Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41537497›Full record

ArticleKnee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA2026

Preserving scientific integrity in academic publishing: Navigating artificial intelligence, journal policies and the impact factor as a quality indicator.

Mahmut Enes Kayaalp, Stefano Zaffagnini, Michael A Mont, Jon Karlsson, Bruce Reider, Olufemi Ayeni, Thomas Heyse, Henning Madry, Elmar Herbst, Giuseppe Milano and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors.

Mahmut Enes KayaalpDepartment of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Istanbul Fatih Sultan Mehmet Training and Research Hospital, University of Health Sciences, Istanbul, Turkey.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9545-7454
Stefano ZaffagniniII Clinica, IRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli, Bologna, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2941-1407
Michael A MontSinai Hospital of Baltimore, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Jon KarlssonDepartment of Orthopaedics, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Sahlgrenska Academy, Gothenburg University, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Bruce ReiderDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery and Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Chicago Pritzker School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
Olufemi AyeniDivision of Orthopaedic Surgery, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4219-8564
Thomas HeyseRed Cross Hospital Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany.
Henning MadryCenter for Experimental Orthopaedics, Saarland University, Homburg, Germany.
Elmar HerbstDepartment of Trauma, Hand and Reconstructive Surgery, University of Münster, Münster, Germany.
Giuseppe MilanoDepartment of Medical and Surgical Specialties, Radiological Sciences, and Public Health, University of Brescia, Brescia, Italy.
Volker MusahlDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, UPMC Freddie Fu Sports Medicine Center, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.
Roland BeckerDepartment of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, University Hospital Brandenburg/Havel, Brandenburg Medical School Theodor Fontane, Brandenburg an der Havel, Germany.
Michael T HirschmannDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery and Traumatology, Kantonsspital Baselland, Bruderholz, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The integration of artificial intelligence (AI), the rise of mega-journals, and the manipulation of impact factors present challenges to scientific integrity. These trends threaten the core principles of objectivity, reproducibility, and transparency. This editorial highlights two categories of threats: (1) external pressures, such as AI misuse and metric-driven publishing models, and (2) internal systemic flaws, including the 'publish or perish' culture and methodological fragility. Mega-journals, characterized by high-volume publishing and broad interdisciplinary scopes, improve accessibility and accelerate dissemination. However, the emphasis on publication volume might weaken the rigour of peer review. To navigate these challenges, the authors propose a balanced approach that harnesses innovation without compromising scientific integrity. Proposed solutions include mandating AI transparency through frameworks like Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials-Artificial Intelligence, and redefining impact metrics to emphasize reproducibility, mentorship, and societal impact alongside citations. Scientific journals should promote career opportunities less on publication quantity and more on quality. Global cooperation, via initiatives like the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment and the Committee on Publication Ethics, is essential to standardize ethics and address resource disparities. This editorial proposes solutions for researchers, journals, and policymakers to realign academic incentives and uphold the ethical foundation of science. By fostering transparency, accountability, and equity, the scientific community can preserve its ethical foundations while embracing transformative tools, ultimately advancing knowledge and serving society. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level V.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceEditorial PoliciesJournal Impact FactorPeriodicals as TopicPublishingHumansartificialbibliometricsethics in publishingintelligencepeer reviewsperiodicals as topic

Identifiers

PMID41537497
PMCPMC12948334

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.