Muller and mutations: mouse study of George Snell (a postdoc of Muller) fails to confirm Muller's fruit fly findings, and Muller fails to cite Snell's findings.

In 1931, Hermann J. Muller's postdoctoral student, George D. Snell (Nobel Prize recipient--1980) initiated research to replicate with mice Muller's X-ray-induced mutational findings with fruit flies. Snell failed to induce the two types of mutations of interest, based on fly data (sex-linked lethals/recessive visible mutations) even though the study was well designed, used large doses of X-rays, and was published in Genetics. These findings were never cited by Muller, and the Snell paper (Snell, Genetics 20:545-567, 1935) did not cite the 1927 Muller paper (Muller, Science 66:84, 1927). This situation raises questions concerning how Snell wrote the paper (e.g., ignoring the significance of not providing support for Muller's findings in a mammal). The question may be raised whether professional pressures were placed upon Snell to downplay the significance of his findings, which could have negatively impacted the career of Muller and the LNT theory. While Muller would receive worldwide attention, and receive the Nobel Prize in 1946 "for the discovery that mutations can be induced by X-rays," Snell's negative mutation data were almost entirely ignored by his contemporary and subsequent radiation genetics/mutation researchers. This raises questions concerning how the apparent lack of interest in Snell's negative findings helped Muller professionally, including his success in using his fruit fly data to influence hereditary and cancer risk assessment and to obtain the Nobel Prize.

Ethical issues in research with second victims: A scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Second victim is the name given to the healthcare personnel-most often a nursing professional-involved with the error that led to the adverse event to a patient and who, as a result, have experienced negative psychological effects. Research with second victims has increased over the years, however concerns exist with regards to the ethical risks imposed upon these individuals. AIM: To explore the extent to which research with second victims of adverse events in healthcare settings adhere to ethical requirements. METHODS: A scoping review was conducted following Arksey and O'Malley's methodological framework and using the following databases: PUBMED, Web of Science, and SCOPUS. Original research of any study design focused on second victims and published in English, Spanish, or Portuguese in 2014-2023 were included. A critical narrative approach was used to discuss the findings. ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS: The review followed ethical guidelines emphasizing accurate authorship attribution and truthful data reporting. RESULTS: Fifteen studies using qualitative (n = 2), quantitative (n = 10), and mixed-method (n = 3) designs were included. Over half were not assessed by a research ethics committee, with questionable reasons given by the authors. One-third did not refer to having used an informed consent. In two studies, participants were recruited by their workplace superiors, which could potentially right to autonomy and voluntary participation. CONCLUSION: Over half of the included studies with second victims did not comply with fundamental ethical aspects, with risk to inflict respect for individual autonomy, confidentiality, and of not causing any harm to participants. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING RESEARCH: Healthcare personnel involved in adverse events are most often nursing professionals; therefore, any breach of ethics in research with this population is likely to directly affect their rights as research participants. We provide recommendations to promote better research practices with second victims towards safeguarding their rights as research participants.

Virtues and vocation: An historical perspective on scientific integrity in the twenty-first century.

According to the Dutch chemist Gerrit Jan Mulder (1802-1880), the principal aim of university education was character building and moral edification. Professional training was of secondary importance. Mulder's ideas about the vocation and moral mission of the university professor can serve as a historical counterpart to later Weberian, Mertonian, and contemporary ideas on the ethos of science. I argue that a revaluation of the moral precepts that Mulder saw as defining the life of an academic is helpful in dealing with the problems of late modern science, such as the replication crisis and research misconduct. Addressing such problems must start in the university classrooms. To empower students to internalize the principles of responsible conduct of research, we need an updated version of Mulder's idea of the university professor as a moral agent.

The definition of research misconduct should be stated in the abstract when reporting research on research misconduct.

Research integrity is the cornerstone for a reliable and trustworthy science. Research misconduct is classically defined as fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism. To be considered as such, the action must have been committed with the intent to mislead or deceive. There are many other research misbehaviors such as duplication, fake-peer review or lack of disclosure of conflicts of interest, that are often included in the definition of research misconduct in codes, policies, and professional documents. The definition of research misconduct varies among countries and institutions, the seriousness and intentionality of the action. This variability is also present in research articles on the prevalence of research misconduct because it is common for each author to use a different definition, creating confusion for readers. We argue that the definition of research misconduct used in a study should be stated already in the abstract, particularly because not all publications are in open access, so that readers can fully understand what the study found concerning research misconduct without needing to have access to the full article.

Muller misled the Pugwash Conference on radiation risks.

The Pugwash Conferences have been a highly visible attempt to create profoundly important discussions on matters related to global safety and security at the highest levels, starting in 1957 at the height of the Cold War. This paper assesses, for the first time, the formal comments offered at this first Pugwash Conference by the Nobel Prize-winning radiation geneticist, Hermann J. Muller, on the effects of ionizing radiation on the human genome. This analysis shows that the presentation by Muller was highly biased and contained scientific errors and misrepresentations of the scientific record that resulted in seriously misleading the attendees. The presentation of Muller at Pugwash served to promote, on a very visible global scale, continued misrepresentations of the state of the science and had a significant impact on policies and practices internationally and both scientific and personal belief systems concerning the effects of low dose radiation on human health. These misrepresentations would come to affect the adoption and use of nuclear technologies and the science of radiological and chemical carcinogen health risk assessment, ultimately having a profound effect on global environmental health.

A conduta ética de graduandos em Nutrição em uma universidade pública no Brasil / The ethical conduct of nutrition undergraduates at a public university in Brazil

A prática de más condutas éticas parece ser rotineira na graduação. Dessa forma, abordar a conduta ética na formação é um ponto de partida para promover o debate sobre a construção do conhecimento. Este estudo teve o objetivo analisar a conduta ética de graduandos em Nutrição. Realizou-se estudo transversal com estudantes de Nutrição de uma universidade pública-Brasil. Participaram 105 alunos: 42,9% eram do 1º ao 5º semestres e 57,1% do 6º ao 9º semestres. Os alunos dos semestres finais apresentaram maior prevalência de "deixar os colegas copiarem as respostas" (p=0,05), "usar trabalhos prontos" (p=0,04) e "incluir nome em trabalho sem colaboração" (p=0,01). As principais motivações para a má conduta ética foram: má conduta dos colegas (71,4%), acreditar que os professores cometeram má conduta ética (70,5%), disciplina difícil (52,4%) e manter boas notas (50,5%). Os alunos dos últimos semestres referiram a falta de tempo (p=0,05) como uma razão, e 10,5% afirmaram ter realizado consultas de nutrição sem supervisão. Dada a elevada prevalência de más condutas éticas na graduação sugere-se que a disciplina sobre ética seja ministrada nos semestres iniciais, além de realização de cursos e rodas de conversa sobre propriedade intelectual, conduta ética, gestão do tempo e metodologias de ensino.

The practice of academic misconduct seems to be routine in undergraduate studies. Therefore, addressing ethical conduct in training is a starting point to promote debate on the construction of knowledge. This study aimed to analyze the academic misconduct of nutrition undergraduates. A cross-sectional study was performed with Nutrition students at a public university in Brazil. Participants included 105 students took part in the study: 42.9% were on the 1st to the 5th semesters and 57.1% on the 6th to the 9th semesters. Students on the final semesters had a higher prevalence of "letting the colleagues copy the answers" (p=0.05), "using ready-made work" (p=0.04), and "included their name on a paper without collaboration" (p=0.01). The main motivations for academic misconduct were: colleagues cheating (71.4%), believing that professors had committed misconduct (70.5%), difficult subjects (52.4%), and maintaining good grades (50.5%). Students on the last semesters reported lack of time (p=0.05) as a reason, and 10.5% mentioned having performed nutrition appointments without supervision. Given the high prevalence of academic misconduct in undergraduate courses, it is suggested that the discipline on ethics be taught in the initial semesters, in addition to offering courses and conversation circles on intellectual property, ethical conduct, time management, and teaching methodologies.

Research Integrity: Where We Are and Where We Are Heading.

The concept of research integrity (RI) refers to a set of moral and ethical standards that serve as the foundation for the execution of research activities. Integrity in research is the incorporation of principles of honesty, transparency, and respect for ethical standards and norms throughout all stages of the research endeavor, encompassing study design, data collecting, analysis, reporting, and publishing. The preservation of RI is of utmost importance to uphold the credibility and amplify the influence of scientific research while also preventing and dealing with instances of scientific misconduct. Researchers, institutions, journals, and readers share responsibilities for preserving RI. Researchers must adhere to the highest ethical standards. Institutions have a role in establishing an atmosphere that supports integrity ideals while also providing useful guidance, instruction, and assistance to researchers. Editors and reviewers act as protectors, upholding quality and ethical standards in the dissemination of research results through publishing. Readers play a key role in the detection and reporting of fraudulent activity by critically evaluating content. The struggle against scientific misconduct has multiple dimensions and is continuous. It requires a collaborative effort and adherence to the principles of honesty, transparency, and rigorous science. By supporting a culture of RI, the scientific community may preserve its core principles and continue to contribute appropriately to society's well-being. It not only aids present research but also lays the foundation for future scientific advancements.

Chatbots, generative AI, and scholarly manuscripts: WAME recommendations on chatbots and generative artificial intelligence in relation to scholarly publications.

This statement revises our earlier "WAME Recommendations on ChatGPT and Chatbots in Relation to Scholarly Publications" (January 20, 2023). The revision reflects the proliferation of chatbots and their expanding use in scholarly publishing over the last few months, as well as emerging concerns regarding lack of authenticity of content when using chatbots. These recommendations are intended to inform editors and help them develop policies for the use of chatbots in papers published in their journals. They aim to help authors and reviewers understand how best to attribute the use of chatbots in their work and to address the need for all journal editors to have access to manuscript screening tools. In this rapidly evolving field, we will continue to modify these recommendations as the software and its applications develop.

Esta declaración revisa las anteriores "Recomendaciones de WAME sobre ChatGPT y Chatbots en Relation to Scholarly Publications" (20 de enero de 2023). La revisión refleja la proliferación de chatbots y su creciente uso en las publicaciones académicas en los últimos meses, así como la preocupación por la falta de autenticidad de los contenidos cuando se utilizan chatbots. Estas recomendaciones pretenden informar a los editores y ayudarles a desarrollar políticas para el uso de chatbots en los artículos sometidos en sus revistas. Su objetivo es ayudar a autores y revisores a entender cuál es la mejor manera de atribuir el uso de chatbots en su trabajo y a la necesidad de que todos los editores de revistas tengan acceso a herramientas de selección de manuscritos. En este campo en rápida evolución, seguiremos modificando estas recomendaciones a medida que se desarrollen el software y sus aplicaciones.

Integrity of Clinical Neuroradiological Research.

PURPOSE: It is unclear if undesired practices such as scientific fraud, publication bias, and honorary authorship are present in neuroradiology. Therefore, the objective was to explore the integrity of clinical neuroradiological research using a survey method. METHODS: Corresponding authors who published in one of four top clinical neuroradiology journals were invited to complete a survey about integrity in clinical neuroradiology research. RESULTS: A total of 232 corresponding authors participated in our survey. Confidence in the integrity of published scientific work in clinical neuroradiology (0-10 point scale) was rated as a median score of 8 (range 3-10). In linear regression analysis, respondents from Asia had significantly higher confidence (beta coefficient of 0.569, 95% confidence interval, CI: 0.049-1.088, P = 0.032). Of the respondents 8 (3.4%) reported to have committed scientific fraud in the past 5 years, whereas 66 respondents (28.4%) reported to have witnessed or suspected scientific fraud by anyone from their department in the past 5 years. A total of 192 respondents (82.8%) thought that a study with positive results is more likely to be accepted by a journal than a similar study with negative results and 96 respondents (41.4%) had an honorary author on any of their publications in the past 5 years. CONCLUSION: Experts in the field have overall high confidence in published clinical neuroradiology research; however, scientific integrity concerns are not negligible, publication bias is a problem and honorary authorship is common. The findings from this survey may help to increase awareness and vigilance among anyone involved in clinical neuroradiological research.

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.

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.

Scientific misconduct: A cross-sectional study of the perceptions, attitudes and experiences of Spanish researchers.

This study sought to identify the perceptions, attitudes and experiences of Spanish researchers regarding different aspects relating to scientific misconduct, both overall and by gender, years of research experience, and type of research institution. This is a cross-sectional study based on an anonymous online survey, targeting researchers in the field of biomedicine. The survey comprised a first block (13 questions) covering sociodemographic data, and a second block (14 questions) covering researchers' perceptions, attitudes and experiences. A descriptive analysis was performed. 403 researchers answered the survey: 51.1% (n = 205) women, median age 45 years. The observed frequency of scientific misconduct was 78.8%. Additionally, 43.3% of researchers acknowledged having intentionally engaged in some type of scientific misconduct (self-reported frequency). The most frequent type of scientific misconduct was false authorship. The most frequent types of both observed and self-reported scientific misconduct did not appear to differ by years of experience but did differ by gender and type of research institution. In conclusion, there is a high frequency of scientific misconduct among Spanish biomedical science researchers as 4 of 10 researchers recognized that took part in any type of scientific misconduct. There are differences between the most frequent types of misconduct according to different characteristics, mainly type of institution.

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.

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.

Fake paper identification in the pool of withdrawn and rejected manuscripts submitted to Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's Archives of Pharmacology.

Honesty of publications is fundamental in science. Unfortunately, science has an increasing fake paper problem with multiple cases having surfaced in recent years, even in renowned journals. There are companies, the so-called paper mills, which professionally fake research data and papers. However, there is no easy way to systematically identify these papers. Here, we show that scanning for exchanged authors in resubmissions is a simple approach to detect potential fake papers. We investigated 2056 withdrawn or rejected submissions to Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's Archives of Pharmacology (NSAP), 952 of which were subsequently published in other journals. In six cases, the stated authors of the final publications differed by more than two thirds from those named in the submission to NSAP. In four cases, they differed completely. Our results reveal that paper mills take advantage of the fact that journals are unaware of submissions to other journals. Consequently, papers can be submitted multiple times (even simultaneously), and authors can be replaced if they withdraw from their purchased authorship. We suggest that publishers collaborate with each other by sharing titles, authors, and abstracts of their submissions. Doing so would allow the detection of suspicious changes in the authorship of submitted and already published papers. Independently of such collaboration across publishers, every scientific journal can make an important contribution to the integrity of the scientific record by analyzing its own pool of withdrawn and rejected papers versus published papers according to the simple algorithm proposed in the present paper.

Confirmation that Hermann Muller was dishonest in his Nobel Prize Lecture.

In his Nobel Prize Lecture of December 12, 1946, Hermann J. Muller argued that the dose-response for ionizing radiation-induced germ cell mutations was linear and that there was ''no escape from the conclusion that there is no threshold''. However, a newly discovered commentary by the Robert L. Brent (2015) indicated that Curt Stern, after reading a draft of part of Muller's Nobel Prize Lecture, called Muller, strongly advising him to remove reference to the flawed linear non-threshold (LNT)-supportive Ray-Chaudhuri findings and strongly encouraged him to be guided by the threshold supportive data of Ernst Caspari. Brent indicated that Stern recounted this experience during a genetics class at the University of Rochester. Brent wrote that Muller refused to follow Stern's advice, thereby proclaiming support for the LNT dose-response while withholding evidence that was contrary during his Nobel Prize Lecture. This finding is of historical importance since Muller's Nobel Prize Lecture gained considerable international attention and was a turning point in the acceptance of the linearity model for radiation and chemical hereditary and carcinogen risk assessment.

The relationship between methodological quality and the use of retracted publications in evidence syntheses.

BACKGROUND: Evidence syntheses cite retracted publications. However, citation is not necessarily endorsement, as authors may be criticizing or refuting its findings. We investigated the sentiment of these citations-whether they were critical or supportive-and associations with the methodological quality of the evidence synthesis, reason for the retraction, and time between publication and retraction. METHODS: Using a sample of 286 evidence syntheses containing 324 citations to retracted publications in the field of pharmacy, we used AMSTAR-2 to assess methodological quality. We used scite.ai and a human screener to determine citation sentiment. We conducted a Pearson's chi-square test to assess associations between citation sentiment, methodological quality, and reason for retraction, and one-way ANOVAs to investigate association between time, methodological quality, and citation sentiment. RESULTS: Almost 70% of the evidence syntheses in our sample were of critically low quality. We found that these critically low-quality evidence syntheses were more associated with positive statements while high-quality evidence syntheses were more associated with negative citation of retracted publications. In our sample of 324 citations, 20.4% of citations to retracted publications noted that the publication had been retracted. CONCLUSION: The association between high-quality evidence syntheses and recognition of a publication's retracted status may indicate that best practices are sufficient. However, the volume of critically low-quality evidence syntheses ultimately perpetuates the citation of retracted publications with no indication of their retracted status. Strengthening journal requirements around the quality of evidence syntheses may lessen the inappropriate citation of retracted publications.

What is the rate of text generated by artificial intelligence over a year of publication in Orthopedics & Traumatology: Surgery & Research? Analysis of 425 articles before versus after the launch of ChatGPT in November 2022.

BACKGROUND: The use of artificial intelligence (AI) is soaring, and the launch of ChatGPT in November 2022 has accelerated this trend. This "chatbot" can generate complete scientific articles, with risk of plagiarism by mining existing data or downright fraud by fabricating studies with no real data at all. There are tools that detect AI in publications, but to our knowledge they have not been systematically assessed for publication in scientific journals. We therefore conducted a retrospective study on articles published in Orthopaedics & Traumatology: Surgery & Research (OTSR): firstly, to screen for AI-generated content before and after the publicized launch of ChatGPT; secondly, to assess whether AI was more often used in some countries than others to generate content; thirdly, to determine whether plagiarism rate correlated with AI-generation, and lastly, to determine whether elements other than text generation, and notably the translation procedure, could raise suspicion of AI use. HYPOTHESIS: The rate of AI use increased after the publicized launch of ChatGPT v3.5 in November 2022. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In all, 425 articles published between February 2022 and September 2023 (221 before and 204 after November 1, 2022) underwent ZeroGPT assessment of the level of AI generation in the final English-language version (abstract and body of the article). Two scores were obtained: probability of AI generation, in six grades from Human to AI; and percentage AI generation. Plagiarism was assessed on the Ithenticate application at submission. Articles in French were assessed in their English-language version as translated by a human translator, with comparison to automatic translation by Google Translate and DeepL. RESULTS: AI-generated text was detected mainly in Abstracts, with a 10.1% rate of AI or considerable AI generation, compared to only 1.9% for the body of the article and 5.6% for the total body+abstract. Analysis for before and after November 2022 found an increase in AI generation in body+abstract, from 10.30±15.95% (range, 0-100%) to 15.64±19.8% (range, 0-99.93) (p < 0.04; NS for abstracts alone). AI scores differed between types of article: 14.9% for original articles and 9.8% for reviews (p<0.01). The highest rates of probable AI generation were in articles from Japan, China, South America and English-speaking countries (p<0.0001). Plagiarism rates did not increase between the two study periods, and were unrelated to AI rates. On the other hand, when articles were classified as "suspected" of AI generation (plagiarism rate ≥ 20%) or "non-suspected" (rate<20%), the "similarity" score was higher in suspect articles: 25.7±13.23% (range, 10-69%) versus 16.28±10% (range, 0-79%) (p < 0.001). In the body of the article, use of translation software was associated with higher AI rates than with a human translator: 3.5±5% for human translators, versus 18±10% and 21.9±11% respectively for Google Translate and DeepL (p < 0.001). DISCUSSION: The present study revealed an increasing rate of AI use in articles published in OTSR. AI grades differed according to type of article and country of origin. Use of translation software increased the AI grade. In the long run, use of ChatGPT incurs a risk of plagiarism and scientific misconduct, and needs to be detected and signaled by a digital tag on any robot-generated text. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III; case-control study.

Chatbots, generative AI, and scholarly manuscripts: WAME recommendations on chatbots and generative artificial intelligence in relation to scholarly publications

This statement revises our earlier "WAME Recommendations on ChatGPT and Chatbots in Relation to Scholarly Publications" (January 20, 2023). The revision reflects the proliferation of chatbots and their expanding use in scholarly publishing over the last few months, as well as emerging concerns regarding lack of authenticity of content when using chatbots. These recommendations are intended to inform editors and help them develop policies for the use of chatbots in papers published in their journals. They aim to help authors and reviewers understand how best to attribute the use of chatbots in their work and to address the need for all journal editors to have access to manuscript screening tools. In this rapidly evolving field, we will continue to modify these recommendations as the software and its applications develop.

Esta declaración revisa las anteriores "Recomendaciones de WAME sobre ChatGPT y Chatbots en Relation to Scholarly Publications" (20 de enero de 2023). La revisión refleja la proliferación de chatbots y su creciente uso en las publicaciones académicas en los últimos meses, así como la preocupación por la falta de autenticidad de los contenidos cuando se utilizan chatbots. Estas recomendaciones pretenden informar a los editores y ayudarles a desarrollar políticas para el uso de chatbots en los artículos sometidos en sus revistas. Su objetivo es ayudar a autores y revisores a entender cuál es la mejor manera de atribuir el uso de chatbots en su trabajo y a la necesidad de que todos los editores de revistas tengan acceso a herramientas de selección de manuscritos. En este campo en rápida evolución, seguiremos modificando estas recomendaciones a medida que se desarrollen el software y sus aplicaciones.

The trustworthiness of the cumulative knowledge in industrial/organizational psychology: The current state of affairs and a path forward.

The goal of industrial/organizational (IO) psychology, is to build and organize trustworthy knowledge about people-related phenomena in the workplace. Unfortunately, as with other scientific disciplines, our discipline may be experiencing a "crisis of confidence" stemming from the lack of reproducibility and replicability of many of our field's research findings, which would suggest that much of our research may be untrustworthy. If a scientific discipline's research is deemed untrustworthy, it can have dire consequences, including the withdraw of funding for future research. In this focal article, we review the current state of reproducibility and replicability in IO psychology and related fields. As part of this review, we discuss factors that make it less likely that research findings will be trustworthy, including the prevalence of scientific misconduct, questionable research practices (QRPs), and errors. We then identify some root causes of these issues and provide several potential remedies. In particular, we highlight the need for improved research methods and statistics training as well as a re-alignment of the incentive structure in academia. To accomplish this, we advocate for changes in the reward structure, improvements to the peer review process, and the implementation of open science practices. Overall, addressing the current "crisis of confidence" in IO psychology requires individual researchers, academic institutions, and publishers to embrace system-wide change.