Journals adopt AI to spot duplicated images in manuscripts

How to fight fake papers: a review on important information sources and steps towards solution of the problem

Scientific fake papers, containing manipulated or completely fabricated data, are a problem that has reached dramatic dimensions. Companies known as paper mills (or more bluntly as "criminal science publishing gangs") produce and sell such fake papers on a large scale. The main drivers of the fake paper flood are the pressure in academic systems and (monetary) incentives to publish in respected scientific journals and sometimes the personal desire for increased "prestige." Published fake papers cause substantial scientific, economic, and social damage. There are numerous information sources that deal with this topic from different points of view. This review aims to provide an overview of these information sources until June 2024. Much more original research with larger datasets is needed, for example on the extent and impact of the fake paper problem and especially on how to detect them, as many findings are based more on small datasets, anecdotal evidence, and assumptions. A long-term solution would be to overcome the mantra of publication metrics for evaluating scientists in academia.

Metadata analysis of retracted fake papers in Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's Archives of Pharmacology

An increasing fake paper problem is a cause for concern in the scientific community. These papers look scientific but contain manipulated data or are completely fictitious. So-called paper mills produce fake papers on a large scale and publish them in the name of people who buy authorship. The aim of this study was to learn more about the characteristics of fake papers at the metadata level. We also investigated whether some of these characteristics could be used to detect fake papers. For that purpose, we examined metadata of 12 fake papers that were retracted by Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's Archives of Pharmacology (NSAP) in recent years. We also compared many of these metadata with those of a reference group of 733 articles published by NSAP. It turned out that in many characteristics the fake papers we examined did not differ substantially from the other articles. It was only noticeable that the fake papers came almost exclusively from a certain country, used non-institutional email addresses more often than average, and referenced dubious literature significantly more often. However, these three features are only of limited use in identifying fake papers. We were also able to show that fake papers not only contaminate the scientific record while they are unidentified but also continue to do so even after retraction. Our results indicate that fake papers are well made and resemble honest papers even at the metadata level. Because they contaminate the scientific record in the long term and this cannot be fully contained even by their retraction, it is particularly important to identify them before publication. Further research on the topic of fake papers is therefore urgently needed.

Retracted Publications in Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery: What Mistakes Are Being Made?

Objectives

Retraction of publications is critical to maintaining scientific integrity, yet there is a lack of research on its occurrence in Otolaryngology. This study investigates characteristics, trends, and reasons for retraction of publications in otolaryngology journals.

Study Design

Bibliometric analysis.

Setting

PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science.

Methods

A PubMed search for publications retracted during 1990 to 2022 from the top 60 journals with the subject "Otorhinolaryngology" using Scopus' CiteScore was performed. Publications were excluded if they were not in English, had missing information or did not have available abstracts or full-text. Publication and retraction dates, journal, country of origin, citation counts, journal impact factor (JIF), topic, and reason for retraction were recorded. Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated to identify potential associations in the data.

Results

Fifty-three publications were included. The 2020s had the highest number of retractions per year (4.33), with publications being retracted on average, 35 months after initial publication. The most common retracted topic and country of origin were head and neck (26.4%) and China (17.0%), respectively. Most publications were retracted because of plagiarism or duplicate publication (52.8%). Mean citation count was 6.92 ± 8.32 and mean JIF was 2.80 ± 1.35. Citation count was positively associated with months until retraction (r = .432, P = .001). There was no significant correlation between months to retraction and JIF (r = .022, P = .878).

Conclusion

The most cited reasons for retraction were plagiarism and duplicate publication. An understanding of the reasons for retraction can better position journals to enforce more meticulous review standards and reduce such publications from being published.

Level of Evidence

Level 4.

Community-developed checklists for publishing images and image analyses

Images document scientific discoveries and are prevalent in modern biomedical research. Microscopy imaging in particular is currently undergoing rapid technological advancements. However, for scientists wishing to publish obtained images and image-analysis results, there are currently no unified guidelines for best practices. Consequently, microscopy images and image data in publications may be unclear or difficult to interpret. Here, we present community-developed checklists for preparing light microscopy images and describing image analyses for publications. These checklists offer authors, readers and publishers key recommendations for image formatting and annotation, color selection, data availability and reporting image-analysis workflows. The goal of our guidelines is to increase the clarity and reproducibility of image figures and thereby to heighten the quality and explanatory power of microscopy data.

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.