ArticleFrontiers in research metrics and analytics2026
Navigating the ethical landscape of scholarly publishing: a comparative evaluation of Gemini and DeepSeek LLMs in addressing authorship and contributorship disputes.
Article in Frontiers in research metrics and analytics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The rising complexity of publication ethics, particularly authorship disputes, necessitates exploring Large Language Models (LLMs) as potential evaluative tools. This study compares the performance of Google Gemini 2.5 Flash and DeepSeek-V3.2 against expert Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) forum responses. Methods: A cross-sectional analysis including 12 COPE authorship and contributorship cases was conducted using three prompting strategies: Minimal, Deterministic, and Stochastic. Responses were scored across seven domains on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = poor, 5 = excellent) by independent raters. Results: Both LLMs achieved perfect scores (5 ± 0) in Actionability of Recommendations and high marks in Safety and Avoidance of Hallucination (4.88 ± 0.33). In the Consistency with COPE Principles domain, DeepSeek performed slightly better than Gemini (4.45 ± 1.0 vs. 4.12 ± 1.29), while Gemini showed a better Overall Appropriateness (4.03 ± 0.98 vs. 3.82 ± 1.29) but they were not statistically significant. Both models struggled most with Identification of Ethical Issues (Gemini: 3.91 ± 1.33; DeepSeek: 3.82 ± 1.29). Under Minimal prompts, Gemini's ethical identification was lower (3.55 ± 1.44) compared to Deterministic/Stochastic prompts (4.09 ± 1.3). Qualitatively, Gemini recorded an 8% major disagreement rate with COPE, while DeepSeek had a 16% combined (minor and major) disagreement rate. Mean similarity scores to COPE forum experts were approximately 4 for both models. Both models missed specific legal/copyright nuances but provided unique "value-add" strategies, such as author disassociation statements and editorial de-escalation training, not present in original COPE forum advice. Conclusion: LLMs demonstrated high degree of alignment with COPE expert ethical reasoning. While they possess a "legal blind spot," their ability to provide actionable and clear guidance, optimized through structured prompting, makes them valuable supplementary tools for journal editors.
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.