Retraction note: Clinical analysis of colistin sulfate in the treatment of pneumonia caused by carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative bacteria.

[This retracts the article on p. 2173 in vol. 12, PMID: 38808336.].

Masquerade of authority: hijacked journals are gaining more credibility than original ones.

At the moment, the academic world is faced with various challenges that negatively impact science integrity. One is hijacked journals, a second, inauthentic website for indexed legitimate journals, managed by cybercriminals. These journals publish any manuscript by charging authors and pose a risk to scientific integrity. This piece compares a journal's original and hijacked versions regarding authority in search engines. A list of 16 medical journals, along with their hijacked versions, has been collected. The MOZ Domain Authority has been used to check the authority of both original and hijacked journals, and the results have been discussed. It indicates that hijacked journals are gaining more credibility than original ones. This should alarm academia and highlights a need for serious action against hijacked journals. The related policies should be planned, and tools should be developed to support easy detection of hijacked journals. On the publishers' side, the visibility of journals' websites must be enhanced to address this issue.

Pearls of meta-analyses and systematic review in scientific evidence.

Scientific evidence develops bit by bit from case reports, case series; to larger case-control, case-cohort; and further escalate to randomized controlled trials. This echoed the importance of continue publishing World journal of Clinical Cases, where novel and advancing discoveries start from a single case. In contrast, at the other end of the realm of evidence synthesis, systematic review and meta-analysis represent distinct yet interconnected processes. Butorphanol in epidural labor analgesia has long been studied since 1989, and with 70 publications from MEDLINE searches. However, there was no meta-analysis, nor any systematic review published so far. The latest in-press article published by Tang et al. on the protocol for the systematic review and meta-analysis on the safety and effectiveness of butorphanol in epidural labor analgesia is encouraging. We believe the findings of this study will be valuable for clinical practice as well as for future research.

How to be a good reviewer: A step-by-step guide for approaching peer review of a scientific manuscript.

Objectives: The peer review process is critical to maintaining quality, reliability, novelty, and innovation in the scientific literature. However, the teaching of scientific peer review is rarely a component of formal scientific or clinical training, and even the most experienced peer reviewers express interest in continuing education. The objective of this review article is to summarize the collective perspectives of experienced journal editors about how to be a good reviewer in a step-by-step guide that can serve as a resource for the performance of peer review of a scientific manuscript. Methods: This is a narrative review. Results: A review of the history and an overview of the modern-day peer review process are provided with attention to the role played by the reviewer, including important reasons for involvement in scientific peer review. The general components of a scientific peer review are described, and a model for how to structure a peer review report is provided. These concepts are also summarized in a reviewer checklist that can be used in real-time to develop and double-check one's reviewer report before submitting it. Conclusions: Peer review is a critically important service for maintaining quality in the scientific literature. Peer review of a scientific manuscript and the associated reviewer's report should assess specific details related to the accuracy, validity, novelty, and interpretation of a study's results. We hope that this article will serve as a resource and guide for reviewers of all levels of experience in the performance of peer review of a scientific manuscript.

Research designs of publications in radiography professional journals - A modified bibliometric analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Evidence based practice relies on availability of research evidence mostly through peer-reviewed journal publications. No consensus currently exists on the best hierarchy of research evidence, often categorised by the adopted research designs. Analysing the prevalent research designs in radiography professional journals is one vital step in considering an evidence hierarchy specific to the radiography profession and this forms the aim of this study. METHODS: Bibliometric data of publications in three Radiography professional journals within a 10-year period were extracted. The Digital Object Identifier were used to locate papers on publishers' websites and obtain relevant data for analysis. Descriptive analysis using frequencies and percentages were used to represent data while Chi-square was used to analyse relationship between categorical variables. RESULTS: 1830 articles met the pre-set inclusion criteria. Quantitative descriptive studies were the most published design (26.6%) followed by non-RCT experimental studies (18.7%), while Randomised Controlled Trials (RCT) were the least published (1.0%). Systematic reviews (42.9%) showed the highest average percentage increase within the 10-year period, however RCTs showed no net increase. Single-centre studies predominated among experimental studies (RCT = 88.9%; Non-RCT = 95%). Author collaboration across all study designs was notable, with RCTs showing the most (100%). Quantitative and qualitative studies comparatively had similar number of citations when publication numbers were matched. Quantitative descriptive studies had the highest cumulative citations while RCTs had the least. CONCLUSION: There is a case to advocate for more study designs towards the peak of evidence hierarchies such as systematic reviews and RCT. Radiography research should be primarily designed to answer pertinent questions and improve the validity of the profession's evidence base. IMPLICATION FOR PRACTICE: The evidence presented can encourage the adoption of the research designs that enhances radiography profession's evidence base.

Assessing the Reproducibility of the Structured Abstracts Generated by ChatGPT and Bard Compared to Human-Written Abstracts in the Field of Spine Surgery: Comparative Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Due to recent advances in artificial intelligence (AI), language model applications can generate logical text output that is difficult to distinguish from human writing. ChatGPT (OpenAI) and Bard (subsequently rebranded as "Gemini"; Google AI) were developed using distinct approaches, but little has been studied about the difference in their capability to generate the abstract. The use of AI to write scientific abstracts in the field of spine surgery is the center of much debate and controversy. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to assess the reproducibility of the structured abstracts generated by ChatGPT and Bard compared to human-written abstracts in the field of spine surgery. METHODS: In total, 60 abstracts dealing with spine sections were randomly selected from 7 reputable journals and used as ChatGPT and Bard input statements to generate abstracts based on supplied paper titles. A total of 174 abstracts, divided into human-written abstracts, ChatGPT-generated abstracts, and Bard-generated abstracts, were evaluated for compliance with the structured format of journal guidelines and consistency of content. The likelihood of plagiarism and AI output was assessed using the iThenticate and ZeroGPT programs, respectively. A total of 8 reviewers in the spinal field evaluated 30 randomly extracted abstracts to determine whether they were produced by AI or human authors. RESULTS: The proportion of abstracts that met journal formatting guidelines was greater among ChatGPT abstracts (34/60, 56.6%) compared with those generated by Bard (6/54, 11.1%; P<.001). However, a higher proportion of Bard abstracts (49/54, 90.7%) had word counts that met journal guidelines compared with ChatGPT abstracts (30/60, 50%; P<.001). The similarity index was significantly lower among ChatGPT-generated abstracts (20.7%) compared with Bard-generated abstracts (32.1%; P<.001). The AI-detection program predicted that 21.7% (13/60) of the human group, 63.3% (38/60) of the ChatGPT group, and 87% (47/54) of the Bard group were possibly generated by AI, with an area under the curve value of 0.863 (P<.001). The mean detection rate by human reviewers was 53.8% (SD 11.2%), achieving a sensitivity of 56.3% and a specificity of 48.4%. A total of 56.3% (63/112) of the actual human-written abstracts and 55.9% (62/128) of AI-generated abstracts were recognized as human-written and AI-generated by human reviewers, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Both ChatGPT and Bard can be used to help write abstracts, but most AI-generated abstracts are currently considered unethical due to high plagiarism and AI-detection rates. ChatGPT-generated abstracts appear to be superior to Bard-generated abstracts in meeting journal formatting guidelines. Because humans are unable to accurately distinguish abstracts written by humans from those produced by AI programs, it is crucial to exercise special caution and examine the ethical boundaries of using AI programs, including ChatGPT and Bard.

Welcoming a new Main Editor of Journal of Synchrotron Radiation.

Introducing a new Main Editor of JSR.

Journal requirement for data sharing statements in clinical trials: a cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVE: Data sharing statements are considered routine in clinical trial reporting, and represent a step towards data transparency. The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) require clinical trials to publish data sharing statements. To assess requirement for data sharing statements by biomedical journals, and to explore associations between journal characteristics and requirement for data sharing statements. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: In this cross-sectional study, we included all biomedical journals that published clinical trials from January 1st, 2019 to December 31st, 2022 and that were indexed by the Journal Citation Reports. The study outcome was the journal requirement for data sharing statements. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were used to assess the relationship between journal characteristics and requirement for data sharing statements. RESULTS: Of the 3,229 biomedical journals included in the analyses, 2,345 (72.6%) required authors to include data sharing statements. Journals published in the UK (OR, 3.19 [95% CI, 2.43 to 4.22]) and endorsing the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) (OR, 3.30 [95% CI, 2.78 to 3.92]) had greater odds of requiring data sharing statements. Journals that were Open Access, non-English language, in the Journal Citation Reports group of clinical medicine, and on the ICMJE list had lower odds of requiring data sharing statements, with ORs ranging from 0.18 to 0.81. CONCLUSION: Despite ICMJE recommendations, more than 27% of biomedical journals do not require clinical trials to include data sharing statements, highlighting room for improved transparency.

Abstracts From the First Annual Research Day Hosted by the Michigan State University College of Osteopathic Medicine, Novi, Michigan, May 15, 2023.

The Spartan Medical Research Journal (SMRJ) is pleased to publish abstracts from the First Annual Research Day hosted by the Michigan State University College of Osteopathic Medicine (MSUCOM), held in Novi, Michigan, on May 15, 2023. Sponsored by MSUCOM, the Statewide Campus System (SCS), and Research, Innovation, and Scholarly Engagement (RISE), this event showcased a total of 139 selected research abstracts following a meticulous blinded review by the MSUCOM Research Day Planning Committee and SMRJ editorial staff. These abstracts were subsequently presented at the MSUCOM First Annual Research Day in 2023, with awards for exceptional oral and poster presentations conferred on May 15, 2023. Of the 139 presentations that were ultimately chosen, 45 authors consented and elected to have their abstracts published in SMRJ. The abstracts from 2023 encompass a wide array of contemporary medical and clinical subjects, incorporating a variety of research designs that cover basic science, clinical research, case reports, medical education, and quality improvement. While abstracts offer concise overview of research projects or presentations, they do not permit a comprehensive evaluation of the scientific rigor employed in the respective works. Although these abstracts offer preliminary results that may necessitate further refinement and validation, they serve a vital function in disseminating novel research concepts and advancements in the discipline of medicine. This knowledge-sharing promotes meaningful dialogue among researchers, clinicians, and educators, thereby making a valuable contribution to the collective body of knowledge in the fields of medical sciences and osteopathic medicine. Andrea Amalfitano, DO, PhD Osteopathic Heritage Foundation Professor of Pediatrics, Microbiology and Molecular Genetics Professor, BioMolecular Science Gateway Editor-in-Chief, Spartan Medical Research Journal (SMRJ) MSU College of Osteopathic Medicine- Statewide Campus System C. Patricia Obando S., PhD Associate Dean and DIO, Graduate Medical Education Associate Professor- MSU College of Osteopathic Medicine- Statewide Campus System Rana Ismail, PhD, MSc, CPHQ Director of Research Editor, Spartan Medical Research Journal (SMRJ) MSU College of Osteopathic Medicine- Statewide Campus System Francis Akenami, BMLS, PhD, MSc, FIMLS Managing Editor Spartan Medical Research Journal (SMRJ) MSU College of Osteopathic Medicine- Statewide Campus System.

A conversation with the 2024 Rufus A. Lyman Award authors.

Each year the American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education awards the Rufus A. Lyman Award to the best paper from the previous year. This commentary, derived from an interview with the members of a successful research collaboration, not only provides insight to our Academy on the elements for developing and maintaining a successful research collaboration from the development of the project through publication, but also offers practical advice and guidance on how faculty members can develop and sustain these research teams and how individuals can improve their skills and abilities as authors. The authors of this paper, recipients of the Rufus A. Lyman Award, share their experiences and strategies, making this commentary a beacon for all those interested in research collaborations and improving writing skills in the field of pharmacy education.

Analysis of Top 100 Articles Cited in Top Pain Journals: A Comprehensive Two Decade Bibliometric Analysis.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: A bibliometric analysis was performed to analyze and compare the top 100 articles from the most well-known five pain journals: Pain, Pain Physician, Pain Medicine, Regional Anesthesia & Pain Medicine, and Journal of Pain. A query of the Scopus database was performed to filter the top 200 most cited articles from each journal. CY score was calculated for the top 200 articles from each journal by dividing the total number of citations by the number of years the article has been published. RECENT FINDINGS: All articles had a collective analysis of the top CY scores, the top 100 of which were further analyzed. The pain subtype, type of publication, country of origin, and senior author were extrapolated from these top 100 articles. Frequency tables were organized, revealing Pain Journal as the highest publishing journal out of the top 100 articles. Chronic pain was the most studied subtype of pain and narrative reviews were the most common type of evidence. Studies were also organized in five-year epochs to analyze the frequency of publications in these intervals. Results show that 2010-2014 had the highest frequency of articles published overall. Journal Impact Factor (JIF) is also an objective indicator of the average number of citations per published article from each journal. The journal with the highest JIF was Pain with an impact factor of 7.926. (6).

A produção sobre Ciência Aberta na área de Ciência da Informação no Brasil: análise no mapa temático das publicações da Brapci ­ 2015 a 2019 / The production on Open Science in the Information Science area in Brazil: analysis on the thematic map of Brapci publications ­ 2015 to 2019 / La producción sobre Ciencia Abierta en el área de Ciencias de la Información en Brasil: análisis sobre el mapa temático de las publicaciones de Brapci ­ 2015 a 2019

O texto discorre sobre relações entre a Ciência da Informação e o movimento da Ciência Aberta, sob a ótica de artigos científicos identificados na Base de Dados Referenciais de Artigos de Periódicos em Ciência da Informação. Objetiva determinar dimensões, campos e movimentos que se relacionam, estabelecendo um panorama dessa relação com as pesquisas brasileiras no período entre 2015 e 2019 no domínio da comunicação científica. A metodologia é a revisão narrativa de literatura, por meio da aplicação da análise de títulos, resumos e palavras-chave dos artigos selecionados. O campo empírico é composto pelos resultados obtidos pela busca na base, totalizando 36 resultados. Conclui-se que a Ciência da Informação está se relacionando com a Ciência Aberta, observando-se a prevalência de estudos sobre temáticas de dados de pesquisa abertos e sobre repositórios, de acordo com o período observado, como maneiras de aperfeiçoar os fazeres científicos.

The text discusses the relationship between Information Science and the Open Science movement, from the perspective of scientific articles identified in the Referential Database of Journal Articles in Information Science. The objective is to determine the dimensions, fields, and movements related, establishing an overview of this relationship with Brazilian research between 2015 and 2019, in the domain of scientific communication. The methodology employed is the narrative literature review, through the analysis of titles, abstracts, and keywords of selected articles. The empirical field consists of the results obtained through the search in the database, totaling 36 results. It is concluded that Information Science is relating to Open Science, with a prevalence of studies on open research data and repositories, according to the observed period, as ways to enhance scientific practices.

El texto discute la relación entre la Ciencia de la Información y el movimiento de la Ciencia Abierta, desde la perspectiva de artículos científicos identificados en la Base de Datos Referencial de Artículos de Revistas en Ciencia de la Información. El objetivo es determinar dimensiones, campos y movimientos relacionados, estableciendo una visión general de esta relación con la investigación brasileña entre 2015 y 2019, en el ámbito de la comunicación científica. La metodología es la revisión narrativa de literatura, a través del análisis de títulos, resúmenes y palabras clave de artículos seleccionados. El campo empírico consiste en los resultados obtenidos mediante la búsqueda en la base de datos, con 36 resultados. Se concluye que la Ciencia de la Información se relaciona con la Ciencia Abierta, con una prevalencia de estudios sobre datos de investigación abiertos y repositorios, según el período observado, como formas de mejorar las prácticas científicas.

Evaluation and Comparison of Academic Impact and Disruptive Innovation Level of Medical Journals: Bibliometric Analysis and Disruptive Evaluation.

BACKGROUND: As an important platform for researchers to present their academic findings, medical journals have a close relationship between their evaluation orientation and the value orientation of their published research results. However, the differences between the academic impact and level of disruptive innovation of medical journals have not been examined by any study yet. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to compare the relationships and differences between the academic impact, disruptive innovation levels, and peer review results of medical journals and published research papers. We also analyzed the similarities and differences in the impact evaluations, disruptive innovations, and peer reviews for different types of medical research papers and the underlying reasons. METHODS: The general and internal medicine Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE) journals in 2018 were chosen as the study object to explore the differences in the academic impact and level of disruptive innovation of medical journals based on the OpenCitations Index of PubMed open PMID-to-PMID citations (POCI) and H1Connect databases, respectively, and we compared them with the results of peer review. RESULTS: First, the correlation coefficients of the Journal Disruption Index (JDI) with the Journal Cumulative Citation for 5 years (JCC5), Journal Impact Factor (JIF), and Journal Citation Indicator (JCI) were 0.677, 0.585, and 0.621, respectively. The correlation coefficient of the absolute disruption index (Dz) with the Cumulative Citation for 5 years (CC5) was 0.635. However, the average difference in the disruptive innovation and academic influence rankings of journals reached 20 places (about 17.5%). The average difference in the disruptive innovation and influence rankings of research papers reached about 2700 places (about 17.7%). The differences reflect the essential difference between the two evaluation systems. Second, the top 7 journals selected based on JDI, JCC5, JIF, and JCI were the same, and all of them were H-journals. Although 8 (8/15, 53%), 96 (96/150, 64%), and 880 (880/1500, 58.67%) of the top 0.1%, top 1%, and top 10% papers selected based on Dz and CC5, respectively, were the same. Third, research papers with the "changes clinical practice" tag showed only moderate innovation (4.96) and impact (241.67) levels but had high levels of peer-reviewed recognition (6.00) and attention (2.83). CONCLUSIONS: The results of the study show that research evaluation based on innovative indicators is detached from the traditional impact evaluation system. The 3 evaluation systems (impact evaluation, disruptive innovation evaluation, and peer review) only have high consistency for authoritative journals and top papers. Neither a single impact indicator nor an innovative indicator can directly reflect the impact of medical research for clinical practice. How to establish an integrated, comprehensive, scientific, and reasonable journal evaluation system to improve the existing evaluation system of medical journals still needs further research.

K-Means clustering of dermatology journals: comparing the distribution of "free-to-publish" and "pay-to-publish" models.

This study investigates the impact of Free-to-Publish (F2P) versus Pay-to-Publish (P2P) models in dermatology journals, focusing on their differences in terms of journal metrics, Article Processing Charges (APCs), and Open Access (OA) status. Utilizing k-means clustering, the research evaluates dermatology journals based on SCImago Journal Rankings (SJR), H-Index, and Impact Factor (IF), and examines the correlation between these metrics, APCs, and OA status (Full or Hybrid). Data from the SCImago Journal Rank and Journal Citation Report databases were used, and metrics from 106 journals were normalized and grouped into three tiers.The study reveals a higher proportion of F2P journals, especially in higher-tier journals, indicating a preference for quality-driven research acceptance. Conversely, a rising proportion of P2P journals in lower tiers suggests potential bias towards the ability to pay. This disparity poses challenges for researchers from less-funded institutions or those early in their careers. The study also finds significant differences in APCs between F2P and P2P journals, with hybrid OA being more common in F2P.Conclusively, the study highlights the disparities in dermatology journals between F2P and P2P models and underscores the need for further research into authorship demographics and institutional affiliations in these journals. It also establishes the effectiveness of k-means clustering as a standardized method for assessing journal quality, which can reduce reliance on potentially biased individual metrics.

[The bibliography group, between dream and reality in nursing practice]. / Le groupe de bibliographie, entre rêve et réalité de l'exercice infirmier.

The shock of reality that nursing students face when they start out will affect the nursing profession even more in the future, as it faces a recruitment crisis in the midst of renewal. Restoring meaning to the nursing profession is a complex and daunting challenge. By providing access to scientific literature, the bibliography group can contribute to this, based on an Evidence-Based Nursing approach. This initiative, which is beneficial for professionals whose skills development is thus encouraged, is designed to be simple and accessible to as many people as possible.

Trichotillomania: A perspective from bibliometric analysis.

Aim: Trichotillomania, an obsessive-compulsive-related disorder, is defined by the recurrent act of pulling out one's own hair from different areas of the body. Despite the considerable body of research dedicated to the subject of trichotillomania, the overarching trends that unify these studies remain obscure. The purpose of the present bibliometric analysis was to ascertain these trends.Method: To achieve this objective, we conducted a thorough search of publications in the Web of Science database and subsequently evaluated the acquired data using VOSviewer software.Results: The most cited article on trichotillomania was written by Simonoff et al. The most prolific writer on trichotillomania is Grant JE. The most publications on the subject of trichotillomania were published in the "Journal of Obsessive Compulsive and Related Disorders" and the most frequently repeated keyword is trichotillomania. Trichotillomania studies have focused on treatment, clinical features, and other accompanying psychiatric conditions.Conclusion: Potential areas of research could include treatment methods in addition to the psychiatric and physical comorbidities of trichotillomania, and efforts to enhance international collaborations in this domain should be intensified.

Composition of the editorial staff of major spinal journals based on geo-economic background: A survey analysis.

Background: The widespread absence of papers originating in low and middle income economies (LAMIE) across various scholarly disciplines has been widely acknowledged. One potential reason for this could be editorial biases against submissions from LAMIE. Although this bias has been observed in different academic areas, its extent in spinal research remains largely uninvestigated. This research endeavored to investigate the composition of editorial staff members (ESM) within major spinal journals and scrutinize the degree of international diversity represented among the ESM. Methods: We pinpointed ten major spinal journals by referencing their presence in the Journal Citation Reports of 2021. Countries of the ESM affiliated with these journals were categorized according to World Bank classifications. Following this, we conducted a thorough analysis of the ESM compositions. Results: A total of 982 ESM from 50 countries were identified. The United States exhibited the highest representation among ESM (395, 40.22%), followed by South Korea (57, 5.80%), Switzerland (53, 5.40%). When segmented by geographical regions, North America emerged with the highest representation, constituting 43.38% of ESM at 426, trailed by Europe & Central Asia at 31.16% (306), East Asia & Pacific at 17.92% (175). The majority of ESM, amounting to 87.98%, hailed from high income economies (HIE). There was an absence of ESM representation of low income economies. The relationship regarding the quantity of ESM in each country and its population failed to demonstrate significance (p = 0.274, r = 0.281). However, a notable positive correlation emerged when exploring the connection between ESM numbers and gross domestic product (p = 0.033, r = 0.517). Conclusions: Major spinal journals exhibit a notable absence of international representation within their editorial boards, predominantly comprising members from HIE. This underscores a substantial underrepresentation of ESM originating from LAMIE within the sphere of spinal investigation.