Best Practices for Using AI Tools as an Author, Peer Reviewer, or Editor.

The ethics of generative artificial intelligence (AI) use in scientific manuscript content creation has become a serious matter of concern in the scientific publishing community. Generative AI has computationally become capable of elaborating research questions; refining programming code; generating text in scientific language; and generating images, graphics, or figures. However, this technology should be used with caution. In this editorial, we outline the current state of editorial policies on generative AI or chatbot use in authorship, peer review, and editorial processing of scientific and scholarly manuscripts. Additionally, we provide JMIR Publications' editorial policies on these issues. We further detail JMIR Publications' approach to the applications of AI in the editorial process for manuscripts in review in a JMIR Publications journal.

Speech, Language, and Hearing in the 21st Century: A Bibliometric Review of JSLHR From 2001 to 2021.

PURPOSE: A bibliometric analysis was performed for articles published in the Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research (JSLHR) from 2001 to 2021 to examine changes to and emerging trends in the speech, language, and hearing sciences in the 21st century. METHOD: Quantitative analyses using JASP were performed on the publication rate and number of authors in articles published in JSLHR for each year from 2001 to 2021. VOSviewer was used to analyze and visualize networks of co-occurring Keyword Plus terms extracted from the articles published in JSLHR for several representative years from 2001 to 2021. RESULTS: Although the number of publications and number of authors published in JSLHR increased from 2001 to 2021, that growth was consistent with the growth found in science in general and with changes in publication policies and practices. The number and range of countries other than the United States published in JSLHR increased from 2001 to 2021. A consistent set of institutions published frequently in JSLHR across the years examined. The analysis of Keyword Plus terms showed an increase in the range of populations, disorders, and languages that were the subject of research from 2001 to 2021, as well as influences from other fields on speech, language, and hearing sciences. CONCLUSION: The science of science approach and the tools of network science are useful for assessing how changes in editorial policy affect diversity, for monitoring research topics that are growing (or declining), for identifying institutions that lead the field, and for inviting discussions among various interested parties related to the growth and development of a discipline.

Gender Representation Among Editors of Major Pediatric Journals.

This cross-sectional study analyzes inequities in the gender of editors for 3 major pediatric journals.

Challenges in peer review: how to guarantee the quality and transparency of the editorial process in scientific journals.

The editorial process of scientific journals is complex but essential for the dissemination of scientific knowledge. The quality of the process depends on the authors, editors and reviewers, who must have the necessary experience and knowledge to ensure the quality of the published articles. One of the most significant challenges scientific journals face today is the peer review of manuscripts. Editors are responsible for coordinating and overseeing the entire editorial process, from manuscript submission to final publication, and ensuring that articles meet ethical and scientific integrity standards. Editors are also in charge of selecting appropriate reviewers. However, the latter is becoming difficult due to the increasing refusal of expert reviewers to participate in the editorial process. The reasons for it are diverse, but the lack of recognition for review work and reviewer fatigue in the most sought-after reviewers are among the most important. Some of the measures that could be taken to alleviate the problem concern the possibility of professionalizing peer review.

Citation Cartels in Medical and Dental Journals.

Citation cartels are groups of researchers who excessively cite each other's work to artificially inflate their citation counts and enhance their reputation. The practice of the citation cartel involves journals agreeing to cite each other's publications to boost their own impact factors. The citation cartel has been criticised for distorting the impact factors of participating journals and undermining the integrity of the scientific process. Citation cartels can take many forms, including reciprocal citing, where researchers agree to cite each other's work in exchange for citations. Citation cartels often involve a small group of researchers who are closely connected and who may be deliberately hiding their activities. To combat citation cartels, journals should use software tools to identify patterns of suspicious citing behaviour and should implement policies that encourage transparency and discourage self-citation. Journals should be held accountable for unethical citation practices, and researchers should carefully evaluate before submission. Key Words: Citation, Citation index, Self-citation, Impact factor.

"Technical" Contributors and Authorship Distribution in Health Science.

In health sciences, technical contributions may be undervalued and excluded in the author byline. In this paper, I demonstrate how authorship is a historical construct which perpetuates systemic injustices including technical undervaluation. I make use of Pierre Bourdieu's conceptual work to demonstrate how the power dynamics at play in academia make it very challenging to change the habitual state or "habitus". To counter this, I argue that we must reconceive technical contributions to not be a priori less important based on its nature when assigning roles and opportunities leading to authorship. I make this argument based on two premises. First, science has evolved due to major information and biotechnological innovation; this requires 'technicians' to acquire and exercise a commensurate high degree of both technical and intellectual expertise which in turn increases the value of their contribution. I will illustrate this by providing a brief historical view of work statisticians, computer programmers/data scientists and laboratory technicians. Second, excluding or undervaluing this type of work is contrary to norms of responsibility, fairness and trustworthiness of the individual researchers and of teams in science. Although such norms are continuously tested because of power dynamics, their importance is central to ethical authorship practice and research integrity. While it may be argued that detailed disclosure of contributions (known as contributorship) increases accountability by clearly identifying who did what in the publication, I contend that this may unintentionally legitimize undervaluation of technical roles and may decrease integrity of science. Finally, this paper offers recommendations to promote ethical inclusion of technical contributors.