Although popular, I argue that the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) account of authorship is flawed. It inadvertently allows for practices that it was designed to prevent. In addition, it creates a new category of authorless papers—orphan papers. The original World Association of Medical Editors (WAME) criterion is preferable.

Georg Simmel wamed in 1900 that capitalism creates not only a market economy but also a market culture in which money becomes the central and absolute value.' Some cultural critics seem to take the root of all evil claim seriously, asserting with rhetorical flourishes filled with normative hyperbole that commodification is the primary cause of all social problems. Our anxieties about money, however, are often vague and tempered by our sense that it appears to be more or less the best (...) way to organize life and measure value in such a complex and pluralistic world. Somewhere between demonization of the market and blind faith in it lies a clear analysis of precisely what is wrong with the commodification of life. (shrink)

The practice of assigning authorship for a scientific publication tends to raise two normative questions: 1) ‘who should be credited as an author?’; 2) ‘who should not be credited as an author but should still be acknowledged?’. With the publication of the revised version of The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity (ECCRI), standard answers to these questions have been called into question. This article examines the ways in which the ECCRI approaches these two questions and compares these approaches (...) to standard definitions of ‘authorship’ and ‘acknowledgment’ in guidelines issued by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) and the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME). In light of two scenarios and the problems posed by these kinds of ‘real-world’ examples, we recommend specific revisions to the content of the ECCRI in order not only to provide a more detailed account of the tasks deserving of acknowledgment, but to improve the Code’s current definition of authorship. (shrink)

The rapid integration of generative artificial intelligence (Gen AI) into academic writing has outpaced the establishment of consistent norms for responsible and transparent disclosure. Leading organizations including the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME), and the European Commission, Directorate-General for Research and Innovation have issued guidance affirming that AI tools cannot be listed as authors and must be transparently disclosed. However, what remains missing is both (...) a cross-journal consensus and guidance for authors on what constitutes acceptable versus unacceptable use of Gen AI. Furthermore, as authors may employ Gen AI at multiple, distinct stages of manuscript preparation, they currently have no standardized or granular method to report this varied use in sufficient detail. This ambiguity creates a critical gap between high-level disclosure principles and practical implementation, threatening not necessarily the integrity of the underlying research itself, but the reader's and editor's ability to objectively assess the reliability and provenance of reported findings.This paper responds to that gap by proposing a structured, domain-based framework for reporting Gen AI use in scholarly manuscripts. Drawing on a synthesis of evolving editorial statements and guidelines, we outline three domains in which Gen AI is commonly employed: conceptual contributions, linguistic assistance, and research assistance. For each domain, we distinguish uses that are generally acceptable from those that raise ethical or integrity concerns, providing examples to guide authors, reviewers, and journal editors and editorial staff.To operationalize this framework, we introduce a prototype of an online Gen AI use disclosure form that guides authors through documenting their use of Gen AI across the three domains. The tool automatically generates a standardized disclosure statement and assigns a unique, citable reference number. This reference number links to a persistent, publicly accessible summary of the declared Gen AI use, creating a transparent and auditable record. This system is proposed as a 'living' platform, designed to evolve through consensus among journal editors and editorial staff, authors, and research integrity organizations, functioning similarly to other reporting guidelines hosted by the EQUATOR Network.This system moves beyond ad hoc, narrative statements to establish a proactive and standardized disclosure process around the use of Gen AI in scholarly publishing. By embedding transparency, human accountability, and traceability directly into the publication workflow, our approach complements existing frameworks for authorship and conflict of interest. Like conflict-of-interest disclosures, AI use statements surface information that allows readers to contextualize potential risks and judge credibility for themselves. Ultimately, this work advances a practical model to strengthen trust between authors, journal editors and editorial staff, and readers, aligning the promise of generative AI with the enduring principles of research integrity. (shrink)

Leading agencies, such as the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME), and the Open Access Scholarly Publishing Association (OASPA), recommend sharing research data. Further, all major publishers also encourage researchers to practice openness and transparency by sharing the data sets. In contrast, many researchers from social science streams are reluctant to share their data sets. We employ multiple methodologies to understand the causes and repercussions of this contrast. Four case studies show no rationale (...) for social science authors not sharing their data sets. Survey results (391 social science Scopus-Q1 authors worldwide) support the hypothesis that the non-availability of data and non-compulsion from journals/editors/reviewers are the major causes for the non-sharing of research data. Interviews with ten senior editors reveal that publishers are reluctant to impose compulsion out of the fear that there would be a reduced supply of articles if data sharing is made compulsory. The study provides reasonable evidence to conclude that those who do not share their research data are most unlikely to have it. To address this serious flaw, we recommend compulsory data sharing to discourage unauthentic research not backed up by underlying data. This paper uses sizable empirical evidence to highlight the lack of authenticity in social science research. It further recommends policy change to make data sharing compulsory to increase the authenticity of social science research. (shrink)

The removal of Beall’s blog may result in increased numbers of predatory journals and their subsequent victims. Recognizing this, the World Association of Medical Editors suggested criteria for identifying predatory journals in a statement issued on February 18, 2017. These criteria may be helpful in the current scenario of scientific publishing. However, a few lapses and limitations need to be taken into account when translating these policies to the situation in developing countries. This letter presents several cases of legitimate journals (...) and platforms from the developing world that may be erroneously categorized as predatory according to the WAME criteria. We also suggest some improvements in these journals’ policies. (shrink)

Philosophy has been the butt of jokes throughout history. This paper examines two comedians-Aristophanes and Woody Allen-for what they fmd funny about philosophy. Consideration of this humor is important because it insightfully captures the tensions between philosophy and everyday life. Risking the proverbial waming about ruining good jokes with analysis, the paper takes up the question why an activity that these comedians love to roast, philosophers take seriously.

It can be said that the Proslogion is a meditation on the being of God, which is carried out by a spirit that seeks to understand what it initially believes. Its conceptual articulation is commanded by the presence of the unique argument, which, at the moment it recognizes the existence of God, it points the way by which the creature can conceive something appropriate about Him. The Proslogion will offer us a path to think over the sense of searching for (...) “reasons” in the exclusive domains of faith, the effort of the human word to find that which was said before by someone else. The objective of this paper is to consider the sense of this rationality, the roles it performs inside the intelligence of faith. In the first part, I indicate the constitution of the Proslogion, as a waming (excitatio), a proof (probatio) and the final gladness (gaudium) hoped by man. In the second part, I indicate the debate regarding the human cogitatio, formulated in the Graunilo’s review to the argument and the consequent Anselm’s reply. (shrink)

Multiple authorship is the universal solution to multi-tasking in the sciences. Without a team, each with their own set of expertise, and each involved mostly in complementary ways, a research project will likely not advance quickly, or effectively. Consequently, there is a risk that research goals will not be met within a desired timeframe. Research teams that strictly scrutinize their modus operandi select and include a set of authors that have participated substantially in the physical undertaking of the research, in (...) its planning, or who have contributed intellectually to the ideas or the development of the manuscript. Authorship is not an issue that is taken lightly, and save for dishonest authors, it is an issue that is decided collectively by the authors, usually in sync with codes of conduct established by their research institutes or national ministries of education. Science, technology and medicine publishers have, through independent, or sometimes coordinated efforts, also established their own sets of guidelines regarding what constitutes valid authorship. However, these are, for the greater part, merely guidelines. A previous and recent analysis of authorship definitions indicates that the definitions in place regarding authorship and its validity by many leading STM publishers is neither uniform, nor standard, despite several of them claiming to follow the guidelines as set forward by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors or ICMJE. This disparity extends itself to ghost and guest authorship, two key authorship-related issues that are examined in this paper to assess the extent of discrepancies among the same set of STM publishers and what possible influence they might have on publishing ethics. (shrink)