Augmenting Scholarly Publishing: Intelligent Emerging Tools & Trends
Rebuilding Trust in Science through Research Integrity
Welcome, ScholComm/MedComm peers,
๐ฆ Gobble Gobble ๐ฆ There seems to be a BIG appetite ๐ for trust & research integrity, so here is your weekly serving.
We understand if you feel sleepy ๐ด after your Thanksgiving feast, but don't sleep on AI. In a blink ๐ of an eye Sam Altman is out as CEO at OpenAI and has landed at Microsoft, that was a fun three day roller coaster ๐ข. We may never know what really happened but we can be certain that there is a battle โ๏ธ raging in the AI world between the move fast and break things gang and the safety and ethics camp. These sorts of debates are good for AI and society, giving hope for an imminent & needed shift towards trust ๐ค, transparency, & regulation ๐ฎโโ๏ธ in the use of responsible tech.
Now on to the topic this week of Rebuilding Trust in Science through Research Integrity.
In the academic world, the resignation of the Stanford President signifies a similar push in scholarly publishing to hold leaders accountable for scientific rigor and reproducibility.
Sam Altmanโs legacy may be the mass adoption of generative AI ๐ค models like Chat GPT, which has undoubtedly resulted in a significant evolution in paper mills and, compromise in research integrity beyond expectations. Yet some industry leaders hope & advocate to rebuild trust in scientific processes, given the extent of research integrity concerns and call for a national research misconduct body in Australia. There remains a need for improvement in research integrity measures and to put an end to unearned authorship.
Quick summaries:
Stanford President Marc Tessier-Lavigne and the new standards of scientific conduct - On August 31st, Stanford President Marc Tessier-Lavigne resigned, citing inadequate lab leadership instead of initial scientific misconduct accusations. The investigation revealed his failure to address scientific record issues and oversee labs effectively. This departure underscores the growing emphasis on holding academic leaders accountable for research integrity, emphasizing the role of institutional structures and tools in enforcing standards.
How big is scienceโs fake-paper problem? - An analysis uncovered a widespread problem of fake research articles, identifying over 400,000 publications in the last two decades with text similarities to known paper mill studies. Around 70,000 were published in 2022, comprising 1.5โ2% of scientific papers, rising to 3% in biology and medicine. Machine learning was used to detect suspicious patterns, acknowledging concerns about false positives. Efforts to address paper mills include tools like the Papermill Alarm and the STM Integrity Hub, highlighting the urgency for enhanced vigilance in scientific publishing.
One academic paperโs journey through the mill - In the shadowy realm of academic publishing, thriving paper mills like 123mi.ru provide academics a questionable shortcut to publication. Sociologist Anna Abalkina's probe exposed a troubling truthโ123mi.ru sold over 20,000 authorship slots, tarnishing scholarly integrity. The impact is evident, as esteemed journals wrestle with compromised papers. Despite efforts like the STM's tool to counter this, the ongoing evolution of paper mills raises grave concerns about the future credibility of scientific literature.
Research institutions โpay lip serviceโ to integrity rule - A survey of "research integrity advisors" (RIAs) in 99 Australian universities exposes widespread deficiencies. Many lack training, with 32% never assisting students. Almost two-thirds of institutions don't provide RIA information on their websites, impeding transparency. This contrasts with recent studies highlighting concerns about widespread research misconduct. The Australian Research Council review suggests legislative changes to improve research integrity oversight, indicating a need for comprehensive improvements in addressing ethical concerns in academia.
Leaders hope belief in the scientific process can rebuild trust - Australia's Chief Scientist, Cathy Foley, released a report titled "Trust in Science," tackling the rising skepticism towards the scientific process. The report distinguishes between research integrity and quality, underscoring their significance in preserving trust. The Australian Academy of Science backs this discussion, emphasizing the necessity for a strong national process to ensure research integrity. The Academy intends to issue a position statement suggesting governance enhancements. Foley stresses the science sector's duty to build and uphold public trust amid declining institutional trust and growing misinformation. The report aims to redirect attention from isolated integrity issues to urgent quality concerns in public discourse.
Unis, scientists unite for first time on need for research misconduct body - Australian scientists and universities are urging the government to establish an independent research misconduct body for the first time. This shift in position signals a departure from universities' previous ambivalence. The call comes amid concerns of fraud and lack of transparency in research, with over 500 Australian papers retracted in the last 20 years. The proposed body would provide oversight on universities' investigations into misconduct allegations, addressing calls for impartiality and independence. The move is seen as a positive shift, acknowledging the need for effective oversight in public expenditure on research.
Generative approach to research integrity - In recent weeks, various cases of research integrity issues at prestigious universities have garnered attention. The president of Stanford University, Marc Tessier-Lavigne, resigned due to a culture contributing to manipulated results in his laboratory. The article emphasizes the significance of organizational culture in addressing research integrity. It discusses different cultural typesโpathological, bureaucratic, and generativeโand suggests that the bureaucratic culture prevalent in institutions can hinder effective responses to integrity issues. The need for a more generative culture, where information about errors and misconduct is openly addressed, is highlighted. Holden Thorp, EiC of Science advocates for collaboration and transparency to build trust in the scientific community, emphasizing the importance of correcting the scientific record promptly.
First detailed U.S. scientific integrity draft policies get mixed responses - U.S. science watchdog groups are reviewing draft policies from federal health agencies addressing scientific integrity concerns raised during the Trump administration. The aim is to prevent political interference with government scientists. While some aspects are praised, advocacy groups express concerns about potential limitations on scientists discussing sensitive topics. Critics note the lack of specific penalties and inadequate protection for grant recipients, calling for legislative codification to ensure long-term adherence. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is considering policy edits, to be finalized in early 2024, and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) is gathering comments until November 9. Watchdog groups expect similar policies from other agencies for consistent scientific guidelines.
โAcademic integrity is improving, but Asia needs transparency cultureโ - Yuehong (Helen) Zhang's 2021 study on academic integrity reveals Europe leads in Committee on Publication Ethics (Cope) membership, followed by North America, Asia, Oceania, Africa, and South America. Zhang notes Asia's progress, with China and Japan showing high awareness. In the past decade, Chinese universities improved integrity measures, but challenges persist. Zhang advocates for a comprehensive, culturally ingrained approach, proposing an Academic Integrity Awareness Index to foster a research integrity culture, emphasizing education, transparency, and industry oversight.
Aviโs AI Tool Spotlight:ย
Writefull offers AI-based language feedback and big data insights to help authors and copy editors improve their texts. Writefull uses the latest techniques to enhance technical and scientific writing. Writefull's feedback is tailored to academic writing, as their language models are trained on millions of published academic articles.
If you enjoyed reading the newsletter and would like a weekly dose of updates to stay up to date with the latest emerging tools & technologies in the scholarly publishing industry, sign up for the newsletter.
Thanks for reading!ย Your feedback is important for us to cater to your scholarly needs.
Happy Thanksgiving! ๐ช๐ฆ๐ฅง๐
Until next week,
Chhavi Chauhan and Chirag Jay Patel
Share your suggestions and comments: augmentscholpub@gmail.com