Post-publication critique at top-ranked journals across scientific disciplines: a cross-sectional assessment of policies and practice

Application of AI in Sepsis: Citation Network Analysis and Evidence Synthesis

BACKGROUND

Artificial intelligence (AI) has garnered considerable attention in the context of sepsis research, particularly in personalized diagnosis and treatment. Conducting a bibliometric analysis of existing publications can offer a broad overview of the field and identify current research trends and future research directions.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study is to leverage bibliometric data to provide a comprehensive overview of the application of AI in sepsis.

METHODS

We conducted a search in the Web of Science Core Collection database to identify relevant articles published in English until August 31, 2023. A predefined search strategy was used, evaluating titles, abstracts, and full texts as needed. We used the Bibliometrix and VOSviewer tools to visualize networks showcasing the co-occurrence of authors, research institutions, countries, citations, and keywords.

RESULTS

A total of 259 relevant articles published between 2014 and 2023 (until August) were identified. Over the past decade, the annual publication count has consistently risen. Leading journals in this domain include Critical Care Medicine (17/259, 6.6%), Frontiers in Medicine (17/259, 6.6%), and Scientific Reports (11/259, 4.2%). The United States (103/259, 39.8%), China (83/259, 32%), United Kingdom (14/259, 5.4%), and Taiwan (12/259, 4.6%) emerged as the most prolific countries in terms of publications. Notable institutions in this field include the University of California System, Emory University, and Harvard University. The key researchers working in this area include Ritankar Das, Chris Barton, and Rishikesan Kamaleswaran. Although the initial period witnessed a relatively low number of articles focused on AI applications for sepsis, there has been a significant surge in research within this area in recent years (2014-2023).

CONCLUSIONS

This comprehensive analysis provides valuable insights into AI-related research conducted in the field of sepsis, aiding health care policy makers and researchers in understanding the potential of AI and formulating effective research plans. Such analysis serves as a valuable resource for determining the advantages, sustainability, scope, and potential impact of AI models in sepsis.

Better nanoscience through open, collaborative, and critical discussions

We aim to foster a discussion of science correction and of how individual researchers can improve the quality and control of scientific production. This is crucial because although the maintenance of rigorous standards and the scrupulous control of research findings and methods are sometimes taken for granted, in practice, we are routinely confronted with articles that contain errors.

A guide for social science journal editors on easing into open science

Journal editors have a large amount of power to advance open science in their respective fields by incentivising and mandating open policies and practices at their journals. The Data PASS Journal Editors Discussion Interface (JEDI, an online community for social science journal editors: www.dpjedi.org ) has collated several resources on embedding open science in journal editing ( www.dpjedi.org/resources ). However, it can be overwhelming as an editor new to open science practices to know where to start. For this reason, we created a guide for journal editors on how to get started with open science. The guide outlines steps that editors can take to implement open policies and practices within their journal, and goes through the what, why, how, and worries of each policy and practice. This manuscript introduces and summarizes the guide (full guide: https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/hstcx ).

Research misconduct as a challenge for academic institutions and scientific journals

Research misconduct refers to a set of unethical practices in research and publication and is the main reason for retraction of articles published in the academic literature. Research misconduct has negative consequences and has generated public scepticism about research, which has led to increasing distrust in science. In this context, a joint effort by the scientific community, academic institutions, scientific journals and research funders is needed to identify and prevent research misconduct. In this paper, we will evaluate what has already been done and what is needed to do to better address research misconduct. The focus of this paper will be on the actions taken by academic institutions, as the first line of defence, and scientific journals, as the gatekeepers of science. However, scientific journals and academic institutions are only a part of a much larger and multistakeholder effort needed to address the challenges scientific research is facing.

Inaccuracy in the Scientific Record and Open Postpublication Critique

There is growing evidence that the published psychological literature is marred by multiple errors and inaccuracies and often fails to reflect the changing nature of the knowledge base. At least four types of error are common-citation error, methodological error, statistical error, and interpretation error. In the face of the apparent inevitability of these inaccuracies, core scientific values such as openness and transparency require that correction mechanisms are readily available. In this article, I reviewed standard mechanisms in psychology journals and found them to have limitations. The effects of more widely enabling open postpublication critique in the same journal in addition to conventional peer review are considered. This mechanism is well established in medicine and the life sciences but rare in psychology and may assist psychological science to correct itself.

Post-publication Peer Review with an Intention to Uncover Data/Result Irregularities and Potential Research Misconduct in Scientific Research: Vigilantism or Volunteerism?

Irregularities in data/results of scientific research might be spotted pre-publication by co-workers and reviewers, or post-publication by readers typically with vested interest. The latter might consist of fellow researchers in the same subject area who would naturally pay closer attention to a published paper. However, it is increasingly apparent that there are readers who interrogate papers in detail with a primary intention to identify potential problems with the work. Here, we consider post-publication peer review (PPPR) by individuals, or groups of individuals, who perform PPPRs with a perceptible intention to actively identify irregularities in published data/results and to expose potential research fraud or misconduct, or intentional misconduct exposing (IME)-PPPR. On one hand, such activities, when done anonymously or pseudonymously with no formal discourse, have been deemed as lacking in accountability, or perceived to incur some degree of maleficence, and have been labelled as vigilantism. On the other, these voluntary works have unravelled many instances of research misconduct and have helped to correct the literature. We explore the tangible benefits of IME-PPPR in detecting errors in published papers and from the perspectives of moral permissibility, research ethics, and the sociological perspective of science. We posit that the benefits of IME-PPPR activities that uncover clear evidence of misconduct, even when performed anonymously or pseudonymously, outweigh their perceived deficiencies. These activities contribute to a vigilant research culture that manifests the self-correcting nature of science, and are in line with the Mertonian norms of scientific ethos.

Challenges in peer review: how to guarantee the quality and transparency of the editorial process in scientific journals

The editorial process of scientific journals is complex but essential for the dissemination of scientific knowledge. The quality of the process depends on the authors, editors and reviewers, who must have the necessary experience and knowledge to ensure the quality of the published articles. One of the most significant challenges scientific journals face today is the peer review of manuscripts. Editors are responsible for coordinating and overseeing the entire editorial process, from manuscript submission to final publication, and ensuring that articles meet ethical and scientific integrity standards. Editors are also in charge of selecting appropriate reviewers. However, the latter is becoming difficult due to the increasing refusal of expert reviewers to participate in the editorial process. The reasons for it are diverse, but the lack of recognition for review work and reviewer fatigue in the most sought-after reviewers are among the most important. Some of the measures that could be taken to alleviate the problem concern the possibility of professionalizing peer review.