Search

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]

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]

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]

In this open science era, psychology demands researchers be transparent in their research practices. In turn, researchers might ask if journal editors are being equally transparent in their editorial practices. Editor bias is when editors fail to be fair and impartial in their handling of articles. Editor bias can arise because of identity—who authors are—or because of content—what authors write. Proposed solutions to editor bias include masking author identity and increasing editor diversity. What is needed is greater transparency. By being more transparent, editors would be in a better position to encourage others to embrace open science. Public Significance Statement: Editors play an essential role in the article review process in psychology, but how they perform that important work is not accessible. Editors are vulnerable to being biased in their judgments by the identity of authors and the content of articles. This article offers suggestions on how to reduce the threat of editor bias and how to make editors more transparent to authors and readers. [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]

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]

Letters to the editor (LTEs) are a versatile short-format forum with unique characteristics to allow for cross-pollination of different kinds of philosophical reflection about medicine. Philosophical LTEs have both benefits and possible drawbacks. We draw on a case study to warn against misuse through “CV inflation,” where low-quality ideas may favor a scholar’s publishing metrics more than scholarly debate. Factual inaccuracies in LTEs have implications for authors, publishing, and indexing, and we argue for prudence by editors and restraint by scholars, inviting them to focus on quality, rather than the quantity of LTEs published. When writing LTEs, rigor, readability, and relevance are needed.

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]

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]

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]

This study was aimed at identifying the factors influencing the adherence to publication ethics standards in the research system of the Ministry of Science, Research and Technology (MSRT) using the Causal Layered Analysis (CLA) method. This is a qualitative study adopting an exploratory approach and an applied one considering the research results. The researchers used the semi-structured interview method to achieve the goal of the study. The study population consisted of the actors of the research system of the MSRT. A total of 22 activists were included in the study based on the theoretical saturation rule. In order to conduct interviews with the actors of the research system, the researchers prepared an “Interview Package” as the research tool. This package contained: 1) an informed consent form, 2) an interview guide form and 3) and conceptual and operational definitions of the research variables. We also used the CLA method to design the interview questions. This method and its layers, i.e. litany, social causes, discourse/ worldview and myth/ metaphor were developed as a method of foresight. Finally, the text file of each interview transferred to the MAXQDA version 20 to analyze the data. Then, the three-step approach of “thematic analysis” was used for the open and axial coding of the factors influencing. Based on the results of the research, a total of 1055 open codes were extracted from the interviews, of which 345 codes were assigned to the “litany” layer, 315 codes to the “social causes” layer, 301 codes to the “discourse/ worldview” layer, and 94 codes to the “myth/ metaphor” layer. In addition, the category “monitoring of the research system” (with 82 codes) from the “litany” layer, the category “clarification of laws and regulations in terms of implementation” (with 35 codes) from the “social causes” layer, the category “directing the existing social discourses through culture building” (with 43 codes) from the “worldview” layer, and the category “correlation between education and research” (with 15 codes) from the “myth/ metaphor” layer were the most frequent categories. Therefore, although there are many unknowns in the future path, it is necessary to pave the way towards an ethical research system by adopting timely decisions and strategies and implementing necessary measures, especially by macro-level policy makers. One necessary measure to be taken is giving sufficient independence to universities and higher education centers. In addition, the middle circles of research, such as information centers, scientific communities and associations, and libraries play a key role in expansion of the independence of universities and in the development of endogenous patterns and self-regulating thoughts among researchers. [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]

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]

Plagiarism is one of the most frequent forms of research misconduct in South and East Asian countries. This narrative review examines the factors contributing to research misconduct, emphasizing plagiarism, particularly in South, East and Southeast Asian countries. We conducted a PubMed and Scopus search using the terms plagiarism, Asia, South Asia, East Asia, Southeast Asia, research misconduct and retractions in January of 2022. Articles with missing abstracts, incomplete information about plagiarism, publication dates before 2010, and those unrelated to South, East, and Southeast Asian countries were excluded. The retraction watch database was searched for articles retracted between 9th January 2020 to 9th January 2022. A total of 159 articles were identified, of which 21 were included in the study using the database search criteria mentioned above. The review of articles identified a lack of training in scientific writing and research ethics, publication pressure, permissive attitudes, and inadequate regulatory measures as the primary reasons behind research misconduct in scientific publications. Plagiarism remains a common cause of unethical publications and retractions in regions of Asia (namely South, East and Southeast). Researchers lack training in scientific writing, and substantial gaps exist in understanding various forms of plagiarism, which heavily contribute to the problem. There is an urgent need to foster high research ethics standards and adhere to journal policies. Providing appropriate training in scientific writing among researchers may help improve the knowledge of different types of plagiarism and promote the use of antiplagiarism software, leading to a substantial reduction in the problem.

BackgroundRetractions are a key proxy for recognizing errors in research and publication and for reconciling misconduct in the scientific literature. The underlying factors associated with retractions can provide insight and guide policy for journal editors and authors within a discipline. The goal of this study was to systematically review and analyze retracted articles in veterinary medicine and animal health. A database search for retractions of articles with a veterinary/animal health topic, in a veterinary journal, or by veterinary institution-affiliated authors was conducted from first available records through February 2019 in MEDLINE/PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Retraction Watch, and Google Scholar. Annual frequency of retractions, journal and article characteristics, author affiliation and country, reasons for retraction, and retraction outcomes were recorded.ResultsTwo-hundred-forty-two articles retracted between 1993 and 2019 were included in the study. Over this period, the estimated rate of retraction increased from 0.03/1000 to 1.07/1000 veterinary articles. Median time from publication to retraction was 478 days (range 0-3653 days). Retracted articles were published in 30 (12.3%) veterinary journals and 132 (81.5%) nonveterinary journals. Veterinary journals had disproportionately more retractions than nonveterinary journals (P = .0155). Authors/groups with ≥2 retractions accounted for 37.2% of retractions. Authors from Iran and China published 19.4 and 18.2% of retracted articles respectively. Authors were affiliated with a faculty of veterinary medicine in 59.1% of retracted articles. Of 242 retractions, 204 (84.3%) were research articles, of which 6.4% were veterinary clinical research. Publication misconduct (plagiarism, duplicate publication, compromised peer review) accounted for 75.6% of retractions, compared with errors (20.6%) and research misconduct (18.2%). Journals published by societies/institutions were less likely than those from commercial publishers to indicate a reason for retraction. Thirty-one percent of HTML articles and 14% of PDFs were available online but not marked as retracted.ConclusionsThe rate of retraction in the field of veterinary and animal health has increased by ~ 10-fold per 1000 articles since 1993, resulting primarily from increased publication misconduct, often by repeat offenders. Veterinary journals and society/institutional journals could benefit from improvement in the quality of retraction notices.

Plagiarism defines as the act of using another person work or ideas without giving proper crediton, is a widespread problem in both academic and professional settings. This abstract investigates the many facets of plagiarism, including its numerous ramifications and the potential preventative steps. Plagiarism can manifest itself in a variety of ways, including the outright copying of content or the paraphrasing the text without correct or lack of referencing. Plagiarism brings about a wide range of consequences from academic penalties such as failing grades to legal repercussions in professional contexts. In addition to this, it is detrimental to the principles of intellectual honesty and stifles the development of skills in critical thinking. Lack of awareness about citation procedures is one of the cause. Both employers and educational institutions have a responsibility to adopt preventative actions in order to solve this problem. implementation of instructional programs on appropriate ways of citation, the cultivation of a culture of academic integrity, and the utilization of systems that detect instances of plagiarism are the solution.

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]

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]

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]

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]

An issue that can limit the long-term value of information published in peer-reviewed engineering publications is the inability of readers to readily access data contained within a publication. This paper discusses experiences in changing the expectations for data sharing by authors in a large, disciplinary engineering journal, the AIChE Journal, in ways that seek to balance the burdens on authors and the benefits to readers.

Abstract 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.

An inappropriate request for citations (IRC) occurs when a reviewer asks the authors of the reviewed manuscript to cite multiple papers with the sole purpose of boosting the reviewer’s own citation index. In the past several years, we have witnessed a steady increase of IRC cases both in terms of frequency and scope. While some relevant ethical guidelines have been provided by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), we feel that the problem is persistent and requires a coordinated response from editors, authors and reviewers. This article provides advice from the editors of Results in Physics for identifying and avoiding IRCs as well as for preventing the appearance of scientifically unmotivated citations in published papers.

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]

As part of the research project \"Summa cum fraude - Scientific Misconduct and an Attempt at Counteroffensive\" at Saarland University, an interview was conducted with Ivan Oransky. Oransky is a co-founder of the Retraction Watch database and the Retraction Watch blog, which address scientific misconduct and the retraction of published articles. In the interview, he discusses scientific misconduct, such as data manipulation and peer review processes, as well as plagiarism. He emphasizes the importance of clear retraction notices and sanctions for misconduct. Oransky sees a role for libraries and librarians in ensuring the quality of data and research. The number of retracted scientific articles has dramatically increased in the last 25 years. In 2021, over 3800 retractions were recorded, compared to about 40 in 2000. The retraction rate is currently at 0.08%, while it was at 0.04% four or five years ago. There is a clear upward trend, and some publishers even report hundreds of retractions at once. The Retraction Watch database and blog provide information on this issue and are used by many people. There are various reasons for retractions, such as fake reviews, legal issues, or authorship questions. Guidelines like those of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) can help reduce the number of retractions and improve the integrity of scientific publications. It is important to communicate transparently about retractions to bring about long-term changes. There are already approaches such as registered reports and the disclosure of peer reviews that can improve scientific practice. However, the challenge remains of how best to handle allegations against scientific publications and ensure that they are taken seriously and addressed. It requires better infrastructure and collaboration between researchers, publishers, and other service providers to track and systematically document reports of questionable publications. [Extracted from the article]

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]

Background: Photographs from medical case reports published in academic journals have previously been found in online image search results. This means that patient photographs circulate beyond the original journal website and can be freely accessed online. While this raises ethical and legal concerns, no systematic study has documented how often this occurs. Objective: The aim of this cross-sectional study was to provide systematic evidence that patient photographs from case reports published in medical journals appear in Google Images search results. Research questions included the following: (1) what percentage of patient medical photographs published in case reports were found in Google Images search results? (2) what was the relationship between open access publication status and image availability? and (3) did the odds of finding patient photographs on third-party websites differ between searches conducted in 2020 and 2022? Methods: The main outcome measure assessed whether at least 1 photograph from each case report was found on Google Images when using a structured search. Secondary outcome variables included the image source and the availability of images on third-party websites over time. The characteristics of medical images were described using summary statistics. The association between the source of full-text availability and image availability on Google Images was tested using logistic regressions. Finally, we examined the trend of finding patient photographs using generalized estimating equations. Results: From a random sample of 585 case reports indexed in PubMed, 186 contained patient photographs, for a total of 598 distinct images. For 142 (76.3%) out of 186 case reports, at least 1 photograph was found in Google Images search results. A total of 18.3% (110/598) of photographs included eye, face, or full body, including 10.9% (65/598) that could potentially identify the patient. The odds of finding an image from the case report online were higher if the full-text paper was available on ResearchGate (odds ratio [OR] 9.16, 95% CI 2.71-31.02), PubMed Central (OR 7.90, 95% CI 2.33-26.77), or Google Scholar (OR 6.07, 95% CI 2.77-13.29) than if the full-text was available solely through an open access journal (OR 5.33, 95% CI 2.31-12.28). However, all factors contributed to an increased risk of locating patient images online. Compared with the search in 2020, patient photographs were less likely to be found on third-party websites based on the 2022 search results (OR 0.61, 95% Cl 0.43-0.87). Conclusions: A high proportion of medical photographs from case reports was found on Google Images, raising ethical concerns with policy and practice implications. Journal publishers and corporations such as Google are best positioned to develop an effective remedy. Until then, it is crucial that patients are adequately informed about the potential risks and benefits of providing consent for clinicians to publish their images in medical journals. [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]