DOI: 10.3897/ese.2025.e165365

Authors: Anuradha Baminiwatta, Chathuranga Costa, Dinuka Weerasinghe, S. M. Yasir Arafat, Brady D. Lund

Abstract: Background: The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) tools in academic publishing is expanding rapidly, raising concerns about authorship, transparency, and editorial standards. Although organisations such as Committee on Publication Ethics and International Council of Medical Journal Editors have proposed guidelines on the use of AI, the extent to which they have been adopted by journals in psychiatry and mental health remains unclear.Objectives: To examine the adoption and content of AI policies in psychiatry and mental health journals indexed in SCImago and to determine whether higher-quartile journals are more likely to include policies related to AI.Methods: Policies related to AI in the guidelines for authors and reviewers were examined for two groups of journals, all indexed under Psychiatry and Mental Health in SCImago in November-December 2024. The two groups were (1) a stratified random sample of 200 journals (50 per quartile) chosen from a total of 578 journals and (2) 25 top-ranked journals in psychiatry and mental health.Results: Among the first group, 78 (39%) journals included policies related to AI in their guidelines or instructions for authors and reviewers, the number being greater in top-quartile journals (56% in Q1 versus 20% in Q4; χ² = 14, P = .003). Of the 78 journals, 69 (88.5%) disallowed AI tools as named authors, an equal number mandated disclosure of the use of AI, and 58 (74.4%) emphasised author accountability. Peer review policies mostly prohibited AI use (n = 47); AI-assisted copy editing was permitted in 56 journals; and policies on AI-generated images varied. None reported using AI detection tools. Among the top 25 journals, 16 (64%) included policies related to AI; all prohibited authorship to AI and required disclosure; and one reported using AI detection tools.Conclusion: Despite the rising use of AI in publishing, most psychiatry and mental health journals, especially the lower-quartile journals, lack policies on such use. Wider adoption and standardisation of policies related to AI are crucial to ensure research integrity and credibility.

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.2025.e151110

Authors: Bor Luen Tang

Abstract: The US Office of Research Integrity (ORI)’s revised policy, which excludes authorship credit disputes from plagiarism, is potentially problematic because acts of intellectual property (IP) misappropriation, intended or otherwise, might potentially be exonerated from plagiarism or not adequately adjudicated as such. I argue that all authorship credit disputes should be considered as involving plagiarism unless it is clearly proven that there is no misappropriation of IP on the part of the alleged/respondent. This notion is important to prevent the prevalence of injustice due to power imbalances between senior and junior as well as between residential and tem-porary/departed researchers.

HTML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2024.e136216

Authors: Bor Luen Tang

Abstract:

HTML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2023.e106940

Authors: Christopher H. Wortley

Abstract:

HTML

XML

PDF

DOI: 10.3897/ese.2022.e90552

Authors: Salim Moussa

Abstract: The question of should editors-in-chief (EICs) publish in their own journals has been hotly debated in academic spheres. Some authors have recommended that EICs should refrain from publishing articles in their own journals. They advocate for a ‘publish elsewhere’ solution. For EICs and journals, a ‘publish elsewhere’ solution is unjust, unfair, inadequate, and counterproductive. For manuscripts (co) authored by EICs, an alternative solution is to use an open peer review procedure in which reviewers’ comments are made public alongside EICs/authors’ responses. An open peer review procedure should make the submission and acceptance dates, the number of revision rounds that EICs’ articles went through, and the identities of handling editors available to readers and the general public.

HTML

XML

PDF