ReviewJournal of Korean medical science2018
Integrity of Authorship and Peer Review Practices: Challenges and Opportunities for Improvement.
Review in Journal of Korean medical science, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
25 citing papers in PubMed, 64 citations in OpenAlex.
- A review of bloodstream infections-pathogens, pathogenesis, diagnostic strategies, treatment methods-challenges and future aspects.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2026Review
- Authorship Accountability and Transparency: A Standardized Model from the Global Andrology Forum.The world journal of men's health · 2026Article
- Altmetric Activity and Scientific Integrity: A Retraction Analysis of PubMed-Indexed Social Media-Related Publications.Journal of Korean medical science · 2026Article
- Analysis of Retracted Publications on Methotrexate.Journal of Korean medical science · 2025Article
- Leveraging artificial intelligence in the peer review of neurosurgical research articles.Neurosurgical review · 2025Article
- Establishing a policy statement on the use of artificial intelligence in neurosurgery.Neurosurgical review · 2025Article
- Ten simple rules for successfully carrying out funded research projects.PLoS computational biology · 2024Article
- Coercion Authorship: Ubiquitous and Preventable.Journal of Korean medical science · 2024Article
- Breaking barriers: Navigating the path to successful scientific research publication among faculty members in Egypt.SAGE open medicine · 2024Article
- [Authorship and Inappropriate Authorship from an Ethical Publication Perspective].Journal of the Korean Society of Radiology · 2022Review
- Threats to scholarly research integrity arising from paper mills: a rapid scoping review.Clinical rheumatology · 2022Article
- Writing for "International Orthopaedics": authorship, fraud, and ethical concerns.International orthopaedics · 2021Article
- Retractions, Fake Peer Reviews, and Paper Mills.Journal of Korean medical science · 2021Article
- Modern Health Journalism and the Impact of Social Media.Journal of Korean medical science · 2021Article
- Top Central Asian Educational Institutions on Publons: Analysis of Researchers and Reviewers.Journal of Korean medical science · 2021Article
- No room for ambiguity: The concepts of appropriate and inappropriate authorship in scientific publications.Indian journal of ophthalmology · 2021Article
- A Survey-Weighted Analytic Hierarchy Process to Quantify Authorship.Advances in medical education and practice · 2021Article
- Moving towards online rheumatology education in the era of COVID-19.Clinical rheumatology · 2020Review
- The ICMJE recommendations: challenges in fortifying publishing integrity.Irish journal of medical science · 2020Article
- Innovative Strategies for Peer Review.Journal of Korean medical science · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Integrity of authorship and peer review practices are important considerations for ethical publishing. Criteria for authorship, as delineated in the guidelines by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), have undergone evolution over the decades, and now require fulfillment of four criteria, including the need to be able to take responsibility for all aspects of the manuscript in question. Although such updated authorship criteria were published nearly five years ago, still, many major medical and specialist journals have yet to revise their author instructions to conform to this. Inappropriate authorship practices may include gift, guest or ghost authorship. Existing literature suggests that such practices are still widely prevalent, especially in non-English speaking countries. Another emerging problem is that of peer review fraud, mostly by authors, but also rarely by handling editors. There is literature to suggest that a proportion of such fake peer review may be driven by the support of some unscrupulous external editing agencies. Such inappropriate practices with authorship malpractices or disagreement, or peer review fraud, have resulted in more than 600 retractions each, as identified on the retractions database of Retractionwatch.com. There is a need to generate greater awareness, especially in authors from non-English speaking regions of the world, about inappropriate authorship and unethical practices in peer review. Also, support of any external editing agency should be clearly disclosed by authors at the time of submission of a manuscript.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.