bims-skolko Biomed News
on Scholarly communication
Issue of 2025–01–26
23 papers selected by
Thomas Krichel, Open Library Society
  1. Reducing Quotation Errors in Scientific Manuscripts: A Novel Approach from the Global Andrology Forum.
  2. Pioneering CERN scheme will pay publishers more if they hit open-science targets.
  3. For open communication, give researchers a permanent e-mail alias.
  4. Article Retraction in Otolaryngology Journals: A Thirty Year Analysis.
  5. Is it time for a paper mill blacklist?
  6. Review or perish, regardless of your attempts to publish.
  7. 'Publish or perish' culture blamed for reproducibility crisis.
  8. The scientific publication as a referent of recognition. The pressure to publish.
  9. The 'Predatory Journal': the quality vs. quantity of the publications.
  10. Review process: an academic responsibility that facilitates active and peer learning.
  11. Reviewers side.
  12. Compliance with research participant protection guidelines by Nigerian medical journals.
  13. Positionality statements: Intersectional considerations for rehabilitation psychology.
  14. The publication fate of abstracts awarded prizes at European Society of Paediatric Radiology annual scientific meetings.
  15. Think local, write global: Writing peer-reviewed research papers for an international audience.
  16. Evaluating human ability to distinguish between ChatGPT-generated and original scientific abstracts.
  17. ChatGPT: Friend or foe in medical writing? An example of how ChatGPT can be utilized in writing case reports.
  18. Data management and sharing.
  19. Acta Neuropsychiatrica embraces full open access: towards a new era of global knowledge sharing.
  20. Building an Inclusive, Cumulative, and Rigorous Science at PSPB: 2025 Editorial Statement.
  21. Welcome to Seminars in Thrombosis and Hemostasis 2025: Toward the Next 50 Years of Publishing and Announcement of New Online Manuscript Submission System.
  22. 50 Years of the Journal of the Brazilian College of Surgeons: History, Evolution and Future Prospects.
  23. Reflecting on Progress of the Malaysian Journal of Medical Sciences: 2023-2024.
  1. World J Mens Health. 2025 Jan 02.
    Reducing Quotation Errors in Scientific Manuscripts: A Novel Approach from the Global Andrology Forum.
    Asli Metin Mahmutoglu, Ashok Agarwal, Bahadir Sahin, Tomer-Avidor Reiss, Pallav Sengupta, Germar-Michael Pinggera, Hiva Alipour, Rossella Cannarella, Christine Wyns, Mohamed Arafa, Aldo E Calogero, Taymour Mostafa, Eric Chung, Ala'a Farkouh, Ahmad Motawi, Amarnath Rambhatla, Ayad Palani, Giovanni M Colpi, Murat Gül, Selahittin Çayan, Israel Maldonado Rosas, Taha Abo-Almagd Abdel-Meguid Hamoda, Rupin Shah.
       PURPOSE: This study investigated 1) the frequency of quotation errors in multi-authored medical manuscripts in andrology, 2) analyzed common types of quotation errors and the methods used to rectify them, and 3) evaluated their impact on manuscript accuracy, credibility, and research conclusions.
    MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twelve manuscripts written by the Global Andrology Forum (GAF) members between 2023 and 2024 were randomly selected for this study. The manuscripts and "Quotation Verification Sheets" were analyzed by senior GAF researchers to detect the number and types of quotation errors. The error rate was calculated by the total number of quotation errors and total number of all cited references in each manuscript. The impact on manuscript sections was assessed using a 0-4 grading scale. The Spearman correlation test was used to assess the correlation between scalar variables, and the Mann-Whitney U test was utilized to compare scalar variables between two groups.
    RESULTS: The median value of quotation errors was 10.3%. Factual inaccuracy was the most common type of error, and was observed in all twelve manuscripts at various rates. The number of errors was significantly associated with the number of references (ρ=0.706; p=0.010) and in-text citations (ρ=0.636; p=0.026). Factual inaccuracy (ρ=0.588; p=0.044) and factual interpretation (ρ=0.861; p=0.013) were also correlated with the total number of quotation errors. However, no significant associations were found between quotation errors and author numbers or their qualifications. The quotation errors adversely impacted the manuscript discussion, followed by the overall message.
    CONCLUSIONS: Quotation errors are common in multi-authored medical manuscripts in andrology-related scientific articles. Journal editorial offices should incorporate quotation verification into the review process. Limiting references and in-text citations to only strictly necessary ones may help improve quotation accuracy. The quotation verification model proposed by GAF offers a practical and structured approach for detecting and correcting quotation errors.
    Keywords:  Andrology; Editorial policies; Health care; Medical writing; Quality assurance; Research design
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.5534/wjmh.240255
  2. Nature. 2025 Jan 23.
    Pioneering CERN scheme will pay publishers more if they hit open-science targets.
    Holly Else.
      
    Keywords:  Particle physics; Publishing; Scientific community
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-025-00183-3
  3. Nature. 2025 Jan;637(8047): 794
    For open communication, give researchers a permanent e-mail alias.
    Julian Budd.
      
    Keywords:  Research data; Research management; Scientific community
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-025-00168-2
  4. Clin Otolaryngol. 2025 Jan 21.
    Article Retraction in Otolaryngology Journals: A Thirty Year Analysis.
    Albina S Islam, Elizabeth M Mastoloni, John E Fenton, Daniel H Coelho.
       OBJECTIVES: To gain insight into the integrity of research in Otolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery (OHNS) literature through characterising retracted articles, analysing the reason for their retraction, and the trends in the collected data.
    METHODS: Pubmed, Embase, and Retraction Watch Database were queried for retracted articles published between the dates of 1/31/92 and 9/30/22. Articles with titles relating to OHNS subjects and published in OHNS journals, as determined by Scimago Journal and Country Ranking, were selected for further analysis. Variables recorded included journal name, journal impact factor, article type, article subspecialty subject, reason for retraction, whether re-published, number of authors, time to retraction, and article citations.
    RESULTS: Based on title and article content, 245 articles related to the field of OHNS were identified, of which 68 were published in OHNS journals and analysed for reason of retraction. Of those, 16 (23.5%) were replaced due to erratum concerns (spelling, formatting, etc.) rather than content or data-related issues and were excluded. Among the 52 (76.5%) permanent retractions the most common reasons for retraction include article duplication (n = 26), concerns/issues/errors with data (n = 7), and plagiarism (n = 5). The median time between publication and retraction was 2 years (range, 0-19). The median impact factor was 1.64 (range, 0.08-4.68). The median number of citations per article was 7 (range, 0-86).
    CONCLUSION: Retractions continue to occur in the field of OHNS despite increasing education in ethical publication standards and safeguards. There are, however, improved time intervals to retraction indicating improved surveillance of published articles.
    Keywords:  duplicate publication; plagiarism; retracted publication; retraction of publication; scientific misconduct
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1111/coa.14285
  5. Naunyn Schmiedebergs Arch Pharmacol. 2025 Jan 18.
    Is it time for a paper mill blacklist?
    Jaime A Teixeira da Silva.
      Paper mills represent one of science's greatest threats to the integrity of the entire scientific enterprise because they have become entrenched in a culture of the commercialization and corruption of science's assets, whether these be authorships, data sets, entire papers, editorial positions, or influence during editorial processes to favor a culture of unfair publication practices. This journal, which has taken proactive and exemplary steps to deal with this plague of fakery, is no stranger to the workings of such academic criminality, as exemplified by a string of retractions resulting from paper mill interference and association. This letter posits that a public database, and blacklist, of known paper mills is needed, as well as of authors who have a track record of using paper mills, but recognizes that the establishment of such a blacklist may pose practical, legal, and ethical challenges to its implementation and maintenance.
    Keywords:  Accountability; Cheating; Fake peer review; Post-publication peer review; Transparency
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00210-025-03801-z
  6. Lancet Rheumatol. 2025 Jan 14. pii: S2665-9913(25)00002-5. [Epub ahead of print]
    Review or perish, regardless of your attempts to publish.
    Cesar Ramos-Remus, Aldo Barajas-Ochoa.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/S2665-9913(25)00002-5
  7. Nature. 2025 Jan 20.
    'Publish or perish' culture blamed for reproducibility crisis.
    Laurie Udesky.
      
    Keywords:  Authorship; Careers; Publishing; Scientific community
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-04253-w
  8. Cir Esp (Engl Ed). 2025 Jan 21. pii: S2173-5077(25)00004-3. [Epub ahead of print]
    The scientific publication as a referent of recognition. The pressure to publish.
    Manuel López Cano, Josep M García Alamino.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cireng.2024.11.015
  9. J Cardiovasc Med (Hagerstown). 2025 Feb 01. 26(2): 63
    The 'Predatory Journal': the quality vs. quantity of the publications.
    Ciro Indolfi.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.2459/JCM.0000000000001706
  10. BMJ Open Sport Exerc Med. 2024 ;10(4): e002414
    Review process: an academic responsibility that facilitates active and peer learning.
    Kristina Fagher, Evert Verhagen.
      
    Keywords:  Evidence-based review; Research; Review
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjsem-2024-002414
  11. Turk Neurosurg. 2024 Aug 16.
    Reviewers side.
    Bipin Chaurasia.
      The world is unique. It revolves only around affluent peoples. They have made rules only for their own benefits. It also applies for journals. The scientific article publication in journal revolves only around journals, with authors and reviewers doing everything from back stage making them profit and supporting their business. Authors who have done hard work for their research work have to pay for publication either in the form of article processing charge (APC) or later to buy own pdf article after publication. Reviewers are also being cheated by getting nothing for their review process who also imposes substantial amount of time behind improving the authors manuscript. In return they don't even get free pdf and have to buy it later after publication.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.5137/1019-5149.JTN.46896-24.3
  12. BMC Med Ethics. 2025 Jan 22. 26(1): 8
    Compliance with research participant protection guidelines by Nigerian medical journals.
    Adaora A Onyiaorah, Euzebus C Ezugwu.
       BACKGROUND: Stakeholders in medical research have roles in ensuring that research participants are protected. Medical journals play gatekeeping roles in the responsible conduct of research. They help guard against the publication of findings of unethical research, such as those with compromised participant welfare. Nigerian medical journals are being created to support the growing number of research enterprises. In this study, we aimed to determine the compliance of Nigerian medical journals with guidelines on research participant protection.
    METHODS: This was a descriptive cross-sectional study of Nigerian medical journals and articles. We used a checklist to obtain information on journal characteristics and the presence of recommendations from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) on the protection of research participants in the journal instructions to authors and articles. The data were analysed via IBM SPSS version 23.
    RESULTS: We studied 40 journals and 350 journal articles. Thirty-one (77.5%) journals required ethical approval and the Declaration of Helsinki statement in their instructions to the authors, while informed consent was present in 26 (65.0%) journals; 6 (15.0%) journals had no participant protection guidelines. Forty-one (11.7%) articles complied with all three recommendations on research participant protection, whereas 60 (17.1%) articles did not. Ethical approval was most common in 268 (76.6%) articles, whereas it was least common in statements on the Declaration of Helsinki in 50 (14.3%) articles. The presence of participant protection recommendations in instructions to authors was not associated with compliance with these recommendations in published articles (p > 0.05).
    CONCLUSION: Although there is fairly good compliance of Nigerian medical journals with research participant protection recommendations, there are still gaps, which highlight the need for remedial measures.
    Keywords:  Declaration of Helsinki; Ethical approval; Informed consent; Medical journals; Nigeria; Research participant protection
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-025-01168-7
  13. Rehabil Psychol. 2025 Feb;70(1): 110-117
    Positionality statements: Intersectional considerations for rehabilitation psychology.
    Emily M Lund, Christopher R DeJesus, Mana K Ali Carter, Lauren R Khazem.
       INTRODUCTION: Positionality statements accompanying peer-reviewed publications are increasingly being implemented in academic journals across many disciplines, including psychology. These statements serve as transparent, public acknowledgments of the authors' identities, which can offer valuable insight into the authors' work in the context of their lived experiences and potential biases. However, journal editors and associated staff risk harm by uniformly adopting a policy on positionality statements without consideration of the unintended consequences of implementing such practices.
    OBJECTIVE/PURPOSE: The purpose of the current article is to discuss the benefits and challenges of incorporating positionality statements, with a focus on the specific context and principles of rehabilitation psychology.
    METHOD: We reviewed the literature on positionality statements and disclosure and incorporated our own experiences as researchers and authors from marginalized and/or minoritized groups.
    RESULTS: Editorial and research teams in rehabilitation psychology are encouraged to reflect on both the potential benefits of positionality statements (e.g., greater recognition of "insider perspectives," recognition of potential biases) as well as the potential negative consequences (e.g., forced disclosure of characteristics and identities in published work, minimization of the impact of intersectional identities, dissolution of dynamic identities and stages of identity development).
    CONCLUSIONS/IMPLICATIONS: Positionality statements present complex challenges for rehabilitation psychology researchers from diverse backgrounds and their colleagues; thus, authors should be given the freedom to choose if and how to include a positionality statement in their work. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1037/rep0000569
  14. Pediatr Radiol. 2025 Jan 22.
    The publication fate of abstracts awarded prizes at European Society of Paediatric Radiology annual scientific meetings.
    ESPR Publications Committee (consortium)
       BACKGROUND: The European Society of Paediatric Radiology (ESPR) awards prizes for outstanding work presented at their annual scientific meetings. The proportion of ESPR prize-winning abstracts to journal publications is not known. Contextualising abstract-to-publication proportions by evaluating publication experience can yield valuable insights and actionable outcomes to support researchers in overcoming barriers to journal publication.
    OBJECTIVE: To assess the abstract-to-publication proportion of prize-winning ESPR abstracts and prize-winning authors' experience of publishing in Pediatric Radiology, the affiliated journal of the ESPR and other specialist international paediatric radiology societies.
    MATERIALS AND METHODS: PubMed was searched for titles of ESPR prize-winning abstracts from 1977 (the year of first award) up to and including 2021, where the presenter was either first or co-author, and the article was published 2 years before or after the presentation year. If not found, a general internet search was performed. Titles of all retrieved articles were evaluated for inclusion. A survey was distributed to all ESPR prize winners to better understand their experiences around journal submission.
    RESULTS: Over 44 years, 108 prizes were awarded. The prize-winning abstract-to-publication proportion was significantly higher (59.3%, OR=2.10, P=0.012) than the recently published pediatric radiology "abstract to publication rate" (41.9% from 2013-2016). Moreover, prize winners were more than twice as likely than to achieve journal publication (OR=2.10), and as first author (OR=1.33). The majority of awardees published their work as first author (52/64, 81.3%): the first-author abstract-to-publication proportion was not significantly higher than the paediatric radiology "abstract-to-publication rate" (48.1%, OR=0.33, P=0.330). Sixty-four survey responses were received (59.3%, out of a total 108 awarded prizes). Just over 20% of prize-winning work was published in Pediatric Radiology, with 41.5% of respondents reporting a good to excellent submission experience.
    CONCLUSION: Prize-winning and first-author abstract-to-publication proportions are higher for ESPR-awarded abstracts than the most recently reported paediatric radiology "abstract-to-publication rate", suggesting that prizes are either awarded to work most likely to be published or that being awarded a prize encourages publication. Given that just over 40% of prize-winning abstracts remain unpublished, the ESPR should do more to support and encourage all authors to publish their work.
    Keywords:  Abstracts; Conferences and congresses; Medical societies; Paediatric; Publications; Radiology
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00247-024-06152-8
  15. Int J Nurs Stud. 2025 Jan 15. pii: S0020-7489(25)00007-0. [Epub ahead of print] 104998
    Think local, write global: Writing peer-reviewed research papers for an international audience.
    Allison Squires, Peter Griffiths, Ian Norman, William E Rosa.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2025.104998
  16. Updates Surg. 2025 Jan 24.
    Evaluating human ability to distinguish between ChatGPT-generated and original scientific abstracts.
    Kylie J Nabata, Yasir AlShehri, Abdullah Mashat, Sam M Wiseman.
      This study aims to analyze the accuracy of human reviewers in identifying scientific abstracts generated by ChatGPT compared to the original abstracts. Participants completed an online survey presenting two research abstracts: one generated by ChatGPT and one original abstract. They had to identify which abstract was generated by AI and provide feedback on their preference and perceptions of AI technology in academic writing. This observational cross-sectional study involved surgical trainees and faculty at the University of British Columbia. The survey was distributed to all surgeons and trainees affiliated with the University of British Columbia, which includes general surgery, orthopedic surgery, thoracic surgery, plastic surgery, cardiovascular surgery, vascular surgery, neurosurgery, urology, otolaryngology, pediatric surgery, and obstetrics and gynecology. A total of 41 participants completed the survey. 41 participants responded, comprising 10 (23.3%) surgeons. Eighteen (40.0%) participants correctly identified the original abstract. Twenty-six (63.4%) participants preferred the ChatGPT abstract (p = 0.0001). On multivariate analysis, preferring the original abstract was associated with correct identification of the original abstract [OR 7.46, 95% CI (1.78, 31.4), p = 0.006]. Results suggest that human reviewers cannot accurately distinguish between human and AI-generated abstracts, and overall, there was a trend toward a preference for AI-generated abstracts. The findings contributed to understanding the implications of AI in manuscript production, including its benefits and ethical considerations.
    Keywords:  Artificial intelligence; ChatGPT; Machine learning; Medical research
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13304-025-02106-3
  17. Surg Pract Sci. 2023 Sep;14 100185
    ChatGPT: Friend or foe in medical writing? An example of how ChatGPT can be utilized in writing case reports.
    Wai Lone Jonathan Ho, Bilal Koussayer, Joseph Sujka.
      ChatGPT is a chatbot built on a natural language processing model which can generate human-like responses to prompts given to it. Despite its lack of domain-specific training, ChatGPT has developed remarkable accuracy in interpreting clinical information. In this article, we aim to assess what role ChatGPT can serve in medical writing. We recruited a first-year medical student with no prior experience in writing case reports to write a case report on a complex surgery with the assistance of ChatGPT. After a thorough evaluation of its responses, we believe that ChatGPT is a powerful medical writing tool that can be used to generate summaries, proofread, and provide valuable medical insight. However, ChatGPT is not a substitute for a study author due to several significant limitations, and should instead be used in conjunction with the author during the writing process. As the impact of natural language processing models such as ChatGPT grows, we suggest that guidelines be established on how to better utilize this technology to improve clinical research rather than outright prohibiting its usage.
    Keywords:  Artificial intelligence; Case report; ChatGPT; Hernia repair; Research; Surgical education
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sipas.2023.100185
  18. J Clin Epidemiol. 2025 Jan 20. pii: S0895-4356(25)00013-7. [Epub ahead of print] 111680
    Data management and sharing.
    Claude Pellen, Nchangwi Syntia Munung, Anna Catharina Armond, Daniel Kulp, Ulrich Mansmann, Maximilian Siebert, Florian Naudet.
      Guided by the FAIR principles (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable), responsible data sharing requires well-organized, high-quality datasets. However, researchers often struggle with implementing Data Management and Sharing Plans (DMSPs) due to lack of knowledge on how to do this, time constraints, legal, technical and financial challenges, particularly concerning data ownership and privacy. While patients support data sharing, researchers and funders may hesitate, fearing the loss of intellectual property or competitive advantage. Although some journals and institutions encourage or mandate data sharing, further progress is needed. Additionally, global solutions are vital to ensure equitable participation from low- and middle-income countries. Ultimately, responsible data sharing requires strategic planning, cultural shifts in research, and coordinated efforts from all stakeholders to become standard practice in biomedical research.
    Keywords:  Clinical trials; Data management; Data sharing; Ethics; Integrity; Open Science
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2025.111680
  19. Acta Neuropsychiatr. 2025 Jan 21. 37 e2
    Acta Neuropsychiatrica embraces full open access: towards a new era of global knowledge sharing.
    Livea Dornela Godoy, Gregers Wegener.
      
    Keywords:  Africa; Latin America; Open access; access to information; neuropsychiatry
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1017/neu.2024.66
  20. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2025 Jan 20. 1461672241313268
    Building an Inclusive, Cumulative, and Rigorous Science at PSPB: 2025 Editorial Statement.
    Yuen J Huo, Michael W Kraus, Emre Selçuk, Gregory D Webster.
      
    Keywords:  diversity; editorial; generalizability; open science; research methods; scientific practices
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672241313268
  21. Semin Thromb Hemost. 2025 Feb;51(1): 5-9
    Welcome to Seminars in Thrombosis and Hemostasis 2025: Toward the Next 50 Years of Publishing and Announcement of New Online Manuscript Submission System.
    Emmanuel J Favaloro.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0044-1791941
  22. Rev Col Bras Cir. 2025 ;pii: S0100-69912024000100102. [Epub ahead of print]51 e20243862EDIT01
    50 Years of the Journal of the Brazilian College of Surgeons: History, Evolution and Future Prospects.
    Gerson Alves Pereira Junior, Andreia Cristina Feitosa DO Carmo, Julia Castro Neves, Ramiro Colleoni Neto.
      This article celebrates the 50th anniversary of the continuous publication of the Journal of the Brazilian College of Surgeons (RCBC), revisiting its trajectory from the beginning to the present day. RCBC has evolved from a nationally relevant publication to a journal with international impact, constantly adapting to changes in editorial and scientific practices. This article presents an analysis of the major milestones, editorial changes, and innovations that have cemented RCBC as a prominent scientific vehicle. In addition, it discusses future strategies to maintain editorial quality and increase the visibility of the journal in the global scientific scenario.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1590/0100-6991e-20243862EDIT01-en
  23. Malays J Med Sci. 2024 Dec;31(6): 1-5
    Reflecting on Progress of the Malaysian Journal of Medical Sciences: 2023-2024.
    Siti Nor Qamariah Ismail, Jafri Malin Abdullah.
      This editorial reviews the Malaysian Journal of Medical Sciences' performance over 2023-2024, highlighting key achievements and challenges. It aims to provide a detailed analysis of the journal's processes and identify areas for improvement.
    Keywords:  journal performance report; medical sciences journal; submission trend
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.21315/mjms2024.31.6.1
This page is being maintained by Thomas Krichel. It was last updated on 2025‒01‒30 at 9:57.