Reference accuracy: authors', reviewers', editors', and publishers' contributions

Navigating the Landscape of Personalized Medicine: The Relevance of ChatGPT, BingChat, and Bard AI in Nephrology Literature Searches

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Literature reviews are foundational to understanding medical evidence. With AI tools like ChatGPT, Bing Chat and Bard AI emerging as potential aids in this domain, this study aimed to individually assess their citation accuracy within Nephrology, comparing their performance in providing precise.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We generated the prompt to solicit 20 references in Vancouver style in each 12 Nephrology topics, using ChatGPT, Bing Chat and Bard. We verified the existence and accuracy of the provided references using PubMed, Google Scholar, and Web of Science. We categorized the validity of the references from the AI chatbot into (1) incomplete, (2) fabricated, (3) inaccurate, and (4) accurate.

RESULTS

A total of 199 (83%), 158 (66%) and 112 (47%) unique references were provided from ChatGPT, Bing Chat and Bard, respectively. ChatGPT provided 76 (38%) accurate, 82 (41%) inaccurate, 32 (16%) fabricated and 9 (5%) incomplete references. Bing Chat provided 47 (30%) accurate, 77 (49%) inaccurate, 21 (13%) fabricated and 13 (8%) incomplete references. In contrast, Bard provided 3 (3%) accurate, 26 (23%) inaccurate, 71 (63%) fabricated and 12 (11%) incomplete references. The most common error type across platforms was incorrect DOIs.

CONCLUSIONS

In the field of medicine, the necessity for faultless adherence to research integrity is highlighted, asserting that even small errors cannot be tolerated. The outcomes of this investigation draw attention to inconsistent citation accuracy across the different AI tools evaluated. Despite some promising results, the discrepancies identified call for a cautious and rigorous vetting of AI-sourced references in medicine. Such chatbots, before becoming standard tools, need substantial refinements to assure unwavering precision in their outputs.

References and Citations: Is It Time to Update Their Format?

Collapse

The Principles of Biomedical Scientific Writing: Citation

Citation, the act of properly referring to others' ideas, thoughts, or concepts, is a common and critical practice in scientific writing. Citations are used to give credit to own work, to support an argument, to acknowledge others' work, to distinguish other authors' ideas from one's work, and to direct readers to sources of information. A good citation adds to the scientific prestige of the paper and makes it more valuable to the reader. The citation has three basic elements: quoting from others, an in-text reference to the source, and bibliographic details of the source. Beyond technical skills, the citation needs an in-depth knowledge of the field and should follow basic rules, including the selection of relevant and valid sources, stating information/facts from others' work, and referring to others' work accurately and ethically. Several systems and styles are used to cite scientific sources; however, the most commonly used systems in medical sciences are 'author-date' systems (e.g., Harvard system) and numerical systems (e.g., Vancouver system). Here, we discuss how to make an accurate, complete, and ethical citation, and provide simple and practical guides to organize references in a scientific medical paper.

Preserving the Integrity of Citations and References by All Stakeholders of Science Communication

Citations to scholarly items are building bricks for multidisciplinary science communication. Citation analyses are currently influencing individual career advancement and ranking of academic and research institutions worldwide. This article overviews the involvement of scientific authors, reviewers, editors, publishers, indexers, and learned associations in the citing and referencing to preserve the integrity of science communication. Authors are responsible for thorough bibliographic searches to select relevant references for their articles, comprehend main points, and cite them in an ethical way. Reviewers and editors may perform additional searches and recommend missing essential references. Publishers, in turn, are in a position to instruct their authors over the citations and references, provide tools for validation of references, and open access to bibliographies. Publicly available reference lists bear important information about the novelty and relatedness of the scholarly items with the published literature. Few editorial associations have dealt with the issue of citations and properly managed references. As a prime example, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) issued in December 2014 an updated set of recommendations on the need for citing primary literature and avoiding unethical references, which are applicable to the global scientific community. With the exponential growth of literature and related references, it is critically important to define functions of all stakeholders of science communication in curbing the issue of irrational and unethical citations and thereby improve the quality and indexability of scholarly journals.

Citation classics published in Knowledge Management journals. Part II: studying research trends and discovering the Google Scholar Effect

Purpose

– The purpose of this study was to discover growing, stable and declining knowledge management (KM) research trends.

Design/methodology/approach

– Citations to 100 KM citation classics as identified by Serenko and Dumay (2015) were collected and analyzed for growing, stable and declining research trends.

Findings

– This research has two findings that were not theoretically expected. First, a majority of KM citation classics exhibit a bimodal citation distribution peak. Second, there are a growing number of citations for all research topics. These unexpected findings warranted further theoretical elaboration and empirical investigation. The analysis of erroneous citations and a five-year citation trend (2009 – 2013) reveals that the continuously growing volume of citations may result from what the authors call the Google Scholar Effect.

Research limitations/implications

– The results from this study open up two significant research opportunities. First, more research is needed to understand the impact Google Scholar is having on domains beyond KM. Second, more comprehensive research on the impact of erroneous citations is required because these have the most potential for damaging academic discourse and reputation.

Practical implications

– Researchers need to be aware of how technology is changing their profession and their citation behavior because of the pressure from the contemporary “publish or perish” environment, which prevents research from being state-of-the-art. Similarly, KM reviewers and editors need to be more aware of the pressure and prevalence of mis-citations and take action to raise awareness and to prevent mis-citations.

Originality/value

– This study is important from a scientometric research perspective as part of a growing research field using Google Scholar to measure the impact and power it has in influencing what gets cited and by whom.

Essential Components of Educational Programs on Biomedical Writing, Editing, and Publishing

The primary objective of educational programs on biomedical writing, editing, and publishing is to nurture ethical skills among local and international researchers and editors from diverse professional backgrounds. The mechanics, essential components, and target outcomes of these programs are described in this article. The mechanics covers the objectives, design, benefits, duration, participants and qualifications, program formats, administrative issues, and mentorship. The essential components consist of three core schedules: Schedule I Basic aspects of biomedical writing, editing, and communications; Schedule II Essential skills in biomedical writing, editing, and publishing; and Schedule III Interactive lectures on relevant topics. The target outcomes of the programs comprise knowledge acquisition, skills development, paper write-up, and journal publication. These programs add to the prestige and academic standing of the host institutions.