Troubling Trends in Biomedical Research Publication: "Publish or Perish" Results in a Propensity for Ethical Violations.

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.