ChatGPT and Corporations of Mega-journals Jeopardize the Norms That Underpin Academic Publishing.

Those who participate in and contribute to academic publishing are affected by its evolution. Funding bodies, academic institutions, researchers and peer-reviewers, junior scholars, freelance language editors, language-editing services, and journal editors are to enforce and uphold the ethical norms on which academic publishing is founded. Deviating from such norms will challenge and threaten the scholarly reputation, academic careers, and institutional standing; reduce the publishers' true impacts; squander public funding; and erode the public trust to the academic enterprise. Rigorous review is paramount because peer-review norms guarantee that scientific findings are scrutinized before being publicized. Volunteer peer-reviewers and guest journal editors devote an immense amount of unremunerated time to reviewing papers, voluntarily serving the scientific community, and benefiting the publishers. Some mega-journals are motivated to mass-produce publications and attract the funded projects instead of maintaining the scientific rigor. The rapid development of mega-journals may diminish some traditional journals by outcompeting their impacts. Artificial intelligence (AI) tools/algorithms such as ChatGPT may be misused to contribute to the mass-production of publications which may have not been rigorously revised or peer-reviewed. Maintaining norms that guarantee scientific rigor and academic integrity enable the academic community to overcome the new challenges such as mega-journals and AI tools.

Gates foundation places bold bet on preprints.

Funder to mandate preprints and no longer pay open-access publishing fees for grantees.

Investigating academic nurse researchers' knowledge, experience, and attitude toward predatory journals.

BACKGROUND: Selecting a journal with an appropriate scope and breadth, well-respected by other scholars in the field, and widely indexed and accessible to readers is an integral part of publishing. Academic publishing has recently seen a significant shift away from traditional print publications and toward open access journals and online publications. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate academic nurse researchers' knowledge, experience, and attitudes regarding predatory journals. METHODS: A descriptive cross-sectional quantitative study design was conducted using Predatory Journals Questionnaire to collect the data from academic nurse educators working at X and XX University. RESULTS: Almost two-thirds (68.6 %) of participants had previous knowledge of the term "predatory journal." As well as, the majority of academic educators had previous experience as they had used predatory journals before, as by being asked to publish in their journal (84.3 %) or serve on its editorial board (24.3 %), participants were more likely to receive requests to submit an article to a predatory journal (52.9 %) via email, mail, or phone. In addition, academic nurse researchers had a moderate perspective (mean = 3.87 ± 1.06; mean % score = 71.71) toward predatory journals. CONCLUSION: Publishing in a predatory journal, whether done knowingly or unknowingly, can harm authors' reputations as academics, their capacity to submit to other journals, and the quality of their work. According to the results of our study, many researchers still lacked a thorough understanding of the predatory journal publishing model, which is a phenomenon that demands an increasing amount of research, despite hearing about the phenomenon of a predatory journal and having previously attended training.

Major mistakes in scientific medical writing based on manuscripts' reviews.

INTRODUCTION: Peer review is a crucial process in ensuring the quality and accuracy of scientific research. It allows experts in the field to assess manuscripts submitted for publication and provide feedback to authors to improve their work. AIM: To describe mistakes encountered while peer reviewing scientific manuscripts submitted to "La Tunisie Médicale" journal. METHOD: This was a bibliometric study of research manuscripts submitted to "La Tunisie Médicale" and reviewed during 2022. The data collected included the type of the manuscripts and the number of reviews conducted per manuscript. The study also identified variables related to writing mistakes encountered during the peer review process. RESULTS: A total of 155 manuscripts (68% original articles) were peer reviewed and 245 reviews were delivered, by two reviewers. Out of 62 mistakes detected, 21% concerned the results section. In 60% of the manuscripts, the keywords used were not MeSH (Medical Subject Headings) terms. The introduction lacked in-text citations in 30% of the reviewed manuscripts, while the method section did not have a clear study framework (27%). The two major mistakes detected in the results section were the misuse of abbreviations in tables/figures, and the non-respect of the scientific nomenclature of tables/figures with respectively 39% and 19% of manuscripts. CONCLUSION: This study identified 62 mistakes while reviewing scientific manuscripts submitted to "La Tunisie Médicale" journal. Scholars can benefit from participation in scientific writing seminars and the use of a safety checklist for scientific medical writing to avoid basic mistakes.

Writing for publication: Argument and evidence.

The rules for writing a research report are well defined but novice writers need more clarification on writing scholarly scientific papers for publication. The purpose of this paper is to enable novice writers to confidently apply the skills of scientific writing to the development of a scholarly paper for publication. We highlight the importance of having a clearly defined question or clarity in focus before moving on to consider the components of a scholarly paper including, the question, thesis, introduction, body, discussion, conclusion and finally, an abstract.

The impact of aerobics on mental health and stress levels: A visualization analysis of the CiteSpace map.

This study aims to integrate research in the field of aerobics and mental health through the visualization analysis method of the CiteSpace map, to clarify the impact of aerobics on mental health and stress levels. Firstly, based on the literature method, pieces of literature related to aerobics and mental health are searched and collected. Secondly, the visualization analysis method of the CiteSpace map is employed to summarize and analyze the contents of the literature, involving statistical analysis of the annual number of publications, analysis of author characteristics, and analysis of publishing institution characteristics. In addition, keyword co-occurrence analysis and keyword cluster analysis are also conducted in related research fields. Among them, the Log-Likelihood Ratio is used in keyword cluster analysis. Finally, the results are analyzed using the visualization analysis method of the CiteSpace map and the statistics-based comprehensive results. The results demonstrate that in the recent 20 years, the average annual number of articles in related fields exceeds 190. The high-yield authors are distributed in economically developed areas, and the cooperation among authors is scattered. In the keyword clustering results, a total of 77 cluster labels are obtained. The Q value of the clustering module is 0.89, and the average clustering profile silhouette (S) value is 0.92, indicating that the clustering structure is significant and the results are reasonable. The aerobics cluster contains the most closely related keywords, covering mental health and stress levels. Data analysis based on existing studies reveals that aerobics has a significant impact on mental health and stress levels. Individuals participating in aerobics show obvious improvement in mental health inventory (MHI) scores (t(100) = 4.32, p<0.05). Individuals participating in aerobics present a remarkable reduction in the questionnaire evaluation of stress levels (t(100) = -3.91, p<0.05). This study's results support aerobics' positive effects on mental health and stress levels.

[The p-value of the test is not a 'mathematical index', it is simply a relative frequency]. / El valor de p del test no es un 'índice matemático', es simplemente una frecuencia relativa.

Leading scientific journals in fields such as medicine, biology and sociology repeatedly publish articles and editorials claiming that a large percentage of doctors do not understand the basics of statistical analysis, which increases the risk of errors in interpreting data, makes them more vulnerable to misinformation and reduces the effectiveness of research. This problem extends throughout their careers and is largely due to the poor training they receive in statistics - a problem that is common in developed countries. As stated by H. Halle and S. Krauss, '90% of German university lecturers who regularly use the p-value in tests do not understand what that value actually measures'. It is important to note that the basic reasoning of statistical analysis is similar to what we do in our daily lives and that understanding the basic concepts of statistical analysis does not require any knowledge of mathematics. Contrary to what many researchers believe, the p-value of the test is not a 'mathematical index' that allows us to clearly conclude whether, for example, a drug is more effective than a placebo. The p-value of the test is simply a percentage.

TITLE: El valor de p del test no es un 'índice matemático', es simplemente una frecuencia relativa.Las revistas científicas más importantes en campos como medicina, biología y sociología publican reiteradamente artículos y editoriales denunciando que un gran porcentaje de médicos no entiende los conceptos básicos del análisis estadístico, lo que favorece el riesgo de cometer errores al interpretar los datos, los hace más vulnerables frente a informaciones falsas y reduce la eficacia de la investigación. Este problema se extiende a lo largo de toda su carrera profesional y se debe, en gran parte, a una enseñanza deficiente en estadística que es común en países desarrollados. En palabras de H. Halle y S. Krauss, 'el 90% de los profesores universitarios alemanes que usan con asiduidad el valor de p de los test no entiende lo que mide ese valor'. Es importante destacar que los razonamientos básicos del análisis estadístico son similares a los que realizamos en nuestra vida cotidiana y que comprender los conceptos básicos del análisis estadístico no requiere conocimiento matemático alguno. En contra de lo que muchos investigadores creen, el valor de p del test no es un 'índice matemático' que nos permita concluir claramente si, por ejemplo, un fármaco es más efectivo que el placebo. El valor de p del test es simplemente un porcentaje.

Academic publishing requires linguistically inclusive policies.

Scientific knowledge is produced in multiple languages but is predominantly published in English. This practice creates a language barrier to generate and transfer scientific knowledge between communities with diverse linguistic backgrounds, hindering the ability of scholars and communities to address global challenges and achieve diversity and equity in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM). To overcome those barriers, publishers and journals should provide a fair system that supports non-native English speakers and disseminates knowledge across the globe. We surveyed policies of 736 journals in biological sciences to assess their linguistic inclusivity, identify predictors of inclusivity, and propose actions to overcome language barriers in academic publishing. Our assessment revealed a grim landscape where most journals were making minimal efforts to overcome language barriers. The impact factor of journals was negatively associated with adopting a number of inclusive policies whereas ownership by a scientific society tended to have a positive association. Contrary to our expectations, the proportion of both open access articles and editors based in non-English speaking countries did not have a major positive association with the adoption of linguistically inclusive policies. We proposed a set of actions to overcome language barriers in academic publishing, including the renegotiation of power dynamics between publishers and editorial boards.

David versus Goliath: Early career researchers in an unethical publishing system.

The publish-or-perish culture in academia has catalysed the development of an unethical publishing system. This system is characterised by the proliferation of journals and publishers-unaffiliated with learned societies or universities-that maintain extremely large revenues and profit margins diverting funds away from the academic community. Early career researchers (ECRs) are particularly vulnerable to the consequences of this publishing system because of intersecting factors, including pressure to pursue high impact publications, rising publication costs and job insecurity. Moving towards a more ethical system requires that scientists advocate for structural change by making career choices that come with risks, many of which disproportionately impact ECRs. We illuminate major issues facing ECRs in Ecology and Evolution under the current publishing system, and propose a portfolio of actions to promote systemic change that can be implemented by ECRs and established researchers.