Assessing the Reproducibility of the Structured Abstracts Generated by ChatGPT and Bard Compared to Human-Written Abstracts in the Field of Spine Surgery: Comparative Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Due to recent advances in artificial intelligence (AI), language model applications can generate logical text output that is difficult to distinguish from human writing. ChatGPT (OpenAI) and Bard (subsequently rebranded as "Gemini"; Google AI) were developed using distinct approaches, but little has been studied about the difference in their capability to generate the abstract. The use of AI to write scientific abstracts in the field of spine surgery is the center of much debate and controversy. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to assess the reproducibility of the structured abstracts generated by ChatGPT and Bard compared to human-written abstracts in the field of spine surgery. METHODS: In total, 60 abstracts dealing with spine sections were randomly selected from 7 reputable journals and used as ChatGPT and Bard input statements to generate abstracts based on supplied paper titles. A total of 174 abstracts, divided into human-written abstracts, ChatGPT-generated abstracts, and Bard-generated abstracts, were evaluated for compliance with the structured format of journal guidelines and consistency of content. The likelihood of plagiarism and AI output was assessed using the iThenticate and ZeroGPT programs, respectively. A total of 8 reviewers in the spinal field evaluated 30 randomly extracted abstracts to determine whether they were produced by AI or human authors. RESULTS: The proportion of abstracts that met journal formatting guidelines was greater among ChatGPT abstracts (34/60, 56.6%) compared with those generated by Bard (6/54, 11.1%; P<.001). However, a higher proportion of Bard abstracts (49/54, 90.7%) had word counts that met journal guidelines compared with ChatGPT abstracts (30/60, 50%; P<.001). The similarity index was significantly lower among ChatGPT-generated abstracts (20.7%) compared with Bard-generated abstracts (32.1%; P<.001). The AI-detection program predicted that 21.7% (13/60) of the human group, 63.3% (38/60) of the ChatGPT group, and 87% (47/54) of the Bard group were possibly generated by AI, with an area under the curve value of 0.863 (P<.001). The mean detection rate by human reviewers was 53.8% (SD 11.2%), achieving a sensitivity of 56.3% and a specificity of 48.4%. A total of 56.3% (63/112) of the actual human-written abstracts and 55.9% (62/128) of AI-generated abstracts were recognized as human-written and AI-generated by human reviewers, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Both ChatGPT and Bard can be used to help write abstracts, but most AI-generated abstracts are currently considered unethical due to high plagiarism and AI-detection rates. ChatGPT-generated abstracts appear to be superior to Bard-generated abstracts in meeting journal formatting guidelines. Because humans are unable to accurately distinguish abstracts written by humans from those produced by AI programs, it is crucial to exercise special caution and examine the ethical boundaries of using AI programs, including ChatGPT and Bard.

Welcoming a new Main Editor of Journal of Synchrotron Radiation.

Introducing a new Main Editor of JSR.

The Top 100 Most Cited Journal Articles on Hydrocephalus.

Hydrocephalus represents a significant burden of disease, with more than 383,000 new cases annually worldwide. When the magnitude of this condition is considered, a centralized archive of pertinent literature is of great clinical value. From a neurosurgical standpoint, hydrocephalus is one of the most frequently treated conditions in the field. The focus of this study was to identify the top 100 journal articles specific to hydrocephalus using bibliometric analysis. Using the Journal of Citation Report database, 10 journals were identified. The Web of Science Core Collection was then searched using each journal name and the search term "hydrocephalus." The results were ordered by "Times Cited" and searched by the number of citations. The database contained journal articles from 1976 to 2021, and the following variables were collected for analysis: journal, article type, year of publication, and the number of citations. Journal articles were excluded if they had no relation to hydrocephalus, mostly involved basic science research, or included animal studies. Ten journals were identified using the above criteria, and a catalog of the 100 most cited publications in the hydrocephalus literature was created. Articles were arranged from highest to lowest citation number, with further classification by journal, article type, and publication year. Of the 100 articles referenced, 38 were review articles, 24 were original articles, 15 were comparative studies, 11 were clinical trials, six were multi-center studies, three were cross-sectional, and three were case reports with reviews. Articles were also sorted by study type and further stratified by etiology. If the etiology was not specified, studies were instead subcategorized by treatment type. Etiologies such as aqueductal stenosis, tumors, and other obstructive causes of hydrocephalus were classified as obstructive (n=6). Communicating (n=15) included idiopathic, normal pressure hydrocephalus, and other non-obstructive etiologies. The category "other" (n=3) was assigned to studies that included etiologies, populations, and/or treatments that did not fit into the classifications previously outlined. Through our analysis of highly cited journal articles focusing on different etiologies and the surgical or medical management of hydrocephalus, we hope to elucidate important trends. By establishing the 100 most cited hydrocephalus articles, we contribute one source, stratified for efficient referencing, to facilitate clinical care and future research on hydrocephalus.

Effective Manuscript Preparation and Submission.

Authors have a wide range of journals to which they can submit their report for consideration for publication. One key to getting the journal editors to accept a report is that the manuscript is properly organized and in compliance with the journal's Guide for Authors. For this reason, the single most important undertaking that an author can do before submission is read the journal's Guide for Authors and make sure that the report meets the journal's requirements for publication. If the subject matter is interesting and scientifically rigorous, then a well-written manuscript that complies with the journal's requirements will likely cruise through the peer review process and get accepted for publication. With this in mind, we now break down the elements of a report of original research and describe useful details that enhance the manuscript and leave little to revise.

Variations in Citations Across Databases: Implications for Journal Impact Factors.

The Journal Impact Factor (JIF) is a widely used metric for ranking journals based on the number of citations garnered by papers published over a specific timeframe. To assess the accuracy of JIF values, I compared citation counts for 30 of my own publications across six major bibliography databases: CrossRef, Web of Science, Publisher records, Google Scholar, PubMed and Scopus. The analysis revealed noteworthy variations in citation counts, ranging from 10% to over 50% between the lowest and highest citation counts. Google Scholar records the highest citation numbers, while PubMed reported the lowest. Notably, Web of Science, whose citation data are used in JIF calculations, tend to underestimate citation counts compared to other databases. These observations raise concerns about the accuracy of JIF calculation based on Web of Science's citation data. The real JIF values for most journals would differ from those annually reported by Clarivate's journal citation reports (JCR). These citation discrepancies underscore the importance of comprehensive data collection and the necessity to include additional citation sources. Not because a paper is cited in one journal rather than another should it have a less or more citation weight. Ultimately, one citation remains one citation, regardless of its origin. Clarivate Analytics may thus need to consider integrating all citation sources for more accurate JIF values. Alternatively, Google Scholar could potentially develop its own journal or citation impact based on its extensive journal citation records. However, while making adjustments to how the Journal Impact Factor is calculated can make it more mathematically precise, it doesn't address the fundamental biases built into the metric. Even with refinements, the Journal Impact Factor will remain skewed due to how it's defined and used.

Publication performance of university maxillofacial surgeons in Germany.

The aim of this bibliometric analysis was to benchmark the publication activities of German university departments of oral and maxillofacial surgery. The publication performance of staff surgeons (chief and consultants), documented by first or last authorship, from 37 German university departments was captured over a 10-year period (January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2019). All publications listed in PubMed were included. Additionally, the Impact Factor (IF) was determined. A total of 213 surgeons were identified, of whom 158 (74.2%) were publishing. The number of publications was 1,777, published in 311 journals. Publication activity ranged from an average of 23.3 publications per staff surgeon in the top-ranked department to 0 publications in the last-ranked. The same trend was observed for the total cumulative IFs (CIFs) per member (range from 56.2 to 0). The most common used journal was the Journal of Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery (19.7%), with focus on "dentoalveolar surgery" (24%) and "operative techniques and procedures" (28.3%). Women constituted 19.2% of the staff, contributing to 8.5% of the publications. The publication performance of German university departments of oral and maxillofacial surgery exhibits a high variance, which did not correlate with the number of personnel and could only be explained by different research motivations.

Prospective Surgical Cohort Analysis.

A well-conducted prospective cohort study has the potential to change the way in which surgeons practice. However, not all are equal. In this article, we provide many of the tools needed to critically appraise this powerful study design. We advocate for using a 3-step approach that centers on understanding the study's generalizability, results, and validity. We illustrate how this process is applied into practice regularly at our hospital section's journal club sessions.

Teaching Science to the Next Generation.

Teaching science to the next generation begins with foundations laid in podiatric medical school. Interest and immersion in research continues to develop through residency as trainees prepare for cases, participate in journal clubs, present posters and articles, and attend conferences. Having adequate training is essential to production of quality research. Although challenges and barriers exist, numerous resources are available at all levels of practice to guide those who are interested in contributing to the body of literature that supports the profession. Ensuring a robust pipeline of future clinician scientists is critical to the future of the profession.

Novel Journal Metrics in Cardiothoracic Surgery: How Different Are Contemporary Metrics From the Impact Factor?

OBJECTIVE: Despite shortcomings, impact factor (IF) remains the "gold standard" metric for journal quality. However, novel metrics including the h-index, g-index, and Altmetric Attention Score (AAS; mentions in mainstream/social media) are gaining traction. We assessed correlations between these metrics among cardiothoracic surgery journals. METHODS: For all cardiothoracic surgery journals with a 2021 Clarivate IF (N = 20), the 2-year IF (2019 to 2020) and 5-year IF (2016 to 2020), h-index, and g-index were obtained. Two-year journal-level AAS (2019 to 2020) was also calculated. Journal Twitter presence and activity was sourced from Twitter and the Twitter application programming interface. Correlations were assessed using Spearman correlation, and coefficients of determination were calculated. RESULTS: IF demonstrated a moderate-strong positive correlation with the h-index (rs = 0.48 to 0.77) and g-index (rs = 0.49 to 0.79) and a moderate correlation with AAS (rs = 0.53 to 0.58). The 2-year IF accounted for 25% to 49% of variability in the h-index, 27% to 55% of variability in the g-index, and 32% of variability in the AAS. Among journals with a Twitter account (N = 10), IF was strongly correlated with Twitter following (rs = 0.81 to 0.86), which was in turn strongly correlated with journal AAS (rs = 0.79). Article-level AAS was moderately correlated with citation count (rs = 0.47). CONCLUSIONS: IF accounted for only between 25% and 55% of variability in the h-index and g-index, indicating that these newer metrics measure unique dimensions of citation-based impact. Thus, the academic community must familiarize itself with these newer journal metrics. Social media attention may be associated with scholarly impact, although further work is needed to understand these relationships.

2023: A year of accomplishments for the 13 Science Citation Index Expanded- and Emerging Sources Citation Index-indexed Baishideng journals.

In 2023, Baishideng Publishing Group (Baishideng) routinely published 47 open-access journals, including 46 English-language journals and 1 Chinese-language journal. Our successes were accomplished through the collective dedicated efforts of Baishideng staffs, Editorial Board Members, and Peer Reviewers. Among these 47 Baishideng journals, 7 are included in the Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE) and 6 in the Emerging Sources Citation Index (ESCI). With the support of Baishideng authors, company staffs, Editorial Board Members, and Peer Reviewers, the publication work of 2023 is about to be successfully completed. This editorial summarizes the 2023 activities and accomplishments of the 13 SCIE- and ESCI-indexed Baishideng journals, outlines the Baishideng publishing policy changes and additions made this year, and highlights the unique advantages of Baishideng journals.

Bibliometric evaluation of Anais Brasileiros de Dermatologia (2013-2022)

Abstract The Anais Brasileiros de Dermatologia, published since 1925, is the most influential dermatological journal in Latin America, indexed in the main international bibliographic databases, and occupies the 50th position among the 70 dermatological journals indexed in the Journal of Citations Reports, in 2022. In this article, the authors present a critical analysis of its trajectory in the last decade and compare its main bibliometric indices with Brazilian medical and international dermatological journals. The journal showed consistent growth in different bibliometric indices, which indicates a successful editorial policy and greater visibility in the international scientific community, attracting foreign authors. The increases in citations received (4.1 ×) and in the Article Influence Score (2.9×) were more prominent than those of the main Brazilian medical and international dermatological journals. The success of Anais Brasileiros de Dermatologia in the international scientific scenario depends on an assertive editorial policy, on promptly publication of high-quality articles, and on institutional stimulus to encourage clinical research in dermatology.

Journal metrics of the top-ranked Orthopaedic, Medical, and Surgical journals - A cross-sectional, comparative study.

PURPOSE: In academic publishing, research metrics play a crucial role in assessing the scientific impact and performance of the published literature, as well as of the journals in which they are published. Several journal-level metrics (JLM) such as the h-index of the analysed journals, total citations, total documents, citable documents, references and external citations per document are considered crucial indicators of the importance and reputation of the journals. We hypothesize that journals in the field of Medicine receive more citations than those in Surgical journals like Orthopaedic surgery, and hence have better JLM. This study aims to to assess and compare the JLM of Medical and Surgical journals between two time zones 2017-2019 vs. 2020-2022, i.e., pre and post-COVID-19 pandemic period. METHODS: A cross-sectional bibliometric analysis of the top-ranked Orthopaedic, Medical, and Surgical journals was undertaken based on traditional JLM, using the SCImago database from 2017 to 2022. Our analysis focused on identifying trends in the h-index of the analysed journals, total citations, total documents, citable documents, references and external citations per document. RESULTS: Overall Medical journals were found to have higher JLM than the Surgical and Orthopaedic journals. The h-index of Surgical journals, Medical journals and Orthopaedic journals were comparable between the two periods (pre and -post-COVID-19 pandemic); Total Cites (3 years), total documents (2017), total documents (3 years), total references, and citable documents (3 years) of Surgical journals, Medical journals and Orthopaedic journals were significantly higher in the period 2020-2022. CONCLUSION: There has been a steady increase in the number of publications from post COVID-19 period. Medical journals have higher JLM than Surgical and Orthopaedic journals. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (Am), Annals of Surgery and Diabetes Care were the most published journals in Orthopaedics, General Surgery and Medicine-related topics respectively.

Scientific Publication Performance of the Erector Spinae Plane Block in Türkiye: A Bibliometric Analysis.

Objective: Erector spina plane block (ESPB) was first described in 2016 and is effective in various surgical procedures. Bibliometric analysis is a novel method that evaluates the contribution of scientific studies conducted in a specific field on the existing literature. This study examined articles on ESPB published by anaesthesia clinics in Türkiye in journals under the Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-E) category. Methods: Studies on ESPB indexed in the Web of Science Core Collection and published in Türkiye from 2018 to 2022 were evaluated. The primary outcome was to determine the number of studies published in journals under the SCI-E category. The secondary aims were to determine the number of citations and the institutions where the studies were conducted. Results: A total of 159 publications were analyzed. The journal with the highest number of publications was "Journal of Clinical Anesthesia" (n = 70). The institution that has to date made the most contributions to the literature was Atatürk University (n = 31). The most cited article was "Ultrasound guided erector spinae plane block reduces postoperative opioid consumption following breast surgery: A randomized controlled study." published by Gürkan et al. (n = 175). Conclusion: This study reflects the contribution level of Türkiye-addressed anaesthesia clinics to journals under the SCI-E category. Our findings can serve as a benchmark for attracting the attention of national and international researchers.

Principales aspectos de la producción científica y editorial de MEDISAN en el quinquenio 2017-2021 / Main aspects of MEDISAN's scientific and editorial production in the five- year period 2017-2021 i:en

Introducción: En el mundo académico, la publicación científica se ha convertido en un problema constante, tanto en sus elementos cuantitativos como en los cualitativos. Objetivo: Caracterizar el nivel de publicación de MEDISAN según algunos aspectos de su producción científica y editorial. Métodos: Se realizó una investigación observacional, descriptiva y transversal, del tipo bibliométrico, de la producción científica en la revista MEDISAN de Santiago de Cuba durante el quinquenio 2017-2021. La población de estudio quedó conformada por todos los artículos científicos publicados en ese periodo según los registros de las bases de datos SciELO Citation Index y Google Académico, así como los de la propia revista en la plataforma Open Journal Systems. Resultados: Durante el periodo analizado se publicaron 38 números, que incluyeron 679 artículos y 2367 autores. Se destacaron el año 2017 con mayor cantidad de publicaciones (31,8 %) y el año 2019 con una menor cifra (14,3 %). Los autores cubanos presentaron una contribución superior (629 artículos), sobre todo los de la provincia de Santiago de Cuba, donde sobresalieron los profesionales de la Universidad de Ciencias Médicas, con 50,1 % de toda la producción. El índice h5 reveló una tendencia al aumento de las citas que recibió la revista, dado que en el año 2021 su resultado fue 23 y en el 2022 se incrementó a 27. Conclusiones: El análisis de la producción científica y editorial reveló las fortalezas y debilidades de la revista, lo que permite trazar políticas para aumentar su calidad y, con ello, su visibilidad en bases de datos.

Introduction: In the academic world, scientific publication has become a constant problem, both in its quantitative and qualitative elements. Objective: To characterize MEDISAN's publication rate according to some aspects of its scientific and editorial production. Methods: An observational, descriptive and transversal research, of bibliometric type, was carried out on the scientific production of MEDISAN journal from Santiago de Cuba during the five-year period 2017-2021. The study population was made up of all scientific articles published in that period according to the records of SciELO Citation Index and Google Scholar databases, as well as those of the journal itself on the Open Journal Systems. Results: During the analyzed period, 38 issues were published, which included 679 articles and 2,367 authors. The year 2017 stood out with the highest number of publications (31.8%) and the year 2019 with a lower number (14.3%). Cuban authors had the greatest contribution (629 articles), especially those from Santiago de Cuba province, where professionals from University of Medical Sciences stood out, with 50.1% of all production. The h5 index revealed a trend of increasing citations received by the journal, since in 2021 it was 23 and in 2022 it increased to 27. Conclusions: The analysis of scientific and editorial production revealed the strengths and weaknesses of the journal, which makes it possible to draw up policies to increase its quality and, with it, its visibility in databases.

Effectiveness of Journal Club Presentation as a Learning Modality in the Endocrinology and Endocrine Surgery Module in an Integrative Undergraduate Medical Curriculum.

Introduction: The journal club is widely used in most postgraduate programs of medical institutes; however, the use of journal clubs in undergraduate medical programs is nearly absent or very rare. Aim: The aim of this work is to document the insertion of the journal club as a method for learning in the undergraduate starting with the endocrinology/endocrine surgery module to be fully implemented in all modules of the MBBS of FMBU. In addition, the study aimed to outline the steps of designing a journal club by following specific procedures and Identification of students' and faculty satisfaction through 5-years implementation of the journal club. Material and Methods: A total of 453 students representing the five consecutive batches of medical students from 2019 to 2023 who studied the endocrinology/endocrine surgery module were entered into the study. Following guidelines for implementation of the journal clubs that were adopted by the quality and accreditation committee, the faculty select the types of papers from the articles chosen by students. The papers discussed were case reports, original research, and review articles. The students were asked to formulate critical appraisal topics, PICO, for each paper. A 20-question test was applied to all participants. The students' attendance, scores, and students/faculty satisfaction were estimated. Results: A total of 50 papers were discussed in the 5-year journal club 15 case reports (30%), 26 original research (52%), and 9 review articles (18%). The student's attendance ranged from 72.53±3.74 to 98.07±3.15. The students and faculty's satisfaction were 3.52 and 3.82 respectively. The mean Students' score in A 20-question test in a 5-year journal club was 76.93 ± 9.78 and the lowest score was in the 2nd batch (online batch). Conclusion: The insertion of a well-structured journal club in the undergraduate medical program is necessary to improve the knowledge including knowledge among students. In addition, journal clubs inspire students to be lifelong learners.

The Readability and Quality of Web-Based Patient Information on Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma: Quantitative Content Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) is a rare disease that is strongly associated with exposure to the Epstein-Barr virus and is characterized by the formation of malignant cells in nasopharynx tissues. Early diagnosis of NPC is often difficult owing to the location of initial tumor sites and the nonspecificity of initial symptoms, resulting in a higher frequency of advanced-stage diagnoses and a poorer prognosis. Access to high-quality, readable information could improve the early detection of the disease and provide support to patients during disease management. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to assess the quality and readability of publicly available web-based information in the English language about NPC, using the most popular search engines. METHODS: Key terms relevant to NPC were searched across 3 of the most popular internet search engines: Google, Yahoo, and Bing. The top 25 results from each search engine were included in the analysis. Websites that contained text written in languages other than English, required paywall access, targeted medical professionals, or included nontext content were excluded. Readability for each website was assessed using the Flesch Reading Ease score and the Flesch-Kincaid grade level. Website quality was assessed using the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) and DISCERN tools as well as the presence of a Health on the Net Foundation seal. RESULTS: Overall, 57 suitable websites were included in this study; 26% (15/57) of the websites were academic. The mean JAMA and DISCERN scores of all websites were 2.80 (IQR 3) and 57.60 (IQR 19), respectively, with a median of 3 (IQR 2-4) and 61 (IQR 49-68), respectively. Health care industry websites (n=3) had the highest mean JAMA score of 4 (SD 0). Academic websites (15/57, 26%) had the highest mean DISCERN score of 77.5. The Health on the Net Foundation seal was present on only 1 website, which also achieved a JAMA score of 3 and a DISCERN score of 50. Significant differences were observed between the JAMA score of hospital websites and the scores of industry websites (P=.04), news service websites (P<.048), charity and nongovernmental organization websites (P=.03). Despite being a vital source for patients, general practitioner websites were found to have significantly lower JAMA scores compared with charity websites (P=.05). The overall mean readability scores reflected an average reading age of 14.3 (SD 1.1) years. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study suggest an inconsistent and suboptimal quality of information related to NPC on the internet. On average, websites presented readability challenges, as written information about NPC was above the recommended reading level of sixth grade. As such, web-based information requires improvement in both quality and accessibility, and healthcare providers should be selective about information recommended to patients, ensuring they are reliable and readable.