For reporting animal research and peer-reviewers of animal research studies.
Scientists developed the guidelines, originally published in PLOS Biology, in consultation with the scientific community as part of a National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement & Reduction of Animals in Research (NC3R).
More information, including the current list of endorsements by scientific journals, funding bodies, universities, and learned societies is on the ARRIVE .
Kilkenny C, Browne WJ, Cuthill IC, Emerson M, Altman DG. Improving bioscience research reporting: the ARRIVE guidelines for reporting animal research. PLoS Biol. 2010 Jun [cited 2018 Apr 13];29;8(6):e1000412. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2893951/ doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1000412. PubMed PMID: 20613859; PubMed Central PMCID: .
Research ethics committees use this guideline to review and monitor randomized clinical trials.
ASSERT’s 18-item checklist includes some elements of to ensure fulfillment of the requirements for scientific validity.
Taken from https://www.assert-statement.org/: (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials) initiative.”
Evidence-based, minimum recommendations for case reports. The CARE guidelines provide early signs of what may work for patients.
Common data elements are standardized terms for the collection and exchange of data. CDEs are metadata; they describe the type of data collected, not the data itself. An example of metadata is the question presented on a form, "Patient Name," whereas an example of data would be "Jane Smith."
This portal provides access to NIH-supported CDE initiatives and other resources for investigators developing data collection protocols.
Standards supporting the "acquisition, exchange, submission and archive of clinical research data and metadata."
Used to report "economic evaluations of health interventions."
Developed by members of the journal editors’ subgroup of the Bioresource Research Impact Factor (BRIF) for citing bioresources, such as biological samples, data, and databases.
Forum for editors of peer-reviewed journals to discuss issues related to the integrity of the scientific record. Asks editors to report, record, and initiate investigations into ethical problems in the publication process. All Elsevier journals are COPE members.
A "32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups."
Authority on scientific communication issues.
Remain aware of trends in traditional or electronic scientific publishing.
is the official journal of the European Association of Science Editors (EASE).
Reporting guidelines developers, medical journal editors and peer reviewers, research funding bodies, and other partners work to improve the quality of research.
"A curated, informative and educational resource on data and metadata standards, inter-related to databases and data policies."
68-page guidelines includes the and the Helsinki Declaration.
Guidelines to standardize reports of surgically-based Phase 1 and Phase 2 neuro-oncology trials.
A checklist format summarizes the guidelines.
Guidelines for the results of clinical trials sponsored by pharmaceutical companies.
BioMedCentral & BMJ journals ask authors of industry-sponsored studies, or of papers in industry-sponsored supplements, to follow GPP.
(To download a PDF of GPP 2022 from the Annals of Internal Medicine website, if you do not have a journal subscription.)
DeTora LM, Toroser D, Sykes A, et al. .
Guidelines to produce scientific and technical reports and writing/distributing grey literature.
Lists in alphabetical order. Contains publishing guidelines for some journals. Indicates which journals follow CONSORT and/or other guidelines.
Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals (also called the Vancouver Style)
The aim is to improve the quality and credibility of scientific peer review and publication and to help advance the efficiency, effectiveness, and equitability of the dissemination of biomedical information throughout the world.
To promote best practices in the nursing literature.
"a general purpose framework with which to collect and communicate complex metadata (i.e. sample characteristics, technologies used, type of measurements made) from 'omics-based' experiments employing a combination of technologies."
The MIAME guideline is in Appendix B of Applications of Toxicogenomic Technologies to Predictive Toxicology and Risk Assessment (2007) at .
Describes the basic data needed to enable the unambiguous interpretation of the results and to possibly replicate the experiment.
Brazma A, Hingamp P, Quackenbush J, Sherlock G, Spellman P, Stoeckert C, Aach J, Ansorge W, Ball CA, Causton HC, Gaasterland T, Glenisson P, Holstege FC, Kim IF, Markowitz V, Matese JC, Parkinson H, Robinson A, Sarkans U, Schulze-Kremer S, Stewart J, Taylor R, Vilo J, Vingron M. Minimum information about a microarray experiment (MIAME)-toward standards for microarray data. Nat Genet. 2001 Dec [cited 2018 Apr 13];29(4):365-71. Available from: PubMed PMID: .
Knudsen TB, Daston GP; Teratology Society. MIAME guidelines. Reprod Toxicol. 2005 Jan-Feb [cited 2018 Apr 13];19(3):263. PubMed PMID: .
Portal of almost 40 checklists can use when reporting biological and biomedical science research.
To report the meta-analyses of observational studies in epidemiology.
A 22-item checklist showing items to include when reporting an outbreak or intervention study of a nosocomial organism. Endorsed by professional special interest groups and societies, including the Association of Medical Microbiologists (AMM), British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy (BSAC) & the Infection Control Nurses' Association (ICNA) Research and Development Group.
Group that aims to improve the design of studies, their presentation, interpretation of results and translation into practice.
NIH held a joint workshop in June 2014 with the Nature Publishing Group and Science on the issue of reproducibility and rigor of research findings, with journal editors representing over 30 basic/preclinical science journals in which NIH-funded investigators have most often published.
The workshop focused on the common opportunities in the scientific publishing arena to enhance rigor and further support research that is reproducible, robust, and transparent.
Journal editors at that workshop came to consensus on a set of principles to facilitate these goals, which .
The is to help authors improve the reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. It has “focused on randomized trials, but PRISMA can also be used as a basis for reporting systematic reviews of other types of research, particularly evaluations of interventions. PRISMA may also be useful for critical appraisal of published systematic reviews, although it is not a quality assessment instrument to gauge the quality of a systematic review.”
Checklist that describes the preferred way to present the abstract, introduction, methods, results, and discussion sections of a report of a meta-analysis.
Moher D, Cook DJ, Eastwood S, Olkin I, Rennie D, Stroup DF. Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses. Lancet. 1999 Nov 27[cited 2018 Apr 13];354(9193):1896-900. PubMed PMID: .
Eight-item checklist to use by authors and editors when publishing reports of homeopathic clinical trials.
Evidence-based minimum set of items for trials reporting production, health, and food-safety outcomes. (22-item checklist)
Guidelines for reporting of tumor marker studies.
McShane LM, Altman DG, Sauerbrei W, Taube SE, Gion M, Clark GM; Statistics Subcommittee of NCI-EORTC Working Group on Cancer Diagnostics. REporting recommendations for tumor MARKer prognostic studies (REMARK). Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2006 Nov [cited 2018 Apr 13];100(2):229-35. Epub 2006 Aug 24. PubMed PMID: .
"Reporting practice guidelines in health care"
How to report sex and gender information in a study’s design, data analyses, results, and interpretation of findings.
Recommendations for standardizing and reporting of metabolic analyses.
Lindon JC, Nicholson JK, Holmes E, Keun HC, Craig A, Pearce JT, Bruce SJ, Hardy N, Sansone SA, Antti H, Jonsson P, Daykin C, Navarange M, Beger RD, Verheij ER, Amberg A, Baunsgaard D, Cantor GH, Lehman-McKeeman L, Earll M, Wold S, Johansson E, Haselden JN, Kramer K, Thomas C, Lindberg J, Schuppe-Koistinen I, Wilson ID, Reily MD, Robertson DG, Senn H, Krotzky A, Kochhar S, Powell J, van der Ouderaa F, Plumb R, Schaefer H, Spraul M; Standard Metabolic Reporting Structures working group. Summary recommendations for standardization and reporting of metabolic analyses. Nat Biotechnol. 2005 Jul [cited 2018 Apr 13];23(7):833-8. PubMed PMID: .
The SPIRIT 2013 Statement is a 33-item checklist that recommend a minimum set of data to include in a clinical trial protocol.
The SQUIRE Guidelines help authors write usable articles about quality improvement in healthcare so that results are findable and widely distributed.
How to report qualitative research.
Aims to improve the accuracy and completeness of reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy, to allow readers to assess the potential for bias in the study (internal validity) and to evaluate its generalizability. Checklist contains 34-items.
Used to report health informatics evaluation studies.
To promote reporting of genetic association studies.
For more information, see the STROBE guidelines.
Designed as a supplement to CONSORT, which has led to improved reporting of trial design and conduct in general. Current plans are to revise STRICTA in collaboration with the CONSORT Group, such that STRICTA becomes an "official" extension to CONSORT.
Aims to establish a of items to include in articles reporting observational research.
in their Instructions for Authors.
Description of structured abstracts and how MEDLINE formats them.
"Reporting of studies that develop a prediction model or evaluate its performance."
Last Reviewed: April 14, 2023
APA Style provides a foundation for effective scholarly communication because it helps writers present their ideas in a clear, concise, and inclusive manner. When style works best, ideas flow logically, sources are credited appropriately, and papers are organized predictably. People are described using language that affirms their worth and dignity. Authors plan for ethical compliance and report critical details of their research protocol to allow readers to evaluate findings and other researchers to potentially replicate the studies. Tables and figures present information in an engaging, readable manner.
The style and grammar guidelines pages present information about APA Style as described in the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association, Seventh Edition and the Concise Guide to APA Style, Seventh Edition . Any updates to APA Style are noted on the applicable topic pages. If you are still using the sixth edition, helpful resources are available in the sixth edition archive .
Data Sharing Statement
Select your interests.
Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.
Sodhi M , Rezaeianzadeh R , Kezouh A , Etminan M. Risk of Gastrointestinal Adverse Events Associated With Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonists for Weight Loss. JAMA. 2023;330(18):1795–1797. doi:10.1001/jama.2023.19574
© 2024
Glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) agonists are medications approved for treatment of diabetes that recently have also been used off label for weight loss. 1 Studies have found increased risks of gastrointestinal adverse events (biliary disease, 2 pancreatitis, 3 bowel obstruction, 4 and gastroparesis 5 ) in patients with diabetes. 2 - 5 Because such patients have higher baseline risk for gastrointestinal adverse events, risk in patients taking these drugs for other indications may differ. Randomized trials examining efficacy of GLP-1 agonists for weight loss were not designed to capture these events 2 due to small sample sizes and short follow-up. We examined gastrointestinal adverse events associated with GLP-1 agonists used for weight loss in a clinical setting.
We used a random sample of 16 million patients (2006-2020) from the PharMetrics Plus for Academics database (IQVIA), a large health claims database that captures 93% of all outpatient prescriptions and physician diagnoses in the US through the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) or ICD-10. In our cohort study, we included new users of semaglutide or liraglutide, 2 main GLP-1 agonists, and the active comparator bupropion-naltrexone, a weight loss agent unrelated to GLP-1 agonists. Because semaglutide was marketed for weight loss after the study period (2021), we ensured all GLP-1 agonist and bupropion-naltrexone users had an obesity code in the 90 days prior or up to 30 days after cohort entry, excluding those with a diabetes or antidiabetic drug code.
Patients were observed from first prescription of a study drug to first mutually exclusive incidence (defined as first ICD-9 or ICD-10 code) of biliary disease (including cholecystitis, cholelithiasis, and choledocholithiasis), pancreatitis (including gallstone pancreatitis), bowel obstruction, or gastroparesis (defined as use of a code or a promotility agent). They were followed up to the end of the study period (June 2020) or censored during a switch. Hazard ratios (HRs) from a Cox model were adjusted for age, sex, alcohol use, smoking, hyperlipidemia, abdominal surgery in the previous 30 days, and geographic location, which were identified as common cause variables or risk factors. 6 Two sensitivity analyses were undertaken, one excluding hyperlipidemia (because more semaglutide users had hyperlipidemia) and another including patients without diabetes regardless of having an obesity code. Due to absence of data on body mass index (BMI), the E-value was used to examine how strong unmeasured confounding would need to be to negate observed results, with E-value HRs of at least 2 indicating BMI is unlikely to change study results. Statistical significance was defined as 2-sided 95% CI that did not cross 1. Analyses were performed using SAS version 9.4. Ethics approval was obtained by the University of British Columbia’s clinical research ethics board with a waiver of informed consent.
Our cohort included 4144 liraglutide, 613 semaglutide, and 654 bupropion-naltrexone users. Incidence rates for the 4 outcomes were elevated among GLP-1 agonists compared with bupropion-naltrexone users ( Table 1 ). For example, incidence of biliary disease (per 1000 person-years) was 11.7 for semaglutide, 18.6 for liraglutide, and 12.6 for bupropion-naltrexone and 4.6, 7.9, and 1.0, respectively, for pancreatitis.
Use of GLP-1 agonists compared with bupropion-naltrexone was associated with increased risk of pancreatitis (adjusted HR, 9.09 [95% CI, 1.25-66.00]), bowel obstruction (HR, 4.22 [95% CI, 1.02-17.40]), and gastroparesis (HR, 3.67 [95% CI, 1.15-11.90) but not biliary disease (HR, 1.50 [95% CI, 0.89-2.53]). Exclusion of hyperlipidemia from the analysis did not change the results ( Table 2 ). Inclusion of GLP-1 agonists regardless of history of obesity reduced HRs and narrowed CIs but did not change the significance of the results ( Table 2 ). E-value HRs did not suggest potential confounding by BMI.
This study found that use of GLP-1 agonists for weight loss compared with use of bupropion-naltrexone was associated with increased risk of pancreatitis, gastroparesis, and bowel obstruction but not biliary disease.
Given the wide use of these drugs, these adverse events, although rare, must be considered by patients who are contemplating using the drugs for weight loss because the risk-benefit calculus for this group might differ from that of those who use them for diabetes. Limitations include that although all GLP-1 agonist users had a record for obesity without diabetes, whether GLP-1 agonists were all used for weight loss is uncertain.
Accepted for Publication: September 11, 2023.
Published Online: October 5, 2023. doi:10.1001/jama.2023.19574
Correction: This article was corrected on December 21, 2023, to update the full name of the database used.
Corresponding Author: Mahyar Etminan, PharmD, MSc, Faculty of Medicine, Departments of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences and Medicine, The Eye Care Center, University of British Columbia, 2550 Willow St, Room 323, Vancouver, BC V5Z 3N9, Canada ( [email protected] ).
Author Contributions: Dr Etminan had full access to all of the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.
Concept and design: Sodhi, Rezaeianzadeh, Etminan.
Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: All authors.
Drafting of the manuscript: Sodhi, Rezaeianzadeh, Etminan.
Critical review of the manuscript for important intellectual content: All authors.
Statistical analysis: Kezouh.
Obtained funding: Etminan.
Administrative, technical, or material support: Sodhi.
Supervision: Etminan.
Conflict of Interest Disclosures: None reported.
Funding/Support: This study was funded by internal research funds from the Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of British Columbia.
Role of the Funder/Sponsor: The funder had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.
Data Sharing Statement: See Supplement .
Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.
For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here .
Loading metrics
Open Access
Peer-reviewed
Research Article
Contributed equally to this work with: Michele Salvagno, Alessandro De Cassai
Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing
Affiliation Department of Intensive Care, Hôpital Universitaire de Bruxelles (HUB), Brussels, Belgium
Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing
* E-mail: [email protected] , [email protected] (AC)
Affiliation Sant’Antonio Anesthesia and Intensive Care Unit, University Hospital of Padua, Padua, Italy
Roles Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing
Roles Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing
Affiliations Department of Mathematical Modelling and Artificial Intelligence, National Aerospace University “Kharkiv Aviation Institute”, Kharkiv, Ukraine, Ubiquitous Health Technologies Lab, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Canada
Affiliation Department of Clinical Sciences and Community Health, Università degli Studi di Milano, Milan, Italy
Affiliation Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, United States of America
Roles Supervision, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing
Natural Language Processing (NLP) is a subset of artificial intelligence that enables machines to understand and respond to human language through Large Language Models (LLMs)‥ These models have diverse applications in fields such as medical research, scientific writing, and publishing, but concerns such as hallucination, ethical issues, bias, and cybersecurity need to be addressed. To understand the scientific community’s understanding and perspective on the role of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in research and authorship, a survey was designed for corresponding authors in top medical journals. An online survey was conducted from July 13 th , 2023, to September 1 st , 2023, using the SurveyMonkey web instrument, and the population of interest were corresponding authors who published in 2022 in the 15 highest-impact medical journals, as ranked by the Journal Citation Report. The survey link has been sent to all the identified corresponding authors by mail. A total of 266 authors answered, and 236 entered the final analysis. Most of the researchers (40.6%) reported having moderate familiarity with artificial intelligence, while a minority (4.4%) had no associated knowledge. Furthermore, the vast majority (79.0%) believe that artificial intelligence will play a major role in the future of research. Of note, no correlation between academic metrics and artificial intelligence knowledge or confidence was found. The results indicate that although researchers have varying degrees of familiarity with artificial intelligence, its use in scientific research is still in its early phases. Despite lacking formal AI training, many scholars publishing in high-impact journals have started integrating such technologies into their projects, including rephrasing, translation, and proofreading tasks. Efforts should focus on providing training for their effective use, establishing guidelines by journal editors, and creating software applications that bundle multiple integrated tools into a single platform.
Citation: Salvagno M, Cassai AD, Zorzi S, Zaccarelli M, Pasetto M, Sterchele ED, et al. (2024) The state of artificial intelligence in medical research: A survey of corresponding authors from top medical journals. PLoS ONE 19(8): e0309208. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0309208
Editor: Sanaa Kaddoura, Zayed University, UNITED ARAB EMIRATES
Received: November 22, 2023; Accepted: August 8, 2024; Published: August 23, 2024
Copyright: © 2024 Salvagno et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Data Availability: All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.
Funding: The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.
Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning systems are advanced computer systems designed to emulate human cognitive functions and perform a wide range of tasks independently. The giant leaps these systems provide are the possibility to learn and solve problems through autonomous decision-making if an adequate initial database is provided [ 1 ]. Natural Language Processing (NLP) represents a field within AI focused on enabling machines to understand, interpret, and respond to human language meaningfully.
One intriguing advancement within the realm of AI is the development of Large Language Models (LLMs), which are a subset of NLP technologies. They are characterized by billions of parameters, which allows them to process and generate human-like text, understanding and producing language across a wide range of topics and styles.Generative chatbots, like ChatGPT(Generative Pre-trained Transformer), Microsoft Copilot, or Google Gemini,enhance these models and offer an easy-to-use interface. These LLMs excel in natural language processing and text generation, making them invaluable for diverse applications. Specifically, they have been used in medical research for estimating adverse effects and predicting mortality in clinical settings [ 2 – 4 ], as well as in scientific writing and publishing [ 5 ]. Finally, domain-specific or fine-tuned modelsare models that undergo additional training on a specialized dataset and are tailored to specific areas of expertise. This allows these models to develop a deeper understanding of terminology, concepts, and contexts, making them more adept at handling tasks ina specific field.
Potential applications of AI, and more precisely LLMs, in scientific production, are vast and multi-faceted. These applications range from automated abstract generation to enhancing the fluency of English prose for non-native speakers and even streamlining the creation of exhaustive literature reviews [ 6 , 7 ]. However, AI output is far from being perfect, as AI hallucination has been well described and documented in the current literature [ 8 , 9 ]. Additional concerns include ethical, copyright, transparency, and legal issues, the risk of bias, plagiarism, lack of originality, limited knowledge, incorrect citations, cybersecurity issues, and the risk of infodemics [ 9 ].
In light ofAI’s novel application in scientific production, it remains unclear to what extent the scientific community understands its inherent potentials, limitations, and potential applications. To address this, the authors designed a survey to examine the level of familiarity, understanding, and perspectives among contributing authors in premier medical journals regarding the role and impact of artificial intelligence in top scientific research and authorship. We hypothesize that, given the novelty of large language models (LLMs), researchers might not be familiar with their use and may not have implemented them in their daily practice.
An online survey in this study was conducted using the SurveyMonkey web instrument ( https://www.surveymonkey.com , SurveyMonkey Inc., San Mateo, California, USA). The survey protocol (P2023/262) was approved by the Hospitalo-FacultaireErasme–ULB ethical commission(Comitéd’Ethiquehospitalo-facultaireErasme–ULB, chairman: Prof. J.M. Boeynaems) on July 11 th , 2023.
Two members of the survey team (M.S. and A.D.C.) performed a bibliographic search on April 19, 2023, on PubMed and Scopus, to retrieve any validated questionnaire on the topic using the following search string: [((Artificial Intelligence) OR (ChatGPT) OR (ChatBot)) AND ((scientific production) OR (scientific writing)) AND (survey)]. No existing surveys on the specific topic were found.
Therefore, the research team constructed the questionnaire under the BRUSO acronym to create a well-constructed survey [ 10 ]. The survey consisted of 20 single-choice, multiple-choice, and open-ended questions investigating individuals’ perceptions of using Artificial Intelligence (AI) in scientific production and content. The full list of questions is available for consultation in English ( S1 Appendix Content 1, Survey Questionnaire in English).
The population of interest in this survey consisted of corresponding authors who published in 2022 in the 15 highest-impact medical journals ( S2 Appendix Content 2), as ranked by the Journal Citation Report from Clarivate. In this survey, we used the Journal Impact Factor (JIF) as a benchmark to target leading publications in the research field. Originally developed by Eugene Garfield in the 1960s, the JIF is frequently employed as a proxy for a journal’s relative importance within its discipline. It is calculated by dividing the number of citations in a given year to articles published in the preceding two years by the total number of articles published in those two years. The focus on the corresponding authors aimed to access a segment of the research community that is potentially at the forefront of research publishing and scientific production. For this survey, only the email addresses of the corresponding authors listed in the manuscript were sought and collected. Whenmultiple emails were listed as corresponding, only the first email for each article was collected.When no email addresses were found, no further steps were taken to retrieve them.No differentiation was made regarding the type of published article, except for excluding memorial articles dedicated to deceased colleagues. All other articles were included. The authenticity of the email addresses or their correspondence with the author’s name was not verified. As a result, it was not possible to calculate the a priori sample size.
To enhance the survey’s effectiveness, a pretest was performed in two phases. In the first phase, the survey team reviewed the entire survey, with particular attention to the flow and the order of the questions to avoid issues with “skip” or “branch” logic. The time required to complete the survey was estimated to be around four minutes. In the second phase,the survey was distributed for validation to a small subset of participants, which included researchers working at the Erasme Hospital, to identify any issues before distributing it to the general population of interest. Their answers were not included in the final data analysis.
UsingSurveyMonkey’s email distribution feature, the survey link was disseminated to all collected email addresses of the corresponding authors. To minimize the ratio of non-responders, reminder emails were sent one, two, and three weeks after the initial contact, with a final reminder sent one month later. Responses were collected from July 13 th , 2023, to September 1 st , 2023. SurveyMonkey’s web instrument automatically identifies respondents and non-respondents through personalized links, allowing for targeted reminders to only those who had not yet completed the survey. This system also automatically prevents duplicate responses.
Descriptive statistics was used to provide an overview of the dataset. Depending on the nature of the variables the results are reported either as percentages or as medians with interquartile range (IQR). Comparison among percentages were performed with the chi-square test with a p-values significance threshold at 0.05. All statistical analyses were performed using Jamovi (Jamovi, Sydney, NSW Australia, Version 2.3) and GraphPad Prism (GraphPad Software, Boston, Massachusetts USA,Version 10).
A total of 4,302 email addresses for inclusion in the survey were collected from the list of journals in the appendix. Survey data were collected from 13 th July to 1 st September 2023. Following the initial email outreach and four subsequent reminders, 222 emails bounced back, and 142 recipients actively opted out of participating.Of those who opened the survey link, 266 respondents answered the initial questions. However, some immediately declined to continue, resulting in 236(5.5% of the emails sent) participants who started the survey and were included in the final analysis upon response.
The geographical distribution and demographic data of 229 respondents are depicted in Table 1 ,.The United States and the United Kingdom were most prominently represented, accounting for 57 (24.9%) and 41 (17.9%) of respondents, respectively. In total, English-speaking nations (USA, UK, Canada, and Australia) accounted for 124 (54.1%) of respondents.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0309208.t001
The role of 229 responders is represented in Fig 1 . Physicians, research academics and research clinicians were equally represented, with 64 (27.9%), 65 (28.4%) and 67 (29.2%) responders, respectively. The other responders declared not to be classified as the aforementioned and explained themselves mainly as journalists, students, veterinarians, editors, and pharmacists.
Proportion of respondents in various professional roles as a percentage of the total respondent pool.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0309208.g001
Most of the respondents to this question reported moderate 93 (40.6%) or little 60 (26.2%) familiarity with AI tools. Only 13 (5.7%) indicated extensive familiarity.Following questions up to Q14 were answered by all participants except for the 10 individuals (4.4%) who indicated no prior knowledge of AI (resulting in their automatic exclusion from answering those specific questions). Notably, 9 (69.2%)out of 13 with extensive familiarity reported AI tool usage, compared to lower rates among 20 out of 93 (21.5%)with moderate and 5 out of 60 (8.3%)minimal familiarity (p < 0.001).
More than half of 229 respondents (130, 55%) published their first medical article over 15 years ago, while 31 (13.5%) did so within the last five years. The median Scopus H-index among respondents was 24 (IQR 13–42). No statistically significant correlations were identified between H-index, AI familiarity and AI usage (p > 0.05).
Only 2 participants (< 1%), reported receiving specific training in AI for scientific production. Despite this, 55 (24.02%) out of 229 responders usedAI tools in scientific content creation.Of these, the majority (67.3%) used ChatGPT. Interestingly, among participants from the US(n = 57), a notable difference exists between those who have used AI for scientific production(n = 8, 14%) and those who have not (n = 49, 86%).Those who published the first medical article more than 15 years ago, also declared to have ever used AI tools for scientific production in a lesser amount than the ones who published the first medical article less than 15 years ago(23/130 [17.7%] vs. 32/99 [32.3%], p = 0.01).
As shown in Fig 2 , besides ChatGPT, among the 55 responders who have already published using the aid of AI during the scientific production,Microsoft Bing and Google Bard were used by 8 (14.5%) and 2 (3.6%) of respondents, respectively. Other large language models comprised 5.0% of the usage. Various software tools, including image creation and meta-analysis assistant tools, were also reported to be used by 7 (12.7%) and 6 (10.9%), respectively. Other AI tools reported are mainly Grammarly, Image Analysis tools, and plagiarism-checking tools.
The Y-axis lists the AI tools reported by respondents, while the X-axis shows their stated usage as a percentage. The total percentage exceeds 100% as respondents could report using multiple tools. LLM: Large Language Models; AI: Artificial Intelligence.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0309208.g002
When the 55 respondents who already used AI tools were asked about the primary applications of AI, 55.6% reported using AI for rephrasing text, 33.3% for translation, and 37.78% for proofreading. The rate of AI usage for language translation was consistent across English and non-English-speaking countries (94.4% vs 92.4%,p = 0.547). Additional applications such as draft writing, idea generation, and information synthesis were each noted by 24.4% of respondents.
In the survey, 8 of the 51 who answered this question (15.7%) admitted to using a chatbot for scientific work without acknowledgment.By contrast, 27 (11.9%)out of 226 are certain they will employ some form of Artificial Intelligence in future scientific production. The complete set of responses is summarized in Table 2 .
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0309208.t002
The primary challenges associated with utilizing AI in scientific research are outlined in Table 3 .
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0309208.t003
The medical fields that respondents anticipate will gain the most from AI applications are Big Data Management and Automated Radiographic Report Generation. Additionalareas are detailed in Table 4 .
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0309208.t004
When asked about their ability to distinguish between text written by a human and text generated by AI, 7 (3.1%) out of 226 respondents believed they could always tell the difference. Meanwhile, 120 (53.1%) felt they could only sometimes discern the difference. A total of 59 (26%)were uncertain, and a small fraction, 3 (1.3%), reported it is never possible to distinguish between the two.
Over 80% of respondents (n = 226) do not foresee AI supplanting the role of medical researchers in the future, with 81 (35.8%)strongly disagreeing and 106 (46.9%)disagreeing. A small fraction, 10 responders (4.4%), either somewhat or strongly agree that AI could take on the role of medical researchers. Meanwhile, 29 (12.8%)remain uncertain. By contrast, when it comes to the impact on clinical physicians,among the 226 responders to this last question, 177(78.3%) anticipate that AI will partially alter the nature of their work within the next two decades. A minority of 18 responders (8.0%) foresee no change at all, and a very small fraction, 2 (0.9%), predict a complete transformation in the role of clinical physicians. To conclude, 14 (6.0%)are still unsure about the future impact of AI on clinical practice.
The present study aimed to explore the perceptions and utilization of Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools in scientific production among corresponding authors who published in the 15 most-impacted factor medical journals in 2022.
Intriguingly, this survey indicated that less than 1% of respondents had undergone formal training specifically designed for the application of AI in scientific research. This highlights a critical need for educational programs tailored to empower researchers with the necessary skills for effective AI utilization. The dearth of formal training may also contribute to the observed "limited" to "moderate" familiarity with AI concepts and tools among most survey participants, without a difference among ages and genders.Generally, AI tools are user-friendly and straightforward, requiring no specialized skills for basic usage. This could account for the lack of a significant difference between younger and older users.However, even though the basic use appears straightforward, a lack of comprehension may lead individuals to commit unnoticed errors with these tools, stemming from an unawareness of their own knowledge gaps [ 11 ].
Although beyond the primary focus of this study, we find it noteworthy to comment on the responses concerning the Scopus H-index. This score remains a subject of debate and is fraught with limitations, including self-citation biases, equal attribution regardless of author order and academic age,as well as gender-based disparities other than topic-specific biases. In our survey, the responders presented a median H-index of 24 (IQR 13–42), without statistically significant correlationsbetween H-index values and the variables of interest. Remarkably, two respondents indicated a lack of interest in monitoring their H-index. One respondent, a journal editor, expressed outright indifference with the remark "Who cares", probably echoing a sentiment that could be ascribed to Nobel Laureate Tu Youyou, whose current relatively low Scopus H-index of 16 belies her groundbreaking work on artemisinin, a treatment for malaria that has saved millions of lives.
The survey results underscore a paradoxical relationship between familiarity with AI concepts and its actual utilization in scientific production. While many respondents indicated a “limited” to “moderate” familiarity with AI, around 25% reported employing AI tools in their research endeavors. This suggests that while the theoretical understanding of AI might be limited among the surveyed population, its practical applications are cautiously being explored. It is plausible that the rapid advancements in AI, coupled with its increasing accessibility, have allowed researchers to experiment with these tools without necessarily delving deep into the underlying algorithms and principles.Notably, the preponderance of the surveyed gravitated toward ChatGPT, suggesting a proclivity for natural language processing applications. Indeed, ChatGPT could assist scientists in scientific production in several ways [ 12 ].
The principal tasks for which AI was employed encompassed rephrasing, translation, and proofreading functions. AI tools, especially natural language processing models like ChatGPT, can significantly improve the fluency and coherence of scientific texts, especially for non-native English speakers. This is crucial in the globalized world of scientific research, where effective communication can determine the reach and impact of a study. Interestingly, the rates of AI use for language translation were quite similar between English-speaking and non-English-speaking countries, at 94.4% and 92.4%, respectively. This is unexpected since English is often the preferred language for communication in scientific fields, diminishing the perceived need for translation tools. Several factors could explain this trend. First, these countries have a high proportion of expatriates, leading to many non-native English speakers in the workforce. One limitation of our study is that we did not inquire about the respondents’ countries of origin, so we cannot provide further insights. Another possible explanation could be the selectivity of our respondent pool, which may not be sufficiently representative to show a difference in this variable.Nevertheless, ifthe predominant use of AI for tasks such as rephrasing, translation, and proofreading underscores its potential to enhance the quality of research output, it is essential to strike a balance to ensure that the essence and originality of the research are maintained in the pursuit of linguistic perfection.
This pattern intimates that, in its current stage, AI is predominantly perceived as a facilitator for enhancing the textual quality of scholarly work, rather than as an instrument for novel research ideation or data analysis. In response to this evolving landscape, academic journals, for example, JAMA and Nature, have issued guidelines concerning the judicious use of large language models (LLMs) and generative chatbots [ 13 , 14 ]. Such guidelines often stipulate authors’ need to disclose any AI-generated content explicitly, including the specification of the AI model or tool deployed.
While the survey highlighted the use of LLMs predominantly in textual enhancements, the potential of other AI in data analysis still needs to be explored among the respondents. Indeed, LLM and NLP, in general, currently have a very weak theoretical basis for data prediction.Nevertheless, longitudinal electronic health record (EHR) data have been effectively tokenized and modeled using transformer approaches, to integrate different patient measurements, as reported in the field of Intensive Care Medicine [ 15 ], even if this field is still insufficiently explored. Advanced AI algorithms can process vast datasets, identify patterns, and even accurately predict future trends, often beyond human capabilities. For instance, in biomedical research, numerous machine learning applications tailored to specific tasks or domains can assist in analyzing complex genomic data, predicting disease outbreaks, or modeling the effects of potential drugs. As indicated by the survey, the limited utilization of AI in these areas may be due to the lack of specialized training or apprehensions about the reliability of AI-generated insights.
Most respondents were optimistic about the future role of AI in scientific production, with nearly 12% stating they would "surely" use AI in the future. This optimism towards integrating AI in scientific production can be attributed to the numerous advancements and breakthroughs in AI in recent years. As AI models become more sophisticated, their potential applications in research expand, ranging from data analysis and visualization to hypothesis generation and experimental design. The increasing availability of open-source AI tools and platforms makes it more accessible for researchers to incorporate AI into their work, even without extensive technical expertise.
However, most respondents (> 80%) did not believe that AI would replace medical researchers, suggesting a balanced view that AI will serve as a complementary tool rather than a replacement for human expertise. The sentiment that AI will augment rather than replace human expertise aligns with the broader perspective in the AI community, often termed “augmented intelligence” [ 16 ]. This perspective emphasizes the synergy between human intuition and AI’s computational capabilities. While AI can handle vast amounts of data and rapidly perform complex calculations, human researchers bring domain expertise, critical thinking, and ethical considerations [ 17 ]. This combination can lead to more robust and comprehensive research outcomes [ 16 , 18 ].
Moreover, the evolving landscape of AI in research also presents opportunities for interdisciplinary collaboration [ 19 ]. As AI becomes more integrated into scientific research, there will be a growing need for collaboration between AI specialists and domain experts. Such collaborations can ensure that AI tools are developed and applied in contextually relevant and scientifically rigorous ways. This interdisciplinary approach can lead to novel insights and innovative solutions to complex research challenges.
This survey identified a wide range of concerns regarding the integration of Artificial Intelligence (AI) into the realm of scientific research. Among these, content inaccuracies emerged as the most salient, flagged by over 80% of respondents. The risks associated with AI-generated content include creating ostensibly accurate but factually erroneous data, such as fabricated bibliographic references, a phenomenon described as "Artificial Intelligence Hallucinations"[ 20 ]. It has already been proposed that the Dunning-Kruger effect serves as a pertinent framework to consider the actual vs. the perceived competencies that exist regarding the application of AI in research [ 21 ]. Furthermore,the attitudes and expectations surrounding such technologies, just one year following the release of OpenAI’s ChatGPT, can be aptly illustrated by the Gartner Hype Cycle [ 22 ]. Consequently, it is imperative that content generated by AI algorithms, even translations, undergo rigorous validation by subject matter experts.
Moreover, the rapid evolution of AI models, especially deep learning architectures, has created ’black box’ systems where the decision-making process is not transparent [ 23 ]. This opacity can further exacerbate researchers’ trust issues towards AI-generated content. The lack of interpretability can hinder the widespread adoption of AI in scientific research, as researchers might be hesitant to rely on tools they need to understand fully. Efforts are being made in the AI community to develop more interpretable and explainable AI models, but the balance between performance and transparency remains a challenge [ 24 ].
Beyond the ethical implications, another emerging concern is the potential for AI to perpetuate existing biases in the training data or continue "citogenesis"[ 25 ], which represents an insidious form of error propagation within the scientific corpus [ 26 ]. If AI models are trained on biased datasets, they can produce skewed or discriminatory results, leading to flawed conclusions and the perpetuation of systemic inequalities in research. This is particularly concerning in social sciences and medicine, where biased conclusions can have far-reaching implications [ 27 ]. For this reason, researchers must be aware of these pitfalls and advocate for the usage of data that is as unbiased and representative as possible in training AI models. The full spectrum of potential negative outcomes remains largely unquantified. Furthermore, using AI complicates the attribution of accountability, particularly in clinical settings. Ethical concerns, echoed by most of our respondents, coexist with legal considerations [ 28 ].
Additionally, integrating AI into scientific research raises data privacy and security questions [ 29 ]. As AI models often require vast amounts of data for continued training,there is the risk of submitted sensitive information being unintentionally exposed or misused during the process.This is one of the main reasons why several AI companies recently came out with enterprise and on-premise software versions.Such measures are especially pertinent in medical research, where patient data confidentiality is paramount [ 23 , 30 ]. Ensuring robust data encryption and adhering to stringent data handling protocols becomes crucial when incorporating AI into the research workflow.
Various policy options have been tabled to govern the use of AI in the production and editing of scholarly texts. These range from a complete prohibition on using AI-generated content in academic manuscripts to mandates for clear disclosure of AI contributions within the text and reference sections [ 31 ]. Notably, accrediting AI systems as authors appear to be universally rejected.Given these challenges, the concerns identified are legitimate and necessitate comprehensive investigation, particularly as AI technologies continue to advance and diversify in application.
A collaborative approach that includes AI experts, ethicists, policymakers, and researchers is crucial to manage the ethical and technical complexities and fully leverage AI in a responsible and effective manner. Furthermore, it is advisable for journal editors to establish clear guidelines for AI use, as some have already begun [ 14 ], including mandating the disclosure of AI involvement in the research process. Strict policies should be implemented to safeguard the data utilized by AI systems. Human oversight is necessary to interpret the data and results produced by AI. Additionally, an independent group should assess the impact of AI on research outcomes and ethical issues.
Lastly, attention must be paid to the energy consumption of AI systems and their consequent carbon footprint, which can be considerable, especially in the case of large-scale computational models [ 32 ]. AI and machine learning models, particularly those utilizing deep learning, require extensive computational resources and use significant amounts of electricity. To minimize this footprint, researchers should focus on optimizing AI algorithms to increase their energy efficiency and employ these systems only when absolutely necessary. It is essential for researchers to consider the environmental impact of their AI usage, treating ecological sustainability as a critical factor in today’s world.
The advent of AI in healthcare is rapidly evolving, and our responders anticipate Big Data Management [ 33 ] and Automated Radiographic Report Generation [ 34 ] to be the most impactful areas influenced by AI applications in the next few years. These results underline the growing recognition of AI’s transformative potential in these domains [ 35 ]. Indeed, the current healthcare landscape generates massive amounts of data from diverse sources, including electronic health records, diagnostic tests, and patient monitoring systems [ 36 ]. AI-powered analytics tools could revolutionize how we understand and interpret this data, thus aiding in more accurate diagnosis and personalized treatment protocols. Similarly, medical imaging studies require considerable time and expertise for interpretation, representing a potential bottleneck in clinical workflow. Automated systems powered by AI can analyze images and rapidly generate reports with a speed and consistency that could vastly improve throughput and possibly contribute to improved patient outcomes, bolstering the assumption that AI-assisted radiologists work better and faster [ 37 ]. By contrast, these systems have been demonstrated to generate more incorrect positive results compared to radiology reports, especially when dealing with multiple or smaller-sized target findings [ 38 ]. Despite these and other limitations such as privacy security concerns, computer-aided diagnosis is promising and could impact several specialties [ 39 ]. In the market, there are already various user-friendly and easy-to-use mobile apps available, designed for healthcare professionals as well as patients, that offer quick access to artificial intelligence tools for obtaining potential diagnoses.Nevertheless, AI currently lacks the precision and capability to make clinical diagnoses, and thus cannot be a substitute for a doctor.
Finally, the development of AI in diagnosis and drug development was also highly rated in the survey. These results mirror current research trends, where AI has been applied for early disease detection and drug discovery processes, significantly cutting down time and costs. Even so, the essential human interaction between patient and clinician remains a core aspect of medical care, making it unlikely that AI will soon replace the need for in-person connection [ 40 ]. Our survey respondents echo this sentiment, as the majority believe clinical doctors will only be partially replaced by technological advancements. Interestingly, in the open-ended responses, among the others, we found this comment “Humans do not want an AI-doctor”. Even though literature tells us that AI could be more empathetic than human doctors [ 41 ], for the moment, everyone agrees.
While this study provides valuable insights into the understanding and utilization of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in scientific research, there are some noteworthy limitations. First, the study sample focuses exclusively on corresponding authors from high-impact medical journals. Although this allows us to capture perspectives from researchers at the forefront of scientific advancements, it may limit the generalizability of our findings to the broader scientific and medical community, including early-career researchers and students. Future surveys should aim to include a more diverse range of participants for a fuller picture.
Second, the survey had a low response rate. Physicians are generally challenging to be involved in survey research, and web-based surveys often yield lower participation rates [ 42 ]. Additionally, the accuracy of the email addresses is not guaranteed in email surveys, as evidenced by the emails that were bounced back, likely due to outdated or incorrect institutional email addresses. Nevertheless, although we didn’t conduct an a priori sample size calculation, our aim was to collect responses from at least 300 participants to obtain a substantial perspective on the subject.
Third, the data was gathered through an online survey, which might introduce selection bias as those who are more comfortable with technology and AI may have been more inclined to participate.
Fourth, there was no verification process for the authenticity of the email addresses used in our study, which leaves room for potential inaccuracies in the data collected.
This survey revealed varying degrees of familiarity with AI tools among researchers, with many in high-impact journals beginning to integrate AI into their work. The majority of respondents were from the USA and UK, with 54.1% from English-speaking countries. Only 5.7% indicated extensive familiarity with AI, and 24% used AI tools in scientific content creation, predominantly ChatGPT. Despite low training rates in AI (less than 1%), its use is gradually becoming more prevalent in scientific research and authorship.
S1 appendix. survey questionnaire..
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0309208.s001
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0309208.s002
Nist ratifies quantum safe algorithms co-developed by ibm research.
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has confirmed three algorithms co-developed by IBM Research, which are used to protect sensitive infrastructure and data from attacks by bad actors using Quantum Computers to break the existing encryption .
As we have discussed before in these pages, the cryptography used in every computer in the world will need to be updated, and soon, to be safe from the power of cryptographically relevant quantum computers to break security. IBM has been helping its clients make cryptosystems resilient for the quantum era by establishing cryptographic agility, or crypto-agility for short.
The US NIST has now approved three of the new algorithms being used. Crypto-agility means that a system, platform, application, or organization can rapidly adapt its cryptographic mechanisms and algorithms in response to changing threats, technological advances, or vulnerabilities. Achieving this goal is complex, but IBM has tools and services to help organizations adapt cryptographic architecture, implement automation, and provide governance to allow for greater control and flexibility to anticipate evolving cyber threats efficiently with minimal disruption.
Three IBM Research algorithms validated (and renamed) by the NIST include one for general encryption, ML-KEM, and two for digital signature verification, ML-DSA and SLH-DSA. In addition, IBM has three more (with creative names like “Unbalanced Oil and Vinegar” and “Mayo”) under consideration.
The three algorithms accepted by the NIST include general encryption, intrusion prevention, and a ... [+] signature scheme.
IBM helps clients secure their digital environment using two primary solutions. The first, the IBM Quantum Safe Explorer, scans code across applications and finds the high-impact cryptography that need to be remediated as soon as possible, helping prioritize the work to be done. IBM Quantum Safe Remediator provides network and code remediation utilities for QS migration and crypto-agility and provides the ability to enhance cyber resilience by protecting applications and networks and optimize performance before deployment to ensure crypto-agility
The Roadmap to a quantum-safe infrastructure.
Microsoft update leak—good news revealed for 30% of windows users, trump staffers reportedly had physical altercation with arlington national cemetery official, conclusions.
There are quite a few research projects underway across the industry to develop useful quantum computing technologies. While there are many different viewpoints on when some of these could bear fruit, IBM is thinking the big game. IBM is developing the tools and the community that can prepare for a world where some problems will best be solved with quantum computing. Helping their customers secure their existing infrastructure against quantum-enabled attackers is foundational to IBM, and their clients.
Disclosures : This article expresses the opinions of the author and is not to be taken as advice to purchase from or invest in the companies mentioned. My firm, Cambrian-AI Research, is fortunate to have many semiconductor firms as our clients, including BrainChip, Cadence, Cerebras Systems, D-Matrix, Esperanto, Groq, IBM, Intel, Micron, NVIDIA, Qualcomm, Graphcore, SImA,ai, Synopsys, Tenstorrent, Ventana Microsystems, and scores of investors. We have no investment positions in any of the companies mentioned in this article. For more information, please visit our website at https://cambrian-AI.com .
One Community. Many Voices. Create a free account to share your thoughts.
Our community is about connecting people through open and thoughtful conversations. We want our readers to share their views and exchange ideas and facts in a safe space.
In order to do so, please follow the posting rules in our site's Terms of Service. We've summarized some of those key rules below. Simply put, keep it civil.
Your post will be rejected if we notice that it seems to contain:
User accounts will be blocked if we notice or believe that users are engaged in:
So, how can you be a power user?
Thanks for reading our community guidelines. Please read the full list of posting rules found in our site's Terms of Service.
IMAGES
COMMENTS
Here are a few best practices: Your results should always be written in the past tense. While the length of this section depends on how much data you collected and analyzed, it should be written as concisely as possible. Only include results that are directly relevant to answering your research questions.
Reporting Research Results in APA Style | Tips & Examples. Published on December 21, 2020 by Pritha Bhandari.Revised on January 17, 2024. The results section of a quantitative research paper is where you summarize your data and report the findings of any relevant statistical analyses.. The APA manual provides rigorous guidelines for what to report in quantitative research papers in the fields ...
Present the results of the paper, in logical order, using tables and graphs as necessary. Explain the results and show how they help to answer the research questions posed in the Introduction. Evidence does not explain itself; the results must be presented and then explained. Avoid: presenting results that are never discussed; presenting ...
Practical guidance for writing an effective results section for a research paper. Always use simple and clear language. Avoid the use of uncertain or out-of-focus expressions. The findings of the study must be expressed in an objective and unbiased manner. While it is acceptable to correlate certain findings in the discussion section, it is ...
Research results refer to the findings and conclusions derived from a systematic investigation or study conducted to answer a specific question or hypothesis. These results are typically presented in a written report or paper and can include various forms of data such as numerical data, qualitative data, statistics, charts, graphs, and visual aids.
For example, authors can check specific guidelines when writing the Results section such as STROBE for observational studies, 19 CONSORT for clinical trials, 18 SRQR 20 and COREQ 21 for qualitative research, MMAT for mixed method designs 22 and PRISMA 23 and JBI 24 for systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Online guidelines are also available ...
The results section of a research paper tells the reader what you found, while the discussion section tells the reader what your findings mean. The results section should present the facts in an academic and unbiased manner, avoiding any attempt at analyzing or interpreting the data. Think of the results section as setting the stage for the ...
Developing a well-written research paper is an important step in completing a scientific study. This paper is where the principle investigator and co-authors report the purpose, methods, findings, and conclusions of the study. A key element of writing a research paper is to clearly and objectively report the study's findings in the Results section.
At the end of this section is a sample APA-style research report that illustrates many of these principles. Sections of a Research Report Title Page and Abstract. An APA-style research report begins with a title page. The title is centred in the upper half of the page, with each important word capitalized.
The Results section is a vital organ of a scientific paper, the main reason why readers come and read to. " ". nd new information in the paper. However, writing the"Results section demands a rigorous process that discourages. fi ". many researchers, leaving their work unpublished and uncommunicated in reputable journals.
Tips to Write the Results Section. Direct the reader to the research data and explain the meaning of the data. Avoid using a repetitive sentence structure to explain a new set of data. Write and highlight important findings in your results. Use the same order as the subheadings of the methods section.
Step 1: Consult the guidelines or instructions that the target journal or publisher provides authors and read research papers it has published, especially those with similar topics, methods, or results to your study. The guidelines will generally outline specific requirements for the results or findings section, and the published articles will ...
Use the section headings (outlined above) to assist with your rough plan. Write a thesis statement that clarifies the overall purpose of your report. Jot down anything you already know about the topic in the relevant sections. 3 Do the Research. Steps 1 and 2 will guide your research for this report.
p values. There are two ways to report p values. One way is to use the alpha level (the a priori criterion for the probablility of falsely rejecting your null hypothesis), which is typically .05 or .01. Example: F(1, 24) = 44.4, p < .01. You may also report the exact p value (the a posteriori probability that the result that you obtained, or ...
Abstract. This guide for writers of research reports consists of practical suggestions for writing a report that is clear, concise, readable, and understandable. It includes suggestions for terminology and notation and for writing each section of the report—introduction, method, results, and discussion. Much of the guide consists of ...
Build coherence along this section using goal statements and explicit reasoning (guide the reader through your reasoning, including sentences of this type: 'In order to…, we performed….'; 'In view of this result, we ….', etc.). In summary, the general steps for writing the Results section of a research article are:
The results section of the research paper is where you report the findings of your study based upon the information gathered as a result of the methodology [or methodologies] you applied. The results section should simply state the findings, without bias or interpretation, and arranged in a logical sequence. The results section should always be ...
When to Write Research Report. A research report should be written after completing the research study. This includes collecting data, analyzing the results, and drawing conclusions based on the findings. Once the research is complete, the report should be written in a timely manner while the information is still fresh in the researcher's mind.
Preparation of a comprehensive written research report is an essential part of a valid research experience, and the student should be aware of this requirement at the outset of the project. Interim reports may also be required, usually at the termination of the quarter or semester. Sufficient time should be allowed for satisfactory completion ...
4. Provide a summary of the literature relating to the topic and what gaps there may be. Rationale for study. 5. Identify the rationale for the study. The rationale for the use of qualitative methods can be noted here or in the methods section. Objective. 6. Clearly articulate the objective of the study.
Furthermore, use writing as a tool to reassess the overall project, reevaluate the logic of the experiments, and examine the validity of the results during the research. As a result, the overall research may need to be adjusted, the project design may be revised, new methods may be devised, and new data may be collected.
These guidelines, commissioned and vetted by the board of directors of Language Learning, outline the basic expectations for reporting of quantitative primary research with a specific focus on Method and Results sections. The guidelines are based on issues raised in: Norris, J. M., Ross, S., & Schoonen, R. (Eds.). (2015).
The SQUIRE Guidelines help authors write usable articles about quality improvement in healthcare so that results are findable and widely distributed. SRQR: Standards for reporting qualitative research: a synthesis of recommendations: How to report qualitative research. STARD 2015: STAndards for the Reporting of Diagnostic accuracy
People are described using language that affirms their worth and dignity. Authors plan for ethical compliance and report critical details of their research protocol to allow readers to evaluate findings and other researchers to potentially replicate the studies. Tables and figures present information in an engaging, readable manner.
According to the Pew Research Center, at least 65% of workers prefer to work remotely full-time, and 98% would like to have the option to work remotely at least part of the time.
Since 2020, most research on long Covid has mainly focused on adults. The few studies that tried to analyze pediatric long Covid so far either focused on individual symptoms or focused on adolescents.
Glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) agonists are medications approved for treatment of diabetes that recently have also been used off label for weight loss. 1 Studies have found increased risks of gastrointestinal adverse events (biliary disease, 2 pancreatitis, 3 bowel obstruction, 4 and gastroparesis 5) in patients with diabetes. 2-5 Because such patients have higher baseline risk for ...
Include relevant statistics. 88% of statistics are made up on the spot (including that one), but people still love them. Data is memorable. Results speak volumes.
Natural Language Processing (NLP) is a subset of artificial intelligence that enables machines to understand and respond to human language through Large Language Models (LLMs)‥ These models have diverse applications in fields such as medical research, scientific writing, and publishing, but concerns such as hallucination, ethical issues, bias, and cybersecurity need to be addressed.
The US NIST has now approved three of the new algorithms being used. Crypto-agility means that a system, platform, application, or organization can rapidly adapt its cryptographic mechanisms and ...