Errors In Manuscripts Research Articles

Common Errors in Manuscripts Submitted to the Journal of Music Teacher Education (JMTE)

Common Errors in Manuscripts Submitted to the Journal of Music Teacher Education (JMTE)

Is ChatGPT-4 Accurate in Proofread a Manuscript in Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery?

ChatGPT is a new artificial intelligence-powered language model of chatbot able to help otolaryngologists in clinical practice and research. We investigated the ability of ChatGPT-4 in the editing of a manuscript in otolaryngology. Four papers were written by a nonnative English otolaryngologist and edited by a professional editing service. ChatGPT-4 was used to detect and correct errors in manuscripts. From the 171 errors in the manuscripts, ChatGPT-4 detected 86 errors (50.3%) including vocabulary (N = 36), determiner (N = 27), preposition (N = 24), capitalization (N = 20), and number (N = 11). ChatGPT-4 proposed appropriate corrections for 72 (83.7%) errors, while some errors were poorly detected (eg, capitalization [5%] and vocabulary [44.4%] errors. ChatGPT-4 claimed to change something that was already there in 82 cases. ChatGPT demonstrated usefulness in identifying some types of errors but not all. Nonnative English researchers should be aware of the current limits of ChatGPT-4 in the proofreading of manuscripts.

Two lists of Waldensian errors in manuscripts I F 230 and I F 707 in Wrocław University Library

Two lists of Waldensian errors in manuscripts I F 230 and I F 707 in Wrocław University Library

A Beginner's Guide to Conducting Reproducible Research

A Beginner's Guide to Conducting Reproducible Research

Statistical Reporting in Nursing Research: Addressing a Common Error in Reporting of p Values (p = .000).

The confidence in a study will be reduced due to the incorrect representation of statistical results. However, it is unknown to what extent p values are incorrectly represented in published nursing journals. The study aims to evaluate the articles in 30 nursing journals in terms of the error in reporting of p values (p = .000). This was a bibliometric analysis. All papers published in 10 leading nursing journals (between 2015 and 2019), the 10 bottom nursing journals (2019), and 10 selected key nursing journals (2019) indexed in the Science Citation Index Journal Citation Reports were reviewed to detect errors in reporting of p values (p = .000). A total of 3,788 papers were reviewed. Notably, it was found that 93.3% (28/30) of the nursing journals contained incorrect representation of p values (p = .000). The reporting rate of these journals ranges from 0% to 57.1%, with an overall rate of 12.8% (486/3,788). In addition, the rate of incorrect representation of p values (p = .000) showed no statistically significant difference between different publication years (Χ2 = 4.976, p = .290). However, the rate of reporting was different between study types, journals, and regions (p = .007, p = .020, and p < .001, respectively). The incorrect representation of p values is common in nursing journals. We recommend that both publishers and researchers be responsible for preventing statistical errors in manuscripts. Furthermore, various kinds of statistical training methods should be adopted to ensure that nurses and journal reviewers have enough statistical literacy.

Flagging incorrect nucleotide sequence reagents in biomedical papers: To what extent does the leading publication format impede automatic error detection?

In an idealised vision of science the scientific literature is error-free. Errors reported during peer review are supposed to be corrected prior to publication, as further research establishes new knowledge based on the body of literature. It happens, however, that errors pass through peer review, and a minority of cases errata and retractions follow. Automated screening software can be applied to detect errors in manuscripts and publications. The contribution of this paper is twofold. First, we designed the erroneous reagent checking (ERC) benchmark to assess the accuracy of fact-checkers screening biomedical publications for dubious mentions of nucleotide sequence reagents. It comes with a test collection comprised of 1679 nucleotide sequence reagents that were curated by biomedical experts. Second, we benchmarked our own screening software called Seek&Blastn with three input formats to assess the extent of performance loss when operating on various publication formats. Our findings stress the superiority of markup formats (a 79% detection rate on XML and HTML) over the prominent PDF format (a 69% detection rate at most) regarding an error flagging task. This is the first published baseline on error detection involving reagents reported in biomedical scientific publications. The ERC benchmark is designed to facilitate the development and validation of software bricks to enhance the reliability of the peer review process.

Statistical errors in articles published in radiology journals.

We aimed to evaluate articles in radiology journals indexed in the Science Citation Index or Science Citation Index Expanded in terms of statistical errors. By this means, we aim to contribute to the production of high quality scientific publications. In this study, a total of 157 articles published in 2016-2017 in 20 radiology journals were reviewed randomly. Selected articles were evaluated for statistical errors regarding P values and statistical tests, and for errors in terminology and other errors related to interpretation. In addition, in order to examine whether the error rates of the articles published in the radiology journals differed according to the impact factor, the statistical errors were compared according to the impact factors of the journals. Of the 157 articles published in radiology journals, 10 had no statistical errors, while 147 had at least one statistical error. The most frequently encountered error was "errors in summarizing data" with a rate of 66%. This was followed by "incorrect representation of P values" with a rate of 42%. The least frequently encountered error was "statistical symbol errors" with a rate of 3%. There was no statistically significant difference according to impact factors. In conclusion, radiology journals, as do journals in different fields, include articles containing statistical errors. Even when the quality of the journal increases, there is no difference in these statistical error rates. In order to prevent statistical errors in manuscripts, there are responsibilities for both the researchers who conduct scientific studies and the editors who publish these studies in their journals. Researchers should have a basic statistical knowledge, and the editor must submit all manuscripts for a statistical review.

Reference List Errors in Manuscripts Submitted to a Journal for Review for Publication

Style errors outlined in the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (APA) were examined among 131 manuscripts submitted to Research in the Schools , a nationally refereed journal, over a 6-year period. Specifically, a mixed research design was utilized to determine the frequency and characteristics of APA errors committed in the reference lists of these manuscripts. Findings revealed that authors committed more than 12 reference list errors per manuscript, on average ( M = 12.83, SD = 7.25). Further, a total of 466 unique reference list errors were identified, which yielded the following 14 reference list error themes: general errors, reference heading, names of authors, publication year/date, title of work, publisher information, source of journal/periodical, source of authored book, source of edited book, source of website, source of paper presentation, source of dissertation/thesis, source of newspaper article, and source of government document. Implications of these and other findings are discussed.

Common errors in manuscripts submitted to medical science journals.

Background:Many manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals are rejected for reasons that include low-quality of the manuscripts.Aim:The aim of this study is to identify and characterize the common errors in manuscripts submitted to medical journals based in Africa and Asia.Materials and Methods:Reviewers’ reports on 42 manuscripts were analyzed qualitatively using deductive coding, and quantitatively to determine the errors by sections of the manuscripts. The study included only reviews on full length original research articles.Results:Results showed that 66.7% (28/42) of the manuscripts had flaws in the introduction, 85.7% (36/42) in materials and methods, 66.7% (28/42) in the results, 71.4% (30/42) in discussion, 69.0% (29/42) in references, and 81.1% (34/42) in the general sections. Qualitative analysis of the reviews revealed 22 themes. Most common flaws identified were improper review of literature, provision of insufficient detailed methodology, unsystematic or illogical presentation of results, and unsupported conclusions. Others were inconsistent or nonconforming citations, and lack of good grammatical writing.Conclusions:The results show that many of the manuscripts had remarkable errors and demonstrate the need for attention to detail in study design and manuscript preparation and for further training of medical scientists in the techniques of manuscript writing for journal publication.

Statistical errors in manuscripts submitted to Biochemia Medica journal

Uvod: Neispravna uporaba statistickih metoda može biti uzrokom iskrivljenja rezultata, netocnih zakljucaka i znatnog gubitka financijskih i drugih sredstava i kao takva se smatra vrlo neeticnom. Nažalost, velik broj objavljenih radova u medicinskim casopisima sadrži neke statisticke pogreske. Cilj ovog rada bio je utvrditi ucestalost nekih najcescih statistickih pogresaka, u clancima zaprimljenih u urednistvo casopisa Biochemia Medica, tijekom cetverogodisnjeg perioda, u razdoblju od 2006. do 2009. godine. Materijali i metode: Obuhvaceni su svi izvorni znanstveni i strucni radovi, koji su sadržavali statisticku analizu podataka, zaprimljeni u urednistvo casopisa Biochemia Medica u razdoblju od 2006. do 2009. godine. Rukopisi su pregledani od strane dva recenzenta. Sljedece pogreske su ukljucene u analizu: 1) pogresna uporaba ili prikaz deskriptivne analize ; 2) pogresan izbor statistickog testa ; 3) pogresna uporaba statistickog testa za usporedbu tri ili vise skupina ; 4) pogresan prikaz P vrijednosti ; 5) pogresno tumacenje P vrijednosti ; 6) pogresno tumacenje rezultata korelacije ; 7) nije provedena analiza snage istraživanja. Rezultati: Ukupno je obuhvaceno 55 rukopisa. Niti jedan od rukopisa nije imao provedenu analizu snage istraživanja. Od ostalih sest pogresaka, barem jedna pogreska utvrđena je u 48/55 (0, 87) rukopisa. Najucestalije pogreske su bile neispravna uporaba statistickog testa za usporedbu tri ili vise skupina (21/28 (0, 75) clanaka) i neispravan prikaz P vrijednosti (36/54 (0, 66) clanaka). Zakljucak: Statisticke pogreske su vrlo ucestale u rukopisima zaprimljenim u urednistvo casopisa Biochemia Medica. Sve potencijalne pogreske ustanovljene tijekom recenzije od strane statistickog recenzenta bile su ispravljene prije objavljivanja clanka, sto je znacajno unaprijedilo njegovu kvalitetu.

The Heat Is On …︁

The Heat Is On …︁

Three Grammar Problems Found by Reviewers

Three Grammar Problems Found by Reviewers

Defeating Ourselves: Common Errors in Counseling Research

This article presents a tabulation of research designs and errors in manuscripts submitted to Counselor Education and Supervision. Over 80% of the submitted studies were descriptive designs and nearly half had errors that invalidated results.

Incipient Errors in Manuscripts

Incipient Errors in Manuscripts