Background: With greater use of social media platforms for promotions of research articles, retracted articles tend to receive approximately the same attention. We systematically analyzed retracted articles from retractionwatch.com to look at the Altmetric Attention Scores (AAS) garnered over a period of time in order to highlight the role of social media and other platforms in advertising retracted articles and its effect on the spread of misinformation. Methods: Retractionwatch.com was searched for coronavirus disease 2019 related retracted papers on November 6th, 2021. Articles were excluded based on lack of digital object identifier (DOI), if they were preprint articles, absent AAS, and incomplete AAS of pre retraction, post retraction, or both scores. Results: A total of 196 articles were found on the Retraction Watch website of which 189 were retracted papers and 7 were expression of concern (EOC). We then identified 175 articles after excluding those that did not have a DOI and 30 preprint articles were also excluded giving 145 articles. Further exclusion of articles with absent AAS and incomplete AAS resulted in a total of 22 articles. Conclusion Retracted articles receive significant online attention. Twitter and Mendeley were the most popular medium for publicizing retracted articles, therefore more focus should be given by journals and their Twitter accounts to discredit all their retracted articles.Preprints should be reconsidered as a whole by journals due to the huge risk they carry in disseminating false information.

The ongoing war and evolving humanitarian crisis in Ukraine have forced millions of women, children, and elderly people to flee the war zones and relocate across Poland, other European countries, and elsewhere in the world. As a result, numerous health issues have emerged in the host countries, ranging from the refugees’ low immunization coverage to psychological distress and multimorbidities. Humanitarian support and multidisciplinary approach to the issues may help to improve the refugees’ health and well-being. Involving relocated medics in rehabilitation and medical care of their compatriots may offer psychosocial and health benefits.

Background: Comorbidities attract enormous attention amid the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Mapping knowledge based on these clinical conditions is increasingly important since the pandemic is still raging and primarily affecting subjects with chronic diseases and comorbidities. Clinical presentation and complications of COVID-19 are still hot topics which are explored in numerous evidence-based publications. The aim of this study was to analyze Scopus-indexed COVID-19 papers covering comorbidities. Methods: Searches through the Scopus database were performed on September 19, 2022 using the following keywords: “Diabetes mellitus” OR “Cardiovascular Diseases” OR “Rheumatic Diseases” OR “Obesity” OR “Malignancies” AND “COVID-19.” All retrieved articles were analyzed using the following categories: document type, authorship, keywords, journal, citation score, country of origin, and language. Using the software tool VOSviewer version 1.6.18, we visualized the network of authors and keywords co-occurrence of the most prevalent comorbidities reported in connection with COVID-19. Results Reports on COVID-19 and diabetes mellitus (DM) were most frequently published (n = 12,282). The US was the most productive country (n = 3,005) in the field of COVID-19 and comorbidities. There were 1,314 documents on COVID-19 and rheumatic diseases which is the least number in comparison with other comorbidities (COVID-19 and DM: 12,282, COVID-19 and cardiovascular disease: 9,911, COVID-19 and obesity: 7,070, and COVID-19 and malignancies: 1,758).

The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has caused a breakdown in the healthcare system worldwide. The need to rapidly update guidelines in order to control the transmission in the population and for evidenced-based healthcare care has led to the need for timely, voluminous and valid research. Amid the quest for a vaccine and better therapies, researchers clamouring for information has led to a wide variety of ethical issues due to the unique situation. This paper aims to examine the positive and negative aspects of recent changes in the process of obtaining informed consent. The article outlines the various aspects, from history, previously described exemptions to consenting as well as those implemented during the pandemic and the current impact of virtual methods. Further, the authors make recommendations based on the outcome of suggested adjustments described in the literature. This article looks into increasing the awareness of physicians and researchers about ethical issues that need to be addressed to provide optimal care for patients while assuring their integrity and confidentiality.

Survey studies have become instrumental in contributing to the evidence accumulation in rapidly developing medical disciplines such as medical education, public health, and nursing.The global medical community has seen an upsurge of surveys covering the experience and perceptions of health specialists, patients, and public representatives in the peri-pandemic coronavirus disease 2019 period. Currently, surveys can play a central role in increasing research activities in non-mainstream science countries where limited research funding and other barriers hinder science growth. Planning surveys starts with overviewing related reviews and other publications which may help to design questionnaires with comprehensive coverage of all related points. The validity and reliability of questionnaires rely on input from experts and potential responders who may suggest pertinent revisions to prepare forms with attractive designs, easily understandable questions, and correctly ordered points that appeal to target respondents. Currently available numerous online platforms such as Google Forms and Survey Monkey enable moderating online surveys and collecting responses from a large number of responders. Online surveys benefit from disseminating questionnaires via social media and other online platforms which facilitate the survey internationalization and participation of large groups of responders. Survey reporting can be arranged in line with related recommendations and reporting standards all of which have their strengths and limitations. The current article overviews available recommendations and presents pointers on designing, conducting, and reporting surveys.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has led to a massive rise in survey-based research. The paucity of perspicuous guidelines for conducting surveys may pose a challenge to the conduct of ethical, valid and meticulous research. The aim of this paper is to guide authors aiming to publish in scholarly journals regarding the methods and means to carry out surveys for valid outcomes. The paper outlines the various aspects, from planning, execution and dissemination of surveys followed by the data analysis and choosing target journals.While providing a comprehensive understanding of the scenarios most conducive to carrying out a survey, the role of ethical approval, survey validation and pilot testing, this brief delves deeper into the survey designs, methods of dissemination, the ways to secure and maintain data anonymity, the various analytical approaches, the reporting techniques and the process of choosing the appropriate journal. Further, the authors analyze retracted survey-based studies and the reasons for the same. This review article intends to guide authors to improve the quality of survey-based research by describing the essential tools and means to do the same with the hope to improve the utility of such studies.

The rapid advancement of artificial intelligence (AI) has transformed various aspects of scientific research, including academic publishing and peer review. In recent years, AI tools such as large language models have demonstrated their capability to streamline numerous tasks traditionally handled by human editors and reviewers. These applications range from automated language and grammar checks to plagiarism detection, format compliance, and even preliminary assessment of research significance. While AI substantially benefits the efficiency and accuracy of academic processes, its integration raises critical ethical and methodological questions, particularly in peer review. AI lacks the subtle understanding of complex scientific content that human expertise provides, posing challenges in evaluating research novelty and significance. Additionally, there are risks associated with over-reliance on AI, potential biases in AI algorithms, and ethical concerns related to transparency, accountability, and data privacy. This review evaluates the perspectives within the scientific community on integrating AI in peer review and academic publishing. By exploring both AI’s potential benefits and limitations, we aim to offer practical recommendations that ensure AI is used as a supportive tool, supporting but not replacing human expertise. Such guidelines are essential for preserving the integrity and quality of academic work while benefiting from AI’s efficiencies in editorial processes.

The rapid advancement of artificial intelligence (AI) has transformed various aspects of scientific research, including academic publishing and peer review. In recent years, AI tools such as large language models have demonstrated their capability to streamline numerous tasks traditionally handled by human editors and reviewers. These applications range from automated language and grammar checks to plagiarism detection, format compliance, and even preliminary assessment of research significance. While AI substantially benefits the efficiency and accuracy of academic processes, its integration raises critical ethical and methodological questions, particularly in peer review. AI lacks the subtle understanding of complex scientific content that human expertise provides, posing challenges in evaluating research novelty and significance. Additionally, there are risks associated with over-reliance on AI, potential biases in AI algorithms, and ethical concerns related to transparency, accountability, and data privacy. This review evaluates the perspectives within the scientific community on integrating AI in peer review and academic publishing. By exploring both AI’s potential benefits and limitations, we aim to offer practical recommendations that ensure AI is used as a supportive tool, supporting but not replacing human expertise. Such guidelines are essential for preserving the integrity and quality of academic work while benefiting from AI’s efficiencies in editorial processes.