Étiquette : scientific article

Catégories
EN

The role of discussion sections in research articles: the case of health information-seeking studies

Author : Reijo Savolainen

Introduction. Drawing on the ideas of genre analysis, this article elaborates the role of discussion sections as sites where researchers reflect their contributions to a particular field of study.

Method. A sample of 100 discussions sections of research articles examining health information seeking was scrutinized by means of descriptive quantitative analysis. To obtain a quantitative overview, the percentage distribution of the codes assigned to the 14 constituents of discussion sections was calculated. The main emphasis was laid on qualitative content analysis.

Analysis. The qualitative analysis focused on the content of diverse constituents of discussion sections, for example, interpreting individual research results and reflecting the theoretical contributions of the study. More specifically, the analysis focused on the variation in the constituents´ content. To achieve this, similarities and differences were identified in the ways in which the authors depicted such content per constituent, for example, while summarizing the key findings and reflecting the empirical contribution.

Results. The findings indicate that in discussion sections of research articles on health information-seeking studies, researchers direct their main attention to the interpretation of individual (key) findings. While reflecting their contributions to health-information studies, they also compare their findings in order to identify similarities and differences with prior studies. Moreover, they are active to propose topics for future research. In contrast, researchers in the above domain quite seldom employ analytically demanding strategies by explaining the similarities and differences or reflect the theoretical and methodological implications of their study.

Conclusion. Researchers prefer a conservative approach by seeking confirmatory support for their findings, rather than challenging them by presenting contrasting evidence.

URL : The role of discussion sections in research articles: the case of health information-seeking studies

DOI : https://doi.org/10.47989/ir30341812

Catégories
EN

Determinants of Scientific Article Publication Among Peruvian Physicians and Orthopedic Residents

Authors : Rodrigo Alejandro-Salinas, Diego A. Maticorena-Quevedo,  Alfonso Barnechea-Rey, Percy Herrera-Añazco, Vicente A. Benites-Zapata

Background 

Orthopedic scientific publications play an important role worldwide. Because of the limited evidence in the Latin American literature, we aimed to evaluate the determinants of scientific publication among Peruvian orthopedics as an approach to the Latin American context.

Methods

Analytical cross-sectional study. Orthopedic specialists and residents were enrolled during the 52nd Peruvian National Congress of Orthopedics and Traumatology. A form validated by experts was applied to collect variables. The crude and adjusted coefficients were calculated using bivariate and multivariate regression with 95% confidence intervals.

Results

A total of 310 participants were included in our study. The prevalence of the scientific orthopedic publication was 34.84%. Multivariate regression showed that, working in a private hospitals, having an interest in tumors and pediatric orthopedics, being involved in teaching activity, belonging to a scientific society other than the Peruvian Society of Orthopedics and Traumatology, having more than one research project, having an international rotation, and active participation in meetings were factors associated with publishing orthopedic scientific articles, while coming from a university in the highlands as an undergraduate and having more than ten shifts per month was associated with publishing fewer scientific articles. Among residents, having had an international rotation was associated with publishing scientific articles. Conclusions: The determinants of scientific production described will serve to increase scientific production in different contexts considering the orthopedist’s training stage.

URL : Determinants of Scientific Article Publication Among Peruvian Physicians and Orthopedic Residents

DOI : https://doi.org/10.3390/publications13040052

 

Catégories
EN

And Plato met ChatGPT: an ethical reflection on the use of chatbots in scientific research writing, with a particular focus on the social sciences

Authors : Reyes Calderon, Francisco Herrera

This interdisciplinary paper analyzes the use of Large Language Models based chatbots (LLM-chatbots), with ChatGPT the most known exponent, in scientific research writing. By interacting with LLM-chatbots, researchers could reduce efforts and costs as well as improve efficiency, but taking important risks, limitations, and weaknesses, which could highly-order erosion scientific thought.

While many scientific journals, as well as major publishers such as Springer-Nature or Taylor & Francis, are restricting its use, others advocate for its normalization. Debate focuses on two main questions: the possible authorship of LLM-chatbots, which is majority denied because their inability to meet the required standards; and the acceptance of hybrid articles (using LLM-chatbots).

Very recently, focusing on the education area, literature has found analogical similarities between some issues involved in Chatbots and that of Plato criticisms of writing, contained in the Phaedrus. However, the research area has been neglected. Combining philosophical and technological analysis, we explore Plato’s myth of Theuth and Thamus, questioning if chatbots can improve science. From an interdisciplinary perspective, and according with Plato, we conclude LLM-chatbots cannot be considered as authors in a scientific context.

Moreover, we offer some arguments and requirements to accept hybrid articles. We draw attention to the need for social science publishers, an area where conceptual hypotheses can take a long time to confirm, rather than solely on experimental observations. Finally, we advocate that publishers, communities, technical experts, and regulatory authorities collaborate to establish recommendations and best practices for chatbot use.

URL : And Plato met ChatGPT: an ethical reflection on the use of chatbots in scientific research writing, with a particular focus on the social sciences

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-025-04650-0

Catégories
EN

Tailoring Scientific Knowledge: How Generative AI Personalizes Academic Reading Experiences

Author : Anna Małgorzata Kamińska

The scientific literature is expanding at an unprecedented pace, making it increasingly difficult for researchers, students, and professionals to extract relevant insights efficiently.

Traditional academic publishing offers static, one-size-fits-all content that does not cater to the diverse backgrounds, expertise levels, and interests of readers. This paper explores how generative AI can dynamically personalize scholarly content by tailoring summaries and key takeaways to individual user profiles.

Nine scientific articles from a single journal issue were used to create the dataset, and prompt engineering was applied to generate tailored insights for exemplary personas: a digital humanities and open science researcher, and a mining and raw materials industry specialist. The effectiveness of AI-generated content modifications in enhancing readability, comprehension, and relevance was evaluated.

The results indicate that generative AI can successfully emphasize different aspects of an article, making it more accessible and engaging to specific audiences. However, challenges such as content oversimplification, potential biases, and ethical considerations remain.

The implications of AI-powered personalization in scholarly communication are discussed, and future research directions are proposed to refine and optimize AI-driven adaptive reading experiences.

URL : Tailoring Scientific Knowledge: How Generative AI Personalizes Academic Reading Experiences

DOI : https://doi.org/10.3390/publications13020018

Catégories
EN

Rhetorical Features and Functions of Data References in Academic Articles

Authors : Sara Lafia, Andrea Thomer, Elizabeth Moss, David Bleckley, Libby Hemphill

Data reuse is a common practice in the social sciences. While published data play an essential role in the production of social science research, they are not consistently cited, which makes it difficult to assess their full scholarly impact and give credit to the original data producers.

Furthermore, it can be challenging to understand researchers’ motivations for referencing data. Like references to academic literature, data references perform various rhetorical functions, such as paying homage, signaling disagreement, or drawing comparisons. This paper studies how and why researchers reference social science data in their academic writing.

We develop a typology to model relationships between the entities that anchor data references, along with their features (access, actions, locations, styles, types) and functions (critique, describe, illustrate, interact, legitimize). We illustrate the use of the typology by coding multidisciplinary research articles (n = 30) referencing social science data archived at the Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research (ICPSR).

We show how our typology captures researchers’ interactions with data and purposes for referencing data. Our typology provides a systematic way to document and analyze researchers’ narratives about data use, extending our ability to give credit to data that support research.

URL : Rhetorical Features and Functions of Data References in Academic Articles

DOI : https://doi.org/10.5334/dsj-2023-010

Catégories
FR

La fin de la publication scientifique ? Une analyse entre légitimité, prédation et automatisation

Auteure/Author : Chérifa Boukacem-Zeghmouri

La courte histoire de la communication scientifique sur le Web se caractérise par des régulations spécifiques au numérique : accélération, ouverture et fragmentation. Au cœur de ces régulations, le modèle de la « Revue » devient moins le vecteur de diffusion de l’information scientifique que le lieu de structuration et de convergence des stratégies des acteurs impliqués.

Revues légitimes, revues médias, revues prédatrices ou bien encore revues générées automatiquement, composent aujourd’hui « l’offre » de la publication scientifique disponible via des plateformes qui contribuent à en effacer les caractéristiques et les repères.

Ainsi, l’information scientifique, concept apparu après-guerre, trouve un champ d’intervention conceptuel et opératoire nouveau, qui dépasse la multiplication et la généralisation du modèle de la plateforme (archives ouvertes, serveurs de pré-prints, réseaux sociaux…). Il permet de prendre en charge l’évolution des sciences, de leurs objets et de leurs pratiques.

Mais surtout il permet de penser les nouvelles formes de validation scientifiques qui se redéfinissent, à l’intersection des champs scientifique, social et médiatique, et qui soulèvent de nouvelles questions à leur tour.

URL : https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-03435153

Catégories
Non classé

How common are explicit research questions in journal articles?

Authors : Mike Thelwall, Amalia Mas-Bleda

Although explicitly labeled research questions seem to be central to some fields, others do not need them.

This may confuse authors, editors, readers, and reviewers of multidisciplinary research. This article assesses the extent to which research questions are explicitly mentioned in 17 out of 22 areas of scholarship from 2000 to 2018 by searching over a million full-text open access journal articles. Research questions were almost never explicitly mentioned (under 2%) by articles in engineering and physical, life, and medical sciences, and were the exception (always under 20%) for the broad fields in which they were least rare: computing, philosophy, theology, and social sciences. Nevertheless, research questions were increasingly mentioned explicitly in all fields investigated, despite a rate of 1.8% overall (1.1% after correcting for irrelevant matches).

Other terminology for an article’s purpose may be more widely used instead, including aims, objectives, goals, hypotheses, and purposes, although no terminology occurs in a majority of articles in any broad field tested. Authors, editors, readers, and reviewers should therefore be aware that the use of explicitly labeled research questions or other explicit research purpose terminology is non-standard in most or all broad fields, although it is becoming less rare.

URL : How common are explicit research questions in journal articles?

Original location : https://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/qss_a_00041?af=R&