Search

The primary objective of any research, regardless of its domain such as health, technology, psychology, or any other subject, is to enhance the overall well-being of individuals. Rigorous processes are involved in conducting research ethically and in communicating its outcomes to society. However, as publishing research has become a mandatory requirement for career advancement and appointments, academics are resorting to several unethical practices to get substandard work published quickly. Consequently, predatory publishing markets have emerged, which publish data that is falsified and fabricated, along with plagiarised textual matter. The emergence of "paper mills" is a further step in the corruption of research, where a group of persons or automated systems generate papers for publication. Anyone desirous of publishing a paper can purchase one, akin to any desired fast-moving consumer product, with the added guarantee of publication in indexed journals. Therefore, paper mills and their unethical modus operandi are discussed in this paper in detail, with relevant examples. The article unfolds the consequences of publishing such fraudulent research papers and concludes with the challenges in combating paper mills.

Introduction: For authors, selecting a target journal to submit a manuscript is a critical decision with career implications. In the discipline of medical education, research conducted in 2016 found that authors were influenced by multiple factors such as a journal's prestige and its mission. However, since this research was conducted the publishing landscape has shifted to include a broader variety of journals, an increased threat of predatory journals, and new publishing models. This study updates and expands upon how medical education authors decide which journal to submit to with the aim of describing the motivational factors and journal characteristics that guide authors' decision making., Methods: The authors conducted five qualitative focus groups in which twenty-two medical education authors and editors participated. During the focus groups participants were engaged in a discussion about how they select a journal to submit their manuscripts. Audio from all focus groups was transcribed. Transcripts were analyzed using codebook thematic analysis., Results: Participants considered multiple factors when selecting a target journal. Factors included a journal's impact, the scope of a journal, journal quality, and technical factors (e.g., word limits). Participants also described how social factors influenced their process and that open access plays a role that could both encourage or deter submission., Discussion: The findings describe the motivational factors and influential signals that guide authors in their journal selection decision making. These findings confirm, extend, and update journal selection factors reported in medical education and other disciplines. Notably, these findings emphasize the role of social factors, relationships and personal experiences, which were absent from previous work. Additionally, we observed increased consideration of open acces and a shift away from an emphasis on journal prestige., Competing Interests: The authors have no competing interests to declare., (Copyright: © 2024 The Author(s).)

An ongoing challenge in academic radiology is balancing the need to read the scans and generate relative value units (RVUs) with the need to ensure academic leadership and the consistent production of impactful publications. Indeed, the tripartite mission of academic radiology (i.e. clinical care, research, and teaching) does not lend itself to obvious answers in an era when institutions and departments are increasingly focused on RVU generation. Even the minority of radiologists who are interested in pursuing the academic mission and accept academic jobs are likely to find their time increasingly squeezed by massive volumes of scans to read and the priority placed on RVU generation. There are often no incentives for impactful academic work, leading to a decreasing relative number of manuscript submissions from U.S.-based researchers. With the lack of external incentivization for publication, writing and publishing papers must instead be driven by intrinsic enjoyment and a sense of accomplishment. The ability to think of an idea, to get a group of co-authors together, to acquire the data and/or put together the idea into a form that is ready for final publication, and to see that process through to the end is rewarded only by personal satisfaction. Perhaps, in the era of RVU generation, publishing papers in a form of defiance of a system that is hampering the academic mission., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare they have no relevant conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

We provide comprehensive insights into the peer review process and guide potential reviewers through the steps of reviewing scientific manuscripts. We discuss essential aspects such as the reviewer's responsibility in responding to invitations and maintaining confidentiality throughout the process, the criteria for accepting or rejecting papers, and efficient review of resubmissions. We emphasize the importance of prioritizing the review responsibility within other commitments, communication using professional and courteous language, and adherence to deadlines. We also offer practical tips on evaluating the abstract, introduction, materials and methods, results, and discussion section and summarizing the critiques in the review report., Competing Interests: Conflicts of interest The authors declare no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023 European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: 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., Content: 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., Summary: 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., Outlook: 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., (© 2023 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston.)

Women are underrepresented in senior academic positions within microbiology globally. Studies show that gender bias affects the progression of women in academia, but there is evidence that improving conscious awareness of bias can improve equity in this regard. Here we analyse the publication data associated with review articles within the microbiology field to investigate the statistical associations with author gender. We analyse the data from review articles published between 2010 and 2022 in three leading microbiology review journals: Nature Reviews Microbiology , Trends in Microbiology and Annual Review of Microbiology . We find a significant association between the gender of the lead author and the gender of co-authors in multi-author publications. Review articles with men lead authors have a significantly reduced proportion of women co-authors compared to reviews with women lead authors. Given the existing differences in the proportions of men and women in lead author positions, this association may have important consequences for the relative visibility of women in microbiology, along with negative impacts on scientific output relating to reduced collaboration diversity.

In our study, we have empirically studied the assessment of cited papers within the framework of the anchoring-and-adjustment heuristic. We are interested in the question whether the assessment of a paper can be influenced by numerical information that act as an anchor (e.g. citation impact). We have undertaken a survey of corresponding authors with an available email address in the Web of Science database. The authors were asked to assess the quality of papers that they cited in previous papers. Some authors were assigned to three treatment groups that receive further information alongside the cited paper: citation impact information, information on the publishing journal (journal impact factor) or a numerical access code to enter the survey. The control group did not receive any further numerical information. We are interested in whether possible adjustments in the assessments can not only be produced by quality-related information (citation impact or journal impact), but also by numbers that are not related to quality, i.e. the access code. Our results show that the quality assessments of papers seem to depend on the citation impact information of single papers. The other information (anchors) such as an arbitrary number (an access code) and journal impact information did not play a (important) role in the assessments of papers. The results point to a possible anchoring bias caused by insufficient adjustment: it seems that the respondents assessed cited papers in another way when they observed paper impact values in the survey. We conclude that initiatives aiming at reducing the use of journal impact information in research evaluation either were already successful or overestimated the influence of this information., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright: © 2023 Bornmann et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

Several factors influence the citation impact. This paper constructed paths from funding to citation impact on a country basis. Country data came from Incites® (2011-2020). The (2013 to 2018) UNESCO database was used to define investments in Research and Development (R&D). An overall analysis and analyses by clusters formed by investments in R&D were carried out. Countries that invest relatively less in R&D tend to have less investment by businesses and publish fewer documents. Some differences exist in this pattern. For example, countries in the lowest investment group show higher international collaboration and publications in Open Access Journals. This leads to a higher impact but below countries with the highest investments in R&D. The paths from funding to high impact differed by cluster. While international collaboration appeared in several clusters, the % of papers in Q1 (Top) journal quartile, based on citations, was in almost all clusters. More investments in R&D and open access publishing do not necessarily lead to high impact.

The pressure to publish academic papers for career advancement and technological innovations have fostered the growth of a new phenomenon, the serial fabrication of articles to be submitted to scientific journals. Papers with fake content are produced by specialised publishing agencies. Journal editors and publishers increased vigilance and control, tightening the peer review process and using anti-plagiarism software. But, being a systemic issue, it is not easy to find the solution and action must be taken on its causes: greater awareness of research ethics is needed, specific training for young doctors and - in the long run - an appropriate use of artificial intelligence, which should become a tool for protecting the integrity of knowledge.

Recently, an article by Seneff et al. entitled "Innate immunosuppression by SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccinations: The role of G-quadruplexes, exosomes, and MicroRNAs" was published in Food and Chemical Toxicology (FCT). Here, we describe why this article, which contains unsubstantiated claims and misunderstandings such as "billions of lives are potentially at risk" with COVID-19 mRNA vaccines, is problematic and should be retracted. We report here our request to the editor of FCT to have our rebuttal published, unfortunately rejected after three rounds of reviewing. Fighting the spread of false information requires enormous effort while receiving little or no credit for this necessary work, which often even ends up being threatened. This need for more scientific integrity is at the heart of our advocacy, and we call for large support, especially from editors and publishers, to fight more effectively against deadly disinformation., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: All authors declare no conflict of interest for this contribution.

This column is intended to address the kinds of knotty problems and dilemmas with which many scholars grapple in studying health professions education. In this article, the authors address the challenges in proofreading a manuscript. Emerging researchers might think that someone in the production team will catch any errors. This may not always be the case. We emphasize the importance of guiding mentees to take the process of preparing a manuscript for submission seriously.

Although the process of publishing a scientific paper has gotten simpler, it is increasingly difficult to publish a paper in high profile journals. We have analyzed the publishing data in the cell biology field and found several alarming trends developing over the last two decades. There is an emerging divide between scientist-run journals and professional-run high profile journals. How did this happen? What should we do? The core issue is whether the current standard for high profile journals hurts rather than helps the scientific discovery process. In this regard, we suggest that the editors and scientists should direct their focus on the potential impact and rigor of the work instead of the "perfection" or "completeness" of the study.

Background and Aims: Highly cited papers (HCPs) can influence both research and clinical practice. They help to identify core literature and important advances in a field. This study aimed to assess the current status and prospects of South Asia COVID-19 research from the HCPs using bibliometric indicators. Methodology: COVID-19 literature from South Asia published between December 2019 and 29 November 2023 in the Scopus database was analysed. The top HCPs, having more than 200 citations, were evaluated. Information about citation counts, authors and organisations and their affiliations, year of publication, source journal, geographical origin, subject, article type, funding details, etc. were retrieved and analysed. Data and visualisation analysis was undertaken using Microsoft Excel and other bibliometric software. Results: The 298 South Asia HCPs were published from 2020 to 2023 and were cited 200–3,596 times, with a mean average of 413.9 citations per paper (CPP). Around 24.5% and 51.3% of HCPs received external funding support and were involved in international collaboration, respectively. The most productive organisations were the Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, and the Indian Institute of Technology, New Delhi, while the most impactful organisations were Bai Jerbai Wadia Hospital for Children, Mumbai, and Kokilaben Dhirubhai Ambani Hospital & Medical Research Institute, Mumbai. The most productive journals were Diabetes and Metabolic Syndrome: Clinical Research & Reviews. Conclusions: This study has identified core and significant authors, organisations, journals, subject fields and significant keywords, collaborators and funding agencies involved in South Asia's COVID-19 research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]