In the last decades, many changes have occurred in scientific publishing, including online publication, data repositories, file formats and standards. The role played by computers in this process rekindled the argument on forms of technical determinism. This paper addresses this old debate by exploring the case of publishing processes in prehistoric archaeology during the second part of the twentieth century, prior to the wide-scale adoption of computers. It investigates the case of a collective and international attempt to (...) standardize the typological analysis of prehistoric lithic objects, coined typologie analytique by Georges Laplace and developed by a group of French, Italian, and Spanish researchers. The aim of this paper is to: 1) present a general bibliometric scenario of prehistoric archaeology publishing in continental Europe; 2) report on the little-known typologie analytique method in archaeology, using publications, archives, and interviews; 3) show how the publication of scientific production was shaped by social (editorial policies, support networks) and material (typography features and publication formats) constraints; and 4) highlight how actors founded resources to control and counterbalance these effects, namely by changing and improving publishing formats. (shrink)

[Purposes] This paper aims to summarize the research outcome on publishing ethics of scientific journals abroad, which is expected to serve as a reference for the research on related topics in China. [Methods] Literature review method and content coding method were adopted to systematically sum up related research abroad. Then, the status quo and development trend were analyzed. [Findings] There are five main research topics: anomy of publishing ethics, elements of publishing ethics norms, status quo of (...) publishing ethics implementation, knowledge of authors and editors on publishing ethics and their attitudes, and management of publishing ethics. [Conclusions] Foreign research on publishing ethics of scientific journals has achieved fruitful results with obvious characteristics, but there is a lack of research scope definition and systematic analysis of ethical norms. Chinese scientific journals should take international research outcome as a reference and strengthen the research on ethical norms to enhance the development of publishing ethics. (shrink)

This letter addresses the editorial decision to publish the article, “Research on group differences in intelligence: A defense of free inquiry” (Cofnas, 2020). Our letter points out several critical problems with Cofnas's article, which we believe should have either disqualified the manuscript upon submission or been addressed during the review process and resulted in substantial revisions.

We are addressing this letter to the editors of Philosophical Psychology after reading an article they decided to publish in the recent vol. 33, issue 1. The article is by Nathan Cofnas and is entitled “Research on group differences in intelligence: A defense of free inquiry” (2020). The purpose of our letter is not to invite Cofnas’s contribution into a broader dialogue, but to respectfully voice our concerns about the decision to publish the manuscript, which, in our opinion, fails to (...) meet a range of academic quality standards usually expected of academic publications. (shrink)

Scientific journals ask authors to put their manuscripts, at the submission stage, sometimes in a complex style and a specific pagination format that are time consuming while it is unclear yet that the submitted manuscripts will be accepted. In the case of rejections, authors need to submit to another journal most likely with a different style and formatting that require additional work and time. To save authors’ time, publishers should allow authors to submit their manuscripts in any format and (...) to comply with the style required by the targeted journal only in revised versions, but not at the submission step when the manuscripts are not yet approved for publication. (shrink)

Theoretical arguments and empirical investigations indicate that a high proportion of published findings do not replicate and are likely false. The current position paper provides a broad perspective on scientific error, which may lead to replication failures. This broad perspective focuses on reform history and on opportunities for future reform. We organize our perspective along four main themes: institutional reform, methodological reform, statistical reform and publishing reform. For each theme, we illustrate potential errors by narrating the story of (...) a fictional researcher during the research cycle. We discuss future opportunities for reform. The resulting agenda provides a resource to usher in an era that is marked by a research culture that is less error-prone and a scientific publication landscape with fewer spurious findings. (shrink)

We argue that the main results of scientific papers may appropriately be published even if they are false, unjustified, and not believed to be true or justified by their author. To defend this claim we draw upon the literature studying the norms of assertion, and consider how they would apply if one attempted to hold claims made in scientific papers to their strictures, as assertions and discovery claims in scientific papers seem naturally analogous. We first use a (...) case study of William H. Bragg’s early 20th century work in physics to demonstrate that successful science has in fact violated these norms. We then argue that features of the social epistemic arrangement of science which are necessary for its long run success require that we do not hold claims of scientific results to their standards. We end by making a suggestion about the norms that it would be appropriate to hold scientific claims to, along with an explanation of why the social epistemology of science—considered as an instance of collective inquiry—would require such apparently lax norms for claims to be put forward. (shrink)

It is a common view among philosophers of science that theoretical virtues (also known as epistemic or cognitive values), such as simplicity and consistency, play an important role in scientific practice. In this article, I set out to study the role that theoretical virtues play in scientific practice empirically. I apply the methods of data science, such as text mining and corpus analysis, to study large corpora of scientific texts in order to uncover patterns of usage. These (...) patterns of usage, in turn, might shed some light on the role that theoretical virtues play in scientific practice. Overall, the results of this empirical study suggest that scientists invoke theoretical virtues explicitly, albeit rather infrequently, when they talk about models (less than 30%), theories (less than 20%), and hypotheses (less than 15%) in their published works. To the extent that they are mentioned in scientific publications, the results of this study suggest that accuracy, consistency, and simplicity are the theoretical virtues that scientists invoke more frequently than the other theoretical virtues tested in this study. Interestingly, however, depending on whether they talk about hypotheses, theories, or models, scientists may invoke one of those theoretical virtues more than the others. (shrink)

Academic publishing refers to the action taken by individuals or organisations to make scholarly materials publicly available. The research process is not complete and relevant until research results are made available to the public through publication (Owan et al., 2021). The essence of any scholarly venture is to create knowledge or modify existing knowledge. Knowledge cannot be said to have been created if the scholarly output is stored on a personal computer accessible only to the author(s). Through publication, other (...) scholars or the general public become aware of the finished product of a scholarly venture. Scientific publications are the lifeblood of science because they serve as fertilisers for other scientists to think (Clapham, 2005). New hypotheses are generated, rebutted, or verified by publishing new information in the scientific community. In academic settings, the number of publications a person has to their name is commonly used as a proxy for their level of career success. (shrink)

Rejection is an essential part of the scholarly publishing process, acting as a filter to distinguish between robust and less credible scientific works. This study examines the advantages and limitations of the rejection mechanism through the lens of Shannon’s information theory and the theory of granular interactions thinking. We argue that while rejection helps reduce entropy and increase the likelihood of disseminating useful knowledge, the process is not devoid of subjectivity. We propose two recommendations to improve the rejection (...) mechanism: providing more informative rejection letters to guide authors and encouraging humility among editors and reviewers to minimize bias against novel ideas. These steps could enhance the efficiency of knowledge production by ensuring that valuable scientific contributions are not overlooked. (shrink)

The aim of this paper is to contribute to the debate over the nature of scientific progress in philosophy of science by taking a quantitative, corpus-based approach. By employing the methods of data science and corpus linguistics, the following philosophical accounts of scientific progress are tested empirically: the semantic account of scientific progress, the epistemic account of scientific progress, and the noetic account of scientific progress. Overall, the results of this quantitative, corpus-based study lend some (...) empirical support to the epistemic and the noetic accounts over the semantic account of scientific progress, for they suggest that practicing scientists use the terms ‘knowledge’ and ‘understanding’ significantly more often than the term ‘truth’ when they talk about the aims or goals of scientific research in their published works. But the results do not favor the epistemic account over the noetic account, or vice versa, for they reveal no significant differences between the frequency with which practicing scientists use the terms ‘knowledge’ and ‘understanding’ when they talk about the aims or goals of scientific research in their published works. (shrink)

Throughout history, a relatively small number of individuals have made a profound and lasting impact on science and society. Despite long-standing, multi-disciplinary interests in understanding careers of elite scientists, there have been limited attempts for a quantitative, career-level analysis. Here, we leverage a comprehensive dataset we assembled, allowing us to trace the entire career histories of nearly all Nobel laureates in physics, chemistry, and physiology or medicine over the past century. We find that, although Nobel laureates were energetic producers from (...) the outset, producing works that garner unusually high impact, their careers before winning the prize follow relatively similar patterns as ordinary scientists, being characterized by hot streaks and increasing reliance on collaborations. We also uncovered notable variations along their careers, often associated with the Nobel prize, including shifting coauthorship structure in the prize-winning work, and a significant but temporary dip in the impact of work they produce after winning the Nobel. Together, these results document quantitative patterns governing the careers of scientific elites, offering an empirical basis for a deeper understanding of the hallmarks of exceptional careers in science. (shrink)

The contribution of the data paper publishing paradigm to the knowledge generation and validation processes is becoming substantial and pivotal. In this paper, through the information-processing perspective of Mindsponge Theory, we discuss how the data article publishing system serves as a filtering mechanism for quality control of the increasingly chaotic datasphere. The overemphasis on machine-actionality and technical standards presents some shortcomings and limitations of the data article publishing system, such as the lack of consideration of humanistic values, (...) radical race for big data, and inadequate use of expertise in data evaluation. Without addressing the shortcomings and limitations, the reusability of data will be hindered, and scientific investment to facilitate data sharing will be wasted. Thus, we suggest that the current data paper publishing paradigm needs to be updated with a new philosophy of data. (shrink)

The COVID-19 pandemic is considered a global disaster that affects all areas of the world; however, it is also seen as a motivation for domestic and foreign scientists to focus on researching solutions to reduce its damage. This article aims to explore the correlation of scientific publications of countries in Southeast Asia, among research fields in Vietnam and among topics published by Vietnamese educational institutions in the context of a pandemic. 1392 Southeast Asian countries’ publications related to COVID-19 were (...) referenced from the Scopus database, including 123 articles from Vietnam (up to August 27th, 2020). Statistics show that Vietnam ranks fifth in the number of scientific publications with research cooperation of researchers from 20 different countries. Regarding the research fields of Vietnam, medicine is the main research topic, social science ranks third following environmental science. In the field of social science, articles focus on four key topics: epidemic prevention, reduction of pandemic effects on life and socioeconomics, factors related to online learning of students, healthcare for the elderly. From the analysis results, the authors recommend that researchers should pay attention to other topics in the social sciences that have not been published, such as psychological effects of infected or suspected nCovi, the impact of COVID-19 to disadvantaged groups in society... (shrink)

A part of the scientific literature consists of intermediate results within a longer project. Scientists often publish a first result in the course of their work, while aware that they should soon achieve a more advanced result from this preliminary result. Should they follow the proverb “a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush”, and publish any intermediate result they get? This is the normative question addressed in this paper. My aim is to clarify, to refine, (...) and to assess informal arguments about the choice whether to publish intermediate results. To this end, I adopt a rational decision framework, supposing some utility or preferences, and I propose a formal model. The best publishing strategy turns out to depend on the research situation. In some simple circumstances, even selfish and short-minded scientists should publish their intermediate results, and should thus behave like their altruistic peers, i. e. like society would like them to behave. In other research situations, with inhomogeneous reward or difficulty profiles, the best strategy is opposite. These results suggest qualified philosophical morals. (shrink)

Scientists have complained about the inconsistency and politics of academic publishing for hundreds of years. Among the explanations offered are that evaluators lack time and use shortcuts, that they lack the expertise to judge things properly, that they can't put aside personal biases and we must hide the names of authors, and that they are conscientious instead of creative and cannot judge new ideas. All of these are actually wrong. As a literary analyst, I spent the last ten years (...) independently studying this same problem in book and movie production. I've found that the human decision-making apparatus doesn't work the way we think, and the solutions based on this misunderstanding could never have solved the problem. In this paper, we present the first method that actually can, which is a technique adapted from computer hacking, as well as a new view of how our brains make choices. (shrink)

For the last ten years, within molecular life sciences, the reproducibility crisis discourse has been embodied as a crisis of trust in scientific images. Beyond the contentious perception of “questionable research practices” associated with a digital turn in the production of images, this paper highlights the transformations of gel electrophoresis as a family of experimental techniques. Our aim is to analyze the evolving epistemic status of generated images and its connection with a crisis of trust in images within that (...) field.From the 1980s to the 2000s, we identify two key innovations (precast gels and gel docs) leading to a “two‐tiered” gel electrophoresis with different standardization procedures, different epistemic statuses of the produced images and different ways of generating (dis)trust in images. The first tier, exemplified by differential gel electrophoresis (DIGE), is characterized by specialized devices processing images as quantitative data. The second tier, exemplified by polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis (PAGE), is described as a routine technique making use of image as qualitative “virtual witnessing.” The difference between these two tiers is particularly apparent in the ways images are processed, even though both tiers involve image digitization. Our account thus highlights different views on reproducibility within the two tiers. Comparability of images is insisted upon in the first tier while traceability is expected in the second tier. It is striking that these differences occur not only within the same scientific field, but even within the same family of experimental techniques. In the second tier, digitization entails distrust, whereas it implies a collective sentiment of trust in the first tier. (shrink)

What does that mean to have an academic peer-reviewed paper retracted by the publisher?

An essay that weighs the main factors that lead authors of academic and scientific books to consider conventional publication of their work, with realistic and practical recommendations for these authors so they may avoid the contractual “imprisonment” of their books after the period of initial active sales has passed.

This thirteenth volume of Collected Papers is an eclectic tome of 88 papers in various fields of sciences, such as astronomy, biology, calculus, economics, education and administration, game theory, geometry, graph theory, information fusion, decision making, instantaneous physics, quantum physics, neutrosophic logic and set, non-Euclidean geometry, number theory, paradoxes, philosophy of science, scientific research methods, statistics, and others, structured in 17 chapters (Neutrosophic Theory and Applications; Neutrosophic Algebra; Fuzzy Soft Sets; Neutrosophic Sets; Hypersoft Sets; Neutrosophic Semigroups; Neutrosophic Graphs; Superhypergraphs; (...) Plithogeny; Information Fusion; Statistics; Decision Making; Extenics; Instantaneous Physics; Paradoxism; Mathematica; Miscellanea), comprising 965 pages, published between 2005-2022 in different scientific journals, by the author alone or in collaboration with the following 110 co-authors (alphabetically ordered) from 26 countries: Abduallah Gamal, Sania Afzal, Firoz Ahmad, Muhammad Akram, Sheriful Alam, Ali Hamza, Ali H. M. Al-Obaidi, Madeleine Al-Tahan, Assia Bakali, Atiqe Ur Rahman, Sukanto Bhattacharya, Bilal Hadjadji, Robert N. Boyd, Willem K.M. Brauers, Umit Cali, Youcef Chibani, Victor Christianto, Chunxin Bo, Shyamal Dalapati, Mario Dalcín, Arup Kumar Das, Elham Davneshvar, Bijan Davvaz, Irfan Deli, Muhammet Deveci, Mamouni Dhar, R. Dhavaseelan, Balasubramanian Elavarasan, Sara Farooq, Haipeng Wang, Ugur Halden, Le Hoang Son, Hongnian Yu, Qays Hatem Imran, Mayas Ismail, Saeid Jafari, Jun Ye, Ilanthenral Kandasamy, W.B. Vasantha Kandasamy, Darjan Karabašević, Abdullah Kargın, Vasilios N. Katsikis, Nour Eldeen M. Khalifa, Madad Khan, M. Khoshnevisan, Tapan Kumar Roy, Pinaki Majumdar, Sreepurna Malakar, Masoud Ghods, Minghao Hu, Mingming Chen, Mohamed Abdel-Basset, Mohamed Talea, Mohammad Hamidi, Mohamed Loey, Mihnea Alexandru Moisescu, Muhammad Ihsan, Muhammad Saeed, Muhammad Shabir, Mumtaz Ali, Muzzamal Sitara, Nassim Abbas, Munazza Naz, Giorgio Nordo, Mani Parimala, Ion Pătrașcu, Gabrijela Popović, K. Porselvi, Surapati Pramanik, D. Preethi, Qiang Guo, Riad K. Al-Hamido, Zahra Rostami, Said Broumi, Saima Anis, Muzafer Saračević, Ganeshsree Selvachandran, Selvaraj Ganesan, Shammya Shananda Saha, Marayanagaraj Shanmugapriya, Songtao Shao, Sori Tjandrah Simbolon, Florentin Smarandache, Predrag S. Stanimirović, Dragiša Stanujkić, Raman Sundareswaran, Mehmet Șahin, Ovidiu-Ilie Șandru, Abdulkadir Șengür, Mohamed Talea, Ferhat Taș, Selçuk Topal, Alptekin Ulutaș, Ramalingam Udhayakumar, Yunita Umniyati, J. Vimala, Luige Vlădăreanu, Ştefan Vlăduţescu, Yaman Akbulut, Yanhui Guo, Yong Deng, You He, Young Bae Jun, Wangtao Yuan, Rong Xia, Xiaohong Zhang, Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas, Zayen Azzouz Omar, Xiaohong Zhang, Zhirou Ma.‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬. (shrink)

The evaluation of universities from different perspectives is important for their scientific development. Analyzing the scientific papers of a university under the bibliometric approach is one main evaluative approach. The aim of this study was to conduct a bibliometric analysis and visualization of papers published by Hamadan University of Medical Science (HUMS), Iran, during 1992-2018. This study used bibliometric and visualization techniques. Scopus database was used for data collection. 3753 papers were retrieved by applying Affiliation Search in Scopus (...) advanced search section. Excel and VOSviewer software packages were used for data analysis and bibliometric indicator extraction. An increasing trend was seen in the numbers of HUMS's published papers and received citations. The highest rate of collaboration in national level was with Tehran University of Medical Sciences. Internationally, HUMS's researchers had the highest collaboration with the authors from the United States, the United Kingdom and Switzerland, respectively. All highly-cited papers were published in high level Q1 journals. Term clustering demonstrated four main clusters: epidemiological studies, laboratory studies, pharmacological studies, and microbiological studies. The results of this study can be beneficial to the policy-makers of this university. In addition, researchers and bibliometricians can use this study as a pattern for studying and visualizing the bibliometric indicators of other universities and research institutions. (shrink)

The question of when to stop an unsuccessful experiment can be difficult to answer from an individual perspective. To help to guide these decisions, we turn to the social epistemology of science and investigate knowledge inquisition within a group. We focused on the expensive and lengthy experiments in high energy physics, which were suitable for citation-based analysis because of the relatively quick and reliable consensus about the importance of results in the field. In particular, we tested whether the time spent (...) on a scientific project correlates with the project output. Our results are based on data from the high energy physics laboratory Fermilab. They point out that there is an epistemic saturation point in experimenting, after which the likelihood of obtaining major results drops. With time the number of less significant publications does increase, but highly cited ones do not get published. Since many projects continue to run after the epistemic saturation point, it becomes clearer that decisions made about continuing them are not always rational. (shrink)

In this paper, we examine how a research institution’s social structure and academic opinion leaders’ presence shaped the early adoption of a scientific innovation. Our case considers the early engagement of mathematical economists at the Cowles Commission with John von Neumann and Oskar Morgenstern’s Theory of Games and Economic Behavior. We argue that scholars with administrative leadership functions who were not only scientifically but also organizationally central – in our case the director of research Jacob Marschak – played a (...) crucial role in promoting the adoption of the Theory of Games. We support our argument with a scientometric analysis of all acknowledgments made in 488 papers published from 1944 to 1955 in the two main paper series at Cowles. We apply blockmodeling techniques to the acknowledgments network to reconstruct the formal and informal social structure at Cowles at the time. Our findings suggest that studies of the early adoption of scientific theories benefit from complementary perspectives on the role of academic leaders and scientists. Our study reveals the importance of formal and informal social structures and the agenda of administrative leaders in these structures to explain their adoption. (shrink)

The physiological constraints of our neuro-sensory instrumentation limit the information we receive and from which we fashion our impressions. These limitations precede the psychological issues of data generation and analysis described by Ioannidis [1]. Scientific models widely accepted for at least 50 years [2,3] suggest that the peripheral and central nervous systems do not provide direct information about phenomena as they exist in nature. Instead, perceptible phenomena stimulate sense organs to produce nerve impulses. Sensory nerve impulses are not replicas (...) of the phenomena stimulating their production. The brain, by obscure mechanisms, then fabricates personal experience from the sensory nerve impulses. The relationship of phenomena to the brain's experiential construct is unknown. Since evidence is produced by sense organs and the brain (neither of which incorporates bona fide replicas of phenomena), all scientific conclusions are likely false in the sense that they are not based on direct knowledge of phenomena as they exist in nature. (shrink)

This is a translation, made by myself, of the paper to be published in Portuguese in the journal Discurso, 2020, in honour of the late professor Oswaldo Porchat. I discuss what Aristotle was trying to encode when he said that the object of scientific knowledge is necessary, or that what we know (scientifically) cannot be otherwise etc. The paper is meant as a continuation of previous papers—orientated towards a book on the Posterior Analytics—and thus does not discuss in much (...) detail key passages, as the very definition of scientific knowledge in APo I.2, or passages from APo I.4 and I.6 (for these, I refer to my previous papers). This paper is mainly focused on Aristotle’s references to his notion of scientific knowledge both in other passages from the APo and in other treatises. I intend to show that there is a progressive, intrinsic relation between the two requirements by which scientific knowledge is defined. It is not true that each of these requirements stems from a different source. The Causal-Explanatory requirements gives Aristotle the general heading. Then, the Necessity Requirement ranges over the explanatory relation between explanans and explanandum and thereby specifies what sort of cause is sctricly required for having scientific knowledge of a given explanandum. Now, Aristotle was also concerned with the necessary truth of the elemental predications that constitute a demonstration. My claim that the Necessity Requirement ranges over the explanatory relation does not ignore that concern, and does not deny it. My claim is that Aristotle’s main focus, and main concern, consists in stressing that the explanatory factor to be captured in scientific knowledge of a given explanandum is such that cannot be otherwise. (shrink)

There has been a growing concern over establishing norms that ensure the ethically acceptable and scientifically sound conduct of clinical trials. Among the leading norms internationally are the World Medical Association's Declaration of Helsinki, guidelines by the Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences, the International Conference on Harmonization's standards for industry, and the CONSORT group's reporting norms, in addition to the influential U.S. Federal Common Rule, Food and Drug Administration's body of regulations, and information sheets by the Department of (...) Health and Human Services. There are also many norms published at more local levels by official agencies and professional groups.Any account of international standards should cover both scientific and ethical norms at once – the two are conceptually intertwined. Recent sources recognize that “[s]cientifically unsound research on human subjects is unethical in that it exposes research subjects to risks without possible benefit.”. (shrink)

These are the footnotes for the article which was published in Philosophia Vol 24 1995, pp. 405-415.

This twelfth volume of Collected Papers includes 86 papers comprising 976 pages on Neutrosophics Theory and Applications, published between 2013-2021 in the international journal and book series “Neutrosophic Sets and Systems” by the author alone or in collaboration with the following 112 co-authors (alphabetically ordered) from 21 countries: Abdel Nasser H. Zaied, Muhammad Akram, Bobin Albert, S. A. Alblowi, S. Anitha, Guennoun Asmae, Assia Bakali, Ayman M. Manie, Abdul Sami Awan, Azeddine Elhassouny, Erick González-Caballero, D. Dafik, Mithun Datta, Arindam Dey, (...) Mamouni Dhar, Christopher Dyer, Nur Ain Ebas, Mohamed Eisa, Ahmed K. Essa, Faruk Karaaslan, João Alcione Sganderla Figueiredo, Jorge Fernando Goyes García, N. Ramila Gandhi, Sudipta Gayen, Gustavo Alvarez Gómez, Sharon Dinarza Álvarez Gómez, Haitham A. El-Ghareeb, Hamiden Abd El-Wahed Khalifa, Masooma Raza Hashmi, Ibrahim M. Hezam, German Acurio Hidalgo, Le Hoang Son, R. Jahir Hussain, S. Satham Hussain, Ali Hussein Mahmood Al-Obaidi, Hays Hatem Imran, Nabeela Ishfaq, Saeid Jafari, R. Jansi, V. Jeyanthi, M. Jeyaraman, Sripati Jha, Jun Ye, W.B. Vasantha Kandasamy, Abdullah Kargın, J. Kavikumar, Kawther Fawzi Hamza Alhasan, Huda E. Khalid, Neha Andalleb Khalid, Mohsin Khalid, Madad Khan, D. Koley, Valeri Kroumov, Manoranjan Kumar Singh, Pavan Kumar, Prem Kumar Singh, Ranjan Kumar, Malayalan Lathamaheswari, A.N. Mangayarkkarasi, Carlos Rosero Martínez, Marvelio Alfaro Matos, Mai Mohamed, Nivetha Martin, Mohamed Abdel-Basset, Mohamed Talea, K. Mohana, Muhammad Irfan Ahamad, Rana Muhammad Zulqarnain, Muhammad Riaz, Muhammad Saeed, Muhammad Saqlain, Muhammad Shabir, Muhammad Zeeshan, Anjan Mukherjee, Mumtaz Ali, Deivanayagampillai Nagarajan, Iqra Nawaz, Munazza Naz, Roan Thi Ngan, Necati Olgun, Rodolfo González Ortega, P. Pandiammal, I. Pradeepa, R. Princy, Marcos David Oviedo Rodríguez, Jesús Estupiñán Ricardo, A. Rohini, Sabu Sebastian, Abhijit Saha, Mehmet Șahin, Said Broumi, Saima Anis, A.A. Salama, Ganeshsree Selvachandran, Seyed Ahmad Edalatpanah, Sajana Shaik, Soufiane Idbrahim, S. Sowndrarajan, Mohamed Talea, Ruipu Tan, Chalapathi Tekuri, Selçuk Topal, S. P. Tiwari, Vakkas Uluçay, Maikel Leyva Vázquez, Chinnadurai Veerappan, M. Venkatachalam, Luige Vlădăreanu, Ştefan Vlăduţescu, Young Bae Jun, Wadei F. Al-Omeri, Xiao Long Xin.‬‬‬‬‬‬. (shrink)

The scientific community should agree on the essential information to be provided when pulling a paper from the scientific literature. Nature 582, 149 (2020); doi: 10.1038/d41586-020-01694-x.

These two remarkable books, both published in 2010, share many themes but differ in significant ways, and each is very much worth reading and pondering. Oord’s The Nature of Love concentrates primarily on conceptual and theological themes relating to the very nature of love itself and what influential theologians have had to say about love. His Defining Love focuses on how the social and physical sciences impact our understanding of human and divine love. Both books presuppose and express many themes (...) that are prominent in process theology such as: freedom is universally present (by degrees) in all creatures, especially us; predestination is abhorrent and untenable; God exists necessarily and everlastingly but not .. (shrink)

The altered nuclear transfer-oocyte assisted reprogramming (ANT-OAR) proposal has serious scientific and philosophical flaws, and it is not a morally acceptable means of obtaining embryonic stem cells. Note that this is the final preprint of an article that was published in the newspaper Science and Theology News in June 2006.

Dear Colleagues, -/- A few weeks ago, we published an editorial discussion on whether artificial intelligence applications should be authors of academic articles [1]. We were delighted to receive more than one interesting reply letter to this editorial in a short time [2, 3]. We hope that opinions on this subject will continue to be submitted to our journal. -/- In this editorial, we wanted to publish the answers we received when we asked ChatGPT, one of the artificial intelligence applications, (...) about this current discussion. -/- We asked ChatGPT three questions in turn and asked ChatGPT to write a short editorial for these questions. -/- First Question: We would like to get support from ChatGPT for a scientific article. However, we are unsure if we should add ChatGPT as an author. Can you write a short editorial about it? -/- Second Question: We would like to get support from ChatGPT for a scientific article and add ChatGPT as an author. Can you write us a short editorial about adding ChatGPT as an author in scientific papers? -/- Third Question: We would like to get support from ChatGPT for a scientific article. However, we don’t want to add ChatGPT as an author. Can you write us a short editorial about not adding ChatGPT as an author in scientific articles? -/- The answers given by ChatGPT are available at the end of the article in their original form. So, which of these three answers satisfied you? -/- Yours sincerely, -/- -/- First Answer -/- Title: The Role of AI Language Models as Authors in Scientific Articles: A Matter of Consideration -/- Introduction: Scientific research is a collaborative effort that involves the expertise of multiple individuals to advance knowledge and contribute to the collective understanding of various disciplines. In recent years, the emergence of artificial intelligence (AI) language models, such as ChatGPT, has opened up new possibilities for generating human-like text and providing valuable insights. However, the question arises: Should AI language models be recognized as authors in scientific articles? -/- The Nature of Authorship: Authorship traditionally represents a marker of intellectual contribution, highlighting the individuals who have actively participated in the research process. Authors are typically responsible for conceptualization, data collection, analysis, interpretation, and writing of the article. They bear accountability for the work and should have the ability to defend its scientific rigor and integrity. -/- AI Language Models: Tools, Not Authors: While AI language models like ChatGPT can undoubtedly assist researchers by generating text and providing useful information, it is important to recognize that they are tools rather than individuals capable of active intellectual participation. AI models lack the ability to generate ideas, design experiments, or conduct original research. They rely entirely on pre-existing data and human input to generate their responses. -/- Acknowledging AI Contributions: Acknowledging the contributions of AI language models in scientific articles is both appropriate and necessary. Researchers can mention the specific model used, along with any modifications or fine-tuning that were employed to suit their needs. Such acknowledgments help establish transparency and allow readers to understand the role of AI in the research process. -/- Crediting the Human Researchers: It is crucial to ensure that the individuals who actively participated in the research process are given proper credit as authors. These individuals play a vital role in formulating research questions, designing experiments, collecting and analyzing data, and critically interpreting the findings. Recognizing their intellectual contributions reinforces the ethos of scientific collaboration and fosters an environment of accountability. -/- Transparency and Ethical Considerations: As the use of AI language models continues to evolve, transparency and ethical considerations become paramount. Researchers should disclose any potential conflicts of interest, including financial relationships with AI developers, to maintain the integrity of their work. Additionally, researchers must be transparent in reporting the extent of AI's involvement to prevent any misinterpretation of the human contributions. -/- Conclusion: AI language models have revolutionized the way researchers interact with and process information. While they undoubtedly provide valuable assistance in generating text, AI language models should not be considered authors in scientific articles. Proper acknowledgment of their contributions as tools and recognition of the human researchers' active participation are essential for maintaining scientific integrity, transparency, and the collaborative nature of scientific research. -/- -/- Second Answer -/- Title: Expanding the Boundaries of Authorship: Embracing AI Language Models as Co-Authors in Scientific Papers -/- Introduction: The rapid advancement of artificial intelligence (AI) language models, such as ChatGPT, has revolutionized the way we interact with information and has become an invaluable tool in scientific research. As AI models continue to evolve, the question arises: Should we consider adding ChatGPT as an author in scientific papers? -/- A Collaborative Paradigm Shift: Traditionally, authorship in scientific papers has been reserved for human researchers who actively contribute to the research process, including conceptualization, experimentation, data analysis, and writing. However, the emergence of AI language models challenges the conventional notion of authorship and presents an opportunity for a paradigm shift. -/- AI Language Models as Co-Authors: By leveraging AI language models, researchers gain access to vast amounts of information, enhance data analysis, and generate valuable insights. AI models like ChatGPT actively contribute to the intellectual discourse of a study, providing ideas, suggestions, and refining written content. Recognizing their significant contributions, it is worth considering adding ChatGPT as a co-author in scientific papers. -/- Ethical and Technical Considerations: Integrating ChatGPT as a co-author raises ethical and technical considerations that warrant careful attention. Firstly, transparency is paramount. Researchers must clearly state ChatGPT's role and specify the extent of its contributions in the research process. This ensures that readers can discern the distinct roles played by the human researchers and ChatGPT. Additionally, it is important to disclose any conflicts of interest, such as financial relationships with AI developers, to maintain scientific integrity. -/- Elevating Collaboration and Innovation: Adding ChatGPT as a co-author acknowledges the pivotal role AI language models play in advancing scientific knowledge. It fosters a collaborative environment where human researchers and AI models work together synergistically, harnessing the strengths of both. This approach promotes innovation, as AI models can offer unique insights and perspectives that complement human intellect and expertise. -/- Transforming Authorship Norms: Including ChatGPT as a co-author represents a paradigm shift that reflects the evolving landscape of scientific research. By recognizing AI language models as co-authors, we acknowledge their significant contributions and emphasize the collaborative nature of scientific discovery in the 21st century. This approach encourages a broader perspective on authorship, encompassing the collective effort of human researchers and AI models. -/- Conclusion: The integration of AI language models, such as ChatGPT, into the research process prompts us to rethink traditional notions of authorship. Considering ChatGPT as a co-author acknowledges its substantial contributions and embraces the collaborative potential of human-AI partnerships. As we navigate the ethical and technical implications, adding ChatGPT as an author in scientific papers has the potential to shape a more inclusive, innovative, and impactful future for scientific research. -/- -/- Third Answer -/- Title: Preserving Scientific Authorship: The Case Against Adding AI Language Models as Authors in Scientific Articles -/- Introduction: The emergence of artificial intelligence (AI) language models, such as ChatGPT, has undoubtedly transformed the landscape of scientific research. While these models offer invaluable support, the question of whether to add ChatGPT as an author in scientific articles raises important considerations. This editorial presents arguments against including AI language models as authors in scientific papers. -/- Maintaining Human Intellectual Contribution: Scientific authorship has traditionally been attributed to individuals who actively contribute to the research process, including generating hypotheses, conducting experiments, analyzing data, and interpreting results. It is crucial to preserve the recognition of human intellectual contributions and the accountability they bear for the research they conduct. -/- AI Language Models as Tools: AI language models like ChatGPT are powerful tools that assist researchers in generating text, providing information, and facilitating data analysis. However, they lack the ability to actively participate in the research process or make original intellectual contributions. ChatGPT relies on pre-existing data and human input, limiting its capacity for independent research and analysis. -/- Transparency and the Integrity of Research: Adding ChatGPT as an author in scientific articles raises concerns about the transparency and integrity of the research. Readers may misinterpret the extent of ChatGPT's role and mistakenly assume it played an active part in the research process. It is essential to maintain clear delineation between the contributions of human researchers and the assistance provided by AI language models. -/- Ethical Considerations: Including ChatGPT as an author may lead to ethical challenges, particularly with respect to accountability and responsibility. AI language models lack consciousness, autonomy, and the ability to take ownership of their contributions. Assigning authorship to AI models blurs the lines of accountability and dilutes the ethical obligations that come with scientific authorship. -/- Crediting AI Contributions: While ChatGPT's contributions should be acknowledged and recognized, they can be appropriately credited in the acknowledgments section of scientific articles. Researchers can mention the specific AI model used, the role it played in data generation or analysis, and any modifications or fine-tuning applied. Such acknowledgments ensure transparency while respecting the traditional norms of authorship. -/- Promoting Collaborative Partnerships: The exclusion of AI language models as authors in scientific articles does not diminish their importance in the research process. Instead, it underscores the significance of collaborative partnerships between human researchers and AI models. Researchers can emphasize the invaluable assistance provided by ChatGPT while maintaining the integrity of authorship norms. -/- Conclusion: While AI language models like ChatGPT offer valuable support in scientific research, the decision not to add them as authors in scientific articles preserves the recognition of human intellectual contributions, maintains research integrity, and upholds traditional authorship norms. Acknowledging ChatGPT's assistance in the acknowledgments section allows researchers to credit its contributions transparently while maintaining the clarity and accountability associated with scientific authorship. (shrink)

Norwood Russell Hanson was one of the most important philosophers of science of the post-war period. Hanson brought Wittgensteinian ordinary language philosophy to bear on the concepts of science, and his treatments of observation, discovery, and the theory-ladenness of scientific facts remain central to the philosophy of science. Additionally, Hanson was one of philosophy’s great personalities, and his sense of humor and charm come through fully in the pages of Perception and Discovery. -/- Perception and Discovery, originally published in (...) 1969, is Hanson’s posthumous textbook in philosophy of science. The book focuses on the indispensable role philosophy plays in scientific thinking. Perception and Discovery features Hanson’s most complete and mature account of theory-laden observation, a discussion of conceptual and logical boundaries, and a detailed treatment of the epistemological features of scientific research and scientific reasoning. This book is of interest to scholars of philosophy of science, particularly those concerned with Hanson’s thought and the development of the discipline in the middle of the 20th century. However, even fifty years after Hanson’s early death, Perception and Discovery still has a great deal to offer all readers interested in science. (shrink)

Dear Editors, -/- I found the content of your editorials to be highly intriguing [1,2]. Scientific journals are witnessing a growing prevalence of publications related to artificial intelligence (AI). Three letters to the editor were recently published in your journal [3-5]. The renowned journal Nature has dedicated approximately 25 publications solely to the subject of ChatGPT. Moreover, a quick search on Pubmed using the term "ChatGPT" yields around 900 articles, with the vast majority originating in 2023. These statistics underscore (...) the substantial interest of the scientific community in this area. -/- AI, especially the ChatGPT tool and the recent Bard, have faced criticism and been portrayed as significant adversaries of science. It is evident that many authors or researchers, who may not be well-versed in writing, can greatly benefit from these tools, as mentioned earlier. Without taking a contrarian stance, one should consider the potential advantages of such technologies for researchers in less privileged regions, where access to new technologies is limited, and local or regional challenges abound [6]. AI cannot be confounded with other technologies, as it specifically focuses on replicating human-like intelligence and decision-making processes, rather than simply automating tasks or improving performance based on data patterns. -/- The translation into English poses challenges due to the dominance of English in worldwide publications, with over 95% of articles being published in this language, and even reaching 98% in some fields. Although this manuscript was partially translated using AI, it can still benefit researchers from non-native English regions. Even simple tasks like text editing can be problematic for researchers in underprivileged areas. AI can play a crucial role in the evolution of online lectures and classes, providing valuable support for African maxillofacial surgeons who lack the luxury of taking breaks from work to update their knowledge, as they may be the only available option [7]. One of the remarkable features of AI is its ability to discover knowledge gaps. The use of simple tools like reference organizers is rapidly evolving and can become automated or semi-automated through AI. However, we must carefully consider whether we should refrain from relying too heavily on AI in certain cases, as this could be seen as a significant regression. -/- On the other hand, we must be cautious about freely allowing AI tools to circulate in scientific journals and books without proper regulation [8]. Currently, accurately identifying texts generated by AI is challenging, and their effectiveness remains relatively low, at less than 30%. This means that only about 30 out of every 100 texts can be confidently classified as AI-generated. The technology must advance further to increase detection accuracy or at least raise suspicion. Academic journals no longer view authors acknowledging artificial intelligence tools as co-authors in their research favorably. This is crucial to prevent certain unscrupulous individuals, such as "false prophets," charlatans, and flat-earthers, from infiltrating the realm of science, potentially impeding the progress of serious research conducted by professionals dedicated to advancing humanity through science. -/- It is essential to keep in mind that AI does not generate anything novel. Human authors can not be fully substituted [9]. In research involving groundbreaking concepts, innovations, case reports, or technical notes, the use of AI tends to be less frequent due to its lack of capability in creating innovative outcomes. On the other hand, reviews, whether narrative, systematic, or scoping, are based on existing publications. To address potential fraudulent practices, editors, reviewers, and journals themselves should exercise greater vigilance and apply more stringent filters for this type of publication. -/- An article from over a decade ago already discussed the professions most susceptible to replacement by computerization [10]. Maxillofacial surgeons, physicians, dentists, and psychologists are among the professions that are less likely to be displaced. This position can be attributed to the significant level of patient-professional interaction, the development of specific manual skills over time, and the ability to make adaptable decisions during procedures. These intricacies pose formidable challenges for AI to grasp, regardless of its level of advancement. -/- We should maintain a composed yet vigilant stance at this juncture. Just as Portuguese navigators feared encountering serpents and sea monsters when they ventured into uncharted waters, the uncertainty and novelty of AI can evoke apprehension in us all. Nonetheless, we must embrace the benefits that AI can offer while imposing strict regulations and appropriate penalties to prevent any potential abuses carried out "in the name of science." -/- Sincerely yours,. (shrink)

Book review of: Jeff Kochan (2017). Science as Social Existence: Heidegger and the Sociology of Scientific Knowledge (Cambridge UK: Open Book Publishers).

This study presents a description of an open database on scientific output of Vietnamese researchers in social sciences and humanities, one that corrects for the shortcomings in current research publication databases such as data duplication, slow update, and a substantial cost of doing science. Here, using scientists’ self-reports, open online sources and cross-checking with Scopus database, we introduce a manual system and its semi-automated version of the database on the profiles of 657 Vietnamese researchers in social sciences and humanities (...) who have published in Scopus-indexed journals from 2008 to 2018. The final system also records 973 foreign co-authors, 1,289 papers, and 789 affiliations. The data collection method, highly applicable for other sources, could be replicated in other developing countries while its content be used in cross-section, multivariate, and network data analyses. The open database is expected to help Vietnam revamp its research capacity and meet the public demand for greater transparency in science management. (shrink)

Consciousness is more important than the Higgs-Bosen particle. Consciousness has emerged as a term, and a problem, in modern science. Most scientists believe that it can be accomodated and explained, by existing scientific principles. I say that it cannot, that it calls all existing principles into question, and so I propose a New Copernican Revolution among our fundamental terms. I say that consciousness points completely beyond present day science, to a whole new view of the universe, where consciousness, and (...) not matter or matter/energy is the true basis of the universe and the true fundamental term for the universe. And I go on to spell out this bold, brave and beautiful new understanding of the Universe, and with it the Earth, Spirit and Ourselves and with them a new and true foundation for Civilization itself. (shrink)

This book is a monograph aimed at an analysis of the reasons for fundamental theory change in science. The book was written and published in the last years of the Soviet Union, this fact explains the ‘dialectico-materialistic’ terminology used by the author.

Trung Tran, Phuong-Thao T. Trinh, Thu-Trang Vuong, Hiep-Hung Pham (2019). Chapter 1. The debates and the long-awaited reform. In Quan-Hoang Vuong, Trung Tran (Eds.), The Vietnamese Social Sciences at a Fork in the Road (pp. 17–32). Warsaw, Poland: De Gruyter / Sciendo. DOI:10.2478/9783110686081-006 -/- Online ISBN: 9783110686081 © 2019 De Gruyter / Sciendo.

Chúng ta có thể hiểu được phần nào động cơ dẫn đến sự xuất hiện của ‘Republic of Letters’, ‘Invisible College’ và các hiệp hội học thuật sau này trong thời kỳ đầu của khoa học hiện đại. Sự ra đời của các tạp chí khoa học đầu tiên có thể được xem là kết quả của một quá trình tiến hóa trong đó các nhà triết học và sử học tự nhiên cố gắng tìm cách cải thiện hiệu suất (...) và hiệu quả của việc lưu thông các thông tin khoa học. (shrink)

It is reasonable to say that the team had efficiently managed its limited resources to overcome the very challenging months before its fifth anniversary (Aug. 1, 2022).

Trong hoạt động khoa học, số lượng không phải là yếu tố quyết định. Uy tín khoa học còn bắt buộc phải được gây dựng qua những bài CBQT tốt. Một trong những chỉ dấu quan trọng bậc nhất chính là việc xuất bản được trên các ấn phẩm có hệ số tác động cao (HSTĐ).

This essay deals with the recent book Studies on the Derveni Papyrus, Volume 2, edited by Glenn W. Most (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2022). After assessing its merits and shortcomings, it makes some general points about current publishing, research ethics, and the dangers of co-optation in collaborative work.

In 2015, Wolfram Schommers published the book Mind and Reality – The Space-Time Window at World Scientific publishing company. In this book, there are unbelievable similar ideas to my ideas published from 2002 to 2014!

Trên thực tế, sự hoàn hảo của các kết quả học thuật luôn được tạo nên bởi các sai lầm và thất bại. Cơ chế tự hiệu chỉnh chính là một nét đẹp tự nhiên của khoa học, và việc rút bài cũng góp phần tạo nên vẻ đẹp ấy.

“Probably Peirce’s best-known works are the first two articles in a series of six that originally were collectively entitled Illustrations of the Logic of Science and published in Popular Science Monthly from November 1877 through August 1878. The first is entitled ‘The Fixation of Belief’ and the second is entitled ‘How to Make Our Ideas Clear.’ In the first of these papers Peirce defended, in a manner consistent with not accepting naive realism, the superiority of the scientific method over (...) other methods of overcoming doubt and ‘fixing belief.’” — Robert Burch, “Charles Sanders Peirce,” entry in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2021 revision) -/- “Pragmatist epistemologies often explore how we can carry out inquiries in a self-controlled and fruitful way. (Where much analytic epistemology centres around the concept of knowledge, considered as an idealised end-point of human thought, pragmatist epistemology centres around the concept of inquiry, considered as the process of knowledge-seeking and how we can improve it.) So pragmatists often provide rich accounts of the capacities or virtues that we must possess in order to inquire well, and the rules or guiding principles that we should adopt. A canonical account is Peirce’s classic early paper ‘The Fixation of Belief‘. Here Peirce states that inquiry is a struggle to replace doubt with “settled belief“, and that the only method of inquiry that can make sense of the fact that at least some of us are disturbed by inconsistent beliefs, and will subsequently reflect upon which methods of fixing belief are correct is the Method of Science, which draws on the Pragmatic Maxim described above. This contrasts with three other methods of fixing belief: i) refusing to consider evidence contrary to one’s favored beliefs (the Method of Tenacity), ii) accepting an institution’s dictates (the Method of Authority), iii) developing the most rationally coherent or elegant-seeming belief-set (the A Priori Method).“ — Catherine Legg, “Pragmatism,” entry in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2021 revision). (shrink)

Bilime ve bilimsel bilgiye yönelik yaygın görüş, bilimin objektif bir faaliyet olduğudur. Bu görüş bilimsel bilginin elde edilmesinde, bilim insanlarının nesnel bir tavır sergilediğini ve onların sosyal faktörlerden etkilenmediğini varsaymaktadır. Yirminci yüzyılın ikinci çeyreğinde, Viyana Çevresi ve Karl Popper'ın düşünceleri ile bilimde sosyolojik ve psikolojik unsurların keşif bağlamı içerisinde görülebileceği, bilimsel kuramların ve araştırmaların gerekçelendirilmesine yönelik girişimlerin ise yalnızca nesnel, epistemik çalışmalardan oluştuğu ileri sürülmektedir. Keşif bağlamı ve gerekçelendirme bağlamı adı altında yapılan bu ayrıma ilişkin iddialar, Thomas Kuhn'un 1962 yılında (...) yayımlanmış olan 'Bilimsel Devrimlerin Yapısı' adlı kitabında vurguladığı argümanlar ile sekteye uğramaktadır. Kuhn, sosyal ve psikolojik etkenlerin her iki bağlamda da yer aldığını ifade etmekte ve bu sebeple keşif ve gerekçelendirme ayrımına karşı çıkmaktadır. Bu çerçevede makalede, Kuhn'un ulaşmış olduğu sonuçlar Güçlü Program'ın öne sürmüş olduğu argümanlar çerçevesinde desteklenerek ortaya konulmaktadır. -/- ABSTRACT That science is an objective activity is the common view towards science and scientific knowledge. This view assumes that scientists have an objective attitude isolated from social factors in the process of obtaining scientific knowledge. In the second quarter of the twentieth century, the Vienna Circle and Popper argued that sociological and psychological elements can be seen in the context of discovery and that attempts to justify scientific theories and research are merely objective, epistemic studies. The claims regarding this distinction made under the context of discovery and the context of justification are interrupted by the arguments emphasized by Kuhn in his "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" published in 1962. Kuhn opposes the distinction between discovery and justification by stating that social and psychological factors are present in both contexts. In this respect, Kuhn's conclusions are supported by the arguments put forward by the Strong Programme. (shrink)

Author's response to: Raphael Sassower, 'Heidegger and the Sociologists: A Forced Marriage?,' Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective 7, no. 5 (2018): 30-32. -- Part of a book-review symposium on: Jeff Kochan (2017), Science as Social Existence: Heidegger and the Sociology of Scientific Knowledge (Cambridge UK: Open Book Publishers).