Quality Of Scientific Papers Research Articles

Applying ChatGPT to writing scientific articles on the use of telemedicine: Opportunities and limitations

In the rapidly evolving world of technology, artificial intelligence (AI) has significantly integrated into various aspects of our lives, including health-care, education, finance, transportation, and entertainment. Notably, AI has also impacted the writing of textual works such as scientific papers, professional opinions, and educational texts. This study investigates the application of OpenAI’s ChatGPT language model in writing scientific articles on telemedicine, specifically in the areas of cardiology, oncology, and remote medical examination. The study uses ChatGPT versions 3.5 and 4 to create articles using three different prompts. The created articles were evaluated based on the reliability of the cited literature references, the impact factor (IF) of the journal in which the sources were published, and the relevance of the sources. The sources were divided into three categories: reliable, semi-reliable, and completely fictitious. The results demonstrate that ChatGPT can produce semantically coherent and error-free texts indistinguishable from human-written texts. However, the reliability of literary references varies significantly. ChatGPT 4, benefitting from its larger training dataset, generates a higher percentage of reliable sources compared to ChatGPT 3.5. The IF analysis indicates the prevalence of high-impact journals among reliable sources, which emphasizes the effectiveness of the model in selecting quality references. The study highlights the need for caution when using AI to write scientific articles due to the potential for biased, unverified, and inaccurate information. It is important to critically evaluate and vet AI-generated content. In addition, the study emphasizes that the correct use of AI and thoughtful drafting of prompts can improve the efficiency and quality of scientific papers. Future advancements in AI technology are expected to further minimize errors and biases.

Висвітлення галузевої проблеми апробації наукових результатів у наукометричних базах Scopus і Web of Science

The article is devoted to the study of problematic aspects in the publication of materials in journals indexed in the scientometric databases Scopus and Web of Science by scientific and scientific-pedagogical workers. The Ministry of Education and Science of Ukraine believes that it is not necessary to rely on quantitative indicators (it is even necessary to abandon them), and the place of publication of the article should be unimportant. At the same time, the Ministry of Education and Science establishes norms according to which it is impossible to obtain a scientific title, academic degree and be a member of a specialized scientific council without publications in scientometric databases Web of Science and / or Scopus. In the field of social communications (journalism) the problem is exacerbated by the fact that in Ukraine there are no professional journals that would be included in such scientometric databases. The purpose of the study is to identify and describe the components of the modern problem of approbation of scientific results in scientometric databases Scopus and Web of Science (in the field of «journalism»). To achieve this goal, we set the following tasks: to analyze the regulations, which contain instructions / advice / guidelines / standards for publication in the journals of the database Scopus and Web of Science; to identify the attitude of scientific and scientific-pedagogical workers working in the field of «journalism» to the problem of approbation of scientific results in such journals; identify motives and obstacles to the publication of articles in indexed journals. The main result of the article is to highlight the following problematic aspects: ambiguous position and strategy of the state to measure the quantity and quality of scientific papers; lack of encouragement of scientific and scientific-pedagogical workers to publish in indexed publications with simultaneous compulsion to publish there; high cost of publication and lack of any support from the state in publishing articles; low quality of scientific works submitted to such publications and non-recognition of this problem by the community.

Why and how to write “limitations” in scientific paper?

A scientific article including limitations, their results and the ways how these results can be reduced has invaluable importance in terms of researchers, readers, society, scientific progress and the quality of scientific papers. However, in our country, particularly in the field of health, theoretical knowledge on this subject is rather limited. The purpose of this review article is to demonstrate the importance of limitations section in scientific articles, its characteristics, what kind of limitations researchers may encounter in scientific research process, and the ways that can be followed to overcome them. It appears that limitations section is mostly ignored; either not written at all or incomplete or poorly written in the present articles in the field of health including the ones in our country. Moreover, there is no information about the results caused by the limitations and the ways to reduce or eliminate them. This situation adversely affects the validity, reliability and generalizability of the research findings. Such a result is related to the knowledge, writing skills, perspectives, and approaches of the authors, the editorial policy of periodicals and the assessment of editors and peer reviewers. If there are limitations in scientific articles and graduation theses, they must absolutely be written and guidelines and instructions regarding correct writing of this section should be developed

Open Access Makes an Impact

Polymers published its first issue in December 2009. At that time, the editorial board and publisher were determined to lead the journal to become another MDPI success story, proving that open access publishing and high quality publications, ensured by a rigorous peer-review procedure, followed by fast publication of accepted manuscripts can be achieved. Three and a half years later, after more than 153,000 article downloads in 2012, the journal received its first impact factor (2012 JCR IF: 1.687). Today, Polymers is proud to be the number one open access journal in the category of “Polymer Science”. In order to achieve this, we relied on an editorial board with well-known members from the polymer community, a professional staff and a vision that there is room alongside the established “high impact” journals for publishing science. Recently, the editor in chief of Science, Bruce Alberts, wrote an editorial [1] in favor of the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA), which states that the impact factor must not be used as “a surrogate measure of the quality of individual research articles [2]”. Even though the impact factor certainly is so far the best available measure of the quality of a journal and its impact on the scientific community, when it comes to the single manuscripts published, “there is still no other way to evaluate the quality of scientific papers, but to read them [3]”. Therefore, Polymers celebrates its first impact factor with an appropriate critical distance towards bibliometric data and feels encouraged to continue on the chosen path. With this in mind, I encourage you, our readers, to continuously evaluate the scientific quality of the articles published in Polymers by reading, discussing and citing them. [...]

ENGLISH

A scholarly ‘index of quality and productivity’ (IQp) was proposed as a better alternative to the h-index. This was intended to overcome some of the limitations of the h-index. Other recent studies have shown that an indicator called the performance index (p-index) can also effectively combine size and quality of scientific papers. The curious structure of the p-index led to an energy-like term, X = iC = Pi2 = C.(C/P), where, P is the number of papers, and i is a proxy for quality Q = C/P. The energy assessment technique (iCX audit for impact-Citations-Exergy) which emerges from this is seen to be a quick and simple tool for visualising the quality and productivity (size or quantity) of a scientist’s oeuvre. http://dx.doi.org/10.14429/djlit.31.5.1196

Reporting Animal Studies: Good Science and a Duty of Care

Reporting Animal Studies: Good Science and a Duty of Care

The fractional and harmonic p-indices for multiple authorship

A proposal is made so that the p-index (a composite performance index that can effectively combine size and quality of scientific papers) can be extended for bibliometric research assessment in cases where multiple authorship is taken into account. The fractional and harmonic p-indices are applied to some recent examples to show their usefulness.

A Gold Standard Publication Checklist to Improve the Quality of Animal Studies, to Fully Integrate the Three Rs, and to Make Systematic Reviews More Feasible

Systematic reviews are generally regarded by professionals in the field of evidence-based medicine as the highest level of medical evidence, and they are already standard practice for clinical studies. However, they are not yet widely used nor undertaken in the field of animal experimentation, even though there is a lot to be gained from the process. Therefore, a gold standard publication checklist (GSPC) for animal studies is presented in this paper. The items on the checklist have been selected on the basis of a literature analysis and the resulting scientific evidence that these factors are decisive in determining the outcome of animal studies. In order to make future systematic reviews and meta-analyses of animal studies possible, to allow others to replicate and build on work previously published, diminish the number of animals needed in animal experimentation (reduction), improve animal welfare (refinement) and, above all, improve the quality of scientific papers on animal experimentation, this publication checklist needs to be used and followed. We have discussed and optimised this GSPC through feedback from interviews with experts in the field of animal experimentation. From these interviews, it became clear that scientists will adopt this GSPC when journals demand it. The GSPC was compared with the current instructions for authors from nine different journals, selected on the basis that they featured a high number of publications on animal studies. In general, the journals' demands for the description of the animal studies are so limited that it is not possible to repeat the studies, let alone carry out a systematic review. By using the GSPC for animal studies, the quality of scientific papers will be improved. The use of the GSPC and the concomitant improvement in the quality of scientific papers will also contribute to decreased variation and increased standardisation and, as a consequence, a reduction in the numbers of animals used and a more reliable outcome of animal studies. It is of major importance that journal editors become convinced of and adopt these recommendations, because only then will scientists follow these guidelines to the full extent.

An iCE map approach to evaluate performance and efficiency of scientific production of countries

An indicator called the performance index (p-index) which can effectively combine size and quality of scientific papers, mocking what the h-index could do, emerges from an energy like term E = iC, where i is a measure of quality, expressed as the ratio of citations C to papers published P. In this paper, we demonstrate how this energy paradigm can be used for bibliometric research assessment. The energy assessment technique is demonstrated by applying it to the research assessment of all the countries listed in Essential Science Indicators. Partitioning is easily done by using contour lines on the two-dimensional iCE (impact–Citations–Energy) map.

Laura Bremer joins VCOT as Managing Editor

We are fortunate with this issue of VCOT to have the opportunity to introduce Ms Laura Bremer who recently joined Schattauer Publishers in Stuttgart in the role as the in-house Managing Editor for our Journal, following the void left by the very sad passing of Amanda Godsell. Laura is a native of Chicago and has graduated with degrees in marketing, accounting and international business. In addition to her mother tongue English, she speaks German and Swedish. By our good fortune, she has lived in Germany since September 2007 and has a background in advertising. As with all journals, the success and reputation of VCOT are founded on the scientific quality of papers that are published. All papers that are submitted for publication must successfully negotiate the peer review process, and be recommended for publication by a majority of opinion of the referees who are invited to give their evaluations. Of course there are many steps along the way in this process, starting first with the logistics of uploading the manuscript to Manuscript Central. Providing assistance to authors with this sometimes frustrating process is just one of Laura’s roles. She also ensures that submitted manuscripts meet our formatting requirements, and that they pass through the review process in a timely manner. Once our referees are satisfied with the scientific quality of a submitted manuscript, it is carefully copy-edited by her to ensure that the grammatical expression, spelling, reference formatting and so forth are correct. Copyright assignments, image files and galley proof corrections are also handled by Laura, prior to each new issue going off to the printers. In addition, she is also the liaison person with each of the societies who have chosen VCOT as their house journal. All this work that goes on ‘behind the scenes’ at our publishers is critical in the lead up to the eventual delivery of each issue of VCOT to your mailbox. I want to warmly welcome Laura Bremer to our VCOT team; I am very confident that our interaction will be a fruitful collaboration in elevating VCOT to even greater success.

Further Advantages of a Unique Author Identification Number

I am in complete agreement with the suggestion by Matthew Falagas [1] that a unique author identification number (UAIN) would represent a major improvement for the use of databases of scientific publications. In this regard, I perceive that he has not mentioned several other important advantages that a UAIN system would provide, and that are worth pointing to: 1. When looking up someone's publications, the fact that the last name of a given person can vary from one paper to another can be as much of a problem as that of multiple authors with the same name. For example, these variations include women who change their last name after getting married (or divorced), middle initials that are sometimes included or omitted, translations from non-Roman alphabets that result in variable spellings, and people with last names composed of several terms that can sometimes appear in databases as split or truncated. 2. Contrarily to M. Falagas, I do not see any good reason why a UAIN system could not be retroactive. It is clearly in every scientist's interest to facilitate the job of other people who want to look up their work. I therefore believe that authors could be asked to register for a UAIN, and to validate their list of publications themselves, retroactively. Even for the most productive scientists, this would take only a few minutes, and the fact that they had registered for a UAIN allowing users to trace their whole list of publications could then be indicated in the display of search results from the various bibliographic databases. I also do not see any reason for “hiding” this UAIN. I suggest that it could be designed to be quite simple to remember and to communicate to others, for example: the first four or five letters of the last name followed by the initial of the first name followed by the year of first scientific publication followed by an incremental number depending on order of registration (my UAIN would be JOLY-E-89-01). It would therefore be something quite comparable in length and spirit to a car's licence plate and, like UK licence plates, it would provide an interesting clue regarding the seniority of its bearer. 3. This type of UAIN would therefore provide a very simple way to assess a person's productivity. It would also provide a very useful means to assess the actual impact of their work in terms of citations, by discriminating between self-citation and citations by others. Today, most people are evaluated via the impact factor of the journals in which they have managed to publish their work, and not by the actual impact of the papers themselves. Although most scientists acknowledge that this is an extremely crude and unfair way of assessing the quality of someone's production, the impact factor lives on. By providing the simple means to track someone's bibliographic record and thus facilitate the evaluation of their productivity, I believe that the introduction of a UAIN system will not only help the scientific community to exploit bibliographic databases more efficiently, but also represent a major step towards getting rid of the despotic domination of the dreaded impact factors of journals as a means to evaluate the quality of scientific papers.

Thanks to our reviewers

I would like to thank all the people who help maintain the quality of scientific papers in the BDJ by acting as reviewers of the many manuscripts submitted. The following list contains the referees who have worked on scientific papers submitted between 1st January 1999 and 31st December 1999. The BDJ apologises if we have inadvertantly omitted anyone.

Editorial: Quality of scientific papers

Editorial: Quality of scientific papers

Management system for a scientific research institute based on the assessment of scientific publications

This study depicts ihe management system of a research institute based on input-output principles. The elements of the system are the scientific departments. The main categories of the controlling system arc the planning and supervision or research activities, evaluation of scientific and economic results and rewarding of researchers. The evaluation of scientific results focuses on the analysis of publications. The quality of scientific papers is characterized by a scoring system based on impact factors of periodicals and by citations received. Possible reasons for the lack of citations are discussed. The results of mission-oriented research (MOR) are evaluated on the basis of revenues and earnings. The amount of bonus given to researchers is based on a scoring system taking publication and MOR activity into account. A marked difference in the number of publications and citations among individual departments was observed.