Best Practices for Using AI Tools as an Author, Peer Reviewer, or Editor.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Leung TI
PROVIDER: S-EPMC10502596 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Aug
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Best Practices for Using AI Tools as an Author, Peer Reviewer, or Editor.
Leung Tiffany I TI de Azevedo Cardoso Taiane T Mavragani Amaryllis A Eysenbach Gunther G
Journal of medical Internet research 20230831
The ethics of generative artificial intelligence (AI) use in scientific manuscript content creation has become a serious matter of concern in the scientific publishing community. Generative AI has computationally become capable of elaborating research questions; refining programming code; generating text in scientific language; and generating images, graphics, or figures. However, this technology should be used with caution. In this editorial, we outline the current state of editorial policies o ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:UnlabelledBackgroundReviewer and editor selection for peer review is getting harder for authors and publishers due to the specialization onto narrower areas of research carried by the progressive growth of the body of knowledge. Examination of the literature facilitates finding appropriate reviewers but is time consuming and complicated by author name ambiguities.ResultsWe have developed a method called peer2ref to support authors and editors in selecting suitable reviewers for scientific manuscripts. Peer2ref works from a text input, usually the abstract of the manuscript, from which important concepts are extracted as keywords using a fuzzy binary relations approach. The keywords are searched on indexed profiles of words constructed from the bibliography attributed to authors in MEDLINE. The names of these scientists have been previously disambiguated by coauthors identified across the whole MEDLINE. The methods have been implemented in a web server that automatically suggests experts for peer-review among scientists that have authored manuscripts published during the last decade in more than 3,800 journals indexed in MEDLINE.Conclusionpeer2ref web server is publicly available at http://www.ogic.ca/projects/peer2ref/.
| S-EPMC3499436 | biostudies-literature
Project description:We describe the methodology and results from our participation in the second Antibody Modeling Assessment experiment. During the experiment we predicted the structure of eleven unpublished antibody Fv fragments. Our prediction methods centered on template-based modeling; potential templates were selected from an antibody database based on their sequence similarity to the target in the framework regions. Depending on the quality of the templates, we constructed models of the antibody framework regions either using a single, chimeric or multiple template approach. The hypervariable loop regions in the initial models were rebuilt by grafting the corresponding regions from suitable templates onto the model. For the H3 loop region, we further refined models using ab initio methods. The final models were subjected to constrained energy minimization to resolve severe local structural problems. The analysis of the models submitted show that Accelrys tools allow for the construction of quite accurate models for the framework and the canonical CDR regions, with RMSDs to the X-ray structure on average below 1 Å for most of these regions. The results show that accurate prediction of the H3 hypervariable loops remains a challenge. Furthermore, model quality assessment of the submitted models show that the models are of quite high quality, with local geometry assessment scores similar to that of the target X-ray structures.
| S-EPMC4312887 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPeer review of grant applications has been criticized as lacking reliability. Studies showing poor agreement among reviewers supported this possibility but usually focused on reviewers' scores and failed to investigate reasons for disagreement. Here, our goal was to determine how reviewers rate applications, by investigating reviewer practices and grant assessment criteria.Methods and findingsWe first collected and analyzed a convenience sample of French and international calls for proposals and assessment guidelines, from which we created an overall typology of assessment criteria comprising nine domains relevance to the call for proposals, usefulness, originality, innovativeness, methodology, feasibility, funding, ethical aspects, and writing of the grant application. We then performed a qualitative study of reviewer practices, particularly regarding the use of assessment criteria, among reviewers of the French Academic Hospital Research Grant Agencies (Programmes Hospitaliers de Recherche Clinique, PHRCs). Semi-structured interviews and observation sessions were conducted. Both the time spent assessing each grant application and the assessment methods varied across reviewers. The assessment criteria recommended by the PHRCs were listed by all reviewers as frequently evaluated and useful. However, use of the PHRC criteria was subjective and varied across reviewers. Some reviewers gave the same weight to each assessment criterion, whereas others considered originality to be the most important criterion (12/34), followed by methodology (10/34) and feasibility (4/34). Conceivably, this variability might adversely affect the reliability of the review process, and studies evaluating this hypothesis would be of interest.ConclusionsVariability across reviewers may result in mistrust among grant applicants about the review process. Consequently, ensuring transparency is of the utmost importance. Consistency in the review process could also be improved by providing common definitions for each assessment criterion and uniform requirements for grant application submissions. Further research is needed to assess the feasibility and acceptability of these measures.
| S-EPMC3460995 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSequencing technologies give access to a precise picture of the molecular mechanisms acting upon genome regulation. One of the biggest technical challenges with sequencing data is to map millions of reads to a reference genome. This problem is exacerbated when dealing with repetitive sequences such as transposable elements that occupy half of the mammalian genome mass. Sequenced reads coming from these regions introduce ambiguities in the mapping step. Therefore, applying dedicated parameters and algorithms has to be taken into consideration when transposable elements regulation is investigated with sequencing datasets.ResultsHere, we used simulated reads on the mouse and human genomes to define the best parameters for aligning transposable element-derived reads on a reference genome. The efficiency of the most commonly used aligners was compared and we further evaluated how transposable element representation should be estimated using available methods. The mappability of the different transposon families in the mouse and the human genomes was calculated giving an overview into their evolution.ConclusionsBased on simulated data, we provided recommendations on the alignment and the quantification steps to be performed when transposon expression or regulation is studied, and identified the limits in detecting specific young transposon families of the mouse and human genomes. These principles may help the community to adopt standard procedures and raise awareness of the difficulties encountered in the study of transposable elements.
| S-EPMC6935493 | biostudies-literature
Project description:This SuperSeries is composed of the SubSeries listed below.
2018-06-08 | GSE107768 | GEO
Project description:Data continue to accumulate indicating that many systematic reviews are methodologically flawed, biased, redundant, or uninformative. Some improvements have occurred in recent years based on empirical methods research and standardization of appraisal tools; however, many authors do not routinely or consistently apply these updated methods. In addition, guideline developers, peer reviewers, and journal editors often disregard current methodological standards. Although extensively acknowledged and explored in the methodological literature, most clinicians seem unaware of these issues and may automatically accept evidence syntheses (and clinical practice guidelines based on their conclusions) as trustworthy.A plethora of methods and tools are recommended for the development and evaluation of evidence syntheses. It is important to understand what these are intended to do (and cannot do) and how they can be utilized. Our objective is to distill this sprawling information into a format that is understandable and readily accessible to authors, peer reviewers, and editors. In doing so, we aim to promote appreciation and understanding of the demanding science of evidence synthesis among stakeholders. We focus on well-documented deficiencies in key components of evidence syntheses to elucidate the rationale for current standards. The constructs underlying the tools developed to assess reporting, risk of bias, and methodological quality of evidence syntheses are distinguished from those involved in determining overall certainty of a body of evidence. Another important distinction is made between those tools used by authors to develop their syntheses as opposed to those used to ultimately judge their work.Exemplar methods and research practices are described, complemented by novel pragmatic strategies to improve evidence syntheses. The latter include preferred terminology and a scheme to characterize types of research evidence. We organize best practice resources in a Concise Guide that can be widely adopted and adapted for routine implementation by authors and journals. Appropriate, informed use of these is encouraged, but we caution against their superficial application and emphasize their endorsement does not substitute for in-depth methodological training. By highlighting best practices with their rationale, we hope this guidance will inspire further evolution of methods and tools that can advance the field.
| S-EPMC10247272 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Data continue to accumulate indicating that many systematic reviews are methodologically flawed, biased, redundant, or uninformative. Some improvements have occurred in recent years based on empirical methods research and standardization of appraisal tools; however, many authors do not routinely or consistently apply these updated methods. In addition, guideline developers, peer reviewers, and journal editors often disregard current methodological standards. Although extensively acknowledged and explored in the methodological literature, most clinicians seem unaware of these issues and may automatically accept evidence syntheses (and clinical practice guidelines based on their conclusions) as trustworthy. A plethora of methods and tools are recommended for the development and evaluation of evidence syntheses. It is important to understand what these are intended to do (and cannot do) and how they can be utilized. Our objective is to distill this sprawling information into a format that is understandable and readily accessible to authors, peer reviewers, and editors. In doing so, we aim to promote appreciation and understanding of the demanding science of evidence synthesis among stakeholders. We focus on well-documented deficiencies in key components of evidence syntheses to elucidate the rationale for current standards. The constructs underlying the tools developed to assess reporting, risk of bias, and methodological quality of evidence syntheses are distinguished from those involved in determining overall certainty of a body of evidence. Another important distinction is made between those tools used by authors to develop their syntheses as opposed to those used to ultimately judge their work. Exemplar methods and research practices are described, complemented by novel pragmatic strategies to improve evidence syntheses. The latter include preferred terminology and a scheme to characterize types of research evidence. We organize best practice resources in a Concise Guide that can be widely adopted and adapted for routine implementation by authors and journals. Appropriate, informed use of these is encouraged, but we caution against their superficial application and emphasize their endorsement does not substitute for in-depth methodological training. By highlighting best practices with their rationale, we hope this guidance will inspire further evolution of methods and tools that can advance the field.
| S-EPMC10464882 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Data continue to accumulate indicating that many systematic reviews are methodologically flawed, biased, redundant, or uninformative. Some improvements have occurred in recent years based on empirical methods research and standardization of appraisal tools; however, many authors do not routinely or consistently apply these updated methods. In addition, guideline developers, peer reviewers, and journal editors often disregard current methodological standards. Although extensively acknowledged and explored in the methodological literature, most clinicians seem unaware of these issues and may automatically accept evidence syntheses (and clinical practice guidelines based on their conclusions) as trustworthy.A plethora of methods and tools are recommended for the development and evaluation of evidence syntheses. It is important to understand what these are intended to do (and cannot do) and how they can be utilized. Our objective is to distill this sprawling information into a format that is understandable and readily accessible to authors, peer reviewers, and editors. In doing so, we aim to promote appreciation and understanding of the demanding science of evidence synthesis among stakeholders. We focus on well-documented deficiencies in key components of evidence syntheses to elucidate the rationale for current standards. The constructs underlying the tools developed to assess reporting, risk of bias, and methodological quality of evidence syntheses are distinguished from those involved in determining overall certainty of a body of evidence. Another important distinction is made between those tools used by authors to develop their syntheses as opposed to those used to ultimately judge their work.Exemplar methods and research practices are described, complemented by novel pragmatic strategies to improve evidence syntheses. The latter include preferred terminology and a scheme to characterize types of research evidence. We organize best practice resources in a Concise Guide that can be widely adopted and adapted for routine implementation by authors and journals. Appropriate, informed use of these is encouraged, but we caution against their superficial application and emphasize their endorsement does not substitute for in-depth methodological training. By highlighting best practices with their rationale, we hope this guidance will inspire further evolution of methods and tools that can advance the field.
| S-EPMC10258887 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Data continue to accumulate indicating that many systematic reviews are methodologically flawed, biased, redundant, or uninformative. Some improvements have occurred in recent years based on empirical methods research and standardization of appraisal tools; however, many authors do not routinely or consistently apply these updated methods. In addition, guideline developers, peer reviewers, and journal editors often disregard current methodological standards. Although extensively acknowledged and explored in the methodological literature, most clinicians seem unaware of these issues and may automatically accept evidence syntheses (and clinical practice guidelines based on their conclusions) as trustworthy.A plethora of methods and tools are recommended for the development and evaluation of evidence syntheses. It is important to understand what these are intended to do (and cannot do) and how they can be utilized. Our objective is to distill this sprawling information into a format that is understandable and readily accessible to authors, peer reviewers, and editors. In doing so, we aim to promote appreciation and understanding of the demanding science of evidence synthesis among stakeholders. We focus on well-documented deficiencies in key components of evidence syntheses to elucidate the rationale for current standards. The constructs underlying the tools developed to assess reporting, risk of bias, and methodological quality of evidence syntheses are distinguished from those involved in determining overall certainty of a body of evidence. Another important distinction is made between those tools used by authors to develop their syntheses as opposed to those used to ultimately judge their work.Exemplar methods and research practices are described, complemented by novel pragmatic strategies to improve evidence syntheses. The latter include preferred terminology and a scheme to characterize types of research evidence. We organize best practice resources in a Concise Guide that can be widely adopted and adapted for routine implementation by authors and journals. Appropriate, informed use of these is encouraged, but we caution against their superficial application and emphasize their endorsement does not substitute for in-depth methodological training. By highlighting best practices with their rationale, we hope this guidance will inspire further evolution of methods and tools that can advance the field.
| S-EPMC10248995 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Enhanced cross-linking immunoprecipitation (eCLIP) featuring a size-matched input control has been recently applied to profile the binding sites of more than one hundred RNA binding proteins (RBPs). However computational pipelines and quality control metrics needed to process CLIP data at scale have yet to be well defined. Here, we describe our ENCODE eCLIP processing pipeline (https://github.com/YeoLab/eclip), enabling users to go from raw reads to processed peaks that are enriched above paired input, reproducible across biological replicates, and can be directly compared against the public ENCODE eCLIP resource. In particular, we discuss processing steps designed to address common artifacts, including properly quantifying unique RNA fragments bound by both unique genomic- and repetitive element-mapped reads. Using manual quality annotation of 350 ENCODE eCLIP experiments, we develop metrics for quality assessment of eCLIP experiments prior to and after sequencing, including library yield, number of unique fragments in the library, total binding relative information, and biological reproducibility. In particular, we quantify the commonly believed linkage between depth of sequencing and peak discovery, and derive methods for estimating required sequencing depth based on pre-sequencing metrics. Finally we provide recommendations for the common question of integrating RBP binding information with RNA-seq to generate splicing maps representing the positional effect of binding on alternative splicing. These pipelines and QC metrics enable large-scale processing and analysis of eCLIP data, and will help to standardize rigorous analysis of RBP binding data.
2018-06-08 | GSE107766 | GEO