User login
Scientific Publications Face Credibility Crisis
The quality and credibility of scientific publications have received increasing scrutiny. Findings from studies by Maria Ángeles Oviedo-García, PhD, from the Department of Business and Marketing at the University of Seville in Spain, highlight growing concerns about the integrity of published research. Insights from the journal Science and the US blog Retraction Watch reveal similar concerns regarding research integrity.
Artificial Intelligence (AI) Spurs Low-Quality Submissions
According to a report in Science, journals are inundated with low-quality contributions such as letters and comments generated by AI. Daniel Prevedello, MD, editor in chief of Neurosurgical Review, announced that the journal would temporarily stop accepting these submissions because of their poor quality.
Neurosurgical Review is not the only journal to experience low-quality submissions. In the journal Oral Oncology Reports (Elsevier), comments comprised 70% of the content, whereas in the International Journal of Surgery Open (Wolters Kluwer), they accounted for nearly half. In Neurosurgical Review, letters, comments, and editorials made up 58% of the total content from January to October 2024, compared with only 9% in the previous year.
This trend benefits authors by allowing them to inflate their publication lists with quickly produced contributions that bypass peer review. Publishers may also profit, as many charge fees to publish comments. Additionally, universities and research institutions find this type of content generation useful as more publications can enhance their reputation.
Concerns Over Peer Reviews
The troubling behavior described by Oviedo-García in the journal Scientometrics raises further doubts. An analysis of 263 peer reviews from 37 journals revealed that reviewers often used identical or very similar phrases in their evaluations, regardless of the content. In one case, the reviewer used the same wording in 52 reviews. This suggests that some reviewers read the studies that they are supposed to evaluate only superficially. Such practices can lead to valueless reviews and jeopardize the integrity of scientific literature. “Some other researchers will probably base their future research on these fake reports, which is frightening, especially when it comes to health and medicine,” Oviedo-García stated.
She suspects that the reviewers may have relied on templates to produce their reports quickly. This allowed them to list this work on their resumes for potential career advantages. Some reviewers have reportedly even “requested” the authors of the studies they reviewed to cite their own scientific work.
AI Complicates Peer Review
The process of research and publication has become increasingly challenging in recent years, and more standard and predatory journals allow anyone to publish their work for a fee. Roger W. Byard, MD, PhD, from the University of Adelaide in Australia, explained this trend in the journal Forensic Science, Medicine and Pathology. AI is increasingly being used to generate articles. At international conferences, experts have highlighted claims that AI can complete papers in just a few weeks and dissertations in less than a year. According to the authors of a letter in Critical Care, generative AI is infiltrating the peer review process.
Moreover, the peer review process can be bypassed by publishing research findings on online platforms (eg, preprint servers). Another issue is that some publications have hundreds of authors who can extend their publication list in this manner, even if their contribution to the publication is ambiguous or not substantial.
In a guest article for the Laborjournal, Ulrich Dirnagl, MD, PhD, from the Charité — Universitätsmedizin Berlin in Germany, emphasized that the scientific papers have become so complex that two or three experts often cannot thoroughly assess everything presented. The review process is time-consuming and can take several days for reviewers. Currently, very few people have time, especially because it is an unpaid and anonymous task. Dirnagl stated, “the self-correction of science no longer works as it claims.”
The old Russian saying ‘Dowjerjaj, no prowjerjaj: Trust, but verify’ remains a timeless recommendation that is likely to stay relevant for years to come.
This story was translated from Univadis Germany using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The quality and credibility of scientific publications have received increasing scrutiny. Findings from studies by Maria Ángeles Oviedo-García, PhD, from the Department of Business and Marketing at the University of Seville in Spain, highlight growing concerns about the integrity of published research. Insights from the journal Science and the US blog Retraction Watch reveal similar concerns regarding research integrity.
Artificial Intelligence (AI) Spurs Low-Quality Submissions
According to a report in Science, journals are inundated with low-quality contributions such as letters and comments generated by AI. Daniel Prevedello, MD, editor in chief of Neurosurgical Review, announced that the journal would temporarily stop accepting these submissions because of their poor quality.
Neurosurgical Review is not the only journal to experience low-quality submissions. In the journal Oral Oncology Reports (Elsevier), comments comprised 70% of the content, whereas in the International Journal of Surgery Open (Wolters Kluwer), they accounted for nearly half. In Neurosurgical Review, letters, comments, and editorials made up 58% of the total content from January to October 2024, compared with only 9% in the previous year.
This trend benefits authors by allowing them to inflate their publication lists with quickly produced contributions that bypass peer review. Publishers may also profit, as many charge fees to publish comments. Additionally, universities and research institutions find this type of content generation useful as more publications can enhance their reputation.
Concerns Over Peer Reviews
The troubling behavior described by Oviedo-García in the journal Scientometrics raises further doubts. An analysis of 263 peer reviews from 37 journals revealed that reviewers often used identical or very similar phrases in their evaluations, regardless of the content. In one case, the reviewer used the same wording in 52 reviews. This suggests that some reviewers read the studies that they are supposed to evaluate only superficially. Such practices can lead to valueless reviews and jeopardize the integrity of scientific literature. “Some other researchers will probably base their future research on these fake reports, which is frightening, especially when it comes to health and medicine,” Oviedo-García stated.
She suspects that the reviewers may have relied on templates to produce their reports quickly. This allowed them to list this work on their resumes for potential career advantages. Some reviewers have reportedly even “requested” the authors of the studies they reviewed to cite their own scientific work.
AI Complicates Peer Review
The process of research and publication has become increasingly challenging in recent years, and more standard and predatory journals allow anyone to publish their work for a fee. Roger W. Byard, MD, PhD, from the University of Adelaide in Australia, explained this trend in the journal Forensic Science, Medicine and Pathology. AI is increasingly being used to generate articles. At international conferences, experts have highlighted claims that AI can complete papers in just a few weeks and dissertations in less than a year. According to the authors of a letter in Critical Care, generative AI is infiltrating the peer review process.
Moreover, the peer review process can be bypassed by publishing research findings on online platforms (eg, preprint servers). Another issue is that some publications have hundreds of authors who can extend their publication list in this manner, even if their contribution to the publication is ambiguous or not substantial.
In a guest article for the Laborjournal, Ulrich Dirnagl, MD, PhD, from the Charité — Universitätsmedizin Berlin in Germany, emphasized that the scientific papers have become so complex that two or three experts often cannot thoroughly assess everything presented. The review process is time-consuming and can take several days for reviewers. Currently, very few people have time, especially because it is an unpaid and anonymous task. Dirnagl stated, “the self-correction of science no longer works as it claims.”
The old Russian saying ‘Dowjerjaj, no prowjerjaj: Trust, but verify’ remains a timeless recommendation that is likely to stay relevant for years to come.
This story was translated from Univadis Germany using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The quality and credibility of scientific publications have received increasing scrutiny. Findings from studies by Maria Ángeles Oviedo-García, PhD, from the Department of Business and Marketing at the University of Seville in Spain, highlight growing concerns about the integrity of published research. Insights from the journal Science and the US blog Retraction Watch reveal similar concerns regarding research integrity.
Artificial Intelligence (AI) Spurs Low-Quality Submissions
According to a report in Science, journals are inundated with low-quality contributions such as letters and comments generated by AI. Daniel Prevedello, MD, editor in chief of Neurosurgical Review, announced that the journal would temporarily stop accepting these submissions because of their poor quality.
Neurosurgical Review is not the only journal to experience low-quality submissions. In the journal Oral Oncology Reports (Elsevier), comments comprised 70% of the content, whereas in the International Journal of Surgery Open (Wolters Kluwer), they accounted for nearly half. In Neurosurgical Review, letters, comments, and editorials made up 58% of the total content from January to October 2024, compared with only 9% in the previous year.
This trend benefits authors by allowing them to inflate their publication lists with quickly produced contributions that bypass peer review. Publishers may also profit, as many charge fees to publish comments. Additionally, universities and research institutions find this type of content generation useful as more publications can enhance their reputation.
Concerns Over Peer Reviews
The troubling behavior described by Oviedo-García in the journal Scientometrics raises further doubts. An analysis of 263 peer reviews from 37 journals revealed that reviewers often used identical or very similar phrases in their evaluations, regardless of the content. In one case, the reviewer used the same wording in 52 reviews. This suggests that some reviewers read the studies that they are supposed to evaluate only superficially. Such practices can lead to valueless reviews and jeopardize the integrity of scientific literature. “Some other researchers will probably base their future research on these fake reports, which is frightening, especially when it comes to health and medicine,” Oviedo-García stated.
She suspects that the reviewers may have relied on templates to produce their reports quickly. This allowed them to list this work on their resumes for potential career advantages. Some reviewers have reportedly even “requested” the authors of the studies they reviewed to cite their own scientific work.
AI Complicates Peer Review
The process of research and publication has become increasingly challenging in recent years, and more standard and predatory journals allow anyone to publish their work for a fee. Roger W. Byard, MD, PhD, from the University of Adelaide in Australia, explained this trend in the journal Forensic Science, Medicine and Pathology. AI is increasingly being used to generate articles. At international conferences, experts have highlighted claims that AI can complete papers in just a few weeks and dissertations in less than a year. According to the authors of a letter in Critical Care, generative AI is infiltrating the peer review process.
Moreover, the peer review process can be bypassed by publishing research findings on online platforms (eg, preprint servers). Another issue is that some publications have hundreds of authors who can extend their publication list in this manner, even if their contribution to the publication is ambiguous or not substantial.
In a guest article for the Laborjournal, Ulrich Dirnagl, MD, PhD, from the Charité — Universitätsmedizin Berlin in Germany, emphasized that the scientific papers have become so complex that two or three experts often cannot thoroughly assess everything presented. The review process is time-consuming and can take several days for reviewers. Currently, very few people have time, especially because it is an unpaid and anonymous task. Dirnagl stated, “the self-correction of science no longer works as it claims.”
The old Russian saying ‘Dowjerjaj, no prowjerjaj: Trust, but verify’ remains a timeless recommendation that is likely to stay relevant for years to come.
This story was translated from Univadis Germany using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
New data support electroconvulsive therapy for severe depression
Advocates and users of electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) have received further scientific backing:
The patient cohort comprised 27,231 men and 40,096 women who had been treated as inpatients. The average age was 45.1 years (range: 18-103 years), and 4,982 patients received ECT. The primary endpoint was death by suicide within 365 days of hospital discharge. The secondary endpoints were death not by suicide and total mortality. The cause-specific hazard ratio (csHR) was calculated for patients with ECT, compared with patients without ECT.
In the propensity score-weighted analysis, ECT was linked to a significantly reduced suicide risk (csHR: 0.53; 95% confidence interval, 0.31-0.92). According to the calculations, ECT was associated with a significantly decreased total mortality risk (hazard ratio, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.58-0.97). However, this was not the case for death from causes other than suicide.
The authors, led by Tyler S. Kaster, PhD, a psychiatrist at Temerty Centre for Therapeutic Brain Intervention, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto, concluded that this study underlines the importance of ECT, in particular for people with severe depression.
A well-tested therapy
ECT has been used for decades as a substantial tool for the treatment of patients with severe mental illnesses. Over the past 15 years, new methods for the treatment of severely depressed patients have been tested, such as vagus nerve stimulation, transcranial magnetic stimulation, and intranasal administration of esketamine. However, in a recent review paper in the New England Journal of Medicine, American psychiatrists Randall T. Espinoza, MD, MPH, University of California, Los Angeles, and Charles H. Kellner, MD, University of South Carolina, Charleston, reported that none of these therapies had proven to be an indisputable substitute for ECT for people with severe depression.
Significant clinical benefits
According to these American psychiatrists, the benefit of ECT has been proven many times, and several studies demonstrate the effect on the risk for suicide. Moreover, quality of life is improved, and the rate of new hospital admissions is lowered. ECT can rapidly improve depressive, psychotic, and catatonic symptoms and reduce suicidal urges for certain patient groups.
Studies on ECT involving patients with treatment-refractory depression have shown response rates of 60%-80% and pooled remission rates of 50%-60%. High response rates for ECT have even been reported for patients with psychotic depression or catatonia. In one study that recruited patients with treatment-refractory schizophrenia, the ECT efficacy rates were between 40% and 70%. In some Asian countries, schizophrenia is the main indication for ECT.
Good safety profile
Overall, the psychiatrists consider ECT to be a safe and tolerable therapy. The estimated death rate is around 2.1 deaths per 100,000 treatments. The most common complications are acute cardiopulmonary events, which are estimated to occur in less than 1% of treatments. Rare serious adverse events linked to ECT are arrhythmias, shortness of breath, aspiration, and prolonged seizures. The common but mild side effects are headaches, jaw pain, myalgia, nausea, and vomiting after the procedure, as well as fatigue.
Concerns regarding cognitive impairment still represent an obstacle for the use of ECT. However, in today’s practice, ECT leads to fewer cognitive side effects than previous treatments. The authors stated that it is not possible to predict how an individual patient will be affected, but most patients have only mild or moderate cognitive side effects that generally abate days to weeks after an ECT course has ended.
However, retrograde amnesia linked to ECT can last over a year. In rare cases, acute confusion or delirium can develop that requires interruption or discontinuation of treatment. No indications of structural brain damage after ECT have been detected in neuropathological testing. A Danish cohort study involving 168,015 patients with depression, of whom 3.1% had at least one ECT treatment, did not find a link between ECT with a mean period of almost 5 years and increased onset of dementia.
Bad reputation
Dr. Espinoza and Dr. Kellner criticized the fact that, despite its proven efficacy and safety, ECT is used too little. This judgment is nothing new. Psychiatrists have been complaining for years that this procedure is used too little, including Eric Slade, MD, from the University of Baltimore, in 2017 and German professors Andreas Fallgatter, MD, and Urban Wiesing, MD, PhD, in 2018. Dr. Wiesing and Dr. Fallgatter attribute the low level of use to the fact that ECT is labor-intensive, compared with pharmacotherapy.
Another reason is clearly the bad reputation of this method. However, ECT’s poor image, which has only increased over time, is not a convincing argument to forego today’s ECT as a treatment for patients with severe mental illnesses. According to Dr. Fallgatter and Dr. Wiesing, even the risk of misuse of this method is “not a sufficient argument for categorical refusal, rather for caution at best.” They argued that otherwise, “modern medicine would have to renounce many more therapies.”
This article was translated from Univadis Germany.
Advocates and users of electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) have received further scientific backing:
The patient cohort comprised 27,231 men and 40,096 women who had been treated as inpatients. The average age was 45.1 years (range: 18-103 years), and 4,982 patients received ECT. The primary endpoint was death by suicide within 365 days of hospital discharge. The secondary endpoints were death not by suicide and total mortality. The cause-specific hazard ratio (csHR) was calculated for patients with ECT, compared with patients without ECT.
In the propensity score-weighted analysis, ECT was linked to a significantly reduced suicide risk (csHR: 0.53; 95% confidence interval, 0.31-0.92). According to the calculations, ECT was associated with a significantly decreased total mortality risk (hazard ratio, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.58-0.97). However, this was not the case for death from causes other than suicide.
The authors, led by Tyler S. Kaster, PhD, a psychiatrist at Temerty Centre for Therapeutic Brain Intervention, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto, concluded that this study underlines the importance of ECT, in particular for people with severe depression.
A well-tested therapy
ECT has been used for decades as a substantial tool for the treatment of patients with severe mental illnesses. Over the past 15 years, new methods for the treatment of severely depressed patients have been tested, such as vagus nerve stimulation, transcranial magnetic stimulation, and intranasal administration of esketamine. However, in a recent review paper in the New England Journal of Medicine, American psychiatrists Randall T. Espinoza, MD, MPH, University of California, Los Angeles, and Charles H. Kellner, MD, University of South Carolina, Charleston, reported that none of these therapies had proven to be an indisputable substitute for ECT for people with severe depression.
Significant clinical benefits
According to these American psychiatrists, the benefit of ECT has been proven many times, and several studies demonstrate the effect on the risk for suicide. Moreover, quality of life is improved, and the rate of new hospital admissions is lowered. ECT can rapidly improve depressive, psychotic, and catatonic symptoms and reduce suicidal urges for certain patient groups.
Studies on ECT involving patients with treatment-refractory depression have shown response rates of 60%-80% and pooled remission rates of 50%-60%. High response rates for ECT have even been reported for patients with psychotic depression or catatonia. In one study that recruited patients with treatment-refractory schizophrenia, the ECT efficacy rates were between 40% and 70%. In some Asian countries, schizophrenia is the main indication for ECT.
Good safety profile
Overall, the psychiatrists consider ECT to be a safe and tolerable therapy. The estimated death rate is around 2.1 deaths per 100,000 treatments. The most common complications are acute cardiopulmonary events, which are estimated to occur in less than 1% of treatments. Rare serious adverse events linked to ECT are arrhythmias, shortness of breath, aspiration, and prolonged seizures. The common but mild side effects are headaches, jaw pain, myalgia, nausea, and vomiting after the procedure, as well as fatigue.
Concerns regarding cognitive impairment still represent an obstacle for the use of ECT. However, in today’s practice, ECT leads to fewer cognitive side effects than previous treatments. The authors stated that it is not possible to predict how an individual patient will be affected, but most patients have only mild or moderate cognitive side effects that generally abate days to weeks after an ECT course has ended.
However, retrograde amnesia linked to ECT can last over a year. In rare cases, acute confusion or delirium can develop that requires interruption or discontinuation of treatment. No indications of structural brain damage after ECT have been detected in neuropathological testing. A Danish cohort study involving 168,015 patients with depression, of whom 3.1% had at least one ECT treatment, did not find a link between ECT with a mean period of almost 5 years and increased onset of dementia.
Bad reputation
Dr. Espinoza and Dr. Kellner criticized the fact that, despite its proven efficacy and safety, ECT is used too little. This judgment is nothing new. Psychiatrists have been complaining for years that this procedure is used too little, including Eric Slade, MD, from the University of Baltimore, in 2017 and German professors Andreas Fallgatter, MD, and Urban Wiesing, MD, PhD, in 2018. Dr. Wiesing and Dr. Fallgatter attribute the low level of use to the fact that ECT is labor-intensive, compared with pharmacotherapy.
Another reason is clearly the bad reputation of this method. However, ECT’s poor image, which has only increased over time, is not a convincing argument to forego today’s ECT as a treatment for patients with severe mental illnesses. According to Dr. Fallgatter and Dr. Wiesing, even the risk of misuse of this method is “not a sufficient argument for categorical refusal, rather for caution at best.” They argued that otherwise, “modern medicine would have to renounce many more therapies.”
This article was translated from Univadis Germany.
Advocates and users of electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) have received further scientific backing:
The patient cohort comprised 27,231 men and 40,096 women who had been treated as inpatients. The average age was 45.1 years (range: 18-103 years), and 4,982 patients received ECT. The primary endpoint was death by suicide within 365 days of hospital discharge. The secondary endpoints were death not by suicide and total mortality. The cause-specific hazard ratio (csHR) was calculated for patients with ECT, compared with patients without ECT.
In the propensity score-weighted analysis, ECT was linked to a significantly reduced suicide risk (csHR: 0.53; 95% confidence interval, 0.31-0.92). According to the calculations, ECT was associated with a significantly decreased total mortality risk (hazard ratio, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.58-0.97). However, this was not the case for death from causes other than suicide.
The authors, led by Tyler S. Kaster, PhD, a psychiatrist at Temerty Centre for Therapeutic Brain Intervention, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto, concluded that this study underlines the importance of ECT, in particular for people with severe depression.
A well-tested therapy
ECT has been used for decades as a substantial tool for the treatment of patients with severe mental illnesses. Over the past 15 years, new methods for the treatment of severely depressed patients have been tested, such as vagus nerve stimulation, transcranial magnetic stimulation, and intranasal administration of esketamine. However, in a recent review paper in the New England Journal of Medicine, American psychiatrists Randall T. Espinoza, MD, MPH, University of California, Los Angeles, and Charles H. Kellner, MD, University of South Carolina, Charleston, reported that none of these therapies had proven to be an indisputable substitute for ECT for people with severe depression.
Significant clinical benefits
According to these American psychiatrists, the benefit of ECT has been proven many times, and several studies demonstrate the effect on the risk for suicide. Moreover, quality of life is improved, and the rate of new hospital admissions is lowered. ECT can rapidly improve depressive, psychotic, and catatonic symptoms and reduce suicidal urges for certain patient groups.
Studies on ECT involving patients with treatment-refractory depression have shown response rates of 60%-80% and pooled remission rates of 50%-60%. High response rates for ECT have even been reported for patients with psychotic depression or catatonia. In one study that recruited patients with treatment-refractory schizophrenia, the ECT efficacy rates were between 40% and 70%. In some Asian countries, schizophrenia is the main indication for ECT.
Good safety profile
Overall, the psychiatrists consider ECT to be a safe and tolerable therapy. The estimated death rate is around 2.1 deaths per 100,000 treatments. The most common complications are acute cardiopulmonary events, which are estimated to occur in less than 1% of treatments. Rare serious adverse events linked to ECT are arrhythmias, shortness of breath, aspiration, and prolonged seizures. The common but mild side effects are headaches, jaw pain, myalgia, nausea, and vomiting after the procedure, as well as fatigue.
Concerns regarding cognitive impairment still represent an obstacle for the use of ECT. However, in today’s practice, ECT leads to fewer cognitive side effects than previous treatments. The authors stated that it is not possible to predict how an individual patient will be affected, but most patients have only mild or moderate cognitive side effects that generally abate days to weeks after an ECT course has ended.
However, retrograde amnesia linked to ECT can last over a year. In rare cases, acute confusion or delirium can develop that requires interruption or discontinuation of treatment. No indications of structural brain damage after ECT have been detected in neuropathological testing. A Danish cohort study involving 168,015 patients with depression, of whom 3.1% had at least one ECT treatment, did not find a link between ECT with a mean period of almost 5 years and increased onset of dementia.
Bad reputation
Dr. Espinoza and Dr. Kellner criticized the fact that, despite its proven efficacy and safety, ECT is used too little. This judgment is nothing new. Psychiatrists have been complaining for years that this procedure is used too little, including Eric Slade, MD, from the University of Baltimore, in 2017 and German professors Andreas Fallgatter, MD, and Urban Wiesing, MD, PhD, in 2018. Dr. Wiesing and Dr. Fallgatter attribute the low level of use to the fact that ECT is labor-intensive, compared with pharmacotherapy.
Another reason is clearly the bad reputation of this method. However, ECT’s poor image, which has only increased over time, is not a convincing argument to forego today’s ECT as a treatment for patients with severe mental illnesses. According to Dr. Fallgatter and Dr. Wiesing, even the risk of misuse of this method is “not a sufficient argument for categorical refusal, rather for caution at best.” They argued that otherwise, “modern medicine would have to renounce many more therapies.”
This article was translated from Univadis Germany.
FROM THE LANCET PSYCHIATRY