Search

The ethics of generative artificial intelligence (AI) use in scientific manuscript content creation has become a serious matter of concern in the scientific publishing community. Generative AI has computationally become capable of elaborating research questions; refining programming code; generating text in scientific language; and generating images, graphics, or figures. However, this technology should be used with caution. In this editorial, we outline the current state of editorial policies on generative AI or chatbot use in authorship, peer review, and editorial processing of scientific and scholarly manuscripts. Additionally, we provide JMIR Publications' editorial policies on these issues. We further detail JMIR Publications' approach to the applications of AI in the editorial process for manuscripts in review in a JMIR Publications journal. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Scientific authors must write simply and authentically. They should use clear and focused language when drafting qualitative research reports to allow for a deeper understanding of the experiences and concepts extracted. The authors must strive to correctly use subject-verb, matching, and comparing constructions. They must concisely structure the objectives, methods, and discussion. Their manuscript should have a logical flow to avoid rejection due to any ambiguous meaning.

Objective: To investigate the practice among freelance language professionals relating to seeking acknowledgement for editing texts by EAL (English as an additional language) scholars and scientists. Methods: Freelance editors were recruited from three European organisations for freelance editors and translators. They completed an 8-question online survey (country of residence, broad area of specialisation and acknowledgement for their work). The data analyses are descriptive. Results: There were 131 respondents, residing in 16 countries and representing four broad disciplinary areas (biomedicine (36;27.5%), humanities (27;20.6%), science (31;23.7%) and social science (37;28.2%). Netherlands-based editors were the largest group (60;45.8%). Only 19 (14.5%) of all respondents always actively encouraged authors to acknowledge language assistance: The two main reasons for always or sometimes seeking acknowledgement were ethics and self-publicity, each mentioned by 33(60%) of the 55 'always' + sometimes' respondents) Among the remaining 76 respondents, the two most frequently mentioned reasons for not seeking acknowledgement were never having thought about being acknowledged (24;26.7%) and the expectation that authors would introduce errors in the text before publication (21;23.3%). Conclusions: Seeking acknowledgement is not a priority among these editors. They fear their work and reputation will be compromised by authors introducing post-editing errors and infelicities unintentionally and without consultation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Over the years, there has been a strategic transition from subscription-based to open-access publishing. This transition has driven some changes in peer review, including cascading peer review. The latter apparently avoids rejections. This article analyses cascading peer review for open-access publishing and focuses on its potential impact on authors, reviewers, editors, publishers, and learned societies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background A variety of scientometric indicators exists for quantitative and qualitative evaluation of scientific output. Each of these indicators has its own strengths and limitations, and the search for more correct ones is still ongoing. This study proposes and evaluates a new scientometric indicator, Subject Sameness Index (SSI). Method This cross-sectional study was conducted over a six-year period (2005-2010). We analysed all papers published by researchers of Babol University of Medical Science (BUMS), who were first authors with at least two papers listed in Web of Science (WoS) during the six-year period. A special tool was developed for data collection. The ratio of the same (repeated) or synonym keywords to all keywords listed by researchers in their papers was analysed for estimating 'subject sameness' Results We retrieved 90 papers of BUMS researchers. These researchers were first authors, with 25 of them having at least 2 papers (67 in total). Of these, 11 papers had at least one repeated or synonym keyword. In these papers there were 300 keywords in total, with 21 repeated or synonymous keywords (7% of all the keywords were repeated). Regression analysis showed a reverse linear relationship between the number of published papers and the number of repeated or synonym keywords (R = -0.963, P = 0.037). Conclusion Quantity of publications, citations and their combinations are not always appropriate indicators of the quality of scientific work. Low level of the subject sameness may indicate a researcher's dispersed scientific activity. The new indicator, SSI, may add important information of interest to research administrators and science editors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article highlights the main problems and perspectives of launching open access medical journals in Russia, using The Saratov Journal of Medical Scientific Research as an example. Launching the journal's open access website is viewed as a major achievement, enabling smooth communication and coordination of the editorial work. Insufficient English language skills among authors and editors are the main problem hampering international recognition of Russian scholarly journals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]