This study examines self-disclosed use of artificial intelligence (AI) in research manuscripts submitted to BMJ Group journals, including the types of tools used and frequency of use.

BACKGORUND:Citation irregularities undermine the fairness and reliability of scholarly communication, yet the terms used to describe these behaviors remain fragmented and inconsistently defined. METHODS:We employed a backward‑snowballing strategy to identify relevant publications on the historical development of views on citation irregularities, with particular attention to the literal meaning and the conceptual evolution of terms. RESULTS:Through an inductive analysis of the 50 distinct terms identified, we propose a classification consisting of nine categories: mis-citation, citation distortion, uncritical citation, irrelevant citation, excessive self-citation, citation manipulation, selective citation, coercive citation, and bibliographic plagiarism. CONCLUSIONS:The classification functions as a multi‑dimensional descriptive tool, and an instance of citation irregularity may fall into more than one category. This classification helps to clarify citation irregularities and provides a structured framework for understanding their underlying patterns.

Background: Traditional, complementary, and integrative medicine (TCIM) includes a diverse range of practices, products, and therapies outside the scope of conven-tional Western medicine, including acupuncture, Ayurveda, chiropractic care, and homeopathy. Globally, TCIM is widely used and recognized by most World Health Organization member states, and research in this field has grown substantially in recent decades. However, TCIM research is often criticized for methodological weak-nesses and insufficient rigour, raising concerns about its evidence base and credi-bility. Retraction of scientific articles serves as an essential mechanism to safeguard research integrity, alerting the scientific community to serious errors or misconduct such as fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism. The increasing number of retractions across biomedical research highlights the importance of understanding their under-lying causes. Studying retracted TCIM publications may provide unique insights into recurring methodological, ethical, or systemic issues specific to this field and inform strategies to strengthen research quality. Objectives: The proposed research protocol will use a retrospective analysis to ana-lyse retracted TCIM articles reported in the Retraction Watch database. Methods: Articles classified under '(HSC) Medicine-Alternative' will be identified, extracted, and compared descriptively against retracted non-TCIM publications. Variables of interest include reasons for retraction, date of retraction, article type, journal, publisher, country, number of authors, paywall status, and time from publi-cation to retraction. Data will be summarized using descriptive statistics, with explor-atory comparisons made between TCIM and non-TCIM retractions. Conclusions: The findings will provide the first comprehensive overview of TCIM retractions, offering valuable insights into patterns of flawed research in the field.

Fiction books on aspects of research integrity can be a valuable supplement to normative guidelines on how research should be done. They provide concrete examples of violations of the laws, regulations and codes of conduct that make the norms of scientific research explicit. Their narratives sketch fictional cases of research misconduct and questionable research practices, and the circumstances under which they can occur. Novels can realistically depict the dilemmas scholars need to navigate in an accessible way that readers can relate to both intellectually and emotionally. This may help them to reflect on what a good researcher is and what academic scholars can do to stay close to that ideal. A total of 35 novels dealing with research integrity themes from the last 100 years is reviewed, with special attention to the research integrity topics, its drivers, and its consequences. These novels may be used in research integrity training as a method to evoke individual reflection or to inspire group discussion.

Background Educational initiatives could foster the adoption of open science (OS) and responsible research practices (RRPs). This single group pre-post study evaluated the impact of an educational intervention on increasing the adherence, knowledge and perceptions about adopting OS practices and RRPs among graduate researchers at a Brazilian University. Methods Graduate students from a southern Brazilian university were invited to participate in a course addressing OS and RRPs. The intervention was an online interactive course on OS and RRPs. The number of OS outputs, including Open Science Framework (OSF) accounts, study registrations, protocols, analysis plans, data sets, preprints, and the number of projects published by each participant were collected before and after the intervention. Additionally, a self-administered online questionnaire was applied before and after the intervention to evaluate participants’ perceptions on RRPs, OS practices and on the current researchers’ evaluation system. Results Eighty-four students finished the course and 80 agreed to participate in the study. The number of OSF accounts increased from 7 to 78 after the course, and the number of projects increased from 7 to 10, six months after the intervention. No registrations, protocols, analysis plans, data sets, or preprints were found after 6 and 12 months, respectively. The participants’ perceptions of the current research evaluation system and on the OS practices and RRPs changed positively with the intervention. Also, the intention to adopt practices like registration, protocol and preprint publications has noticeably increased after the course. Conclusions The number of participants’ OSF outputs showed little or no improvement after the intervention. The most important impact difference could be identified in terms of the participants’ perceptions and intentions to adhere to such practices in the future.

Introduction: Early definitions describe predatory publishers as outlets that “publish counterfeit journals to exploit the open-access model in which the author pays” and that are “dishonest and lack transparency.” Predatory journals adapt quickly and apply different tactics to avoid flagging and measures designed to stop them, which is an implicit limitation to any static definition and fixed checklist to identify them. This adaptive behavior necessitates that our understanding of predatory characteristics be continually revised and modified. Moreover, a previous scoping review of the characteristics of predatory journals excluded non-empirical insights. Also, the proliferation of AI tools has substantially eased the creation of fraudulent scientific papers, aligning perfectly with the nature of predatory publishers, thereby contributing to the surge in predatory journals. Thus, our scoping review aims to identify the characteristics and practices of predatory publishers/journals and to develop a draft taxonomy of predatory journals' characteristics. Methods: A scoping review will be conducted by searching MEDLINE, Scopus, Embase, Academic Search Premier, ProQuest, Web of Science, and Google Scholar, complemented by searching grey literature, white papers, and websites of key organizations and publishers. Articles published between 2010–2025 in any language will be included, encompassing empirical, non-empirical, opinion, and commentary sources describing characteristics of predatory journals. A two-stage screening process will be conducted using Covidence. Data extraction will capture bibliographic details, study type, reported characteristics, and proposed definitions. Bibliographic information, study characteristics, context, and predatory publishing details will be categorized and summarized using quantitative analysis. Quantitative data will be summarized descriptively, while thematic analysis will be used to draft a taxonomy of predatory publishing practices. Ethics and dissemination: No ethics approval is required as this review uses published articles. Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journal and conference.

Researchers frequently face conceptual, methodological, and ethical decisions - collectively known as researcher discretion - that can substantially influence research outcomes. Despite its importance, the nature of these discretionary moments and their triggers in everyday research practice remain underexplored. Based on an abductive thematic analysis of fieldnotes, documents, and interviews from twelve months of ethnographic fieldwork in two end-of-life care research groups between 2020 and 2022, we found that uncertainty and moral ambiguity prompted researchers to shift from intuitive to reflective decision-making, requiring discretion. While uncertainty could in principle be reduced by further inquiry, practical constraints often made this unworkable. Moral ambiguity stemmed from conflicting values that no additional information could resolve. These findings suggest that strict adherence to protocols or ethical frameworks may be insufficient to ensure responsible conduct of research, and should be complemented by building researchers' capacity to navigate discretion and both identify and responsibly exercise their researcher discretion.

Aim: Open science (OS) practices aim to make scientific research more accessible, collaborative, sharable, inclusive, transparent, and reproducible. Educational interventions could be valuable in promoting these practices among researchers. As such, our study aims to assess the efficacy of an educational intervention in increasing early career researchers' adherence to OS practices (study registration, open methods, data sharing, open results) in dentistry. Methods: A cluster-randomized controlled trial will be carried out. All PhD students from a convenience sample of 20 Brazilian dental graduate programs will be invited to participate signing the informed consent. The clusters will be randomized in intervention (n=10) and control (n=10) groups. The participants allocated to the intervention will receive an intensive course addressing OS and Responsible Research Practices (RRPs) while the control group will participate in another course addressing Artificial Intelligence in Dentistry. The intervention will be an online interactive course, made available in video format with the participation of professors and researchers, including 75 hours of lectures, workshops, and supporting materials focusing on how to bring more integrity, rigor, and transparency to scientific work using OS principles. The number of OS practices (published as open access or preprint, protocol registration, data sharing, code sharing, disclosure of conflicts of interest, and disclosure of funding sources) adopted by the participants will be collected two and five years after the end of the intervention. An online self-administered questionnaire will collect their perceptions about the OS practices. Outcomes: The primary outcome will be the Open Science Score calculated for each published paper by the participants 2 and 5 years of the end of the intervention. OS practices adopted in the participants’ thesis will be collected and analyzed as a secondary outcome 5 years after the end of the intervention. Other secondary outcomes include the differences in scores on a survey measuring perceptions about OS practices between the intervention and control groups, measured after the course ended.

BACKGROUND:Artificial intelligence chatbots (AICs) are designed to mimic human conversations through text or speech, offering both opportunities and challenges in scholarly publishing. While journal policies of AICs are becoming more defined, there is still a limited understanding of how Editors in chief (EiCs) of biomedical journals' view these tools. This survey examined EiCs' attitudes and perceptions, highlighting positive aspects, such as language and grammar support, and concerns regarding setup time, training requirements, and ethical considerations towards the use of AICs in the scholarly publishing process. METHODS:A cross-sectional survey was conducted, targeting EiCs of biomedical journals across multiple publishers. Of 3725 journals screened, 3381 eligible emails were identified through web scraping and manual verification. Survey invitations were sent to all identified EiCs. The survey remained open for five weeks, with three follow-up email reminders. RESULTS:The survey had a response rate of 16.5% (510 total responses) and a completion rate of 87.0%. Most respondents were familiar with AIs (66.7%), however, most had not utilized AICs in their editorial work (83.7%) and many expressed interest in further training (64.4%). EiCs acknowledged benefits such as language and grammar support (70.8%) but expressed mixed attitudes on AIC roles in accelerating peer review. Perceptions included the initial time and resources required for setup (83.7%), training needs (83.9%), and ethical considerations (80.6%). CONCLUSIONS:This study found that EiCs have mixed attitudes toward AICs, with some EICs acknowledging their potential to enhance editorial efficiency, particularly in tasks like language editing, while others expressed concerns about the ethical implications, the time and resources required for implementation, and the need for additional training.

OBJECTIVE: To analyze the frequency of self-disclosed use of AI in research manuscripts submitted to 49 biomedical journals and to identify types of AI tools used, the tasks they assisted with, and factors associated with disclosure. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: 49 biomedical journals published by BMJ Group. PARTICIPANTS: Submitting authors of 25,114 empirical research manuscripts including systematic reviews and meta-analyses, submitted between 8 April 2024 and 6 November 2024. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Prevalence of manuscripts with self-disclosed use of AI, types of AI tools used, the tasks they assisted with and factors associated with disclosure. RESULTS: There was a total of 25,114 eligible submissions: Asia (13,505; 53.8%), Europe (6,523; 26.0%), North America (2,795; 11.1%), Africa (1,196; 4.8%), Oceania (708; 2.8%), and South America (387; 1.5%). A total of 1,431 submissions (5.7%) disclosed the use of AI. The most frequently reported AI tools used were Generative AI Chatbots (812/1431; 56.7%) and writing assistants (182; 12.7%). The majority of authors who disclosed AI use reported using it to improve the quality of their writing (1,248/1,431; 87%). Additionally, translation (107; 7.5%), generating data and output (87, 6.1%), literature searches (49; 3.4%), analyzing data (31; 2.2%), image processing or analysis (49; 3.4%), code writing (15; 1.0%), and managing references (14; 0.9%) were mentioned as tasks AI assisted with. Authors from South America (OR=1.75; 95%-CI: 1.22-2.49) and Europe (OR=1.28; 95%-CI: 1.14-1.45) were significantly more likely to disclose AI use than those from Asia. Conversely, each additional author reduced disclosure odds by 1% (OR=0.99, 95%-CI: 0.97-0.99). Acceptance rate, impact factor, type of journal, and peer review model) were not associated with AI use disclosure. CONCLUSIONS: We found that only a small proportion (5.7%) of submitting authors disclosed AI use, which is substantially lower than proportions reported in surveys. Improving the quality of writing was the primarily task AI assisted with and AI Chatbots were the most commonly disclosed tool. Authors may be uncertain about what AI use requires disclosure or may be hesitant to declare it. ### Competing Interest Statement SS and HM are full time employees of BMJ Group. This research is part of an ongoing PhD collaboration between BMJ Group and the team Meta-Research at Maastricht University (UM) on the responsible conduct of publishing scientific research. BMJ Group is a wholly owned subsidiary of the British Medical Association. UM is a public legal entity in the Netherlands. This study is part of Isamme AlFayyad self-funded BMJ Group/UM PhD trajectory. No exchange of funds has taken place for this research project. All authors express their own opinions and not necessarily that of their employers. ### Funding Statement This study did not receive any funding ### Author Declarations I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained. Yes The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below: Ethical approval was obtained from the research ethics committee of Maastricht University (Approval Number: FHML-REC/2025/014). I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals. Yes I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance). Yes I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable. Yes The anonymized dataset is publicly available at osf.io/uvqms.

BACKGROUND:This article reports on the prevalence of registration of empirical studies presented at three editions of the World Conference on Research Integrity at the time of abstract submission. METHODS:During registration and abstract submission, applicants were invited to answer questions on registration of the study they presented and their academic background. RESULTS:Descriptive analyses of the responses regarding a total of 452 abstracts describing empirical studies showed that the prevalence of registration among presenters of empirical research did not increase across the three WCRIs, and was on average 28%. The verifiability of claims of registration did increase over time, however, from 44% to 88% of the abstracts of empirical studies claimed to be registered. Reasons given for not registering varied substantially, but little faith in its usefulness and unfamiliarity were frequently mentioned. Younger researchers tended to register more often than others, and researchers with a biomedical background registered more frequently. CONCLUSION:We suggest simplifying the registration process and propose that funding agencies, research institutes, and scholarly journals should demand registration of empirical studies.

Background:Educational initiatives could foster the adoption of open science (OS) and responsible research practices (RRPs). This single group pre-post study evaluated the impact of an educational intervention on increasing the adherence, knowledge and perceptions about adopting OS practices and RRPs among graduate researchers at a Brazilian University. Methods:Graduate students from a southern Brazilian university were invited to participate in a course addressing OS and RRPs. The intervention was an online interactive course on OS and RRPs. The number of OS outputs, including Open Science Framework (OSF) accounts, study registrations, protocols, analysis plans, data sets, preprints, and the number of projects published by each participant were collected before and after the intervention. Additionally, a self-administered online questionnaire was applied before and after the intervention to evaluate participants' perceptions on RRPs, OS practices and on the current researchers' evaluation system. Results:Eighty-four students finished the course and 80 agreed to participate in the study. The number of OSF accounts increased from 7 to 78 after the course, and the number of projects increased from 7 to 10, six months after the intervention. No registrations, protocols, analysis plans, data sets, or preprints were found after 6 and 12 months, respectively. The participants' perceptions of the current research evaluation system and on the OS practices and RRPs changed positively with the intervention. Also, the intention to adopt practices like registration, protocol and preprint publications has noticeably increased after the course. Conclusions:The number of participants' OSF outputs showed little or no improvement after the intervention. The most important impact difference could be identified in terms of the participants' perceptions and intentions to adhere to such practices in the future.

Background Transparency in health research is crucial as it allows for the scrutiny and replication of findings, fosters confidence in scientific outcomes, and ultimately contributes to the advancement of knowledge and the betterment of society. Aim We aimed to assess five transparency practices in scientific publications (data availability, code availability, protocol registration, conflicts of interest (COI) and funding disclosures) from open-access articles published in medical journals. Methods We searched and exported all open-access articles from Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE)-indexed journals through the Europe PubMed Central database published until March 16, 2024. Basic journal- and article-related information was retrieved from the database. We then assessed five transparency practices in the articles using the rtransparent package in R. Results The analysis included 2,002,955 open-access articles from SCIE-indexed medical journals (open-access percentage=59.0%). Of these, 87.5% (95% CI: 87.4%-87.5%) disclosed COI and 80.1% (95% CI: 80.0%-80.1%) disclosed funding. Protocol registration was declared in 6.6% (95% CI: 6.6%-6.6%), data sharing in 7.6% (95% CI: 7.6%-7.6%), and code sharing in 1.4% (95% CI: 1.4%-1.4%) of the articles. More than 76.0% declared at least two transparency practices, while all five practices were declared in less than 0.02%. The data showed an increasing trend in all transparency practices since the late 2000s. Articles published in journals with higher impact factors and articles receiving more citations had increased odds of COI and funding disclosures, as well as data and code sharing. There were notable differences in transparency practices across the disciplines. Conclusion While most articles had COI and funding disclosures, adherence to other transparency practices was grossly insufficient. To increase protocol registration, data, and code sharing, much stronger incentives and mandates are needed from all stakeholders. ### Competing Interest Statement The authors have declared no competing interest. ### Funding Statement This study did not receive any funding. ### Author Declarations I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained. Yes I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals. Yes I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance). Yes I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable. Yes All the code and data associated with the study were shared through both its OSF repository (<https://osf.io/zbc6p/>) and GitHub (<https://github.com/choxos/medical-transparency>) when the manuscript was submitted. <https://osf.io/zbc6p/>