Criteria: ethical use of artificial intelligence in #scientificpublications
#AI can improve efficiency & support tasks such as idea generation, design, analysis, synthesis, refinement of texts; but secondly, it can pose serious risks to #scientificintegrity, including plagiarism, fabricated references or data, factual errors, bias, the erosion of #criticalthinking
Lluís Codina
https://www.lluiscodina.com/criteria-ethical-artificial-intelligence-science/
Among other corrupting interference, the fossil fuel industry would like peer review including "peers" asserting the radiative physics equivalent of 2+2=5.
"The issue is one of attribution: Can we detect the cause of climate change in individual weather events? A few decades ago, that simply wasn’t possible. But researchers have since developed tools that allow them to determine the probability that different events would occur with and without the influence of our greenhouse gas emissions. And so it has become clear that some of the most extreme events simply wouldn’t have occurred without the warming we’ve driven.
That clarity has allowed other researchers to tie the financial damages from catastrophic weather events to the influence of fossil fuels produced by individual companies. If those studies are widely accepted as valid scientific work, then judges will be compelled to admit them as evidence in any lawsuits against said companies."
How much of Thermo Fisher's antibody data has been manipulated?
#HackerNews #ThermoFisher #AntibodyData #DataManipulation #ScientificIntegrity #ResearchEthics
A new study warns that automated writing tools may amplify plagiarism in scientific papers.
As AI speeds up publishing, concerns grow about integrity and originality in research outputs.
🔗 https://phys.org/news/2026-04-plagiarized-automated.html
#AI #ScientificIntegrity #ResearchEthics #Publishing #OpenScience
Earlier this year, I published a paper on the ethics of researching military populations. The core argument was straightforward: the standard rules researchers follow to protect participants—for example, informed consent and voluntary participation—don't work the same in an institution built on hierarchy and obedience.
❗Update on Plagiarism and Falsification in Scientific Publications
Today, I officially submitted requests for the retraction of articles to the editorial boards of the journals "Land Reclamation and Water Management" and "Bulletin of NUWM".
❗Key facts of misconduct:
🔹 Plagiarism: Unauthorized use of my original relief map (2015) without citation.
🔹 Falsification: Intentional removal (retouching) of the author’s stamp with coordinates and date-time on site photographs.
🔹 Duplication: Publication of identical material in 2021 and 2024.
Next steps:
In the event of attempts to covertly remove the articles without an official retraction notice, relevant complaints will be forwarded directly to @crossref and the international members of the editorial boards.
#OpenScience #ResearchMisconduct #AcademicMastodon #ScientificIntegrity #Hydrology #Geoscience #GIS #FediScience #Plagiarism #SvystunovaGully #COPE #Crossref #DataIntegrity #ImageManipulation #AcademicChatter #ResearchEthics #EarthScience #HigherEducation
An Italian researcher has been ordered to pay back approximately $51,000 in grants due to "massive" scientific misconduct in two of her published books.
#Plagiarism #AcademicIntegrity #ResearchIntegrity #ScientificIntegrity
"We propose a structured framework to help authors and journal editors and editorial offices distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable uses of generative AI in scientific publications. To operationalize this, we introduce a novel online reporting tool that guides authors in documenting AI use and generates a standardized, citable disclosure statement to ensure transparency and accountability."
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s41073-026-00212-3
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. Ultimately, this work advances a practical model to strengthen trust between authors, journal editors and editorial staff, and readers, aligning the promise of generative AI with the enduring principles of research integrity.
AI-generated reference errors are increasingly entering scientific papers, with tens of thousands of 2025 publications potentially affected. The issue is shifting from simple citation mistakes to fully fabricated sources.
🌐 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-026-00969-z
#ArtificialIntelligence #ScientificIntegrity #ResearchPublishing #PeerReview #OpenScience
Haven't seen anyone on Fedi discussing the #NASEM #ScientificIntegrity event tomorrow and Friday.
If that sounds interesting to you, I beg you to look at this first: https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/nocensorship-2/
"An Open Letter to Professor Katy Milkman: Don’t Censor John Ioannidis, Jay Bhattacharya, and Emily Oster. Amplify Their Voices. It’s vital that your conference attendees know the speakers’ past credibility to judge their current credibility. All you have to do is be honest."
The agenda and livestream are here:
https://www.nationalacademies.org/projects/DBASSE-BBCSS-25-02/event/46519
And I have no doubt that some of the sessions will be very good.
The Medical Evidence Project, a venture of The Center for #ScientificIntegrity, aims to reduce harm to patients & improve outcomes by finding & publicizing serious errors in the medical literature. Under the directorship of James Heathers, PhD, the Medical Evidence Project uses forensic meta-analytical techniques to detect & then shine light on errors arising from low-quality science & fraudulent work in areas that involve large numbers of patients
The Medical Evidence Project, a venture of The Center for Scientific Integrity, aims to reduce harm to patients and improve outcomes by finding and publicizing serious errors in the medical literature. Under the directorship of James Heathers, Ph.D., the Medical Evidence Project uses forensic meta-analytical techniques to detect and then shine light on errors arising...
STOPDISINFORMATION
Doug Bostrom
Hacker News
LeidenForce
Eugene
Jonathan Bailey
Kate Nyhan