Research integrity and peer review最新文献

{"title":"Susceptibility of large language models to hidden nudge injection during simulated medical peer review: a quasi-experimental study.","authors":"Bruno Martins Tomazini, Larissa Bianchini, Lucas Tramujas, Natalia Vieira Rodrigues, Felipe Guindalini Lorenzato, Mariana Silveira de Alcantara Chaud, Karoline Cordeiro Vercka Gervásio, Israel Silva Maia, Fernando José da Silva Ramos, Bruno Adler Maccagnan Pinheiro Besen, Alexandre Biasi Cavalcanti","doi":"10.1186/s41073-026-00225-y","DOIUrl":"10.1186/s41073-026-00225-y","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Generative artificial intelligence (AI) technologies might offer new possibilities for the peer review process; however, AI models' possible vulnerability to hidden nudges designed to elicit positive reviews raises concerns about manipulation susceptibility, which remains unexplored. We aimed to evaluate AI model susceptibility to hidden nudges in peer review.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This quasi-experimental study was conducted between July and December 2025. Four commercial AI models were evaluated simultaneously: GPT-4 (OpenAI), Gemini 2.5 Flash (Google), DeepSeek-V3 (DeepSeek), and Claude Opus 4 (Anthropic). We used 90 pre-print and 90 published manuscripts in critical care and cardiology to feed the AI models. All manuscripts were converted to individual Microsoft Word files, with identifying information removed, to mimic a manuscript submitted to a journal for peer review. Each manuscript underwent three independent evaluations per model using standardized prompts requesting evaluation and recommendation on whether to accept or reject it for publication. First, we evaluated the manuscript without any nudge. Second, we inserted a hidden nudge opposing the initial recommendation (e.g., a negative nudge if initially accepted). Finally, we evaluated the nudged manuscripts using a modified prompt warning about potential hidden nudges. All recommendations were categorized as accept or reject. The main outcomes were the change rates in recommendations after nudge insertion compared to initial recommendations, and after nudge insertion with the modified prompt, analyzed separately for each AI model.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Across all AI models tested, nudge insertion led to a change in the recommendation in 84.4% of the time (608/720), with Deepseek being the most susceptible model (100% of change), followed by Gemini (97.8% of change), Chat GPT (82.8% of change) and Claude (57.2% of change). Using a specific prompt to warn AI models about potential malicious nudge injections in the manuscripts did not substantially alter the results. Recommendations were still modified in 76.8% of cases (553/720).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In this quasi-experimental study, all tested AI models were highly susceptible to hidden nudge insertions in manuscripts during simulated peer review. Importantly, explicitly warning AI models about potential nudge injections does not meaningfully reduce their susceptibility to manipulation.</p>","PeriodicalId":74682,"journal":{"name":"Research integrity and peer review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.6,"publicationDate":"2026-06-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13471464/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148159335","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"An observational study of the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute's switch from in-person to virtual research application review panels during the COVID-19 pandemic.","authors":"Robin Bloodworth, Rachel Hemphill, Laura P Forsythe, Carolyn Mohan, Esther C Nolton, Ponta Abadi, Lisa J Stewart, Krista P Woodward","doi":"10.1186/s41073-026-00198-y","DOIUrl":"10.1186/s41073-026-00198-y","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) reviews research applications using a process that includes preliminary review by primary reviewers, followed by panel discussion where primary reviewers and other reviewers on the panel (panelists) discuss and score the most competitive applications. PCORI switched from in-person to virtual panel discussions during the COVID-19 pandemic. This study compared reviewers' scores and perceptions of panel interactions for virtual and in-person review panels and assessed reviewers' perspectives about virtual panels. PCORI uniquely includes patients and other stakeholders as reviewers alongside scientists; thus, differences between reviewer types were also explored.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This observational study utilized repeated cross-sectional data from PCORI funding cycles before and after switching to virtual review, including reviewer score data and closed- and open-ended responses from reviewer surveys. The study team used linear and logistic regression to examine reviewer scores and quantitative survey responses and conducted thematic analysis of open-ended survey responses.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There were no statistically significant differences between in-person and virtual panels in primary reviewers' post-discussion scores or the magnitude of score change from pre- to post-discussion. In contrast, panelists gave stronger post-discussion scores in virtual panels, and this difference between formats was greater for stakeholder reviewers compared to scientists. Reviewers' ratings of panel interactions appeared to be similar between formats. While reviewers noted challenges of virtual panels, including challenges related to discussion quality and social interactions, they also noted benefits, such as lack of travel.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Overall, this study suggests that virtual and in-person review panels were largely comparable on reviewer scores and some key aspects of reviewer experiences in a multi-stakeholder review process. Despite having some challenges, virtual review processes may be a viable approach for funders during times of necessity and beyond. Practical considerations and recommendations for virtual panels are discussed.</p>","PeriodicalId":74682,"journal":{"name":"Research integrity and peer review","volume":"11 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.6,"publicationDate":"2026-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13224586/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148140020","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Effectiveness of the researcher-led \"Peerspectives\" peer review training course on review quality, knowledge, and skills among doctoral students in the biomedical sciences: a pre-post study.","authors":"Jessica L Rohmann, Nadja Wülk, Kerstin Rubarth, Hannah Grillmaier, Iman Abdikarim, Mariana Lopes Simões, Sara Schroter, Marco Piccininni, Tobias Kurth, Toivo Glatz","doi":"10.1186/s41073-026-00220-3","DOIUrl":"10.1186/s41073-026-00220-3","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Peer review remains a cornerstone of scientific knowledge dissemination, yet comprehensive, practically relevant training is limited. This inspired us to develop Peerspectives, a peer review training course for doctoral students in the biomedical sciences in Berlin, Germany. We aimed to assess the effectiveness of the Peerspectives course on editor-judged quality of peer review reports.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Doctoral students in health research fields who enrolled in the Peerspectives course between October 2020 and August 2022 were invited to participate in the study, and 80 consented. The ~18 week-long course provided training on the structure, purpose, and conduct of peer review and editorial processes in biomedical journals. It included 12 h of lectures, homework assignments, and 12 h of hands-on, small-group workshops, during which students reviewed original research manuscripts currently under consideration at The BMJ under the guidance of experienced mentors. The primary outcome was the overall quality of the peer review reports as judged by two independent BMJ editors using the global score of the Review Quality Instrument (RQI) pre- and post-intervention. Additionally, we compared participants' post-course scores with those of actual BMJ reviewers. We also compared participants' self-assessed knowledge and skills related to scholarly peer review (1-5 Likert scale) before and after the course.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>After course completion, the editor-assessed overall quality of the participants' peer review reports was higher than before the course (median increase of 0.5 points, p < 0.001; mean increase of 0.36 points, p < 0.001). The RQI scores of participants' post-course reports were not non-inferior to those of actual BMJ reviewers for the same manuscripts. Self-assessed peer review-related knowledge skills increased across all questionnaire items after course completion. Greatest improvements were seen in understanding reviewer expectations (increase in means from 2.9 to 4.5), confidence in reviewing (2.5 to 3.9), and knowing what to look for while reviewing (2.8 to 4.2).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Providing doctoral students with comprehensive training resulted in an editorially significant increase in review report quality and improved understanding of the role and expectations of peer reviewers in the scholarly publishing processes and confidence in giving constructive feedback. PRE-REGISTRATION: https://osf.io/vndcx.</p>","PeriodicalId":74682,"journal":{"name":"Research integrity and peer review","volume":"11 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.6,"publicationDate":"2026-05-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13220374/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148058558","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Who deserves credit, who receives credit? A cross-sectional survey on the handling of co-authorship in medical dissertations in Germany.","authors":"Laura Klempp, Nadin Zerin Tanriverdi, Adrian Loerbroks, Niklas Juth, Nils Hansson","doi":"10.1186/s41073-026-00219-w","DOIUrl":"10.1186/s41073-026-00219-w","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>This study investigates the awareness and application of the internationally recognized Vancouver guidelines on co-authorship among doctoral students in medicine across North Rhine-Westphalia (NRW), Germany, the federal state with the highest number of medical faculties (nine) nationwide. Although authorship practices have been widely discussed in medical research, empirical data on doctoral students' awareness of and adherence to these guidelines remain limited, particularly in Germany.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We carried out a cross-sectional online survey among 147 former doctoral students who completed their dissertations at a medical faculty during the last two years. Participants were recruited via mailing lists, social media, and doctoral graduation ceremonies between December 2024 and June 2025. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the data. To examine further relationships, correlational analyses were conducted using chi-square tests.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>While 84% (n = 123/147) of the participants considered the Vancouver authorship guidelines important, 61% (n = 90/147) reported that at least one criterion of the Vancouver guidelines had not been fulfilled in their work. Furthermore, 56% (n = 82/147) reported never having received any information about the guidelines. Among doctoral students supervised by male supervisors (n = 103), female doctoral students had lower odds of receiving information about authorship guidelines (Odds Ratio [OR] = 0.37, 95% CI 0.17-0.83) and of reporting a clear policy regarding them (OR = 0.37, 95% CI 0.16-0.81) compared with male doctoral students.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Overall, our findings indicate that, among the surveyed cohort of former medical doctoral students in Germany, self-reported adherence to authorship guidelines was limited and observed gender-related differences. Variations in the perceived dissemination and implementation of ethical authorship practices were associated with the supervisory gender constellation. These results underscore the need for more robust institutional frameworks, systematic education on authorship ethics, and clearer accountability mechanisms in the supervision of doctoral research.</p>","PeriodicalId":74682,"journal":{"name":"Research integrity and peer review","volume":"11 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.6,"publicationDate":"2026-05-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13195902/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147990247","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"A systematic analysis of the gender disparities in oncology journal editorial boards.","authors":"Taha Koray Sahin, Ilgın Koc Kus, Bahadir Koylu, Firat Sirvan, Neyran Kertmen, Seyda Gunduz, Deniz Can Guven","doi":"10.1186/s41073-026-00199-x","DOIUrl":"10.1186/s41073-026-00199-x","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Despite growing emphasis on equity and diversity, women remain underrepresented in academic leadership roles, especially on the editorial boards of scientific journals. The composition of editorial boards plays a major role in shaping the peer-review process, research dissemination, and academic advancement. While gender disparities have been documented in many specialties, the data from oncology journals remain scarce.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of 310 oncology journals indexed in the InCites Journal Citation Reports. Data were manually extracted from journal websites between April and May 2025.Variables included the number and gender of editorial board members and editors-in-chief, Journal Impact Factor (JIF) quartile, SCIE/ESCI indexing, journal and publisher continent, professional society affiliation.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among 21,065 editorial board members, 5,592 (26.5%) were women, with representation among editors-in-chief even lower at 89 out of 378 (23.5%). Female representation was highest in Q1 journals (30.5%) and lowest in Q4 journals (17.9%) (p < 0.001). Geographical disparities were prominent: women represented 49.5% of editorial board members in U.S.-based journals, compared to 10.1% in Asia and 1.5% in Australia (p < 0.001). In multivariable analysis, absence of a female editor-in-chief (OR:2.77, 95%CI:1.61-4.75; p < 0.001) and lack of professional association affiliation (OR:1.78, 95%CI: 1.11-2.85; p = 0.017) were independently associated with gender disparity.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Gender disparities remain prominent across oncology journal editorial boards, particularly in leadership roles and journals affiliated with Asia. Effective strategies are needed to increase efforts to promote equity in academic leadership, as well as improve transparency in the editorial selection process so inclusivity and diverse perspectives can be integrated into oncology research.</p>","PeriodicalId":74682,"journal":{"name":"Research integrity and peer review","volume":"11 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.6,"publicationDate":"2026-05-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13188396/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147977702","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"A portrait of commissioned literature: connecting the dots between medical education and communication companies, authors, funders and publishers.","authors":"Maud Bernisson","doi":"10.1186/s41073-026-00194-2","DOIUrl":"10.1186/s41073-026-00194-2","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Medical education and communication companies (MECCs) are key actors in the production of commissioned publications. Analyzing publications that acknowledge medical writing offers a broad overview of their role, which is scarce in the literature. The reason is that activities related to industry-funded research are highly opaque, which makes access to this information particularly hard, and related analyses scarce. This article offers a novel approach to collecting, and thus, analyzing data. It maps how MECCs, funders, authors, and publishers organize to produce this literature and identifies risks of research integrity breaches.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The database contains the metadata of 29 911 commissioned papers collected from Web of Science (WoS). All articles involving medical writing were collected if they mentioned \"medical writing\" in WoS, if they were published by MECCs websites, and if they were listed in publication trackers (documents that list the publications of companies, found on the Industry Documents Library (IDL)). The metadata were collected semi-automatically (manually and with R). Reference lists were built to extract MECCs from acknowledgments and harmonize organizations' names. The analysis maps the relationships among MECCs, authors, funders, and publishers and shows how they connect.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In contrast with pharmaceutical companies and research institutes, only 33.6% of MECCs are listed in the bylines and even less (18%) are acknowledged in the publications found on their websites and on the Industry Documents Library. Even though they provide writing, MECCs are usually not considered as authors. Medical writing is a flourishing business and MECCs are key actors. Only a few sponsors (5.5%) outsource medical writing to many MECCs, and a few MECCs (7.7%) have a high number of clients. The medical writing market is thus very competitive and can benefit sponsors. MECCs sometimes publish in journals that are owned by their parent or sister companies. The business model of the publishers largely benefits from medical writing by publishing their product, and sometimes providing it as a service.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The database presented in this article offers new routes to explore the key role of MECCs in industry-funded research and to further assess the commissioned literature and its impacts on biomedical science and research integrity.</p>","PeriodicalId":74682,"journal":{"name":"Research integrity and peer review","volume":"11 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.6,"publicationDate":"2026-05-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13177878/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147943972","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"A call for clarity: a unified checklist for reporting use of large language models in writing scientific manuscripts.","authors":"Neil Mehta, Ryan Marshall Felder, Eric Kodish, Peter B Imrey, Richard M Frankel","doi":"10.1186/s41073-026-00212-3","DOIUrl":"10.1186/s41073-026-00212-3","url":null,"abstract":"&lt;p&gt;&lt;p&gt;The rapid integration of generative artificial intelligence (Gen AI) into academic writing has outpaced the establishment of consistent norms for responsible and transparent disclosure. Leading organizations including the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME), and the European Commission, Directorate-General for Research and Innovation have issued guidance affirming that AI tools cannot be listed as authors and must be transparently disclosed. However, what remains missing is both a cross-journal consensus and guidance for authors on what constitutes acceptable versus unacceptable use of Gen AI. Furthermore, as authors may employ Gen AI at multiple, distinct stages of manuscript preparation, they currently have no standardized or granular method to report this varied use in sufficient detail. This ambiguity creates a critical gap between high-level disclosure principles and practical implementation, threatening not necessarily the integrity of the underlying research itself, but the reader's and editor's ability to objectively assess the reliability and provenance of reported findings.This paper responds to that gap by proposing a structured, domain-based framework for reporting Gen AI use in scholarly manuscripts. Drawing on a synthesis of evolving editorial statements and guidelines, we outline three domains in which Gen AI is commonly employed: conceptual contributions, linguistic assistance, and research assistance. For each domain, we distinguish uses that are generally acceptable from those that raise ethical or integrity concerns, providing examples to guide authors, reviewers, and journal editors and editorial staff.To operationalize this framework, we introduce a prototype of an online Gen AI use disclosure form that guides authors through documenting their use of Gen AI across the three domains. The tool automatically generates a standardized disclosure statement and assigns a unique, citable reference number. This reference number links to a persistent, publicly accessible summary of the declared Gen AI use, creating a transparent and auditable record. This system is proposed as a 'living' platform, designed to evolve through consensus among journal editors and editorial staff, authors, and research integrity organizations, functioning similarly to other reporting guidelines hosted by the EQUATOR Network.This system moves beyond ad hoc, narrative statements to establish a proactive and standardized disclosure process around the use of Gen AI in scholarly publishing. By embedding transparency, human accountability, and traceability directly into the publication workflow, our approach complements existing frameworks for authorship and conflict of interest. Like conflict-of-interest disclosures, AI use statements surface information that allows readers to contextualize potential risks and judge credibility for themselves","PeriodicalId":74682,"journal":{"name":"Research integrity and peer review","volume":"11 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.6,"publicationDate":"2026-05-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13157658/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147864851","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"A scoping review of guides and advice for scholarly citing in health research.","authors":"Lasse Østengaard, Tine Tjørnhøj-Thomsen, Asger S Paludan-Müller, Mia Elkjær, Tove Faber Frandsen, Asbjørn Hróbjartsson","doi":"10.1186/s41073-026-00195-1","DOIUrl":"10.1186/s41073-026-00195-1","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To identify, summarise and analyse documents with guides and advice for scholarly citing in health research.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In a scoping review, we included documents with guides and advice for scholarly citing in health research. We searched in Embase (Ovid), Google Scholar, 20 textbooks, 30 journal websites, and conducted supplementary searches. We categorised original documents as guides if their primary focus was on scholarly citing and if they contained a list of advice. We summarised the guides and pieces of advice, analysed the pieces of advice, and listed illustrative quotes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We screened 9.746 documents for eligibility and included 118. The documents were published in 1934-2025, and the guides and advice were primarily identified in journal articles (63 out of 118 documents, 53%) and on websites (42 out of 118 documents, 36%). We identified 12 guides and 75 unique pieces of advice (e.g., \"read the papers you cite\"). The 12 guides were developed with a simple pragmatic approach, i.e., no systematic literature review of previous studies, and only one guide included a survey as a supporting study. The various pieces of advice were related to seven categories that researchers could reflect on while citing: 1) quality, 2) context, 3) when to cite, 4) integrity, 5) originality, 6) transparency, and 7) availability.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>We identified 12 guides and 75 unique pieces of advice for scholarly citing in health research. Our review may serve as a resource for authors of health research publications and as part of the development process for a comprehensive guideline for adequate citation practice in health research.</p>","PeriodicalId":74682,"journal":{"name":"Research integrity and peer review","volume":"11 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.6,"publicationDate":"2026-05-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13151081/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147847293","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Beyond genuine collaboration: the rise of strategic co-authorship in contemporary academic publishing.","authors":"Rui Marcelino","doi":"10.1186/s41073-026-00197-z","DOIUrl":"10.1186/s41073-026-00197-z","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The near-disappearance of single-author publications in scientific literature represents one of the most dramatic shifts in academic publishing over the past two decades. While this trend is often attributed to increased scientific collaboration and research complexity, substantial evidence suggests that systemic publication pressures and metric-based evaluation systems have created incentives for \"strategic co-authorship\"-practices including honorary authorship, gift authorship, and publication cartels that violate established authorship criteria. This article synthesizes empirical evidence documenting the decline of single-author publications, the prevalence of authorship misconduct, and the systemic drivers underlying these practices. Drawing on bibliometric analyses, prevalence surveys, and studies of academic culture, evidence-based synthesis indicates that addressing authorship requires fundamental reforms to institutional assessment systems, enhanced editorial vigilance, and cultural change in how the academic community values research contributions. The integrity of the scientific record depends on honest attribution of intellectual work, yet current incentive structures systematically undermine this foundational principle.</p>","PeriodicalId":74682,"journal":{"name":"Research integrity and peer review","volume":"11 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.6,"publicationDate":"2026-04-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13123118/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147791847","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Lost in documentation: professional norms and the gaps in survey translation transparency.","authors":"Marziyeh Sadeghzadeh, Nasimeh Nouhi Jadesi","doi":"10.1186/s41073-026-00192-4","DOIUrl":"10.1186/s41073-026-00192-4","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>This study systematically investigates documentation gaps in survey translation within validation studies conducted by Iranian researchers, framing these gaps as a critical, yet overlooked, research integrity concern. Transparent reporting is foundational not only for methodological rigor but for enabling meaningful peer review and trust in cross-cultural findings.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Using a comprehensive framework that assesses documentation across three phases (input, translation process, and output), we analyzed the completeness of reported translation procedures. We further evaluated these practices against established professional standards for translation- specifically, the norms of accountability, communication, and fidelity- which align with core research integrity principles.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The findings reveal a pronounced and systemic imbalance: while the translation process itself is frequently documented, both preparatory (input) and resultant (output) stages are largely neglected. This selective reporting constitutes a significant transparency deficit, obscuring essential information about translation validity and severely compromising the methodological scrutiny central to peer review. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: The results directly inform interventions to bolster research integrity, as neglecting thorough documentation creates an unrecoverable information gap for peer reviewers. This prevents proper evaluation of translation validity- a core methodological checkpoint. Therefore, the proposed priorities (e.g., mandatory reporting templates for input briefs and output decisions) are targeted interventions to make the translation process auditable. These gaps systematically exclude evidence of translators' intellectual labor and cultural mediation, eroding the transparency necessary for reproducing or trusting cross-cultural findings. The consistent pattern in Iran, mirroring LMIC (Low- and Middle-Income Country) challenges, confirms that standardizing documentation is a prerequisite for equitable peer review, ensuring that the methodological foundations of cross-cultural research, specifically translation validity, are rendered auditable and subject to effective peer review- a core safeguard of research integrity.</p>","PeriodicalId":74682,"journal":{"name":"Research integrity and peer review","volume":"11 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.6,"publicationDate":"2026-04-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13072526/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147679374","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}