Committee On Publication Ethics Research Articles

Responsibility is not required for authorship

The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) maintains that AIs (artificial intelligences) cannot be authors of academic papers, because they are unable to take responsibility for them. COPE appears to have...

Against "silent" retractions in neuroscience.

When an academic paper is published in a journal that assigns a digital object identifier (DOI) to papers, this is a de facto fait accompli. Corrections or retractions are supposed to follow a specific protocol, especially in journals that claim to follow the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines. In this paper, we highlight a case of a new, fully open access neuroscience journal that claims to be COPE-compliant, yet has silently retracted two papers since all records, bibliometrics, and PDF files related to their existence have been deleted from the journal's website. Although this phenomenon does not seem to be common in the neurosciences, we consider that any opaque corrective measures in journals whose papers could be cited may negatively impact the wider neuroscience literature and community. Instead, we encourage transparency in retraction to promote truthfulness and trustworthiness.

A simple form could prevent authorship issues in Cochrane manuscripts: A cohort study

AbstractAimWe aimed to investigate authorship issues after the implementation of an authorship declaration form in a Cochrane Review Group.MethodsThe Cochrane Colorectal Group uses an authorship declaration form that consists of three parts: (1) manuscript information, (2) documentation for roles according to the four authorship criteria of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), and (3) identification information of individual authors and signed approval. The manuscripts' contact authors were responsible for collecting the forms from all coauthors. This observational cohort study reports on all authorship issues in authorship declaration forms collected from February 2020 to December 2023.ResultsWe received 276/277 authorship declaration forms or replies from authors (response rate 99.6%) from 44 manuscripts, including 52% protocols and 48% reviews. There were authorship issues present in 14/44 (32%) of the manuscripts, and the most common issue was that not all authors fulfilled all four ICMJE authorship criteria. Six gift authors were removed from by‐lines. Issues in nine of the 14 manuscripts were resolved by the author group when informing them about the ICMJE authorship criteria and guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). The issues in the remaining five manuscripts were unresolved since the manuscripts were transferred or rejected, thus, ceased to be developed by the Cochrane Colorectal Group.ConclusionAuthorship issues were raised in almost one‐third of manuscripts. Most issues were resolved and six gift authorships were prevented. The awareness of authorship criteria is sharpened when all authors are individually asked to fill out and sign a form. This could help decrease the rate of unethical authorships in Cochrane publications and contribute to more ethical and robust evidence production.

От редактора. Цитировать или не цитировать? Проблема самоцитирования в научных статьях

Text recycling is widely discussed in the research community. However, editors and authors may have contrasting opinions on this matter. What are the reasons for their disagreement, in what sections text recycling is appropriate and how to avoid self-plagiarism? In this editorial I am going to illuminate these issues. In the guidelines for editors the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) defines text recycling as the use of the same text in several publications of an author (Risser, 2020). According to Professor Cary Moskovitz from Duke University, this practice involves small text fragments that are amended to a slight extent between publications (ibid, 2020). Earlier policies on text recycling applied the term “self-plagiarism”, which was disused due to inaccurate implications. Lately, the definition was elaborated. Text recycling is currently perceived as the reuse of textual information in a new document where 1) material is identical or almost identical to the original work, 2) the material is not presented as a direct quote, 3) one author of the new document is also an author of the previous document (Hall et al., 2021).

Welcome to the December 2023 Issue (Vol:29, No:4) and Current News of the European Journal of Therapeutics

Dear Colleagues, In this editorial, we would like to share with you important developments in the European Journal of Therapeutics (Eur J Ther). First of all, as the editorial team, we would like you to know that we hold frequent meetings to benefit our esteemed colleagues and continue to work with great devotion in line with our goal of taking the journal further. We have previously shared with you that we have applied to many indexes. It is with great pleasure that we would like to inform you that in the last few months, more of our index applications have been approved. Index Copernicus, as a result of this application, the ICV 2022 value of our journal was determined to be 100 (approved 2023-10-31) [1] BASE (Bielefeld Academic Search Engine) (approved 2023-11-30) [2] Sherpa Romeo (approved 2023-09-27) [3] MIAR (approved 2023-10-16) [4] All indexes in our journal are currently included on the journal web page [5]. As the editorial team, we would like to inform you that we have determined a policy on this issue for our journal [6], taking into account the recommendations of important international ethics committees such as the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) [7] and the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME) [8], which have recently become a trendy topic of discussion about AI chatbots and academic studies prepared with the support of such tools. As you know, when our journal was founded in 1990 [9], it was published in two yearly issues. It is an essential responsibility for us to carry our journal, which continued its publication life with three issues a year in 2009 [10] and four issues a year in 2014 [11]. With your valuable support, we would like to announce that we will increase our journal to 6 issues a year as of 2024 (February, April, June, August, October and December) with the rapidly growing progress of our journal. Unfortunately, we cannot share the names of the referees who made significant contributions to our journal in 2023 due to the changes in the article submission interface during the year and the inaccessibility of some data in the previous interface. However, we would like to emphasize again that we are grateful to all of them for their valuable contributions. Moreover, to expand our journal's referee list, we would like to remind you that competent academics who volunteer in this regard can fill out the “Become a Reviewer for the European Journal of Therapeutics” form [12]. Finally, we would like to point out that we have strengthened our editorial team with an academician competent in dentistry, Fatih Sari, DDS, PhD. Fatih Sari, DDS, PhD, is a new Editorial Board Member of the Eur J Ther. Dr. Sari is an Associate Professor in the Department of Prosthodontics at the Gaziantep University Faculty of Dentistry. He is a Vice Dean of the Faculty of Dentistry and Head of Clinical Departments. Dr. Sari is a prosthodontist and a member of the Turkish Dental Association. He has experience in implant-supported fixed prostheses, Cad/Cam applications and dental materials. We look forward to being able to offer you a large number of high-quality and valuable articles over the coming year. In addition, we would like to thank the readers, authors and reviewers of the Eur J Ther for their continuous support. Sincerely yours,

A reflection on Springer Nature’s current editorial policies related to “predatory” journals and references

Despite its prominent position as one of the leading for-profit scholarly publishers of subscription and open access (OA) journals, and its membership of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), and Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association (OASPA), Springer Nature can be criticized for taking a vague approach in its editorial policies pertaining to “predatory” publishing. While cautioning authors and/or editors about the citation of papers that are published in “predatory” journals, the advice presented in the policies itself is flawed due its limitation to OA journals – thus apparently excluding the possibility that subscription journals might also be “predatory” and failing to specify precisely which journals authors and editors should be careful of, i.e., no source for the “predatory” definition of OA journals is indicated. Moreover, this vague set of policies does not have a publication date, nor is any authorship specified. The opacity of these aspects of these editorial policies limits their usefulness and weakens their objectives, namely in ostensibly offering scholarly advice to protect editors and authors. I argue that the Springer Nature policies pertaining to “predatory” publishing as they currently stand are not useful, and if left unchanged, can be a source of confusion or error for authors and editors of Springer Nature journals. In this connection, the identified risk is that if the poor advice indicated in those policies is heeded, it may encourage abuse, insults and/or indiscriminate profiling of academics, including those associated with Springer Nature journals. While assuming Springer Nature’s genuine intention to alert editors and authors against citing papers published in suspect scholarly venues, I argue that this editorial set of policies should either be rewritten to rely on clearer parameters, including a definitive list of journals for which “predatory” criteria have been defined, or abandoned as they are overly broad. The criticism is aimed at stimulating a discussion among other editors and publishers, especially COPE members.

Expression of Concern. Eduardo R. Ropelle, José R. Pauli, Dennys E. Cintra, Adelino S. da Silva, Cláudio T. De Souza, Dioze Guadagnini, Bruno M. Carvalho, Andrea M. Caricilli, Carlos K. Katashima, Marco A. Carvalho-Filho, Sandro Hirabara, Rui Curi, Lício A. Velloso, Mario J.A. Saad, and José B.C. Carvalheira. Targeted Disruption of Inducible Nitric Oxide Synthase Protects Against Aging, S-Nitrosation, and Insulin Resistance in Muscle of Male Mice. Diabetes 2013;62:466-470. DOI: 10.2337/db12-0339. PMID: 22991447 PMCID: PMC3554348.

On the basisofthe recommendationofthe American Diabetes Association's Panel on Ethical Scientific Programs (ESP), the American Diabetes Association, the publisher of Diabetes,is issuing thisexpressionof concernto alert readers about the authenticity of the data in the above-cited article. Multiple panels in this article are unexpectedly similar to those appearing in articles in PLOS ONE and PLOS Biology authored by the same laboratory.In Fig. 2A, the αtubulin panel appears to be similar to the β-actin panels in Fig. 7J and K of the following 2012 article in PLOS ONE: Cintra DE, Ropelle ER, Moraes JC, etal. Unsaturated fatty acids revert diet-induced hypothalamic inflammation in obesity. PLoS One 2012;7:e30571 (DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0030571)In Fig. 2B, the pIKKβ panel appears to be similar to the mirror image of the pPERKThr981 panel in Fig. 7G of the following now-retracted 2010 article in PLOS Biology: Ropelle ER, Flores MB, Cintra DE, etal. IL-6 and IL-10 anti-inflammatory activity links exercise to hypothalamic insulin and leptin sensitivity through IKKβ and ER stress inhibition [retracted in: PLoS Biol 2023;21:e3002079]. PLoS Biol 2010;8:e1000465 (DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1000465) Diabetesis a member journal of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) (publicationethics.org). As such, the editors of the journal and the ESP refer to COPE's guidelines and recommendations when reviewing such matters.

Expression of Concern. Marco A. Carvalho-Filho, Mirian Ueno, Sandro M. Hirabara, Amedea B. Seabra, José B.C. Carvalheira, Marcelo G. de Oliveira, Lício A. Velloso, Rui Curi, and Mario J.A. Saad. S-Nitrosation of the Insulin Receptor, Insulin Receptor Substrate 1, and Protein Kinase B/Akt: A Novel Mechanism of Insulin Resistance. Diabetes 2005;54:959-967. DOI: 10.2337/diabetes.54.4.959. PMID: 15793233.

On the basis of the recommendation of the American Diabetes Association's Panel on Ethical Scientific Programs (ESP), the American Diabetes Association, the publisher of Diabetes, is issuing this expression of concern to alert readers to the following instance of panel duplication in the above-cited article.The anti-pY panel in Fig. 4F appears to be a possible duplicate, with horizontal rotation, of the anti-pY panel in Fig. 5F. Diabetes is a member journal of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) (publicationethics.org). As such, the editors of the journal and the ESP refer to COPE's guidelines and recommendations when reviewing such matters.

Expression of Concern. Marciane Milanski, Ana P. Arruda, Andressa Coope, Letícia M. Ignacio-Souza, Carla E. Nunez, Erika A. Roman, Talita Romanatto, Livia B. Pascoal, Andrea M. Caricilli, Marcio A. Torsoni, Patricia O. Prada, Mario J. Saad, and Licio A. Velloso. Inhibition of Hypothalamic Inflammation Reverses Diet-Induced Insulin Resistance in the Liver. Diabetes 2012;61:1455-1462. DOI: 10.2337/db11-0390. PMID: 22522614. PMCID:PMC3357298.

On the basisofthe recommendationofthe American Diabetes Association's Panel on Ethical Scientific Programs (ESP), the American Diabetes Association, the publisherofDiabetes,is issuing thisexpressionof concernto alert readers about the authenticity of the data in the above-cited article. A within-article panel duplication has been identified, and a panel in this article is unexpectedly similar to a panel appearing in a PLOS ONE article authored by the same laboratory.The βactin panel under pAKt in Fig. 1H appears to be a possible duplicate, with horizontal rotation, of the βactin panel under pAKt in Fig. 3B.The Actin blot in Fig. 2E appears to be a possible duplicate, with size adjustments, of the Actin panel in Fig. 2G in the following 2012 article in PLOS ONE: Lima MHM, Caricilli AM, de Abreu LL, etal. Topical insulin accelerates wound healing in diabetes by enhancing the AKT and ERK pathways: a double-blind placebo-controlled clinical trial. PLoS One 2012;7:e36974 (DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0036974) Diabetesis a member journal of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) (publicationethics.org). As such, the editors of the journal and the ESP refer to COPE's guidelines and recommendations when reviewing such matters.

Expression of Concern. Henrique G. Zecchin, Fernanda B.M. Priviero, Claudio T. Souza, Karina G. Zecchin, Patrícia O. Prada, José B.C. Carvalheira, Licio A. Velloso, Edson Antunes, and Mario J.A. Saad. Defective Insulin and Acetylcholine Induction of Endothelial Cell-Nitric Oxide Synthase Through Insulin Receptor Substrate/Akt Signaling Pathway in Aorta of Obese Rats. Diabetes 2007;56:1014-1024. DOI: 10.2337/db05-1147. PMID: 17229938.

On the basis of the recommendation of the American Diabetes Association's Panel on Ethical Scientific Programs (ESP), the American Diabetes Association, the publisher of Diabetes, is issuing this expression of concern to alert readers to the following instances of panel duplication in the above-cited article.In the third blot from the top of Fig. 1A, lanes 0 and 05 appear to be possible duplicates, with size and contrast adjustments.In the third blot from the top of Fig. 2B, lanes 1, 3, and 4 appear to be possible duplicates, with orientation and contrast adjustments.In the p-eNOS blot of Fig. 2E, lanes 3 and 5 appear to be possible duplicates, with size and contrast adjustments.In the p-Akt blot in Fig. 3A, lanes 1 and 3 appear to be possible duplicates, with size and contrast adjustments.In the p-ERK1/2 blot in Fig. 3A, lanes 1 and 3 appear to be possible duplicates, with size and contrast adjustments. Diabetes is a member journal of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) (publicationethics.org). As such, the editors of the journal and the ESP refer to COPE's guidelines and recommendations when reviewing such matters.

Inaugural Editorial

Writing an editorial note for the first volume of the new journal of Archives of Advanced Engineering Science (AAES) is a great glory and honor for me. The scope of AAES is not limited to a single aspect of engineering and science and covers various subfields in the applied and fundamental engineering sciences. Particularly, articles with interdisciplinary nature are welcomed. A warm welcome to the inaugural issue of AAES, which is a new exciting title and subject for Bon View Press portfolio journals for 2023. AAES is a new beginning for engineering development in the way to advanced engineering science. I am fortunate and honored to be a member of AAES and take the responsibility of Editor-in-Chief. As can be witnessed in journal title, this pioneering journal aims to address and understand Engineering Science. Subject fields include, but are not limited to, Mechanical Engineering, Electrical and Informatics Engineering, Civil Engineering, Chemical Engineering, Material Engineering, Computer Engineering, Environmental Engineering, Renewable Energy and Resources, Technology and Applications, Sustainable Development and Interdisciplinary science. Today, we feel great happiness to publish the first issue of our journal in November 2023. This issue has six articles on different interesting topics in engineering science. I believe that AAES is providing a vigorously open-access, peer-reviewed, leading platform aiming at publishing the most valuable and Influential research works in the main basic areas of engineering science around the world. To enhance the standard of the journal through publishing high quality papers, we followed the main practices of Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and accordingly handled research and publication misconduct. Strict ethical guidelines for editors, authors, and peer reviewers were clearly presented. We introduced desk reject, double-blind peer-review by at least two anonymous reviewers and plagiarism detection to guarantee high standards of AAES. Furthermore, our editorial office effectively managed in dealing with the processes of submission and review, generally taking about 50 days from submission to final decision and 5 days from acceptance email to online publication. To enhance the impact and visibility of our journal, we have to investigate novel approaches to reach authors and readers and receive more high-quality articles in interdisciplinary fields. We believe that the topic is crucial and interesting to the future of engineering society. As a founding Editor-in-Chief, it is a great honor for me to cooperate with an outstanding team of associate editors and editorial board members all pioneers in various fields of engineering. I wish to conclude this inaugural editorial by presenting my gratitude to everybody for their support as authors, reviewers, associate editors, and editorial board members, who helped ensure the quality of all manuscripts considered in the current inaugural issue of AAES. Last but not least, I wish to thank Managing Editor Fay Ge, Bon View Press personally, and Publication Board for their unwavering support, incredible help, and enthusiasm. Also, with your support, we can build a high-quality journal. Wishing good luck for all the contributors and readers of Archives of Advanced Engineering Science (AAES)!

Retracted: Development of a hydrogel containing metronidazole-loaded Eudragit RS 100 nanoparticles for buccal drug delivery

This article previously published in Volume 22 Issue 6 of this journal in June 2023 has been retracted in line with the guidelines from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE, http://publicationethics.org /resources /guidelines). This was a follow up to the report by somebody identified as VU Nguyen (email: nguyenvu81@protonmail.com)  of the duplicate publication of an article earlier published in 2020 (available at http://125.212.201.8:6008 / ViewOnline?bitstid=0d585588-2d02-4839-907a-92998674bb4d & type=1) in Vietnamese where a figure and some text in the article were repeated in the article published in this journal.
 This action was taken after thorough investigation of the plagiarism report and follow-up comments from both the corresponding author and Nguyen VU against the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
 Retraction: Ho HN, Nguyen VA, Ho NA, Le HH. Development of a hydrogel containing metronidazole-loaded Eudragit RS 100 nanoparticles for buccal drug delivery. Trop J Pharm Res 2023; 22(6):1147- 1154 doi: 10.4314/tjpr.v22i6.1.

ChatGPT's Capabilities for Use in Anatomy Education and Anatomy Research

Dear Editors, Recently, the discussion of an artificial intelligence (AI) - fueled platform in several articles in your journal has attracted the attention of many researchers [1, 2]. I believe that including such current discussions in your journal will guide my future work plans on similar topics. I wanted to present my views on academic cooperation and co-authorship with ChatGPT (Chat Generative Pre-Trained Transformer) to your journal. Innovations brought by technology undoubtedly arouse curiosity in almost every branch of science. Researchers are among the professional groups that follow new technological developments most closely because the basic nature of research consists of concepts such as curiosity, innovation, and information sharing. Technology-based materials may be needed for anatomy education to be permanent and to be used pragmatically during clinical practices. Especially in recent years, tools such as augmented reality, virtual reality and 3D printing, which offer 3D images of anatomical structures, as well as social media platforms have started to be used in anatomy education [3]. Similarly, anatomy is a window of opportunity for the first trials of many innovative researches. Indeed, it did not take long for meet with AI-based chatbot platforms such as ChatGPT and Artificial Intelligence Support System (AISS) [4-8]. AISS was reported by several researchers about a year before ChatGPT. AISS is a chatbot equipped with only anatomy knowledge based on a machine learning platform and neural network module [8]. According to the developers of the AISS, students feel comfortable making mistakes with this chatbot, and therefore students' interaction with anatomy is at a high level. Recent studies with ChatGPT are also contributing to the critical role of these AI-based chatbots in anatomy education. Some studies questioned the current capabilities and potential of AI in anatomy education and anatomy research through interviews [5, 7]. In another study, students and ChatGPT were quizzed on anatomy and their knowledge was compared [6]. The results obtained from the studies are that ChatGPT is more successful than the students and has the potential to increase student participation. However, this AI software model will increase the likelihood of making errors in basic knowledge in anatomy as we move to complex topics. Sometimes the same anatomical knowledge will be presented differently depending on how widely the internet-based data is scanned [4]. This situation is likely to be overcome in the future with the learning potential of AI. In this context, I think that the use of AI can help physicians and physiotherapists by increasing the dynamic connections between anatomy knowledge and clinical practices. Furthermore, advances in educational technologies cannot provide equal opportunities to students in every country and university. ChatGPT partially eliminates this limitation. At this point, educators who want to increase student participation can design an anatomy education supported by ChatGPT and create research opportunities for students. It is stated that AI chatbots can be more useful in anatomy education and can provide students with access to educational resources regardless of location or time [5]. Apart from chatbots, the use of AI in anatomy can be seen in anatomy teaching approaches where student-centered and active learning is supported. Artificial Neural Networks or Convolutional Neural Networks are modelled similar to neural networks in the human brain. Bayesian U-Net is used to diagnose pathological anatomical deviations based on supervised deep learning by learning the normal anatomical structure and utilizing various biomarkers [9]. AI-based tools other than ChatGPT can also be used to display, classify or scale differences in anatomical structures. Thus, it may have pragmatic benefits for clinicians in the management of disease processes. In some studies indicate that the interpretation of anatomical regions in ultrasound, magnetic resonance and computed tomography images integrated with AI is facilitated [10]. Similarly, in specialties (such as dermatology) that require visual-oriented clinical skills in the processes required for diagnosis and treatment, AI's functions in recognition on images, computer-aided diagnosis and decision-making algorithms can be useful. I think that the use of ChatGPT in research in these fields can produce innovative and practical solutions if they provide information from an accurate and reliable database. In addition, its contributions to the research cause its collaborative position in the research to be questioned. In my opinion, the explanations under the heading "Promoting collaborative partnerships" in the third answer of this editorial, which includes an interview with ChatGPT, are satisfactory [2]. This supports traditional norms of authorship. Besides, concerns about co-authorship are already strictly protected by international organizations. The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) clearly rejects the contribution of AI tools such as ChatGPT or Large Language Models in co-authorship and explains several reasons for this in the COPE position statement. Responsibility for the study should be shared among the authors. However, it is unclear to what extent an AI can fulfil this criterion, which is one of the most basic requirements of authorship. What is known today about anatomy has been obtained by sharing the knowledge of many famous anatomists who lived in ancient history. ChatGPT is already collecting this information and making it available to the researcher. Can we talk about a real contribution at this point? Partly yes. AI can document this information quickly, but it can only make a general contribution when formulating a research question. For example, I asked it for an example of a research question that I use to examine the role of the pelvis in gait function. I received a response like “What is the effect of the anatomical and biomechanical properties of the pelvis on a person's balance, stride length, stride speed and gait efficiency during walking?". It is seen that the answers consist of general concepts. However, a researcher who has worked on the subject can broaden your horizons more during an in-depth conversation over a coffee. AI's contribution will not require its to be a co-author. Currently, ChatGPT or other AI tools are not yet capable of performing a literature search suitable for academic writing. However, if ChatGPT is developed in this field, it may be suitable for use by researchers. If ChatGPT has been used in research, I think it is necessary and sufficient to indicate in one sentence in the acknowledgments or method section how and in what way it contributed to the article. The data processing, collection and synthesis potential of ChatGPT is used for different purposes in every field [9]. For example, good agricultural practices or research on existing jurisprudence in law. No matter how it is used in areas whose subject is qualified professions, there is a fact that does not change. It alone is not an educator; it does not have the conscientious conviction of a judge and it does not have the skill of a doctor in caring for the sick. It should only be used as a complementary tool in the fields where it is used. It should be used by all health educators and researchers, including the field of anatomy, with awareness of its risks. In conclusion, the expectations of this new AI technology in anatomy are on students. The 3D model feature and its potential contribution to case-based learning practice during clinical applications can be further developed in the future. On the other hand, it is clear that ChatGPT cannot be a co-author of a publication. If ChatGPT is a co-author of a publication, who and how will prepare the response letters to the referee comments on this issue? While contributing to this editorial discussion, I thought that the reviewer assigned to review an academic publication could prepare a reviewer comment with the help of ChatGPT. I hope this will never happen. Otherwise, we may soon encounter a journal publisher consisting of AI authors and reviewers. Yours sincerely

Discussion on the Artificial Intelligence (AI) Tools Usage in the Scientific World

Dear Editors, We have been reading with great interest your editorial discussion on “Artificial Intelligence and Co-Authorship” which you initiated some time ago [1]. In the current era, the vast amount of data generated from routine applications, scientific research, and the resulting outcomes has surpassed what the human mind can read and evaluate. Therefore, there has been a need to summarize data and develop information processing-based applications for easy access, leading to the design of automated - artificial intelligence-based - tools. Nowadays, these tools are used in various processes, from data collection and analysis to hypothesis generation, experimentation, and simulation. The use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools is highly beneficial in conducting and reporting scientific research. Particularly, for tasks such as literature reviews, identifying research gaps, and learning about collaborations among researchers/institutions, a wide range of AI-based tools has been developed, making it easier for researchers to accomplish these tasks. However, researchers are still seeking solutions to expedite the time-consuming aspects of writing their research. AI can automate repetitive tasks efficiently and with minimal errors, allowing humans to focus on more creative and strategic tasks. They can make better decisions by forecasting the future based on evaluating various types of existing data. After analysing similar content, they can generate purposeful creative content. They can answer questions on topics that humans may not understand comprehensively and informatively. And of course, they can translate text and speeches accurately and fluently into other languages. Misuse of AI tools or misinterpretation of results obtained from these applications can have significantly adverse consequences. One notable example of this is the unchecked preparation of academic papers by AI-based software. In fact, ChatGPT has been listed as a co-author in at least four articles in the literature, but corrections have been made in some cases due to its inaccuracies. When the Web of Science is searched, it is seen that ChatGPT was removed from authorship by making corrections in 1 article in which ChatGPT was previously mentioned as a co-author [2], and in two articles in the British Journalism Review and in three articles about ChatGPT in different journals, it was mentioned as a group author. It has been observed that while AI models like ChatGPT can generate text that appears human-like, there can be issues with interpretation and the presentation of false references, as highlighted in studies in the literature. Therefore, AI-based software like ChatGPT should not be used as co-authors without control but should be used as tools like other software, with the written text going through human oversight. As a result, the full responsibility for what these AI tools produce should rest with the author(s) submitting the article and cannot be attributed to the AI [3]. Organizations such as the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME), and the JAMA Network are important regulatory bodies concerning the content and quality of academic publications. They emphasize that individuals who cannot fulfil authorship requirements, such as declaring conflicts of interest, managing publication rights, and licensing agreements because AI tools cannot fulfil these duties, cannot be authors of a paper [4-6]. In line with our recommendations above, these organizations also state that authors must bear full responsibility for everything the AI tool does within the manuscript and for the article's adherence to ethical standards. In conclusion, AI-based applications contribute significantly to academic research, just as they do in many other fields, and serve as important tools for researchers in academic writing. With long-term development and improvements, we believe that they will gain the ability to write a substantial portion of academic papers as their literature review capabilities expand. However, the accuracy and originality of the written information must always be subject to human oversight to make new contributions to the literature. At this point, AI-based applications come into play again, claiming to detect the difference between AI-generated and human-created content with approximately 99% accuracy. Cases perceived as AI-generated content have been corrected through legal action or appeals to higher authorities [7]. Ultimately, the use of AI-based tools like ChatGPT and AI-generated content in academic studies, like other features of academic work, should be regulated with ethical considerations. Yours Sincerely,

Follow-up of Artificial Intelligence Development and its Controlled Contribution to the Article: Step to the Authorship?

Dear Editors, I am excited to see a current discussion in this journal [1]. In another editorial article, the questions and answers directed to Chat Generative Pre-Trained Transformer (ChatGPT), an artificial intelligence (AI) product, about the authorship process contributed to my idea of conducting a similar study [2]. In addition, addressing the editorial question, the second answer partially satisfied me because it was more innovative. Although the answers of ChatGPT in this article are apparent in the text, their contribution is not included in the footnote, explanation, acknowledgment, or reference; in some studies, it is shown in the footnote [3]; in some, it is included in the acknowledgment section [4]. Such contributions or the nature of the support received should also be evaluated and clearly stated. Which section should be included for AI-enabled content such as ChatGPT? Since accessing the previous accesses is impossible, it may be better to copy them to a visual or open access place instead of giving them a reference in the sources. Although many subjects need to be read further and a detailed examination is required, a brief description of the working mechanism should be made. AI's deep learning is to experiment with a given set of inputs and outputs and make suggestions, and when it encounters a new input, it gives it an appropriate output. As I analyze the book chapters [5] that examine the success of AI programs in the process of inventing, producing art, and doing the work of different professional groups, such as lawyers or doctors in some fields, with appropriate learning algorithms, I think that they may have a promising potential for the future in terms of writing articles. In an environment without prejudice, such as the Turing test, there has been much discussion about the superiority of intelligence only when compared to the machine [5]. In addition, the fact that AI provides a contribution whose authorship cannot be detected by similarity or plagiarism programs, which are different software products, makes this situation difficult to understand. In one of the studies contributing to this editorial correspondence, various AI examples with different functions and more capabilities are given, apart from ChatGPT. In addition, while drawing attention to the trust problem, margin of error, and differences in the level of development between programs, it was emphasized that the suitability of using AI applications for general and simple service operations such as article language editing to reduce financial costs should be treated without prejudice [6]. Another article stated that the support to be received from AI after the article was written would be more reliable, controlled, and risk-free [7]. The article that questioned AI's identity on philosophical and ethical grounds was also remarkable [8]. In a different approach, it was stated that with the increase of pseudoscience authors, scientific and unethical situations may be encountered more frequently and different filtering systems should be used as a precaution. Language translation or text editing contributions were seen as an advantage [9]. In these conditions, where ethical problems are not resolved, it is stated that authorship is not correct and that it should be used to increase the quality of the article by making use of its features that facilitate writing [10]. These articles mention general topics about the potential uses of AI in article writing, possible harms, and cautions are mentioned. The study, which listed suggestions for the practical use of AI in authorship, emphasized the lack of creativity and deep analysis power required for authorship [11]. Another study stated that AI could not be accepted as an author because AI could not take responsibility for its writings, did not comply with research ethics and violated copyright law [12]. As I asked the ChatGPT-3.5 model, another researcher who shared its answer with a similar approach stated that it does not see itself as a researcher and author but that its helpful contributions can be used in the writing and subsequent processes [4]. In another article, which deals with topics such as the areas of use of AI in research, the accuracy of ChatGPT was found to be generally positive [13]. In the article on the opportunities and challenges of AI, which offers comprehensive guidance, the authors expressed their concerns about transparency and explainability of authorship [3]. In a different study, the authorship criteria of The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) and the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) were mentioned and it was explained that AI cannot make a significant contribution with data collection and interpretation, cannot approve the final version of the article, and can only collaborate in writing [14]. Another leading study revealed that AI meets only three of the 14 criteria, namely visualization, drafting, and editing, according to CRediT (Contributor Roles Taxonomy), which is important in terms of authorship criteria. The authors shared the reason why ChatGPT could not meet these criteria and their answers when other criteria were queried with ChatGPT. In parallel with the study, the ChatGPT-3.5 model gave the same answer to my questions and stated that it would not be accepted as an author [15]. General concerns and criticisms focus on the fact that AI cannot take responsibility because of erroneous information and that there are no sanctions in unethical situations. Although there is no such reality now, the debate seems to continue in the coming period, even if AI contributes more than humans and is accepted as an author who is given responsibility and punished. These may depend on where the process will evolve with the contributions of lawyers and software developers and the regulations to be taken according to new developments. Therefore, for now, studies for controlled and comprehensive planning should be followed by authorities from international multidisciplinary fields such as lawyers, professional organizations, publishers, journal editorial boards, and ethics committees. Even if AI is not accepted as an author due to current conditions, the location of AI applications and general criteria, it quickly stepped into the academic studies environment and its authorship has come to the fore and discussions will be held. Best Regards,

Scientific misconduct: Plagiarism and non-compliance with disclosure of interest: Retrospective analysis of 1 year's submissions to Orthopaedics & Traumatology: Surgery & Research

IntroductionAuthors submitting to Orthopaedics & Traumatology: Surgery & Research (OTSR) must fulfill the criteria of scientific integrity (SI), including issues of plagiarism and disclosure of interest. These data have not been assessed for OTSR and we therefore conducted a retrospective study of (1) potential plagiarism rates, (2) deficient disclosure of interest (for French authors), and (3) correlation between the two. HypothesisSuspected plagiarism rates exceed 20% and the non-disclosure rate exceeds 80%. Material and methodsWe analyzed 1 year's submissions to OTSR: January 24, 2022 to January 23, 2023. Articles were checked for plagiarism, using iThenticate software (Turnitin, Oakland, CA, USA), with a threshold of > 20% matching. Conflicts of interest, for French authors, investigated on the French Ministry of Health Transparence website (www.transparence.sante.gouv.fr), with non-disclosure defined by undeclared amounts exceeding €1000. ResultsIn total, 851 submissions were analyzed. iThenticate identified 152 (17.7%) with > 20% matching to an already published article. This likely plagiarism varied (p<0.01) between geographic origins of submissions. In the 289 submissions by French authors, there were 275 (95%) failures to report amounts exceeding €1000. Combined non-disclosure and plagiarism was found in only 3 articles submitted by French authors (3/289: 1.03%). DiscussionOTSR applies the Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals (www.icmje.org), adheres to the guidelines of the Committee On Publication Ethics (COPE) and the French Health Authority (HAS), and has an ethics committee. Plagiarism is a major SI breach, suspected in 20% of submissions. Also, 95% of French authors failed to properly disclose their interests on submitting an article, although this declaration is mandatory in France and is an integral aspect of SI. There are also other forms of misconduct, such as failure to comply with the French “Jardé” law on research involving human subjects, failure to obtain review board approval, unjustified claims to authorship or deficient archiving, that were not analyzed here. ConclusionsAlthough overall plagiarism rates were under 20% for submissions to OTSR, some geographic areas were more concerned than others. Also, despite reminders by the editorial board, only 5% of French authors made full disclosures; this is a major breach of SI, requiring correction on the part of French authors. Level of evidenceIV; retrospective study.

What do Retraction Notices Reveal About Institutional Investigations into Allegations Underlying Retractions?

Academic journal publications may be retracted following institutional investigations that confirm allegations of research misconduct. Retraction notices can provide insight into the role institutional investigations play in the decision to retract a publication. Through a content analysis of 7,318 retraction notices published between 1927 and 2019 and indexed by the Web of Science, we found that most retraction notices (73.7%) provided no information about institutional investigations that may have led to retractions. A minority of the retraction notices (26.3%) mentioned an institutional investigation either by journal authorities (12.1%), research performing organizations (10.3%), joint institutions (1.9%), research integrity and ethics governing bodies (1.0%), third-party institutions (0.5%), unspecified institutions (0.4%), or research funding organizations (0.1%). Comparing retraction notices issued before and after the introduction of retraction guidelines by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) in 2009 revealed that those published after the guidelines’ publication were more likely to report investigations by journal authorities. Comparing retraction notices from different disciplines revealed that those from social sciences and the humanities were more likely to disclose investigations by research performing organizations than those from biomedical and natural sciences. Based on these findings, we suggest that the COPE retraction guidelines in the future make it mandatory to disclose in retraction notices institutional investigations leading to retractions.

From the Editors: Engaging with generative artificial intelligence technologies in innovation management research—Some answers and more questions

Journal of Product Innovation ManagementEarly View EDITORIAL From the Editors: Engaging with generative artificial intelligence technologies in innovation management research—Some answers and more questions Jelena Spanjol, Corresponding Author Jelena Spanjol [email protected] Institute for Innovation Management, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität (LMU) Munich, Munich, Germany Correspondence Jelena Spanjol, Institute for Innovation Management, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität (LMU) Munich, Munich, Germany. Email: [email protected]Search for more papers by this authorCharles H. Noble, Charles H. Noble Department of Marketing, University of Tennessee Knoxville, Knoxville, Tennessee, USASearch for more papers by this author Jelena Spanjol, Corresponding Author Jelena Spanjol [email protected] Institute for Innovation Management, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität (LMU) Munich, Munich, Germany Correspondence Jelena Spanjol, Institute for Innovation Management, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität (LMU) Munich, Munich, Germany. Email: [email protected]Search for more papers by this authorCharles H. Noble, Charles H. Noble Department of Marketing, University of Tennessee Knoxville, Knoxville, Tennessee, USASearch for more papers by this author First published: 20 June 2023 https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12689Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL REFERENCES Bouschery, S. G., V. Blazevic, and F. T. Piller. 2023. “Augmenting Human Innovation Teams with Artificial Intelligence: Exploring Transformer-Based Language Models.” Journal of Product Innovation Management 40(2): 139– 53. COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics). 2023. “Guest Editorial: The Challenge of AI Chatbots for Journal Editors.” February 23, 2023 https://publicationethics.org/news/challenge-ai-chatbots-journal-editors Kasneci, E., K. Seßler, S. Küchemann, M. Bannert, D. Dementieva, F. Fischer, Urs Gasser, et al. 2023. “ChatGPT for Good? On Opportunities and Challenges of Large Language Models for Education.” Learning and Individual Differences 103: 102274. Korneeva, E., T. O. Salge, T. Teubner, and D. Antons. 2023. “Tracing the Legitimacy of Artificial Intelligence: A Longitudinal Analysis of Media Discourse.” Technological Forecasting and Social Change 192: 122467. Noble, Charles H., and Jelena Spanjol. 2019. “Opening Thoughts from the New Editors.” Journal of Product Innovation Management 36(1): 2– 4. Peres, R., M. Schreier, D. Schweidel, and A. Sorescu. 2023. “On ChatGPT and beyond: How Generative Artificial Intelligence May Affect Research, Teaching, and Practice.” International Journal of Research in Marketing 40(2): 269–75. Roose, Kevin. 2023. “A.I. Poses ‘Risk of Extinction,’ Industry Leaders Warn.” The New York Times, May 30 2023 https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/30/technology/ai-threat-warning.html Staiman, Avi. 2023. Academic Publishers Are Missing the Point on ChatGPT https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2023/03/31/guest-post-academic-publishers-are-missing-the-point-on-chatgpt/ Štiglic, Gregor, and Roger Watson. 2023. Guest editorial: the challenge of AI chatbots for journal editors https://publicationethics.org/news/challenge-ai-chatbots-journal-editors The Editors. 2023. “Editorial: Tools Such as ChatGPT Threaten Transparent Science; Here Are our Ground Rules for their Use.” Nature 613: 612. Early ViewOnline Version of Record before inclusion in an issue ReferencesRelatedInformation

Predicting annual stem diameter increment of selected tree species in Sinharaja rain forest by considering tree and stand level effects

The Ceylon Journal of Science is a peer-reviewed journal published quarterly by the University of Peradeniya, Sri Lanka in March, June, September and December. It is aimed at publishing high quality research articles on topics related to different disciplines in Science. The journal accepts original research articles, book reviews, reviews and mini-reviews, short communications, opinions, research notes, and commentaries and notes. The Journal has its own website https://site.pdn.ac.lk/cjs/. The journal strictly adheres to publication ethics as emphasized by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). It is indexed in Sri Lanka Journals Online (SLJOL), Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), Google Scholar and Zoological Records. According to the Google Scholar;H5-Index: 12H5-Median: 15According to the Exaly (1970 – 2021);Impact Factor: 0.6 (top 19%)Extended IF: 0.6 (top 19%)H-Index: 8 (top 28%)Citations/paper: 1.42

Investigation of magnetic properties of ferromagnetic thin films with three spin layers using fourth order perturbed Heisenberg Hamiltonian

The Ceylon Journal of Science is a peer-reviewed journal published quarterly by the University of Peradeniya, Sri Lanka in March, June, September and December. It is aimed at publishing high quality research articles on topics related to different disciplines in Science. The journal accepts original research articles, book reviews, reviews and mini-reviews, short communications, opinions, research notes, and commentaries and notes. The Journal has its own website https://site.pdn.ac.lk/cjs/. The journal strictly adheres to publication ethics as emphasized by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). It is indexed in Sri Lanka Journals Online (SLJOL), Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), Google Scholar and Zoological Records. According to the Google Scholar;H5-Index: 12H5-Median: 15According to the Exaly (1970 – 2021);Impact Factor: 0.6 (top 19%)Extended IF: 0.6 (top 19%)H-Index: 8 (top 28%)Citations/paper: 1.42