Background: Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is a medical intervention employed to provide life-sustaining support for patients. YouTube is a dynamic and widely utilized platform for distributing health-related information. The aim of this study was to evaluate ECMO-related videos on YouTube and assess the frequency of misleading information in the accumulation of ECMO videos. Methods: On September 17, 2024, an in-depth examination on YouTube was conducted using search phrases “Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation” and “ECMO treatment.”The study included 55 selected videos. Video parameters and sources were analyzed.Content assessments were conducted utilizing the Global Quality Scale (GQS), the modified DISCERN instrument, the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) Benchmark Criteria, and the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool for Audio/Visual Materials (PEMAT-A/V).The authors conducted comparisons among quality groups. Results: Among the 55 videos analyzed, 30.9% (n = 17) were categorized as low quality, 21.8% (n = 12) as intermediate quality, and 47.3% (n = 26) as high quality. Physicians (75%) provided the most high-quality videos. News outlets (83.3%) provided the most low-quality videos. No statistically significant difference was observed between quality groups in daily views, likes, and comments (P > 0.05). Significant correlations were identified between video duration and GQS (r = 0.585), modified DISCERN questionnaire (r = 0.557), JAMA Benchmark Criteria (r = 0.511), PEMAT-A/V Understandability (r = 0.530), and PEMAT-A/V Actionability scores (r = 0.433) (P < 0.001 for all correlation analyses). Conclusion There is a wide variety in the quality of YouTube ECMO videos. Although YouTube content created by physicians is more likely to provide accurate and beneficial information, substandard videos present a significant public health threat by disseminating misinformation.The critical role of quality control methods on social media platforms in ensuring the accurate and high-quality transmission of health-related information is readily evident.

Background: This survey examined healthcare professionals' knowledge, views, and perceptions of the responsibilities and functions of Research Ethics Committees (RECs).The study aimed to analyze ethical principles and operational issues faced by RECs and guide researchers, journal editors, and publishers on publication ethics notes. Methods: A cross-sectional survey was conducted using the SurveyMonkey.com platform to assess healthcare professionals' knowledge, views, and practices concerning RECs' responsibilities, functions, and roles. The survey focused on REC definitions, functions, research types that require REC approval, and research protocols’ evaluation time frames.It also reflected on ethics considerations and REC adaptations during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, REC member qualifications, evaluation periods, and additional challenges confronting RECs. Convenience sampling was adopted, and the survey was distributed via social media platforms. Results: The survey was based on an analysis of questionnaires filled by 182 responders (104 females [57.1%] and 76 males [41.8%]), with a median age of 36. The survey respondents were from 28 different countries. The top three countries with most responders were Kazakhstan (n = 83), Türkiye (n = 33) and Poland (n = 10). Most participants (n = 128, 70.3%) were familiar with the definition of RECs and recognized the importance of REC approval for clinical trials and interventional research. Research study protocols should be submitted for REC evaluation and approval during the planning phase, according to 145 responders (79.7%). Participants emphasized the significance of formal ethics training for REC members.The involvement in research approved by RECs was also viewed as an important precondition for membering RECs. Participants suggested online submissions (n = 127, 69.8%), virtual meetings (n = 99, 54.4%), and fast evaluation schedules for low-risk research protocols (n = 77, 42.3%) during the COVID-19 pandemic. Conclusion Healthcare professionals comprehend the basics of REC duties and responsibilities. However, improvements in the consistency and efficiency of ethics evaluations are still warranted. The COVID-19 pandemic stressed the importance of adaptive REC procedures; researchers, editors, and publishers learned a vitally important lesson. More efforts are warranted to increase REC member training, simplify administrative procedures, and define standard operating procedures in times of crisis. Continuous progress in these areas will allow RECs to maintain high ethical standards while supporting productive research. Editors and publishers will greatly benefit from related advances in research ethics considerations.

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.

Background: Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is a medical intervention employed to provide life-sustaining support for patients. YouTube is a dynamic and widely utilized platform for distributing health-related information. The aim of this study was to evaluate ECMO-related videos on YouTube and assess the frequency of misleading information in the accumulation of ECMO videos. Methods: On September 17, 2024, an in-depth examination on YouTube was conducted using search phrases “Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation” and “ECMO treatment.”The study included 55 selected videos. Video parameters and sources were analyzed.Content assessments were conducted utilizing the Global Quality Scale (GQS), the modified DISCERN instrument, the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) Benchmark Criteria, and the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool for Audio/Visual Materials (PEMAT-A/V).The authors conducted comparisons among quality groups. Results: Among the 55 videos analyzed, 30.9% (n = 17) were categorized as low quality, 21.8% (n = 12) as intermediate quality, and 47.3% (n = 26) as high quality. Physicians (75%) provided the most high-quality videos. News outlets (83.3%) provided the most low-quality videos. No statistically significant difference was observed between quality groups in daily views, likes, and comments (P > 0.05). Significant correlations were identified between video duration and GQS (r = 0.585), modified DISCERN questionnaire (r = 0.557), JAMA Benchmark Criteria (r = 0.511), PEMAT-A/V Understandability (r = 0.530), and PEMAT-A/V Actionability scores (r = 0.433) (P < 0.001 for all correlation analyses). Conclusion There is a wide variety in the quality of YouTube ECMO videos. Although YouTube content created by physicians is more likely to provide accurate and beneficial information, substandard videos present a significant public health threat by disseminating misinformation.The critical role of quality control methods on social media platforms in ensuring the accurate and high-quality transmission of health-related information is readily evident.

Background: This survey examined healthcare professionals' knowledge, views, and perceptions of the responsibilities and functions of Research Ethics Committees (RECs).The study aimed to analyze ethical principles and operational issues faced by RECs and guide researchers, journal editors, and publishers on publication ethics notes. Methods: A cross-sectional survey was conducted using the SurveyMonkey.com platform to assess healthcare professionals' knowledge, views, and practices concerning RECs' responsibilities, functions, and roles. The survey focused on REC definitions, functions, research types that require REC approval, and research protocols’ evaluation time frames.It also reflected on ethics considerations and REC adaptations during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, REC member qualifications, evaluation periods, and additional challenges confronting RECs. Convenience sampling was adopted, and the survey was distributed via social media platforms. Results: The survey was based on an analysis of questionnaires filled by 182 responders (104 females [57.1%] and 76 males [41.8%]), with a median age of 36. The survey respondents were from 28 different countries. The top three countries with most responders were Kazakhstan (n = 83), Türkiye (n = 33) and Poland (n = 10). Most participants (n = 128, 70.3%) were familiar with the definition of RECs and recognized the importance of REC approval for clinical trials and interventional research. Research study protocols should be submitted for REC evaluation and approval during the planning phase, according to 145 responders (79.7%). Participants emphasized the significance of formal ethics training for REC members.The involvement in research approved by RECs was also viewed as an important precondition for membering RECs. Participants suggested online submissions (n = 127, 69.8%), virtual meetings (n = 99, 54.4%), and fast evaluation schedules for low-risk research protocols (n = 77, 42.3%) during the COVID-19 pandemic. Conclusion Healthcare professionals comprehend the basics of REC duties and responsibilities. However, improvements in the consistency and efficiency of ethics evaluations are still warranted. The COVID-19 pandemic stressed the importance of adaptive REC procedures; researchers, editors, and publishers learned a vitally important lesson. More efforts are warranted to increase REC member training, simplify administrative procedures, and define standard operating procedures in times of crisis. Continuous progress in these areas will allow RECs to maintain high ethical standards while supporting productive research. Editors and publishers will greatly benefit from related advances in research ethics considerations.

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.

Background: Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is a medical intervention employed to provide life-sustaining support for patients. YouTube is a dynamic and widely utilized platform for distributing health-related information. The aim of this study was to evaluate ECMO-related videos on YouTube and assess the frequency of misleading information in the accumulation of ECMO videos. Methods: On September 17, 2024, an in-depth examination on YouTube was conducted using search phrases “Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation” and “ECMO treatment.”The study included 55 selected videos. Video parameters and sources were analyzed.Content assessments were conducted utilizing the Global Quality Scale (GQS), the modified DISCERN instrument, the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) Benchmark Criteria, and the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool for Audio/Visual Materials (PEMAT-A/V).The authors conducted comparisons among quality groups. Results: Among the 55 videos analyzed, 30.9% (n = 17) were categorized as low quality, 21.8% (n = 12) as intermediate quality, and 47.3% (n = 26) as high quality. Physicians (75%) provided the most high-quality videos. News outlets (83.3%) provided the most low-quality videos. No statistically significant difference was observed between quality groups in daily views, likes, and comments (P > 0.05). Significant correlations were identified between video duration and GQS (r = 0.585), modified DISCERN questionnaire (r = 0.557), JAMA Benchmark Criteria (r = 0.511), PEMAT-A/V Understandability (r = 0.530), and PEMAT-A/V Actionability scores (r = 0.433) (P < 0.001 for all correlation analyses). Conclusion There is a wide variety in the quality of YouTube ECMO videos. Although YouTube content created by physicians is more likely to provide accurate and beneficial information, substandard videos present a significant public health threat by disseminating misinformation.The critical role of quality control methods on social media platforms in ensuring the accurate and high-quality transmission of health-related information is readily evident.

Background: This survey examined healthcare professionals' knowledge, views, and perceptions of the responsibilities and functions of Research Ethics Committees (RECs).The study aimed to analyze ethical principles and operational issues faced by RECs and guide researchers, journal editors, and publishers on publication ethics notes. Methods: A cross-sectional survey was conducted using the SurveyMonkey.com platform to assess healthcare professionals' knowledge, views, and practices concerning RECs' responsibilities, functions, and roles. The survey focused on REC definitions, functions, research types that require REC approval, and research protocols’ evaluation time frames.It also reflected on ethics considerations and REC adaptations during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, REC member qualifications, evaluation periods, and additional challenges confronting RECs. Convenience sampling was adopted, and the survey was distributed via social media platforms. Results: The survey was based on an analysis of questionnaires filled by 182 responders (104 females [57.1%] and 76 males [41.8%]), with a median age of 36. The survey respondents were from 28 different countries. The top three countries with most responders were Kazakhstan (n = 83), Türkiye (n = 33) and Poland (n = 10). Most participants (n = 128, 70.3%) were familiar with the definition of RECs and recognized the importance of REC approval for clinical trials and interventional research. Research study protocols should be submitted for REC evaluation and approval during the planning phase, according to 145 responders (79.7%). Participants emphasized the significance of formal ethics training for REC members.The involvement in research approved by RECs was also viewed as an important precondition for membering RECs. Participants suggested online submissions (n = 127, 69.8%), virtual meetings (n = 99, 54.4%), and fast evaluation schedules for low-risk research protocols (n = 77, 42.3%) during the COVID-19 pandemic. Conclusion Healthcare professionals comprehend the basics of REC duties and responsibilities. However, improvements in the consistency and efficiency of ethics evaluations are still warranted. The COVID-19 pandemic stressed the importance of adaptive REC procedures; researchers, editors, and publishers learned a vitally important lesson. More efforts are warranted to increase REC member training, simplify administrative procedures, and define standard operating procedures in times of crisis. Continuous progress in these areas will allow RECs to maintain high ethical standards while supporting productive research. Editors and publishers will greatly benefit from related advances in research ethics considerations.

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.

Background: Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is a medical intervention employed to provide life-sustaining support for patients. YouTube is a dynamic and widely utilized platform for distributing health-related information. The aim of this study was to evaluate ECMO-related videos on YouTube and assess the frequency of misleading information in the accumulation of ECMO videos. Methods: On September 17, 2024, an in-depth examination on YouTube was conducted using search phrases “Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation” and “ECMO treatment.”The study included 55 selected videos. Video parameters and sources were analyzed.Content assessments were conducted utilizing the Global Quality Scale (GQS), the modified DISCERN instrument, the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) Benchmark Criteria, and the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool for Audio/Visual Materials (PEMAT-A/V).The authors conducted comparisons among quality groups. Results: Among the 55 videos analyzed, 30.9% (n = 17) were categorized as low quality, 21.8% (n = 12) as intermediate quality, and 47.3% (n = 26) as high quality. Physicians (75%) provided the most high-quality videos. News outlets (83.3%) provided the most low-quality videos. No statistically significant difference was observed between quality groups in daily views, likes, and comments (P > 0.05). Significant correlations were identified between video duration and GQS (r = 0.585), modified DISCERN questionnaire (r = 0.557), JAMA Benchmark Criteria (r = 0.511), PEMAT-A/V Understandability (r = 0.530), and PEMAT-A/V Actionability scores (r = 0.433) (P < 0.001 for all correlation analyses). Conclusion There is a wide variety in the quality of YouTube ECMO videos. Although YouTube content created by physicians is more likely to provide accurate and beneficial information, substandard videos present a significant public health threat by disseminating misinformation.The critical role of quality control methods on social media platforms in ensuring the accurate and high-quality transmission of health-related information is readily evident.