DOI: 10.3897/ese.2025.e159921

Authors: Jeremy Y. Ng, Daivat Bhavsar, Neha Dhanvanthry, Lex Bouter, Teresa Chan, Annette Flanagin, Alfonso Iorio, Cynthia Lokker, Hervé Maisonneuve, Ana Marušić, David Moher, Holger Cramer

Abstract: Background: Artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots are advanced conversational programmes capable of performing tasks such as identifying methodological flaws, verifying references, and improving language clarity in manuscripts. Their use in peer review has the potential to enhance efficiency, reduce reviewer workload, and address inconsistencies in review quality. However, concerns remain regarding their reliability, ethical implications, and transparency in decision-making, and little is known about how peer reviewers perceive these tools.Objectives: To assess peer reviewers’ attitudes and perceptions towards the use of AI chatbots in the peer review process, including their familiarity with AI, perceived benefits and challenges, ethical considerations, and expectations for future roles.Methods: An international cross-sectional survey will be conducted among academic peer reviewers. The survey will collect data on participants’ prior experience with AI, perceptions of the utility of chatbots in supporting peer review, concerns related to ethics and transparency, and anticipated future applications.Results: This study will report descriptive and comparative analyses of reviewers’ responses, highlighting patterns in attitudes and perceptions by demographic and professional characteristics.Conclusions: The findings may offer evidence to inform the development of future policies and best practices for the ethical and effective integration of AI chatbots in peer review, with the goal of improving review quality while addressing potential risks.

HTML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2025.e120210

Authors: Hristina Prodanova, Stelian Dimitrov

Abstract: Background: The requirement of publishing high-quality papers in established peer-reviewed journals is still in the early days of implementation among academic geographers in Bulgaria, which limits the visibility and impact of Bulgarian research and delays the possibilities of academic recognition and international collaboration.Objectives: To examine the current visibility and impact of Bulgarian geographers using quantitative analysis of publicly available data derived from eight scientometric databases and social media platforms.Methods: Relevant data were collected for 116 researchers affiliated with five institutions from the following sources: Scopus, Web of Science, Publons, ORCID, Google Scholar, Research Gate, LinkedIn, and X (Twitter). Using Microsoft Excel, the performance of each of the researchers and each of the institutions was quantified in terms of (1) the number of publications, (2) the number of citations, (3) H-index, (4) i10-index, and (5) Research Interest Score. The scores were also plotted using RAWGraphs and Microsoft PowerPoint.Results: Only half of the researchers had published in internationally indexed journals. The institutions and departments in the capital city, Sofia, enjoyed significantly and disproportionately higher visibility than those from smaller towns. Geographers from the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences (Sofia) and one department from Sofia University showed the highest visibility on Scopus (100%), whereas two rural universities – the University of Veliko Tarnovo and Shumen University – were visible mostly on ResearchGate and Google Scholar. Overall visibility of each institution on social media was very low (8%–16%).Conclusions: The analysis led to several recommendations on increasing the visibility and impact of Bulgarian research in geography. These recommendations will be valuable in research management, public relations, especially in improving communications and devising development strategies.

HTML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2022.e81677

Authors: Cary Moskovitz, Michael Pemberton, Susanne Hall

Abstract: Because science advances incrementally, scientists often need to repeat material included in their prior work when composing new texts. Such “text recycling” is a common but complex writing practice, so authors and editors need clear and consistent guidance about what constitutes appropriate practice. Unfortunately, publishers’ policies on text recycling to date have been incomplete, unclear, and sometimes internally inconsistent. Building on 4 years of research on text recycling in scientific writing, the Text Recycling Research Project has developed a model text recycling policy that should be widely applicable for research publications in scientific fields. This article lays out the challenges text recycling poses for editors and authors, describes key factors that were addressed in developing the policy, and explains the policy’s main features.

HTML

XML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2020.e51002

Authors: Saif Aldeen AlRyalat, Muayad Azzam, Abdallah Massad, Dana Alqatawneh

Abstract: Objective: To provide an overview of retractions of research papers contributed by authors from the Arab region.Method: Papers in which the first author was affiliated to an Arabian country were selected from the Retraction Watch database covering the period 1 January 1998 to 31 December 2018. The retrieved records were divided into nine categories based on the reasons for retraction.Results: The search yielded 322 retractions, and the most frequent reason for retraction was plagiarism (34.5%). The median time from publication to retraction was 14 (25%-75% percentile 5-30) months. The number of papers retracted each year as well as the number of papers published in a given year but subsequently retracted increased steadily over the 21 years. The proportion of retracted papers to the total number of published papers (0.17%) was higher than the global proportion and was the highest for Algeria (1%) and the lowest for Lebanon (0.03%). Of the countries within the Arab region, 12 out of 14 countries showed either plagiarism or duplication as the most common reason for retraction; however, the countries differed in terms of the number of retractions and the time from publishing to retraction.Conclusion: Plagiarism was the most common cause of retraction in the Arab countries. The increase in the number of papers retracted each year was probably because searches now extend farther in the past, whereas the increase in the number of papers published in a given year but subsequently retracted can be attributed to the overall increase in the number of papers published.

HTML

XML

PDF