Academic Citation Partnership: A Predatory Practice that Undermines Scholarly Integrity.

Recently, academic circles have raised concerns about academic citation partnerships. Many researchers receive emails offering these partnerships, often landing in their spam folders. In this paper, I refer to academic citation partnerships as unethical collaborative arrangements where researchers or authors agree to cite each other's work in their academic publications to enhance their academic profiles, often measured by metrics like the h-index. I discuss the characteristics of such partnerships, individuals, and groups who are commonly involved in academic citation partnerships, and clarify what is not considered an academic citation partnership. I argue that these partnerships are predatory and pose a serious threat to scholarly integrity. Such solicitations blur ethical boundaries by treating citations as commodities, similar to predatory journals and conferences. These partnerships compromise the authenticity of scholarly discourse, artificially inflate perceived impacts, and distort academic evaluations. They undermine the pursuit of knowledge for its intrinsic value and exacerbate inequalities in academia by favoring those who can manipulate citation metrics through resources or networks. Addressing this issue requires a commitment to vigilance and adherence to ethical citation standards, ensuring academic discourse that is intellectually honest and genuinely beneficial to academia.

How an IJES Working Group Grappled with the Complexities of Three Letters-DEI-With the Goal to Broaden Inclusion and Representation in Exercise Science Research.

A self-study of International Journal of Exercise Science (IJES) publications from 2008 through 2021 revealed a sex-data gap in participant and corresponding author representation. This finding prompted the creation of the IJES Working Group for Opportunity, Representation, and Diverse Perspectives. We are a collaborative team of authors, reviewers, and editors, spanning both rural and urban teaching- and research-focused institutions, who assembled regularly starting in September 2023. The goal was to contemplate potential challenges and opportunities around diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), elicit discourse, and broaden inclusion and representation in exercise science research. Our group identified six main challenges/opportunities: 1) Mixed Definitions and Applications of DEI Principles; 2) Competing Lifeviews and Worldviews; 3) Oversight and Enforcement of DEI Principles in IJES; 4) Oversight and Enforcement of DEI Principles in the Broader Field; 5) IJES is a Home for Developing Scholars; and 6) Lag Time for Creating Change in IJES. As a growing international journal, we depend on a diverse group of authors, reviewers, editors, and readers to achieve our mission. Accordingly, the Working Group encourages impactful, inclusive research that broadens representation within exercise science.

Paying reviewers and regulating the number of papers may help fix the peer-review process.

The exponential increase in the number of submissions, further accelerated by generative AI, and the decline in the availability of experts are burdening the peer review process. This has led to high unethical desk rejection rates, a growing appeal for the publication of unreviewed preprints, and a worrying proliferation of predatory journals. The idea of monetarily compensating peer reviewers has been around for many years; maybe, it is time to take it seriously as one way to save the peer review process. Here, I argue that paying reviewers, when done in a fair and transparent way, is a viable solution. Like the case of professional language editors, part-time or full-time professional reviewers, managed by universities or for-profit companies, can be an integral part of modern peer review. Being a professional reviewer could be financially attractive to retired senior researchers and to researchers who enjoy evaluating papers but are not motivated to do so for free. Moreover, not all produced research needs to go through peer review, and thus persuading researchers to limit submissions to their most novel and useful research could also help bring submission volumes to manageable levels. Overall, this paper reckons that the problem is not the peer review process per se but rather its function within an academic ecosystem dominated by an unhealthy culture of 'publish or perish'. Instead of reforming the peer review process, academia has to look for better science dissemination schemes that promote collaboration over competition, engagement over judgement, and research quality and sustainability over quantity.

Creating and validating a scholarly knowledge graph using natural language processing and microtask crowdsourcing.

Due to the growing number of scholarly publications, finding relevant articles becomes increasingly difficult. Scholarly knowledge graphs can be used to organize the scholarly knowledge presented within those publications and represent them in machine-readable formats. Natural language processing (NLP) provides scalable methods to automatically extract knowledge from articles and populate scholarly knowledge graphs. However, NLP extraction is generally not sufficiently accurate and, thus, fails to generate high granularity quality data. In this work, we present TinyGenius, a methodology to validate NLP-extracted scholarly knowledge statements using microtasks performed with crowdsourcing. TinyGenius is employed to populate a paper-centric knowledge graph, using five distinct NLP methods. We extend our previous work of the TinyGenius methodology in various ways. Specifically, we discuss the NLP tasks in more detail and include an explanation of the data model. Moreover, we present a user evaluation where participants validate the generated NLP statements. The results indicate that employing microtasks for statement validation is a promising approach despite the varying participant agreement for different microtasks.

Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices of Health Sciences Faculty Towards Scholarly Open Access and Predatory Publishing.

Health sciences librarians often lack knowledge of the motivations behind faculty publishing behavior. This study establishes some understanding of their choices through interviews with academic health sciences faculty members. Knowledge of the concepts of open access was lacking, as was the differences between open access and predatory publishing. Faculty had varied opinions on publication without robust peer review, its ethical implications, manuscript quality, and trust in scientific publishing. Evidence from this study suggests that librarians must take an active role in shaping the future of scholarly communication through education, advocacy, and a commitment to moving science forward equitably and ethically.

Identification of retracted publications and completeness of retraction notices in public health.

OBJECTIVES: Retraction is intended to be a mechanism to correct the published body of knowledge when necessary due to fraudulent, fatally flawed, or ethically unacceptable publications. However, the success of this mechanism requires that retracted publications be consistently identified as such and that retraction notices contain sufficient information to understand what is being retracted and why. Our study investigated how clearly and consistently retracted publications in public health are being presented to researchers. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: This is a cross-sectional study, using 441 retracted research publications in the field of public health. Records were retrieved for each of these publications from 11 resources, while retraction notices were retrieved from publisher websites and full-text aggregators. The identification of the retracted status of the publication was assessed using criteria from the Committee on Publication Ethics and the National Library of Medicine. The completeness of the associated retraction notices was assessed using criteria from Committee on Publication Ethics and Retraction Watch. RESULTS: Two thousand eight hundred forty-one records for retracted publications were retrieved, of which less than half indicated that the article had been retracted. Less than 5% of publications were identified as retracted through all resources through which they were available. Within single resources, if and how retracted publications were identified varied. Retraction notices were frequently incomplete, with no notices meeting all the criteria. CONCLUSIONS: The observed inconsistencies and incomplete notices pose a threat to the integrity of scientific publishing and highlight the need to better align with existing best practices to ensure more effective and transparent dissemination of information on retractions.

Association of Scholarly Impact to Industrial Contributions Among Academic Interventional Radiologists.

OBJECTIVE: The Physician Sunshine Act of 2010 aimed to increase public awareness of physician-industry relationships. Our objective was to evaluate whether there is an association between scholarly impact and industry funding among academic interventional radiologists. METHODS: A database from a prior study with our group was used in which we had investigated H-indices among US interventional radiologists; academic rank, gender, institution, and geographic location were obtained. The Scopus database was queried to determine all physicians' H-index. The CMS Open Payments database was used to determine industry payments from 2015 to 2021 for each interventional radiologist. RESULTS: H-index and professor rank positively and significantly correlated with industrial funding (H-index coefficient = $6,977, P < .001 and professor rank coefficient = $183,902, P = .003). Industry funding was found to be significantly different between all ranks. Among 830 academic interventional radiologists, the mean industrial funding of male physicians was $130,034, which was significantly higher than female physicians' $28,166 (P = .00013). By academic rank, male primary investigators of associate professor and unranked position had higher industrial funding than female primary investigators (Wilcoxon test, P = .029 and P= .039, respectively). Professor and assistant professor ranks had no significant difference in industrial funding between male and female physicians (Wilcoxon's test, P = .080 and P = .053, respectively). CONCLUSION: Scholarly activity as defined by the H-index and academic rank seem to have a positive association with industry funding of academic interventional radiologists.

Research Training and Scholarly Activity during General Pediatric Residency in Canada.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the characteristics of research training and scholarly activity during pediatrics residency in Canada and identify facilitators and barriers to resident scholarly activity. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a mixed-methods, cross-sectional survey of pediatrics residents in Canada from April to June 2023. Trainees and medical education experts developed the 55-item survey, pilot tested, and distributed electronically to residents in all 17 Canadian residency programs. Responses were complemented with program-level data from pediatrics residency program directors. RESULTS: Of 644 Canadian pediatrics residents, 230 (36%) responded. Resident respondents conducted various types of scholarly projects, including retrospective clinical study (22%), qualitative research (15%), quality improvement (13%), and medical education research (12%). Discordance between the field of career interests and primary scholarly projects was common. Among respondents, 20% had abstracts accepted at national or international conferences, and 12% had manuscripts submitted to peer-reviewed journals. Resident respondents' self-perceived progress in their scholarly projects were discrepant from their actual progress. Key themes related to barriers and facilitators to scholarly activity included protected time for research, mentorship, and research skills training. CONCLUSIONS: The research training and scholarly activity of pediatrics residents in Canada is variable. Establishing national standards, implementing progress monitoring mechanisms with tailored support, and offering flexible protected research time are important next steps.

A publishing infrastructure for Artificial Intelligence (AI)-assisted academic authoring.

OBJECTIVE: Investigate the use of advanced natural language processing models to streamline the time-consuming process of writing and revising scholarly manuscripts. MATERIALS AND METHODS: For this purpose, we integrate large language models into the Manubot publishing ecosystem to suggest revisions for scholarly texts. Our AI-based revision workflow employs a prompt generator that incorporates manuscript metadata into templates, generating section-specific instructions for the language model. The model then generates revised versions of each paragraph for human authors to review. We evaluated this methodology through 5 case studies of existing manuscripts, including the revision of this manuscript. RESULTS: Our results indicate that these models, despite some limitations, can grasp complex academic concepts and enhance text quality. All changes to the manuscript are tracked using a version control system, ensuring transparency in distinguishing between human- and machine-generated text. CONCLUSIONS: Given the significant time researchers invest in crafting prose, incorporating large language models into the scholarly writing process can significantly improve the type of knowledge work performed by academics. Our approach also enables scholars to concentrate on critical aspects of their work, such as the novelty of their ideas, while automating tedious tasks like adhering to specific writing styles. Although the use of AI-assisted tools in scientific authoring is controversial, our approach, which focuses on revising human-written text and provides change-tracking transparency, can mitigate concerns regarding AI's role in scientific writing.

What constitutes an obstructive ventilatory impairment in a pediatric population? A study design.

INTRODUCTION: There is no clear consensus as to what constitutes an obstructive ventilatory impairment (OVI) in pediatric populations. AIM: To determine the percentage of children/adolescents having an OVI among those addressed for spirometry after taking into account the definitions advanced by some international scholarly societies [British Columbia (BC), British thoracic-society (BTS), Canadian thoracic society (CTS), European respiratory society and American thoracic society (ERS-ATS), global initiative for asthma (GINA), Irish college of general practitioners (ICGP), national asthma council (NAC), national institute of clinical excellence (NICE), Société de pneumologie de langue française, Société pédiatrique de pneumologie et allergologie (SPLF-SP2A), and South African thoracic society (SATS)]. METHODS: This bi-centric cross-sectional study involves two medical structures in Sousse/Tunisia, and will encompass children/adolescents aged 6-18 years. A medical questionnaire will be administered, clinical and anthropometric data will be collected, and the spirometric data will be measured by two spirometers. The following six definitions of OVI will be applied: i) GINA: Forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) < 80% and a FEV1/forced vital capacity (FVC) ≤ 0.90; ii) ICGP: FEV1/FVC < 0.70; iii) ERS-ATS or BTS or SATS or SPLF-SP2A or NAC: FEV1/FVC z-score < -1.645; iv) NICE: FEV1/FVC < 0.70 or FEV1/FVC z-score < -1.645; v) CTS: FEV1/FVC < 0.80 or a FEV1/FVC z-score < -1.645; and vi) ERS: "FEV1 z-score or FEV1/FVC z-score" < -1.645 or "FEV1 or FEV1/FVC" < 0.80. EXPECTED RESULTS: The percentage of children/adolescents having an OVI will significantly vary between the six definitions. CONCLUSION: The frequency of OVI in a pediatric population will depend on the definition chosen.

Understanding the Barriers and Benefits to Scholarly Writing Among Internal Medicine Residents: A Pilot Study of an Innovative Education Method.

Background This study addresses the participation gap in scholarly activities among internal medicine residents. While the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education emphasizes the importance of these activities, the variability in their definition and support across residency programs presents a challenge. This study investigates these discrepancies and aims to identify the specific barriers and benefits residents perceive in scholarly writing, especially in case report writing, and to propose effective educational interventions. Methodology A voluntary online survey, pre- and post-educational intervention, was conducted among residents at Sparrow Hospital, Michigan State University. The intervention comprised a two-hour session focusing on case report writing, presentation skills, scientific literature searches, and research project engagement. Responses were obtained on a five-point Likert scale, and the data were analyzed as respective frequencies and percentages. Results Of 45 residents, 23 completed the pre-survey. With a response rate of 51% from the internal medicine residents, the post-intervention data revealed considerable improvement in the residents' understanding and appreciation of scholarly activities. There was a marked enhancement in their skills related to scientific literature search and in recognizing the benefits of scholarly engagement. Additionally, the intervention successfully increased their confidence in presenting scholarly work, networking, and identifying relevant venues for their research. Conclusions The study highlights the challenges residents face in scholarly activities, such as lack of training and mentorship. It suggests that focused workshops and mentorship can significantly enhance residents' research skills and confidence.

Doctoral graduates' attitudes toward scholarly work and Institutional Review Board and Quality Improvement Committee education and submission processes: A pilot study.

BACKGROUND: Educators are challenged to find better ways to prepare doctoral nursing students to conduct scholarly work involving human subjects. PURPOSE: To better understand doctoral nursing students' attitudes toward programmatic scholarly work and Institutional Review Board (IRB)/Quality Improvement Committee (QIC) education and submission processes. METHODS: Recent Doctor of Nursing Practice (DNP) and Philosophy of Nursing (PhD) graduates were recruited using convenience sampling techniques to participate in this cross-sectional, descriptive, mixed-methods pilot study. Data were collected using two researcher-developed instruments. DISCUSSION: Nineteen doctoral nursing students participated in this study. Students most often used a quantitative approach with health care providers to complete their scholarly work requirements. Both PhD and DNP participants were overall satisfied with the IRB/QIC content in the curricula and the submission process. Four themes were identified: (a) Efficiency, (b) Collaboration, (c) Faculty Mentorship, and (d) Areas for Improvement. CONCLUSION: Findings from this pilot study may be used to enhance IRB/QIC processes through revision of administrative processes and student education.

The Medical Writing Center Model in an Academic Teaching Hospital.

Editing services within academic health centers are uncommon, and few studies have reported on their impact. In this article, we describe our medical writing center's editing service for faculty and trainees at a pediatric teaching hospital and associated outcomes of scholarly products (e.g., manuscripts and grants) over an 8-year period. Data for manuscripts and grant proposals edited by the writing center from 2015 through 2022 were collected electronically from our service request database. Outcome data on publications and grant proposals were regularly collected up to 12 months post-submission. Users were also asked if the writing center edits were helpful, improved readability, and if they planned to use the service in the future. From 2015 through 2022, the writing center received 697 requests, 88.4% to edit a document. Of the documents edited, 81.3% of manuscripts and 44.4% of grant proposals were successfully published or funded. When rating their experience, 97.8% of respondents rated the edits "helpful," 96.7% indicated the edits "improved readability," and 99.3% stated they planned to use the writing center in the future. Our results showed steady use of the writing center and high satisfaction with services. A writing center can be an effective tool to support psychology faculty development.

Exploring the current dynamics of preprints.

Preprints are non-peer-reviewed and publicly available articles for open and transparent research communication. Preprint servers host the submission of such manuscripts, and despite the presence of established preprint servers, their numbers have continued to rise in recent times. A steep increasing pattern in posted preprints and their accommodating servers has been observed over the last decade. In this article, we explored the global trends in the preprint adoption and its involvement in promoting open and transparent research findings across various domains. We further emphasized the importance of preprinting, highlighting its significant impact during the pandemic through effective information sharing, and advocating for its broader integration in scholarly communication.

The Publishing Dilemmas of Authors Who Have Lived Experience With Mental Illness.

This column details some of the ways in which psychiatric survivors or those writing about their lived experience with mental illness are disadvantaged and devalued in mainstream academic publishing. This devaluation stems from structural issues involving various organizations, persons, and practices. Breaking the constraints of this structure is extremely difficult, but the author proposes some ways of doing so.

Micro-Scholarship: An Innovative Process Using Common Technology Tools.

Micro-Scholarship is a flexible process that eases an educator's scholarly journey by making their small steps (Micro-Assets) visible, assessable, stackable, and transferable. This process uses existing technology tools and relationships in a stepwise and supported manner to create Macro-Assets (traditional scholarly outcomes) including articles, presentations, and workshops. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40670-024-01989-y.

An Evidence-Based Framework for Medical Student Research Training.

Background: As research becomes an increasingly important component of medical education, there is greater emphasis on incorporating programmatic enhancements to the research experience. This study builds a logic model to summarize research program inputs, outputs, and outcomes from research-oriented medical schools across the country, providing a framework that institutions can use to design and improve their medical student research training programs. Methods: Between November 2021 and February 2022, we administered a survey assessing institutional characteristics, research offerings, curriculum, funding, and student scholarly products to the medical schools ranked 1-50 in research in 2021 by US News and World Report. Results were compiled in the form of a logic model. Results: Thirty-seven institutions (72.5%) responded. Common program inputs included personnel such as at least one funded program director (97.3%), while funding for medical student research activities was highly variable (8-72%). There was much less funding for faculty research mentors (2.7%), advisors (18.9%), and teaching faculty (29.7%). Common outputs included a medical student research office or program (97.3%), formal research curricula (83.8%), and services and programs such as research day (91.9%). The most common outcomes tracked were publications (48.6%), presentations/posters (43.2%), student participation (29.7%), and completion of a research requirement (29.7%). Conclusions: Common themes in medical student research training programs may be conceptualized with a logic model that schools can use to develop, evaluate, and iteratively improve their programs. Institutions should consider their desired program outcomes prior to designing inputs (e.g., funding, personnel) and outputs (e.g., curriculum, training). Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40670-024-02001-3.

Person- and identity-first language in autism research: A systematic analysis of abstracts from 11 autism journals.

LAY ABSTRACT: There are many ways to refer to an individual who is on the autism spectrum. A recommended approach has been to use person-first language (PFL), such as "person with autism." A different approach is to use identity-first language (IFL), such as "autistic person." Recent studies focused on different groups of people (e.g. autistic self-advocates, parents, and practitioners) show that some groups prefer PFL (practitioners) while others prefer IFL (autistic self-advocates). However, less is known about how researchers use PFL and IFL in academic writing (e.g. studies published in scientific journals) involving autistic research participants. Our study examined 12,962 journal abstracts (short summaries of scientific articles) from 11 academic journals that publish autism research findings. We wanted to know (a) about the use of PFL and IFL across abstracts, and (b) how PFL and IFL use has changed annually over time. We examined data for all journals individually and grouped together. Our findings showed that journal abstracts generally use PFL (65%) with some using either IFL (16%) or both PFL and IFL (20%). However, journals varied, with some showing a clear majority for PFL and a couple for IFL. Examining trends over time across journals showed that while PFL appeared to be the majority for most journals, IFL has steadily increased in the recent few years. Our study helps us understand how autism researchers write about autistic individuals and offers implications for helping researchers intentionally make choices about the language used in their autism research studies.