ABSTRACT The role of the editor-in-chief, or sometimes an associate editor, is pivotal in determining the fate of a manuscript submitted for publication in scientific journals. This decision-making process should involve a willingness to engage in discussions regarding the outcomes of submitted works. Many journals explicitly outline in their submission guidelines that once a decision on manuscript rejection is made, that decision is final and cannot be appealed by the authors. This policy can create a significant barrier for authors seeking clarity or reconsideration. Moreover, several journals impose limits on the number of rounds of review during the peer-review process. These restrictions can significantly diminish the authors’ chances to thoroughly address the reviewers’ comments and opinions, potentially overlooking valuable feedback that could enhance the quality of their work. This commentary advocates for a paradigm shift in how editors handle communications with authors during the peer review process. It emphasizes the need for a more flexible and open approach, where editors foster a dialogue with authors about their submissions. Such open lines of communication are crucial for cultivating a fair and transparent peer-review experience that benefits all parties involved, ultimately leading to higher-quality published research.

ABSTRACT This study explores the incidence and nature of self-plagiarism across various disciplines. Using Retraction Watch data, we analyze retraction times, authorship patterns, disciplinary differences, and geographical origin of manuscripts retracted due to duplications of data, image, complete article or parts of text. We find that image and entire article duplications are primary causes of self-plagiarism-related retractions. Duplication of entire article is most prevalent in the social sciences and business. In biomedical fields, image duplication is the main issue, with the longest median retraction time of 4 years. In comparison, the median retraction time for all self-plagiarism cases is 3.2 years, and for all plagiarism-related retractions - 1.7 years. We find more authors on self-plagiarized than plagiarized manuscripts. Author counts are also higher when duplicated material is data or image than when duplication involves text or entire article. Our comprehensive analysis not only highlights critical issues but also offers insights for developing stronger policies to uphold academic integrity.

ABSTRACT Background: Computational Social Science (CSS) utilizes large digital datasets and computational methods to study human behavior, raising ethical concerns about data privacy, informed consent, and potential misuse. Methods: This study employs a constructivist grounded theory approach, analyzing 15 in-depth interviews with CSS practitioners in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland. These countries share a European legal context regarding data privacy and hereby provide a comparable regulatory environment for examining ethical considerations. Results: Findings highlight key challenges in CSS research, including power imbalances with data providers, uncertainties around surveillance and data privacy (especially with longitudinal data), and limitations of current ethics frameworks. Researchers face tensions between established ethical principles and practical realities, often feeling disempowered and lacking support from ethics boards due to their limited CSS expertise. Regulatory ambiguity further discourages research due to fear of sanctions. Conclusions: To foster responsible CSS practices, this paper recommends establishing specialized ethics boards with CSS expertise. It also advocates for acknowledging CSS’s unique nature in research policy by developing tailored data guidelines and providing legal certainty through clear guidelines. Grounding recommendations in practitioners’ experiences, this study offers actionable steps to help enable ethical CSS research.

ABSTRACT Background In this paper, we explore the question “Why can’t AI be a coauthor?” and reveal a rarely discussed reason. Methods and Results First, allowing AI to be a coauthor disregards the uniquely human experience of writing texts. This means that human authors are seen as mere producers of texts rather than rational beings engaged in a value-added and humanized learning process expressed through the paper. The relationship between the human author and the thesis is reduced to a mere result of generation rather than a result of individual human critical thinking. Second, allowing AI to be a coauthor leads to self-delusion about one’s own rationality and thus violates the responsibility to understand the world correctly. In this process of self-deception, it is not as if those who grant AI coauthor status do not realize that AI is not the same as humans; however, they self-deceivingly assume that AI has the same internal state as humans. This means that the relationship between the author and the work is no longer seen as a position to be respected, but as something probabilistic and gamified. Conclusions Finally, we discuss the potential consequences of these rationales, concluding that including AI as a coauthor implies a disregard for humanization.

ABSTRACT Background: Even though replication research has gained traction within academia over the recent years, it is not often well-received as a stand-alone thesis topic by supervisors and university administrators. Methods: In this qualitative investigation, we delve into the perspectives of academic supervisors on the feasibility of replication as a thesis topic within the field of applied linguistics (AL). Drawing on Institutional Theory, administrative pressures facing supervisors on what to be considered permissible for a thesis were also explored. By conducting semi-structured e-mail interviews with a global cohort of AL supervisors and a thematic analysis of their responses, a nuanced landscape was brought to light. Results: Supervisors outlined numerous benefits associated with replication including fostering academic advancement as well as providing opportunities for reevaluating prior research. Nonetheless, they also pointed to several obstacles along the way, such as concerns over originality, constraints on time and resources, and the necessity for mentorship. Moreover, supervisors emphasized their pivotal role as decision-makers in accepting or rejecting replication for a thesis project, while acknowledging the partial influence of institutional pressures. Conclusions: Lastly, some implications and recommendations on allocating more resources to replication research are provided.

ABSTRACT Background: The rapid acceleration of authorship inflation—increasing numbers of authors per publication in collaborative research—has rendered the traditional “substantial contributions” criterion for authorship and the lack of transparency in author contributions increasingly problematic.Methods and results: To address these challenges, a revamped approach to authorship is proposed, replacing the rigid requirement of “substantial contributions” with a more flexible, project-specific criterion of “sufficient contributions,” as determined and justified by the authors for each project. This change more accurately reflects and accommodates the proliferation of scientific collaboration (“team science” or “group science”). It broadens the scope and granularity of roles deserving of authorship by integrating the Contributor Roles Taxonomy (CRediT) and Method Reporting with Initials for Transparency (MeRIT) systems. It mandates in-text documentation of who did what (e.g., who collected what data) and moves beyond the typical binary (all-or-none) classification by assigning a gradated contribution level to each author for each role. Contributions can be denoted using an ordinal scale—either coarse (e.g., lead, equal, and supporting) or fine-grained (e.g., minimal, slight, moderate, substantial, extensive, and full). To support the implementation of the revamped approach, an authorship policy template is provided.Conclusions: Adopting proportional, role-specific credit allocation and explicit documentation of contributions fosters a more transparent, equitable, and trustworthy scientific environment.

ABSTRACT Background Scientific misinformation is a much-discussed topic, and the COVID-19 crisis has highlighted the importance of reliability in science and research. However, limiting misinformation is complicated because of the growing number of communication channels, in which scientific and nonscientific content are often mixed. Methods This case study combines the examination of references, online observation, and a content and frequency analysis to investigate the dissemination of scientific misinformation in the interplay of different genres and media. Results Using the example of the claimed existence of 34,000 human emotions, this study demonstrates how questionable statements are spread in science, popular science, and pseudoscience, making it particularly challenging to track and correct them. Conclusions The findings highlight epistemic authority, trust, and injustice within and between scientific and nonscientific communities. The author argues that, in the digital age, researchers should defend and monitor scientific principles beyond academia.

ABSTRACT Recent developments in the German academic landscape have seen a shifting approach to promoting research integrity. In 2019, the German Research Foundation (DFG) incentivized all research and higher education institutions to appoint ombudspersons who advise members of their institution in matters of good research practice or suspected research misconduct. These ombudspersons for good research practice, usually professors who act in this function on a voluntary basis, need institutional support to be prepared for and fulfill their diverse duties. The Ombuds-Modelle@BUA (2020) and OBUA – Ombudswesen@BUA (2021–2023) projects worked to advance the professionalization of ombudspersons in the Berlin research area by first investigating the current situation and then offering a meta-level of support in training, networking, and knowledge exchange. Furthermore, the OBUA project engaged in meta-research, investigating the status quo of local ombuds systems and demands for support. The project findings, discussed in this contribution, show that the professionalization of local ombuds systems has been evolving in past years, especially in the areas of training and networking. Infrastructural support measures, however, remain largely underdeveloped.