Current Status of ChatGPT Use in Medical Education: Potentials, Challenges, and Strategies.

ChatGPT, a generative pretrained transformer, has garnered global attention and sparked discussions since its introduction on November 30, 2022. However, it has generated controversy within the realms of medical education and scientific research. This paper examines the potential applications, limitations, and strategies for using ChatGPT. ChatGPT offers personalized learning support to medical students through its robust natural language generation capabilities, enabling it to furnish answers. Moreover, it has demonstrated significant use in simulating clinical scenarios, facilitating teaching and learning processes, and revitalizing medical education. Nonetheless, numerous challenges accompany these advancements. In the context of education, it is of paramount importance to prevent excessive reliance on ChatGPT and combat academic plagiarism. Likewise, in the field of medicine, it is vital to guarantee the timeliness, accuracy, and reliability of content generated by ChatGPT. Concurrently, ethical challenges and concerns regarding information security arise. In light of these challenges, this paper proposes targeted strategies for addressing them. First, the risk of overreliance on ChatGPT and academic plagiarism must be mitigated through ideological education, fostering comprehensive competencies, and implementing diverse evaluation criteria. The integration of contemporary pedagogical methodologies in conjunction with the use of ChatGPT serves to enhance the overall quality of medical education. To enhance the professionalism and reliability of the generated content, it is recommended to implement measures to optimize ChatGPT's training data professionally and enhance the transparency of the generation process. This ensures that the generated content is aligned with the most recent standards of medical practice. Moreover, the enhancement of value alignment and the establishment of pertinent legislation or codes of practice address ethical concerns, including those pertaining to algorithmic discrimination, the allocation of medical responsibility, privacy, and security. In conclusion, while ChatGPT presents significant potential in medical education, it also encounters various challenges. Through comprehensive research and the implementation of suitable strategies, it is anticipated that ChatGPT's positive impact on medical education will be harnessed, laying the groundwork for advancing the discipline and fostering the development of high-caliber medical professionals.

Publication Ethics in the Era of Artificial Intelligence.

The application of new technologies, such as artificial intelligence (AI), to science affects the way and methodology in which research is conducted. While the responsible use of AI brings many innovations and benefits to science and humanity, its unethical use poses a serious threat to scientific integrity and literature. Even in the absence of malicious use, the Chatbot output itself, as a software application based on AI, carries the risk of containing biases, distortions, irrelevancies, misrepresentations and plagiarism. Therefore, the use of complex AI algorithms raises concerns about bias, transparency and accountability, requiring the development of new ethical rules to protect scientific integrity. Unfortunately, the development and writing of ethical codes cannot keep up with the pace of development and implementation of technology. The main purpose of this narrative review is to inform readers, authors, reviewers and editors about new approaches to publication ethics in the era of AI. It specifically focuses on tips on how to disclose the use of AI in your manuscript, how to avoid publishing entirely AI-generated text, and current standards for retraction.

An examination of retracted articles in nursing literature.

INTRODUCTION: The output of scholarly publications in scientific literature has increased exponentially in recent years. This increase in literature has been accompanied by an increase in retractions. Although some of these may be attributed to publishing errors, many are the result of unsavory research practices. The purposes of this study were to identify the number of retracted articles in nursing and reasons for the retractions, analyze the retraction notices, and determine the length of time for an article in nursing to be retracted. DESIGN: This was an exploratory study. METHODS: A search of PubMed/MEDLINE, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and Retraction Watch databases was conducted to identify retracted articles in nursing and their retraction notices. RESULTS: Between 1997 and 2022, 123 articles published in the nursing literature were retracted. Ten different reasons for retraction were used to categorize these articles with one-third of the retractions (n = 37, 30.1%) not specifying a reason. Sixty-eight percent (n = 77) were retracted because of an actual or a potential ethical concern: duplicate publication, data issues, plagiarism, authorship issues, and copyright. CONCLUSION: Nurses rely on nursing-specific scholarly literature as evidence for clinical decisions. The findings demonstrated that retractions are increasing within published nursing literature. In addition, it was evident that retraction notices do not prevent previously published work from being cited. This study addressed a gap in knowledge about article retractions specific to nursing.

Ambiguity in Ethical Standards: Global Versus Local Science in Explaining Academic Plagiarism.

The past decade has seen extensive research carried out on the systematic causes of research misconduct. Simultaneously, less attention has been paid to the variation in academic misconduct between research fields, as most empirical studies focus on one particular discipline. We propose that academic discipline is one of several systematic factors that might contribute to academic misbehavior. Drawing on a neo-institutional approach, we argue that in the developing countries, the norm of textual originality has not drawn equal support across different research fields depending on its level of internationalization. Using plagiarism detection software, we analyzed 2,405 doctoral dissertations randomly selected from all dissertations defended in Russia between 2007 and 2015. We measured the globalization of each academic discipline by calculating the share of publications indexed in the global citation database in relation to overall output. Our results showed that, with an average share of detected borrowings of over 19%, the incidence of plagiarism in Russia is remarkably higher than in Western countries. Overall, disciplines closely follow the pattern of higher globalization associated with a lower percentage of borrowed text. We also found that plagiarism is less prevalent at research-oriented institutions supporting global ethical standards. Our findings suggest that it might be misleading to measure the prevalence of academic misconduct in developing countries without paying attention to variations at the disciplinary level.

Retracted publications in autism research are mostly concerned with ethical misconduct.

BACKGROUND: As the prevalence of autism appears to increase, more research to guide effective diagnosis and intervention practices is needed. Findings disseminated through peer-reviewed publications are critical, but the number of retractions continues to rise. An understanding of retracted publications is imperative to ensure the body of evidence is corrected and current. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this analysis were to summarize key characteristics of retracted publications in autism research, examine the length of time between publication and retraction, and assess the extent journals are adhering to publishing ethical guidelines for reporting retracted articles. METHODS: We searched five databases through 2021 (PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, and Retraction Watch). RESULTS: A total of 25 retracted articles were included in the analysis. Ethical misconduct accounted for the majority of retractions rather than scientific error. The shortest time to retraction was 2 months and the longest length was 144 months. DISCUSSION: The time lag between publication and retraction since 2018 has improved considerably. Nineteen of the articles had retraction notices (76%), whereas six articles did not have a notice (24%). CONCLUSION: These findings summarize errors of previous retractions and illuminate opportunities for researchers, journal publishers and librarians to learn from retracted publications.

New training, new attitudes: non-clinical components in Ukrainian medical PHDs training (regarding critical thinking, academic integrity and artificial intelligence use).

OBJECTIVE: Aim: The paper studies the attitude to critical thinking, academic integrity and the Artificial Intelligence use of the Ukrainian medical PhD students. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Materials and Methods: In 2023, 56 medical PhD students from the Bogomolets National Medical University, Kyiv, Ukraine, underwent the survey. The participation was voluntary, upon the oral consent. The data included in the survey questions include various aspects related to critical thinking, analysis skills, and attitudes towards plagiarism. RESULTS: Results: A significant majority of the medical PhD students (75%) place high importance on critical thinking. While a majority (89.29%) apply analysis and critical thinking skills in their English studies, there's a notable percentage (7.14%) that is uncertain. Although most are aware of the unacceptability of cheating and plagiarism (75%), a small proportion admit to having plagiarized (12.5%). Only 30.4% of the respondents reported using GPT Chat for study. Responses to witnessing peers plagiarize or using Artificial Intelligence show a varied attitude, with many expressing unwillingness to report such incidents (30.36%). CONCLUSION: Conclusions: The survey highlights the recognized importance of critical thinking in academic study among medical PhD students, while also points to areas where attitudes and practices regarding these skills could be improved. The study shows a vast area for improvement regarding academic integrity, as almost one-third of respondents need more defined standards. This definitely puts some questions before the present medical postgraduate education, and requires change of the educational paradigm, clear rules of academic conduct, and a system of control.

Plagiarism and Authorship Credit.

Literature being an expression of an author, its commodification historically has assigned a value to it primarily in terms of authorship credit. Arguably reproducing published content without attributing the requisite source, termed as plagiarism is ethically discrediting to this premise. However, simply weighing its proportion based on digitally assigned semantic similarity may not be completely justifiable in the present-day digital atmosphere. It should be noted that while technology can facilitate plagiarism detection, digitization by way of providing greater access to published content is also the facilitator of plagiarism. While the scientific community is often severe in its approach toward the act of plagiarism, there is still a lack of clarity around the code of conduct of the same as there are several grey areas related to such a misconduct on which the law remains silent. By revisiting the historical evolution of the credit of authorship and the copyright law this piece presents an analytical vista pertaining to plagiarism in a different light. By identifying the gaps in the present-day handling of these age-old concepts, one may find that there is an unmet need to revisit the legal aspects of handling cases of plagiarism taking into consideration the digital environment.

Publication retraction in spine surgery: a systematic review.

PURPOSE: The number of articles retracted by peer-reviewed journals has increased in recent years. This study systematically reviews retracted publications in the spine surgery literature. METHODS: A search of PubMed MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, Retraction Watch, and the independent websites of 15 spine surgery-related journals from inception to September of 2022 was performed without language restrictions. PRISMA guidelines were followed with title/abstract screening, and full-text screening was conducted independently and in duplicate by two reviewers. Study characteristics and bibliometric information for each publication was extracted. RESULTS: Of 250 studies collected from the search, 65 met the inclusion criteria. The most common reason for retraction was data error (n = 15, 21.13%), followed by plagiarism (n = 14, 19.72%) and submission to another journal (n = 14, 19.72%). Most studies pertained to degenerative pathologies of the spine (n = 32, 80.00%). Most articles had no indication of retraction in their manuscript (n = 24, 36.92%), while others had a watermark or notice at the beginning of the article. The median number of citations per retracted publication was 10.0 (IQR 3-29), and the median 4-year impact factor of the journals was 5.05 (IQR 3.20-6.50). On multivariable linear regression, the difference in years from publication to retraction (p = 0.0343, ß = 6.56, 95% CI 0.50-12.62) and the journal 4-year impact factor (p = 0.0029, ß = 7.47, 95% CI 2.66-12.28) were positively associated with the total number of citations per retracted publication. Most articles originated from China (n = 30, 46.15%) followed by the United States (n = 12, 18.46%) and Germany (n = 3, 4.62%). The most common study design was retrospective cohort studies (n = 14, 21.54%). CONCLUSIONS: The retraction of publications has increased in recent years in spine surgery. Researchers consulting this body of literature should remain vigilant. Institutions and journals should collaborate to increase publication transparency and scientific integrity.

Women Are Underrepresented Among Authors of Retracted Publications: Retrospective Study of 134 Medical Journals.

We examined the gender distribution of authors of retracted articles in 134 medical journals across 10 disciplines, compared it with the gender distribution of authors of all published articles, and found that women were underrepresented among authors of retracted articles, and, in particular, of articles retracted for misconduct.

Strategies to Mitigate Against Least-Publishable Units in Medical and Scientific Research Publications.

Least-publishable units, aka minimal publishable units, smallest publishable units, fractions of scholarly effort, and "salami slicing" divide a single research publication into a number of papers with small amounts of information in each paper. This results in quantity rather than quality; is ethically inappropriate; creates extra work for readers, future authors, reviewers, and editors; and can result in redundancy, self-plagiarism, publication overlap, and duplicate reporting of patient data that can result in inaccurate conclusions in systematic reviews. Increased awareness and actionable intervention can help to reverse this growing trend.

The Acceptable Text Similarity Level in Manuscripts Submitted to Scientific Journals.

Plagiarism is among commonly identified scientific misconducts in submitted manuscripts. Some journals routinely check the level of text similarity in the submitted manuscripts at the time of submission and reject the submission on the fly if the text similarity score exceeds a set cut-off value (e.g., 20%). Herein, I present a manuscript with 32% text similarity, yet without any instances of text plagiarism. This underlines the fact that text similarity is not necessarily tantamount to text plagiarism. Every instance of text similarity should be examined with scrutiny by a trained person in the editorial office. A high text similarity score does not always imply plagiarism; a low score, on the other hand, does not guarantee absence of plagiarism. There is no cut-off for text similarity to imply text plagiarism.

The Cultural Context of Plagiarism and Research Misconduct in the Asian Region.

Plagiarism is one of the most frequent forms of research misconduct in South and East Asian countries. This narrative review examines the factors contributing to research misconduct, emphasizing plagiarism, particularly in South, East and Southeast Asian countries. We conducted a PubMed and Scopus search using the terms plagiarism, Asia, South Asia, East Asia, Southeast Asia, research misconduct and retractions in January of 2022. Articles with missing abstracts, incomplete information about plagiarism, publication dates before 2010, and those unrelated to South, East, and Southeast Asian countries were excluded. The retraction watch database was searched for articles retracted between 9th January 2020 to 9th January 2022. A total of 159 articles were identified, of which 21 were included in the study using the database search criteria mentioned above. The review of articles identified a lack of training in scientific writing and research ethics, publication pressure, permissive attitudes, and inadequate regulatory measures as the primary reasons behind research misconduct in scientific publications. Plagiarism remains a common cause of unethical publications and retractions in regions of Asia (namely South, East and Southeast). Researchers lack training in scientific writing, and substantial gaps exist in understanding various forms of plagiarism, which heavily contribute to the problem. There is an urgent need to foster high research ethics standards and adhere to journal policies. Providing appropriate training in scientific writing among researchers may help improve the knowledge of different types of plagiarism and promote the use of antiplagiarism software, leading to a substantial reduction in the problem.

Analysis of Retracted Publications in Medical Literature Due to Ethical Violations.

BACKGROUND: Retraction is an essential procedure for correcting scientific literature and informing readers about articles containing significant errors or omissions. Ethical violations are one of the significant triggers of the retraction process. The objective of this study was to evaluate the characteristics of retracted articles in the medical literature due to ethical violations. METHODS: The Retraction Watch Database was utilized for this descriptive study. The 'ethical violations' and 'medicine' options were chosen. The date range was 2010 to 2023. The collected data included the number of authors, the date of publication and retraction, the journal of publication, the indexing status of the journal, the country of the corresponding author, the subject area of the article, and the particular retraction reasons. RESULTS: A total of 177 articles were analyzed. The most retractions were detected in 2019 (n = 29) and 2012 (n = 28). The median time period between the articles' first publication date and the date of retraction was 647 (0-4,295) days. The leading countries were China (n = 47), USA (n = 25), South Korea (n = 23), Iran (n = 14), and India (n = 12). The main causes of retraction were ethical approval issues (n = 65), data-related concerns (n = 51), informed consent issues (n = 45), and fake-biased peer review (n = 30). CONCLUSION: Unethical behavior is one of the most significant obstacles to scientific advancement. Obtaining appropriate ethics committee approvals and informed consent forms is crucial in ensuring the ethical conduct of medical research. It is the responsibility of journal editors to ensure that raw data is controlled and peer review processes are conducted effectively. It is essential to educate young researchers on unethical practices and the negative outcomes that may result from them.

Plagiarism: A Bird's Eye View.

Plagiarism is among the prevalent misconducts reported in scientific writing and common causes of article retraction in scholarly journals. Plagiarism of idea is not acceptable by any means. However, plagiarism of text is a matter of debate from culture to culture. Herein, I wish to reflect on a bird's eye view of plagiarism, particularly plagiarism of text, in scientific writing. Text similarity score as a signal of text plagiarism is not an appropriate index and an expert should examine the similarity with enough scrutiny. Text recycling in certain instances might be acceptable in scientific writing provided that the authors could correctly construe the text piece they borrowed. With introduction of artificial intelligence-based units, which help authors to write their manuscripts, the incidence of text plagiarism might increase. However, after a while, when a universal artificial unit takes over, no one will need to worry about text plagiarism as the incentive to commit plagiarism will be abolished, I believe.

Characteristics of Retracted Publications From Kazakhstan: An Analysis Using the Retraction Watch Database.

BACKGROUND: Retraction is a correction process for the scientific literature that acts as a barrier to the dissemination of articles that have serious faults or misleading data. The purpose of this study was to investigate the characteristics of retracted papers from Kazakhstan. METHODS: Utilizing data from Retraction Watch, this cross-sectional descriptive analysis documented all retracted papers from Kazakhstan without regard to publication dates. The following data were recorded: publication title, DOI number, number of authors, publication date, retraction date, source, publication type, subject category of publication, collaborating country, and retraction reason. Source index status, Scopus citation value, and Altmetric Attention Score were obtained. RESULTS: Following the search, a total of 92 retracted papers were discovered. One duplicate article was excluded, leaving 91 publications for analysis. Most articles were retracted in 2022 (n = 22) and 2018 (n = 19). Among the identified publications, 49 (53.9%) were research articles, 39 (42.9%) were conference papers, 2 (2.2%) were review articles, and 1 (1.1%) was a book chapter. Russia (n = 24) and China (n = 5) were the most collaborative countries in the retracted publications. Fake-biased peer review (n = 38), plagiarism (n = 25), and duplication (n = 14) were the leading causes of retraction. CONCLUSION: The vast majority of the publications were research articles and conference papers. Russia was the leading collaborative country. The most prominent retraction reasons were fake-biased peer review, plagiarism, and duplication. Efforts to raise researchers' understanding of the grounds for retraction and ethical research techniques are required in Kazakhstan.