Lubowitz James H, Matzkin Elizabeth, Rossi Michael J
Arthroscopy. 2025 Apr;41(4):859-862. doi: 10.1016/j.arthro.2024.12.017. Epub 2024 Dec 20.
As a result of the "publish or perish" environment for biomedical journal authors, as well as new developments in open access publication models ("pay to publish") and rapid improvements in artificial intelligence large language models (AI LLMs; e.g., ChatGPT), troubling trends and a propensity for ethical violations now exist. Credit is commonly being taken for authorship by those who fail to meet authorial criteria, which is unethical. Experienced coauthors are providing inadequate diligence in drafting, critical review, and final approval of submitted articles, which is unethical or, at the very least, careless. Research lacking originality ("copycat" studies) is becoming common, which although not unethical, is uninteresting and creates a burden for journal reviewers, editors, and, most of all, readers. Publication of least publishable units (LPU or "salami slicing"), where authors divide a single research publication into a number of papers with small amounts of information in each paper, results in quantity rather than quality and is ethically inappropriate. LPU can result in redundancy, self-plagiarism, publication overlap, and duplicate reporting of patient data that can result in inaccurate conclusions in systematic reviews. Duplicate submission of a paper to more than one journal (in the same or different languages), such that the paper is under peer review by multiple journals at the same time is unethical and can result in two or more journals publishing the same article. Duplicate publication (publication of a paper that overlaps substantially with one already published), without clear reference to the previous publication is unethical. Predatory journals, with low standards of quality or peer review, and predatory practices by publishers and owners of ostensibly nonpredatory journals, can result in solicitation and acceptance of articles (as well as author publication charges or fees) for the purpose of generating revenue, rather than for legitimate editorial reasons based on article quality and content. This is unethical. Opportunities exist to mitigate against these trends, and by naming these trends and identifying opportunities to avoid ethical transgression, our well-intentioned community can publish our scholarship in an unimpeachable manner.
由于生物医学期刊作者面临“不发表就淘汰”的环境，以及开放获取出版模式（“付费出版”）的新发展和人工智能大语言模型（如ChatGPT）的快速改进，现在出现了令人不安的趋势和道德违规倾向。不符合作者标准的人通常会被认定为作者，这是不道德的。经验丰富的共同作者在提交文章的起草、严格评审和最终批准方面缺乏应有的勤勉，这是不道德的，或者至少是粗心大意的。缺乏原创性的研究（“模仿”研究）变得很常见，这虽然不违反道德，但却毫无趣味，还给期刊审稿人、编辑，尤其是读者带来了负担。发表最小可发表单元（LPU或“切香肠”），即作者将一篇单一的研究论文分成多篇论文，每篇论文包含少量信息，这样做追求的是数量而非质量，在道德上是不合适的。LPU可能导致冗余、自我抄袭、出版内容重叠以及患者数据的重复报告，从而在系统评价中得出不准确的结论。将一篇论文同时提交给多个期刊（使用相同或不同语言），使该论文同时处于多个期刊的同行评审之下，这是不道德的，可能导致两个或更多期刊发表同一篇文章。重复发表（发表一篇与已发表文章大量重叠的论文），却未明确引用先前的发表内容，这是不道德的。质量或同行评审标准较低的掠夺性期刊，以及表面上非掠夺性期刊的出版商和所有者的掠夺性行为，可能导致为了创收而征集和接受文章（以及作者的出版费用），而不是基于文章质量和内容进行合理的编辑考量。这是不道德的。有机会缓解这些趋势，通过指出这些趋势并确定避免道德违规的机会，我们这个善意的群体能够以无可指责的方式发表我们的学术成果。
