Search

Academia is already witnessing the abuse of authorship in papers with text generated by large language models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT.LLM‐generated text is testing the limits of publishing ethics as we traditionally know it.We alert the community to imminent risks of LLM technologies, like ChatGPT, for amplifying the predatory publishing ‘industry’.The abuse of ChatGPT for the paper mill industry cannot be over‐emphasized.Detection of LLM‐generated text is the responsibility of editors and journals/publishers.

In this paper, we reflect on how the principle of the ‘right to be forgotten’ (RTBF), specifically the right to erasure as enshrined in Article 17 (and to some extent Art. 19 and Art. 21) of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR; Regulation (EU) 2016/679), or the right to delete undesirable, unflattering or reputation‐damaging archived records of oneself from search engines or databases, might apply to academic publishing. In particular, we focus on archival (library and information) science, post‐publication peer review, and reflect on whether RTBF is compatible with open science principles. Even though RTBF became enshrined in EU law in 2018, its trans‐Atlantic export to the United States faces resistance because it is seen as being incompatible with First Amendment rights. We ponder the pertinence of the debate regarding local versus global applicability of RTBF when considering the transnational nature of some collaborative research. Although RTBF applies broadly to search engines such as Google, we question whether authors have this right and also whether publishers are subjected to this law with respect to science databases, or even ‘local’ (i.e., publisher‐controlled) archives, especially in the light of retractions or withdrawals, in which data and files are removed from a preprint or journal's website or, in extreme cases, where all or most bibliometric information is scrubbed clean, as in the case of ‘silent retractions’. We extend our reflections further to appreciate whether authors or editors are entitled to RTBF in extreme instances of misconduct or fraud. The fundamental right to privacy and personal choice, as is suggested by (or enshrined in) RTBF, is not—in our view—compatible with several principles related to the integrity of data and information, or even their preservation, and may be diametrically opposed, depending on the situation. We encourage wider debate on this budding pertinent issue as a fundamental aspect of academic rights and freedoms.

The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) recommendations for authorship are the dominant guidelines that guide who, and under what circumstances, an individual can be an author of an academic paper.Large language models (LLMs) and AI, like ChatGPT, given their ability and versatility, pose a challenge to the human‐based authorship model.Several journals and publishers have already prohibited the assignment of authorship to AI, LLMs, and even ChatGPT, not recognizing them as valid authors.We debate this premise, and asked ChatGPT to opine on this issue. ChatGPT considers itself as an invalid author.We applied the CRediT criteria to AI, finding that it was definitively able to satisfy three out of the 14 criteria, but only in terms of assistance. This was validated by ChatGPT itself.

Web‐based references form an integral part of academic culture and literature, as well as scientific communication.The preservation of web‐based references that are cited in‐text or in reference lists of academic papers is essential to ensure the integrity of knowledge preservation.When access or links to web‐based resources and references disappear, or if they are dysfunctional, these phenomena are collectively referred to as reference rot.Even though reference rot degrades the integrity of information in academic papers, no industry‐wide solutions currently exist.Given its prominence, we propose the Internet Archive as a possible solution to address reference rot, but also note its weaknesses and limitations.

Cancer research is occasionally described as being in a reproducibility crisis. The cancer literature has ample papers retracted due to misconduct, including the use of paper mills, invalid authorship, or fake data. The objective of this paper was to gain an appreciation of the balance of retractions and associated retraction notices of 23 retracted Cancer Biotherapy and Radiopharmaceuticalspapers associated with paper mills. By 23 March 2023, these retracted papers had already accumulated 287 citations according to Web of Science Core Collection, 253 according to Scopus, and 365 according to Google Scholar, i.e., metrically speaking, they were highly rewarded. All authors had an affiliation (71% being a hospital) in China. Most (12/21; 57%) of corresponding authors had emails with a @163.com suffix. Four of the retraction notices (i.e., 17%) explicitly indicated paper mills as a reason for retraction although, in general, the retraction notices lacked details and background that could assist readers’ understanding of the retractions.

Springer Naturebecame a formidable market leader in academic publishing after a 2015 merger. In 2018, Springer Naturemade an initial public offering (IPO) attempt to reduce company debt and fortify company value. Three media sources (Reuters, Bloomberg and Nasdaq) indicated that there was a second IPO attempt in 2020, but neither of those IPO attempts reached fruition. This paper summarizes the main events surrounding those IPOs and offers some possible discussion points about them, including economic and market fluctuations. This case also highlights the highly competitive nature of the commercial publishing landscape in a non‐profit academic environment.

UK-based Hindawi (now part of Wiley) is one of the larger open access (OA) publishers that levies article processing charges (APCs) for publication in its 220 OA journals. The APCs range between US$650 and US$2300, with a median of US$950. We assessed if there is a link between the APC of Hindawi journals and two metrics, Elsevier’s Scopus CiteScore, and Clarivate’s Journal Impact Factor (JIF). Whereas 163 journals have a CiteScore (median APC = US$1000), 71 have a JIF (median APC = US$1950), while others with neither a CiteScore nor a JIF (NCNJ) have a median APC of US$650. The APC of journals with a CiteScore differed significantly from those with a JIF. We found a significant positive correlation between CiteScore and AFPC (r= 0.223, p< 0.01), but a weak non-significant positive correlation between JIF and APC (r= 0.162, p= 0.177). The Kruskal Wallis test showed that the medians of three groups (CiteScore, JIT and NCNJ) differed significantly from each other at p< 0.05.

The number of downloads (NOD) is a measure of the number of accesses to (or downloads of) published articles and a subset of altmetrics. In this study, we assessed the correlation between the journal impact factor (JIF) and NOD for 11 subject categories on Springer Nature’s Springerlink to determine if there were differences in NOD among Google Scholar, Scopus (CiteScore) and Clarivate’s JIF across these subject categories, and attempted to predict NOD using JIF. From a total of 1575 journals, 1155 (73.3%) were grouped under JIF, 275 (17.5%) under CiteScore, and 145 (9.2%) under Google Scholar. Among the 1155 JIF journals, 1007 (87.2%) were subscription or hybrid journals while 148 (12.8%) were open access journals. Except for “environment”, there was a significant positive correlation between NOD and JIF for all remaining subject categories. Correlations changed slightly even after open access was removed from all categories. The Kruskal Wallis test showed significant differences in median NOD for journals with a CiteScore, Google Scholar and JIF, and this was fortified by a posthoc test (Conover p-values without adjustment). After aggregating the data of all subject categories into two sub-categories (NOD and JIF) of the 1155 journals with a JIF, finally, Adaptive Boosting performed best among eight machine learning models to predict NOD using JIF (RMSE = 84139.1; R2 = 0.9669). This research extends researchers’ understanding of the relationship between altmetrics and citations with journal metrics that are typically obtained using citations. Knowledge of a JIF can predict NOD with some permissible error.

Academics and librarians might want to identify whether a journal is open access (OA) or subscription-based. While indexes and digital libraries might provide such information for known collections, it is possible that the access mode of a journal or body of journals might be unknown a priori. In this short analysis, a machine learning-based method is used to classify a journal’s access mode, OA or subscription, using its CiteScore and Journal Impact Factor (JIF). Using an initial pool of 91 multidisciplinary journals with a CiteScore, 38 journals with both a JIF and a CiteScore were selected (24 = OA; 14 = subscription). Using a data mining tool (Orange), ten machine learning models were applied (k nearest neighbor (kNN), Tree, support vector machine (SVM), Random forest, Neural network, Naïve Bayes, Logistic regression, Adaptive boosting (Adaboost)), Gradient Boosting (Scikit-learn) (GBS) and Gradient Boosting (catboost) (GBC). Adaboost, GBS and GBC showed the highest (100%) precision, sensitivity, and specificity. The 3 models correctly classify the access mode with zero error. The 3 optimum models were validated using then to predict the access mode of 54 (7 = OA; 47 = subscription) library and information science (LIS) journals and Adaboost and GBS gave perfect results with no misclassification. With these model, the access mode of multidisciplinary and LIS journals can be accurately and correctly predicted using only JIF-CiteScore data. Libraries in low-resource settings will benefit from the implementation of this research by designing a decision support system for the selection of journals.

ABSTRACTPetaloid stamens in Paeonia lactifloraconstitute an important developmental phenomenon that explain double flower formation. Although research on stamen development in model plants has progressed considerably, the underlying molecular mechanism in P. lactiflorapetaloid stamens is still unclear. In this study, acomparative transcriptomic analysis was performed on two cultivars of P. lactiflora(‘Fen Yu Nu’ and ‘Lian Tai’) with different stamen developmental patterns. Following transcriptome sequencing, 89,393 unigenes were identified in P. lactiflora. Trend analysis and weighted gene co-expression network analysis (WGCNA) indicated that 18 candidate genes were likely involved in the formation and development of petaloid stamens, including seven MADS-box genes, PlAP3, PlDEFA, PlPI2, PlAG-1, PlSEP3, PlSEP1-1, and PlSEP1-2, and 11 other transcription factors (TFs), PlTCP2, PlTCP4, PlTCP9, PlbHLH36, PlICE1, PlLBD38, PlNAC083, PlBLH11, PlPDF2, PlGBF1, and PlIIIA. Using these 18 selected candidate genes, we propose ahypothetical model of gene expression network that regulates the development of petaloid stamens. Our results provide acollection of candidate genes that are useful for the analysis of P. lactiflorapetaloid stamens, allowing for in-depth studies of the development pattern of P. lactifloraflower organs, and providing atheoretical basis for related research on petaloid stamens of flowers in other herbaceous plants.

The aim of this study was to identify transcription factor (TF) binding sites and cis-regulatory elements (CREs) on the promoters of FvSPR1-like2(SPIRAL) and FvSPT(SPATULA) genes in the woodland diploid strawberry (Fragaria vescaL.). We identified: (1) MYB59, WRKY25 and WRKY8 TFs which play a role in ethylene signaling; (2) ARF family of TFs which play a role in ARF-mediated auxin signaling on the promoter of FvSPR1-like2gene; (3) ARR family of TFs which play a role in cytokinin signaling; (4) ERF family of TFs which play a role in ethylene signaling on the promoter of FvSPT. This bioinformatic analysis of TFs and CREs may provide a better understanding of the function of genes involved in, and the mechanism underlying, non-climateric ripening during strawberry fruit maturation.

In the 1930s, Frits Warmolt Went conducted a number of seminal studies on pea seedlings that had been germinated in the dark and assessed their growth when either the apical parts, cotyledons, or roots were cut off or grafted, to assess whether coplant growth factors assisted auxin in the development of these organs. Went assigned the term “calines” to all auxin-assisting substances, specifically rhizocaline, caulocaline, and phyllocaline in root, shoot (and axillary buds) and leaf development, respectively. Those experiments were based exclusively on growth assays, and no supplementary biochemical or physiological analyses were ever conducted, and additional proof was only provided by Went using pea or tomato. The lack of independent reproducibility by other groups, combined with the fact that the hormonal control of these developmental events in plants is now fairly well-studied event, even at the molecular level, suggests that these growth factors that Went observed 80 years ago either do not exist or are known by some other term in modern plant development. The terms related to “calines” should thus no longer be used in plant developmental biology.

ABSTRACTDrought is an environmental stress that limits agricultural and horticultural production worldwide. Paeonia lactifloraPall. is a perennial flowering plant with strong environmental adaptability and a good candidate for production in arid areas. Using the Illumina Hiseq platform to study the transcriptome of P. lactifloraleaves under drought stress, 62.27 Gb of clean data was obtained and 87,099 unigenes (N50 = 1,352 bp; mean length = 790.66 bp) were obtained by transcriptome sequencing. After screening 4,198 differentially expressed genes, genes that may be related to the response of P. lactiflorato drought stress were identified: 28 signal transduction genes, 12 protein kinase genes, 14 transcription factor genes, 35 osmotic adjustment genes, 14 antioxidase enzyme genes, 22 photosynthesis genes, 9 AQP genes, 20 HSP genes, and 17 LEA genes. Transcriptomics analysis revealed that transcription factors, such as ERF, WRKY, and NAC transcription factor family members regulate the synthesis of hormones that play a role in signal transduction pathways of peony in response to drought stress. These results enrich currently available herbaceous peony gene sequence resources, fortify the identification of candidate genes and molecular regulatory mechanisms in response to drought stress, allowing genetic engineering to be used to create drought-tolerant plants.

CiteScore, Scopus/Elsevier’s open journal metric, is an attractive alternativeto Clarivate Analytics’ impactfactor. Inmid-2020, theequation used to calculate the CiteScore changed, reflecting a four-year window of data versus a previous three-year data set. Extrapolating CiteScore data from Scopus for the top 1000 ranked journals, we wanted to appreciate how CiteScore trended over time. We found that, on average, CiteScore increased consistently each year between 2015 and 2019, from 13.877 to 16.536. Broadly, this reflects a greater number of citations per publication over time, so a constant rise in citation rate. Academics should not erroneously mistake this rise as a higher level of quality. In addition, k-mean clustering of the percentile and CiteScore showed the existence of three distinct clusters for the top 1000 ranked journals, which aggregated together due to their distinct similarities (similar mean). This pattern may assist researchers to study how the pattern of the distribution of CiteScore and percentile changes over time, and monitor how the CiteScore methodology has evolved over the years.

In publishing ethics, self-plagiarism or text recycling is subject to a correction or retraction. This paper examines a high-profile case of ethical exceptionalism in the publishing status quo. Jennifer Couzin-Frankel, a science writer for the magazine Science, published by The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), was the first reporter to publicly reveal the identity of Brandon Stell, the President of The PubPeer Foundation, which owns PubPeer, a science whistle-blower website. The AAAS is a Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) member publisher. Couzin-Frankel published two articles, one of which self-plagiarized (i.e., the use of text written by the same person but not properly cited, or acknowledged) about 25% of text in the other article. Couzin-Frankel has also employed nested self-citation, which is the citation of a separate part of a paper such as a table or text box, to give the impression of a separate publication. These aspects call into question how strictly information is vetted and edited at AAAS’s Science. Despite alerting the AAAS, this heavily self-plagiarized paper has not been corrected or retracted. How then do the AAAS and COPE justify the continued publication of both texts?

•The terms “guideline” and “recommendation” suggest a choice is possible.•Are COPE guidelines and ICMJE recommendations mandatory, or voluntary?•Is it possible to not adhere to COPE and/or ICMJE guidelines?•Rules in such guidelines should be open to challenge.•Are there epistemic contradictions in current established ethics guidelines?

ISSR markers are useful to identify molecular changes in variegated vanilla (Vanilla planifoliaJacks.) plants derived from a temporary immersion system. Clonal propagation through in vitro cultures produces individuals that are identical to the parent plant from which they were subcultured. However, there is evidence of phenotypic variations between propagated clones. The most common phenotypic variations are changes in leaf pigmentation, i.e., variegated individuals. Many such phenotypic variations are exploited by the ornamental industry. In a previous study by our group on indirect organogenesis in vanilla (Ramírez-Mosqueda and Iglesias-Andreu in In Vitro Cell Dev Biol Plant 52:154–160, 2015), variegated Vanilla planifoliaJacks. plants were generated in vitro. A temporary immersion system allows for the mass propagation of plant material in liquid culture. The present study aimed to identify morphological and molecular changes that occurred in variegated plants obtained during micropropagation in a temporary immersion system, the TIB®. To achieve this, the morphology of plants micropropagated in TIB®was assessed and analyzed at the molecular level using inter-simple sequence repeats. Molecular variation was analyzed over four subcultures, each lasting 45 days. Plants showed 100% uniformity (monomorphism) and morphological stability, which were confirmed by the heritability of leaf pigmentation (variegated individuals) in all micropropagated plants over all four subcultures. This study demonstrates that high genetic and morphological stability was achieved in variegated V. planifoliagenotypes that were micropropagated in TIB®. This would allow for the establishment of a clonal line of variegated plants with ornamental applications. In addition, 100% survival of the plants was observed during acclimatization. The study forms part of a wider long-term effort to assess the potential of mass propagation of variegated vanilla for ornamental purposes.

The intersection between academia and social media is gradually overlapping. The ability to vent personal and professional discord online, either through blogs or social media, has had both positive and negative consequences on academic communication, with the public and/or in the public domain. ResearchGate (RG) is one of the most popular academic social media sites that allows commenting, either in response to published papers or to questions that are posed on that platform. This paper explores an important aspect of a high-profile, topical and controversial 2017 paper (Derek Pyne; Journal of Scholarly Publishing; DOI: 10.3138/jsp.48.3.137) that had based itself on a flawed blacklist created by Jeffrey Beall. In that paper, unfounded claims were made regarding financial rewards as remuneration schemes at a “small business school” in Canada related to publishing papers in “predatory” journals, i.e., in open access journals that were blacklisted by Beall. Based on those claims, Pyne used RG as a platform to target academics at his research institute. Pyne could have, but did not, use the scholarly platform to engage with his colleagues in an academic debate about his controversial findings, causing personal disrepute on three occasions. Consequently, RG was contacted with a claim of defamation on each occasion. Within hours of each claim, Pyne’s comments were deleted. In early May, RG also erased his social media account. The issue of actual or potential insults in the public domain, such as on blogs, is rarely discussed, much less related to academic social media sites like RG. This case study, and the issues discussed herein related to social media more broadly, will be useful for academics to better navigate increasingly challenging publishing waters.