comprise 44% of the faculty. Further research can evaluate reasons for this gender disparity.

The dissemination of the practice of collaborative authorship (coauthorship) in Brazil and in the international scientific community has been accompanied by an increasing occurrence of frauds, manipulations and other deviations in the assignment of responsibility for a scientific paper. This article discusses the criteria for authorship attribution, the reasons for the growing indices of coauthorship and the challenges to determine authorship in electronic journals. Through literature review and case study (bibliographic search in scientific database), it shows ways to avoid that "misbehaviors" related to the authorship attribution affect the credibility of science.

Journals instruct authors to proofread their accepted manuscripts before signing them off for publication and expect them to submit errata to correct any mistakes identified thereafter. Herein, I examine papers with obvious errors in the author name list. I queried PubMed for papers under common Greek forenames looking for citations where author surnames and forenames are swapped. I identified 113 such papers from 101 journals. Author names are corrected with errata only in 20, after a median of 6.5 mo. Time to name correction is shorter for journals with impact factor above the median (P=0.015). To further explore this suggested association of apparent author sloppiness with journal impact, I use as controls all errata published between 1996 and 2008 in 5 top-cited general medical journals (New England Journal of Medicine, JAMA, The Lancet, Annals of Internal Medicine, and British Medical Journal); 3.4% of the latter contain name corrections (vs. 18.1% of all errata in the 101 journals during the same period, P<10(-6)). Egregious errors may be markers of cursory if any proofreading and, therefore, markers for additional unidentified inaccuracies. In addition, I wonder whether authors may be as reluctant to rectify other, nonobvious (yet potentially consequential) mistakes after a paper's publication.