Enhancing Research Integrity and Publication Ethics: An Analysis of the Latest International Committee of Medical Journal Editors Recommendations.

In the ever-evolving landscape of biomedical research and publishing, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors recommendations serve as a critical framework for maintaining ethical standards. By providing a framework that adapts to technological advancements, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors recommendations actively shape responsible and transparent practices, ensuring the integrity of scientific inquiry and fostering global collaboration in the ever-evolving landscape of medical publishing. This editorial delves into key aspects of the latest changes in the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors recommendations, focusing on authorship, conflict of interest disclosure, data sharing and reproducibility, medical publishing and carbon emissions, the use of artificial intelligence, and the challenges posed by predatory journals within the realm of open access. It emphasizes the importance of new recommendations, which represent a beacon of ethical guidance in the ever-evolving domain of biomedical research and publishing.

Diagnosis Unreliability of ChatGPT for Journal Evaluation.

Purpose: Academic and other researchers have limited tools with which to address the current proliferation of predatory and hijacked journals. These journals can have negative effects on science, research funding, and the dissemination of information. As most predatory and hijacked journals are not error free, this study used ChatGPT, an artificial intelligence (AI) technology tool, to conduct an evaluation of journal quality. Methods: Predatory and hijacked journals were analyzed for reliability using ChatGPT, and the reliability of result have been discussed. Results: It shows that ChatGPT is an unreliable tool for journal quality evaluation for both hijacked and predatory journals. Conclusion: To show how to address this gap, an early trial version of Journal Checker Chatbot has been developed and is discussed as an alternative chatbot that can assist researchers in detecting hijacked journals.

Retraction Note: Study on the functions and mechanism of immune functions of human telomerase reverse transcriptase regulating dendritic cells treating sepsis.

The article "Study on the functions and mechanism of immune functions of human telomerase reverse transcriptase regulating dendritic cells treating sepsis", by H.-M. Chen, L.-Q. Wang, H.-P. Wan, H.-Z. Wei, L.-C. Ke, C.-Y. Liu, Q.-Y. Tan, published in Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci 2016; 20 (21): 4500-4507-PMID: 27874963 has been retracted by the Editor in Chief for the following reasons. Some concerns were raised on PubPeer (https://pubpeer.com/publications/3604386A706802443E51758A893D6F) about Figures 3, 4, and 5 showing some overlaps and similar bands in Western blots figures. Furthermore, there is a lack of information regarding the ethics approval for the study involving rats. The journal contacted the authors to request the original raw data and information regarding the ethical approval of the manuscript but never received a reply. Therefore, due to major concerns detected, the Editor in Chief mistrusts the results presented and decided to withdraw the manuscript. The corresponding author has been informed about the retraction. This article has been retracted. The Publisher apologizes for any inconvenience this may cause. https://www.europeanreview.org/article/11476.

Regulatory insights into nanomedicine and gene vaccine innovation: Safety assessment, challenges, and regulatory perspectives.

This analysis explores the principal regulatory concerns linked to nanomedicines and gene vaccines, including the complexities involved and the perspectives on how to navigate them. In the realm of nanomedicines, ensuring the safety of nanomaterials is paramount due to their unique characteristics and potential interactions with biological systems. Regulatory bodies are actively formulating guidelines and standards to assess the safety and risks associated with nanomedicine products, emphasizing the need for standardized characterization techniques to accurately gauge their safety and effectiveness. Regarding gene vaccines, regulatory frameworks must be tailored to address the distinct challenges posed by genetic interventions, necessitating special considerations in safety and efficacy evaluations, particularly concerning vector design, target specificity, and long-term patient monitoring. Ethical concerns such as patient autonomy, informed consent, and privacy also demand careful attention, alongside the intricate matter of intellectual property rights, which must be balanced against the imperative of ensuring widespread access to these life-saving treatments. Collaborative efforts among regulatory bodies, researchers, patent offices, and the private sector are essential to tackle these challenges effectively, with international cooperation being especially crucial given the global scope of nanomedicine and genetic vaccine development. Striking the right balance between safeguarding intellectual properties and promoting public health is vital for fostering innovation and ensuring equitable access to these ground-breaking technologies, underscoring the significance of addressing these regulatory hurdles to fully harness the potential benefits of nanomedicine and gene vaccines for enhancing healthcare outcomes on a global scale. STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE: Several biomaterials are being proposed for the development of nanovaccines, from polymeric micelles, PLGA-/PEI-/PLL-nanoparticles, solid lipid nananoparticles, cationic lipoplexes, liposomes, hybrid materials, dendrimers, carbon nanotubes, hydrogels, to quantum dots. Lipid nanoparticles (LNPs) have gained tremendous attention since the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of Pfizer and Moderna's COVID-19 vaccines, raising public awareness to the regulatory challenges associated with nanomedicines and genetic vaccines. This review provides insights into the current perspectives and potential strategies for addressing these issues, including clinical trials. By navigating these regulatory landscapes effectively, we can unlock the full potential of nanomedicine and genetic vaccines using a range of promising biomaterials towards improving healthcare outcomes worldwide.

Deep postnatal phenotyping of a new mouse model of nonketotic hyperglycinemia.

Nonketotic hyperglycinemia due to deficient glycine cleavage enzyme activity causes a severe neonatal epileptic encephalopathy. Current therapies based on mitigating glycine excess have only limited impact. An animal model with postnatal phenotyping is needed to explore new therapeutic approaches. We developed a Gldc p.Ala394Val mutant model and bred it to congenic status in 2 colonies on C57Bl/6J (B6) and J129X1/SvJ (J129) backgrounds. Mutant mice had reduced P-protein and enzyme activity indicating a hypomorphic mutant. Glycine levels were increased in blood and brain regions, exacerbated by dietary glycine, with higher levels in female than male J129 mice. Birth defects were more prevalent in mutant B6 than J129 mice, and hydrocephalus was more frequent in B6 (40%) compared to J129 (none). The hydrocephalus rate was increased by postnatal glycine challenge in B6 mice, more so when delivered from the first neonatal week than from the fourth. Mutant mice had reduced weight gain following weaning until the eighth postnatal week, which was exacerbated by glycine loading. The electrographic spike rate was increased in mutant mice following glycine loading, but no seizures were observed. The alpha/delta band intensity ratio was decreased in the left cortex in female J129 mice, which were less active in an open field test and explored less in a Y-maze, suggesting an encephalopathic effect. Mutant mice showed no evidence of memory dysfunction. This partial recapitulation of human symptoms and biochemistry will facilitate the evaluation of new therapeutic approaches with an early postnatal time window likely most effective. Take home message: A mouse model of nonketotic hyperglycinemia is described that shows postnatal abnormalities in glycine levels, neural tube defects, body weight, electroencephalographic recordings, and in activity in young mice making it amenable for the evaluation of novel treatment interventions. Author contributions: Study concept and design: JVH, MHM, NB, KNMAnimal study data: MAS, HJ, NB, MHM, JC, CBBiochemical and genetic studies: MAS, RAVH, MWFStatistical analysis: NB, JVHFirst draft writing: JVH, NB, MHMCritical rewriting: MAS, NB, MHM, TAB, JC, MWF, KNM, JVHFinal responsibility, guarantor, and communicating author: JVH. Competing interest statement: The University of Colorado (JVH, MS, KNM, HJ) has the intention to file Intellectual property protection for certain biochemical treatments of NKH. Otherwise, the authors have stated that they had no interests that might be perceived as posing a conflict or bias to this subject matter. Funding support: Financial support is acknowledged form the NKH Crusaders, Brodyn's Friends, Nora Jane Almany Foundation, the Dickens Family Foundation, the Lucas John Foundation, Les Petits Bourdons, Joseph's Fund, the Barnett Family, Maud & Vic Foundation, Lucy's BEElievers fund, Hope for NKH, Madi's Mission NKH fund, and from Dr. and Ms. Shaw, and the University of Colorado Foundation NKH research fund. The study was supported by a grant (CNS-X-19-103) from the University of Colorado School of Medicine and the Colorado Clinical Translational Science Institute, which is supported by NIH/NCATS Colorado CTSA Grant Number UL1 TR002535. Contents are the authors' sole responsibility and do not necessarily represent official NIH views. All funding sources had no role in the design or execution of the study, the interpretation of data, or the writing of the study. Ethics approval on Laboratory Animal Studies: Mouse studies were carried out with approval from the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee of the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus (IACUC# 00413). Data sharing statement: The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Ethical Concerns About ChatGPT in Healthcare: A Useful Tool or the Tombstone of Original and Reflective Thinking?

Artificial intelligence (AI), the uprising technology of computer science aiming to create digital systems with human behavior and intelligence, seems to have invaded almost every field of modern life. Launched in November 2022, ChatGPT (Chat Generative Pre-trained Transformer) is a textual AI application capable of creating human-like responses characterized by original language and high coherence. Although AI-based language models have demonstrated impressive capabilities in healthcare, ChatGPT has received controversial annotations from the scientific and academic communities. This chatbot already appears to have a massive impact as an educational tool for healthcare professionals and transformative potential for clinical practice and could lead to dramatic changes in scientific research. Nevertheless, rational concerns were raised regarding whether the pre-trained, AI-generated text would be a menace not only for original thinking and new scientific ideas but also for academic and research integrity, as it gets more and more difficult to distinguish its AI origin due to the coherence and fluency of the produced text. This short review aims to summarize the potential applications and the consequential implications of ChatGPT in the three critical pillars of medicine: education, research, and clinical practice. In addition, this paper discusses whether the current use of this chatbot is in compliance with the ethical principles for the safe use of AI in healthcare, as determined by the World Health Organization. Finally, this review highlights the need for an updated ethical framework and the increased vigilance of healthcare stakeholders to harvest the potential benefits and limit the imminent dangers of this new innovative technology.

Do orthopaedics surgeons have any idea what predatory journals are?:(cross-sectional study).

Objective: The legitimacy of published research confronts a real challenge posed by predatory journals. These journals not only distribute inadequately written articles but also undermine the prospects of acknowledgment and citation for high-quality content. It is essential, nevertheless, to differentiate between predatory journals and reputable open-access ones. A worldwide anti-predatory movement seeks to enhance awareness about such journals. Hence, our objective was to assess the awareness, attitudes, and practices of Sudanese orthopedic surgeons concerning both predatory and open-access publishing. Methods: Conducted between January and April 2023, this cross-sectional electronic survey involved Sudanese orthopedic surgeons. The survey, comprising five domains to gauge knowledge, attitudes, and practices related to predatory and open-access publishing, was shared via the Sudanese Orthopedic Surgeons Association email distribution list among the 561 registered surgeons. The targeted sample size was 286. Categorical variables were reported using frequencies, while continuous variables were presented as medians and interquartile ranges. Nonparametric tests and ordinal regression were employed for inferential statistics. Results: Of the 561 surgeons, 104 participants completed the questionnaire, resulting in a response rate of 18.5 %. Approximately 49% exhibited poor knowledge, with 56% unfamiliar with the term "predatory journals," and 74% unaware of Beall's list. Overall attitudes toward publication in open-access and predatory journals were neutral for 60% of participants, and only 26% demonstrated good overall publication practices. Higher knowledge scores positively correlated with attitude and practice scores. Ordinal regression analysis identified variables such as employment in university hospitals, higher academic rank, publication experience, and working in well-resourced countries as factors increasing the likelihood of higher knowledge, attitude, and practice scores. Conclusion: The majority of the study participants reported very low knowledge of predatory journals and their possible detrimental consequences on the integrity and quality of scientific publications. Therefore, educational efforts on the negative impact of predatory publication practices in orthopedics are needed.

Innovative Solutions for Patients Who Undergo Craniectomy: Protocol for a Scoping Review.

BACKGROUND: Decompressive craniectomy (DC) is a widely used procedure to alleviate high intracranial pressure. Multidisciplinary teams have designed and implemented external medical prototypes to improve patient life quality and avoid complications following DC in patients awaiting cranioplasty (CP), including 3D printing and plaster prototypes when available. OBJECTIVE: This scoping review aims to understand the extent and type of evidence about innovative external prototypes for patients who undergo DC while awaiting CP. METHODS: This scoping review will use the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology for scoping reviews. This scoping review will include noninvasive medical devices for adult patients who undergo DC while waiting for CP. The search strategy will be implemented in MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Scielo, Scopus, and the World Health Organization (WHO) Global Health Index Medicus. Patent documents were also allocated in Espacenet, Google Patents, and the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) database. RESULTS: This scoping review is not subject to ethical approval as there will be no involvement of patients. The dissemination plan includes publishing the review findings in a peer-reviewed journal and presenting results at conferences that engage the most pertinent stakeholders in innovation and neurosurgery. CONCLUSIONS: This scoping review will serve as a baseline to provide evidence for multidisciplinary teams currently designing these noninvasive innovations to reduce the risk of associated complications after DC, hoping that more cost-effective models can be implemented, especially in low- and middle-income countries. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/50647.

Citations of microRNA Biomarker Articles That Were Retracted: A Systematic Review.

Importance: Retraction is a tool that journals can use to deter research misconduct and alert their audience to erroneous content published in the journals. However, retracted articles may continue to damage science if they are still cited as legitimate articles. Objective: To characterize patterns of postretraction citations, particularly in microRNA biomarker research, a field with one of the highest rates of retraction. Evidence Review: Retracted scientific articles on microRNAs were retrieved from PubMed, Web of Science, and Retraction Watch between database inception and July 17, 2021, according to preestablished search strategies. Control articles with characteristics in common with retracted articles (ie, published in the same journals in the same years and months and with the same number of authors) were matched and retrieved from PubMed. Citation metrics of retractions and control articles were collected from Web of Science. PubPeer was referenced to examine the public response or comments on included retractions. Data were analyzed from September 2021 through March 2023. Findings: A total of 10 461 articles were analyzed, with 887 retractions and 9574 articles as controls. Among retracted articles, which were published from 1999 to 2021, there were 756 articles (85.23%) written by researchers affiliated with Chinese institutions. Retracted articles were cited 6327 times after retraction. Of 792 retracted articles that were cited, 621 articles (78.41%) were cited at least once after retraction and 238 articles (30.05%) were cited more often after retraction than before retraction. Overall citations (comprising citations before and after retraction) and postretraction citations accumulated over time (eg, the median [IQR] number of postretraction citations was 1 [1-2] and 23 [9-44] citations at the first 6 and 66 months, respectively, between retraction and citation retrieval). A random sample of 87 retracted articles (9.81%) recorded 478 citations after retraction, with 208 citations (43.51%) in articles published 12 months or longer after retraction. Of these citing articles, 19 articles (3.97%) mentioned the retractions. Compared with the control group of 1620 nonretracted articles, no significant differences were found in overall number of citations or citations after retraction. Among 478 articles citing retracted articles, 414 articles were found on PubMed and had matched control articles; these articles had higher odds of being subsequently retracted than 7954 matched control articles (odds ratio, 6.57; 95% CI, 3.39-12.72). Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, retraction was not associated with a reduction in citations of retracted articles, but articles that cited retracted publications had higher odds of later retraction. These findings suggest that journals may need to implement mechanisms for detection of postretraction citations.

An Analysis of Solicitations from Predatory Journals in Ophthalmology.

PURPOSE: To evaluate trends associated with email communication from potentially predatory publishers to faculty in ophthalmology. DESIGN: Cross sectional study METHODS: Ophthalmologists (n=14) from various subspecialties and institutions were recruited to participate. Participants identified unsolicited emails they had received originating from publishers in May 2021. Information collected included details on email contents and publisher organizations. Trends in communications from predatory publishers were evaluated. RESULTS: Over a 30-day study period, a total of 1813 emails were received from 383 unique publishers and 696 unique journals with a mean (SD) of 4.73 (2.46) emails received per day per participant. Of the 1813 emails identified, 242 (13%) emails were invitations to conferences, whereas 1440 (80%) were solicitations for article submissions to open-access pay-to-publish journals. A total of 522 (29.0%) emails were related to ophthalmology, and reference to a prior publication of the participant occurred in 262 emails (14%). Of the 696 unique journals identified, 174 (25%) journals were indexed on PubMed and 426 (61%) were listed on Beall's list. When comparing journals listed on PubMed versus those that were not, PubMed indexed journals had a higher impact factor (2.1 vs 1.5, p=0.002), were less likely to use "greetings" (76% vs 91%, p<0.001), had fewer spelling/grammar errors (40% vs 51%, p=0.01), and were less likely to offer rapid publication (16% vs 25%, p=0.02). CONCLUSION: Unsolicited requests to publish occur frequently and may diminish the quality of the scientific literature. We encourage individuals in ophthalmology to be aware of these trends in predatory publishing.

Machine learning methods to discriminate posttraumatic stress disorder: A protocol of systematic review and meta-analysis.

Introduction: Recent years have witnessed a persistent threat to public mental health, especially during and after the COVID-19 pandemic. Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) has emerged as a pivotal concern amidst this backdrop. Concurrently, machine learning (ML) techniques have progressively applied in the realm of mental health. Therefore, our present undertaking seeks to provide a comprehensive assessment of studies employing ML methods that use diverse data modalities on the classification of people with PTSD. Methods and analysis: In pursuit of pertinent studies, we will search both English and Chinese databases from January 2000 to May 2022. Two researchers will independently conduct screening, extract data and assess study quality. We intend to employ the assessment framework introduced by Luis Francisco Ramos-Lima in 2020 for quality evaluation. Rate, standard error and 95% CIs will be utilized for effect size measurement. A Cochran's Q test will be applied to assess heterogeneity. Subgroup and sensitivity analysis will further elucidate the source of heterogeneity and funnel plots and Egger's test will detect publication bias. Ethics and dissemination: This systematic review and meta-analysis does not encompass patient interactions or engagements with healthcare providers. The outcomes of this research will be disseminated through scholarly channels, including presentations at scientific conferences and publications in peer-reviewed journals.PROSPERO registration number CRD42023342042.

A Qualitative Study Assessing the Management of Predatory Journals and Their Publishing Activities: Results From the ASGLOS Study.

Background Predatory journals are an emerging problem in scientific literature, as they have financial motives without guaranteeing scientific quality. Therefore, the scientific community needs to establish how this issue can be solved in the long term. Objective The study aims to provide information that can be used to take action against predatory journals and to guide future change. Methods A Google Forms (Google LLC, Mountain View, California, United States) survey was designed and disseminated between September 2021 and April 2022. Reflexive thematic analysis was used as a qualitative analysis technique in this study, with the assistance of the NVivo software (Lumivero LLC, Denver, Colorado, United States) to manage and support the analysis process. Results A total of 978 responses from 58 countries worldwide, achieving a response rate of 19.9%, were analyzed. Five key themes emerged regarding participants' suggestions on techniques to cope with the detrimental impact of predatory journals: "Checking," "Increasing education and awareness," "Responsibility," "Use of technology," and "Obstacles to the solution." Conclusion The outcomes of this study will help us focus and channel efforts in the future to combat predatory journals and aid us in understanding what needs to be done. We hope that this study will influence management strategies and encourage more education and awareness on a global scale.

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.