A review of top cardiology and cardiovascular medicine journal guidelines regarding the use of generative artificial intelligence tools in scientific writing

BACKGROUND

Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools have experienced rapid development over the last decade and are gaining increasing popularity as assistive models in academic writing. However, the ability of AI to generate reliable and accurate research articles is a topic of debate. Major scientific journals have issued policies regarding the contribution of AI tools in scientific writing.

METHODS

We conducted a review of the author and peer reviewer guidelines of the top 25 Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine journals as per the 2023 SCImago rankings. Data were obtained though reviewing journal websites and directly emailing the editorial office. Descriptive data regarding journal characteristics were coded on SPSS. Subgroup analyses of the journal guidelines were conducted based on the publishing company policies.

RESULTS

Our analysis revealed that all scientific journals in our study permitted the documented use of AI in scientific writing with certain limitations as per ICMJE recommendations. We found that AI tools cannot be included in the authorship or be used for image generation, and that all authors are required to assume full responsibility of their submitted and published work. The use of generative AI tools in the peer review process is strictly prohibited.

CONCLUSION

Guidelines regarding the use of generative AI in scientific writing are standardized, detailed, and unanimously followed by all journals in our study according to the recommendations set forth by international forums. It is imperative to ensure that these policies are carefully followed and updated to maintain scientific integrity.

[The track of the clinical researcher]

In this issue, the students of the Maestría en Ciencias de la Salud Program, who are generally doctors, publish their work in the format of architectural design. The architectural design, allows to demonstrate in a schematic way, the objective, basal state, maneuver and outcome of their investigations. In this issue of the Revista Médica del IMSS, architectural design is used explicitly for the first time in a scientific publication. This innovation was achieved thanks to the collaboration of the editors and students of the Maestría en Ciencias de la Salud Program.

Promoting Ethical Integrity in Authorship Attribution: Who Can Help More?

N/a.

Feasibility of an Assessment Tool as a Data-Driven Approach to Reducing Racial Bias in Biomedical Publications

The editorial independence of biomedical journals allows flexibility to meet a wide range of research interests. However, it also is a barrier for coordination between journals to solve challenging issues such as racial bias in the scientific literature. A standardized tool to screen for racial bias could prevent the publication of racially biased papers. Biomedical journals would maintain editorial autonomy while still allowing comparable data to be collected and analyzed across journals. A racially diverse research team carried out a three-phase study to generate and test a racial bias assessment tool for biomedical research. Phase 1, an in-depth, structured literature search to identify recommendations, found near complete agreement in the literature on addressing race in biomedical research. Phase 2, construction of a framework from those recommendations, provides the major innovation of this paper. The framework includes three dimensions of race: 1) context, 2) tone and terminology, and 3) analysis, which are the basis for the Race Equity Vetting Instrument for Editorial Workflow (REVIEW) tool. Phase 3, pilot testing the assessment tool, showed that the REVIEW tool was effective at flagging multiple concerns in widely criticized articles. This study demonstrates the feasibility of the proposed REVIEW tool to reduce racial bias in research. Next steps include testing this tool on a broader sample of biomedical research to determine how the tool performs on more subtle examples of racial bias.

[How Acta Médica Portuguesa Adjusted to Pandemic Times]

N/a.

Is my paper relevant for an international audience?

This is the first question one should consider before submitting a paper to an international journal. The answer is simple: If researchers or practitioners from another country can learn something from your paper that can influence a practice or a research they are involved in, then your paper is relevant for an international audience. There are many elements that can influence in this cross-border transferability. One could think that having a big “n”, or performing complex statistical calculations, or using complicated study designs makes the paper more attractive to colleagues from other countries. These elements can help, but they are not sufficient. On the other hand, one could think that a study performed in a small hospital in a given country will never be of interest for these foreign colleagues. That is not necessarily correct. Let’s burst some myths.

[I Submitted a Paper to Acta Médica Portugal. What Happens Now?]

N/a.

[Why Become Editor-in-Chief of a Scientific Medical Journal?]

N/a.

Letter to the Editor: More on Conflict of Interest Disclosure in a Top-Tier Portuguese Medical Journal

Not Applicable.

Updated Editorial Guidance for Quality and Reliability of Research Output

Over the past few years, updated editorial policy statements of several associations have provided a platform for improving the quality of scientific research and publishing. The updates have particularly pointed to the need for following research reporting standards, authorship and contributorship regulations, implementing digital tools for the identification and crediting academic contributors, and moving towards optimal ethical open-access models. This article overviews some of the recent editorial policy statements of global editorial associations and reflects on the role of the regional counterparts in advancing scholarly publishing. One of the globally promoted documents is the Recommendations of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). Its latest versions contain statements on proper research reporting, reviewing, editing, and publishing. Points on ethical target journals and 'predatory' sources are also available. This year, in a move to update its editorial policy, the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) released the Core Practices, comprehensively reflecting on the major issues in publication ethics. Updated joint statements of medical writers associations are also available to implement transparent policy on contributorship in sponsor-supported research projects and related reports. Several suggestions are put forward to improve global editorial statements on online profiling, crediting, and referencing. It is also highlighted that knowledge and implementation of updated editorial guidance is essential for editors' good standing.

[Fresh Wind at Acta Médica Portuguesa]

N/A.

Conflict of Interest Disclosure in a Top-Tier Portuguese Medical Journal

INTRODUCTION

Scientific medical publications are considered to be a source of unbiased and independent information. Authors are required to disclose relationships with the pharmaceutical industry for transparency purposes. The aim of this work was to assess conflict of interest disclosure in a Portuguese top-tier medical journal by comparing authors' self-reported conflicts of interest with payments listed in the official database of Portuguese Ministry of Health.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

All articles published in the Portuguese Journal of Cardiology from December 2015 to May 2016 were reviewed. Articles based on clinical images, with authors affiliated to foreign institutions, editorials, letters to the editor, or submitted before January 1st 2015 were excluded. Authors were categorized on concordance between self-reported disclosures and payments listed in the database. Authors who authored multiple articles were counted as new authors, since each paper offered a new opportunity for financial disclosure.

RESULTS

Of the 155 authors surveyed, 82 (53%) were in perfect concordance with the sunshine database, while 73 authors (47%) had one or more undisclosed payments. Undisclosed payments totaled over € 210 000. Four (17%) articles mentioned a conflict of interest, 24 articles (96%) had at least one author with undisclosed payments.

DISCUSSION

None of the payments listed in the database was acknowledged in self-reported conflicts of interest. This might indicate that authors do not consider their financial relationships with the industry to be relevant.

CONCLUSION

The lack of concordance between self-reported conflicts of interest and payments found in the database raises concerns about incomplete disclosure.

Statistical Data Editing in Scientific Articles

Scientific journals are important scholarly forums for sharing research findings. Editors have important roles in safeguarding standards of scientific publication and should be familiar with correct presentation of results, among other core competencies. Editors do not have access to the raw data and should thus rely on clues in the submitted manuscripts. To identify probable errors, they should look for inconsistencies in presented results. Common statistical problems that can be picked up by a knowledgeable manuscript editor are discussed in this article. Manuscripts should contain a detailed section on statistical analyses of the data. Numbers should be reported with appropriate precisions. Standard error of the mean (SEM) should not be reported as an index of data dispersion. Mean (standard deviation [SD]) and median (interquartile range [IQR]) should be used for description of normally and non-normally distributed data, respectively. If possible, it is better to report 95% confidence interval (CI) for statistics, at least for main outcome variables. And, P values should be presented, and interpreted with caution, if there is a hypothesis. To advance knowledge and skills of their members, associations of journal editors are better to develop training courses on basic statistics and research methodology for non-experts. This would in turn improve research reporting and safeguard the body of scientific evidence.

Similarity Analysis of Korean Medical Literature and Its Association with Efforts to Improve Research and Publication Ethics

In the present study, the frequency of research misconduct in Korean medical papers was analyzed using the similarity check software iThenticate®. All Korean papers written in English that were published in 2009 and 2014 in KoreaMed Synapse were identified. In total, 23,848 papers were extracted. 4,050 Journal Articles of them were randomly selected for similarity analysis. The average Similarity Index of the 4,050 papers decreased over time, particularly in 2013: in 2009 and 2014, it was 10.15% and 5.62%, respectively. And 357 (8.8%) had a Similarity Index of ≥ 20%. Authors considered a Similarity Index of ≥ 20% as suspected research misconduct. It was found that iThenticate® cannot functionally process citations without double quotation marks. Papers with a Similarity Index of ≥ 20% were thus individually checked for detecting such text-matching errors to accurately identify papers with suspected research misconduct. After correcting text-matching errors, 142 (3.5% of the 4,050 papers) were suspected of research misconduct. The annual frequency of these papers decreased over time, particularly in 2013: in 2009 and 2014, it was 5.2% and 1.7%, respectively. The decrease was associated with the introduction of CrossCheck by KoreaMed and the frequent use of similarity check software. The majority (81%) had Similarity Indices between 20% and 40%. The fact suggested that low Similarity index does not necessarily mean low possibility of research misconduct. It should be noted that, although iThenticate® provides a fundamental basis for detecting research misconduct, the final judgment should be made by experts.

The Journal Impact Factor: Moving Toward an Alternative and Combined Scientometric Approach

The Journal Impact Factor (JIF) is a single citation metric, which is widely employed for ranking journals and choosing target journals, but is also misused as the proxy of the quality of individual articles and academic achievements of authors. This article analyzes Scopus-based publication activity on the JIF and overviews some of the numerous misuses of the JIF, global initiatives to overcome the 'obsession' with impact factors, and emerging strategies to revise the concept of the scholarly impact. The growing number of articles on the JIF, most of which are in English, reflects interest of experts in journal editing and scientometrics toward its uses, misuses, and options to overcome related problems. Solely displaying values of the JIFs on the journal websites is criticized by experts as these average metrics do not reflect skewness of citation distribution of individual articles. Emerging strategies suggest to complement the JIFs with citation plots and alternative metrics, reflecting uses of individual articles in terms of downloads and distribution of related information through social media and networking platforms. It is also proposed to revise the original formula of the JIF calculation and embrace the concept of the impact and importance of individual articles. The latter is largely dependent on ethical soundness of the journal instructions, proper editing and structuring of articles, efforts to promote related information through social media, and endorsements of professional societies.

Me, the Editor-In-Chief and the Puzzle Work

N/A.

Dangerous Predatory Publishers Threaten Medical Research

This article introduces predatory publishers in the context of biomedical sciences research. It describes the characteristics of predatory publishers, including spamming and using fake metrics, and it describes the problems they cause for science and universities. Predatory journals often fail to properly manage peer review, allowing pseudo-science to be published dressed up as authentic science. Academic evaluation is also affected, as some researchers take advantage of the quick, easy, and cheap publishing predatory journals provide. By understanding how predatory publishers operate, researchers can avoid becoming victimized by them.

How to Act When Research Misconduct Is Not Detected by Software but Revealed by the Author of the Plagiarized Article

The detection of plagiarism in scholarly articles is a complex process. It requires not just quantitative analysis with the similarity recording by anti-plagiarism software but also assessment of the readers' opinion, pointing to the theft of ideas, methodologies, and graphics. In this article we describe a blatant case of plagiarism by Chinese authors, who copied a Russian article from a non-indexed and not widely visible Russian journal, and published their own report in English in an open-access journal indexed by Scopus and Web of Science and archived in PubMed Central. The details of copying in the translated English article were presented by the Russian author to the chief editor of the index journal, consultants from Scopus, anti-plagiarism experts, and the administrator of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). The correspondents from Scopus and COPE pointed to the decisive role of the editors' of the English journal who may consider further actions if plagiarism is confirmed. After all, the chief editor of the English journal retracted the article on grounds of plagiarism and published a retraction note, although no details of the complexity of the case were reported. The case points to the need for combining anti-plagiarism efforts and actively seeking opinion of non-native English-speaking authors and readers who may spot intellectual theft which is not always detected by software.

Statement on Publication Ethics for Editors and Publishers

The digitization and related developments in journal editing and publishing necessitate increasing the awareness of all stakeholders of science communication in the emerging global problems and possible solutions. Journal editors and publishers are frequently encountered with the fast-growing problems of authorship, conflicts of interest, peer review, research misconduct, unethical citations, and inappropriate journal impact metrics. While the number of erroneous and unethical research papers and wasteful, or 'predatory', journals is increasing exponentially, responsible editors are urged to 'clean' the literature by correcting or retracting related articles. Indexers are advised to implement measures for accepting truly influential and ethical journals and delisting sources with predatory publishing practices. Updating knowledge and skills of authors, editors and publishers, developing and endorsing recommendations of global editorial associations, and (re)drafting journal instructions can be viewed as potential tools for improving ethics of academic journals. The aim of this Statement is to increase awareness of all stakeholders of science communication of the emerging ethical issues in journal editing and publishing and initiate a campaign of upgrading and enforcing related journal instructions.

Specialist Bibliographic Databases

Specialist bibliographic databases offer essential online tools for researchers and authors who work on specific subjects and perform comprehensive and systematic syntheses of evidence. This article presents examples of the established specialist databases, which may be of interest to those engaged in multidisciplinary science communication. Access to most specialist databases is through subscription schemes and membership in professional associations. Several aggregators of information and database vendors, such as EBSCOhost and ProQuest, facilitate advanced searches supported by specialist keyword thesauri. Searches of items through specialist databases are complementary to those through multidisciplinary research platforms, such as PubMed, Web of Science, and Google Scholar. Familiarizing with the functional characteristics of biomedical and nonbiomedical bibliographic search tools is mandatory for researchers, authors, editors, and publishers. The database users are offered updates of the indexed journal lists, abstracts, author profiles, and links to other metadata. Editors and publishers may find particularly useful source selection criteria and apply for coverage of their peer-reviewed journals and grey literature sources. These criteria are aimed at accepting relevant sources with established editorial policies and quality controls.

New journals for publishing medical case reports

Because they do not rank highly in the hierarchy of evidence and are not frequently cited, case reports describing the clinical circumstances of single patients are seldom published by medical journals. However, many clinicians argue that case reports have significant educational value, advance medical knowledge, and complement evidence-based medicine. Over the last several years, a vast number (∼160) of new peer-reviewed journals have emerged that focus on publishing case reports. These journals are typically open access and have relatively high acceptance rates. However, approximately half of the publishers of case reports journals engage in questionable or "predatory" publishing practices. Authors of case reports may benefit from greater awareness of these new publication venues as well as an ability to discriminate between reputable and non-reputable journal publishers.

Current levels of conflict of interest disclosure in medical publications from Korea

Medical research should be fully transparent. The aims of this study were to determine the prevalence of author-related conflict of interest (COI) policies and evaluate the actual state of COI disclosure in Korean medical journals. To determine the prevalence of author-related COI policies, we examined the 198 medical journals listed in the KoreaMed database. To investigate the actual state of COI disclosures in published papers, we analyzed the publications in a representative medical journal, the Journal of the Korean Medical Science, from the perspective of the relevance of the ethics of COI disclosure. A total of 164 (82.8%) journals required an author's statement of COI as a criterion for publication. Of these 164, most of them focused on financial COI, with 101 (61.6%) presenting the information related to COI disclosures as a separate paragraph with a clear title. We identified 114 articles published by the Journal of the Korean Medical Science over a seven-year period, from January, 2006 to December, 2012. Of these, 65 papers (57%) included an author's statement of COI. We found that the policies of Korean medical journals regarding the disclosure of author COIs are still behind the internationally suggested level.