SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
A surge of AI-driven publications: the impact on health professionals and potential mitigating solutions
16 references·0 citing·47 second hop
A surge of AI-driven publications: the impact on health professionals and potential mitigating solutions (2025)A surge of AI-driven publications: the im…Using artificial intelligence in academic writing and research: An essential productivity tool (2024)Using artificial intelligence…The use of artificial intelligence to improve the scientific writing of non-native english speakers (2023)The use of artificial intelli…How covid-19 bolstered an already perverse publishing system (2023)How covid-19 bolstered an alr…How ChatGPT and other AI tools could disrupt scientific publishing (2023)How ChatGPT and other AI tool…ChatGPT and the rise of large language models: the new AI-driven infodemic threat in public health (2023)ChatGPT and the rise of large…Artificial Intelligence Can Generate Fraudulent but Authentic-Looking Scientific Medical Articles: Pandora’s Box Has Been Opened (2023)Artificial Intelligence Can G…Infodemics and health misinformation: a systematic review of reviews (2022)Infodemics and health misinfo…Low income countries have the highest percentages of open access publication: A systematic computational analysis of the biomedical literature (2019)Low income countries have the…Thousands of scientists publish a paper every five days (2018)Thousands of scientists publi…The science that’s never been cited (2017)The science that’s never been…And, not or: Quality, quantity in scientific publishing (2017)And, not or: Quality, quantit…The Mass Production of Redundant, Misleading, and Conflicted Systematic Reviews and Meta‐analyses (2016)The Mass Production of Redund…Scientific literature: Information overload (2016)Scientific literature: Inform…Who publishes in “predatory” journals? (2014)Who publishes in “predatory” …Open access: The true cost of science publishing (2013)Open access: The true cost of…Do Pressures to Publish Increase Scientists' Bias? An Empirical Support from US States Data (2010)Do Pressures to Publish Incre…The cochrane database of systematic reviews (1996)Confirmation Bias: A Ubiquitous Phenomenon in Many Guises (1998)Science and Engineering Indicators (2004)Why Science Is Not Necessarily Self-Correcting (2012)Reducing implicit racial preferences: I. A comparative investigation of 17 interventions. (2014)Peer-review practices of psychological journals: The fate of published articles, submitted again (1982)Bias in peer review (2012)Who's Afraid of Peer Review? (2013)Predatory journals recruit fake editor (2017)Self-citations as strategic response to the use of metrics for career decisions (2017)Predatory journals: Who publishes in them and why? (2018)Why Most Published Research Findings Are False (2005)The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and Elaboration (2009)Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation (2015)Meta-analysis and the science of research synthesis (2018)Time to challenge the spurious hierarchy of systematic over narrative reviews? (2018)What kind of systematic review should I conduct? A proposed typology and guidance for systematic reviewers in the medical and health sciences (2018)China's Publication Bazaar (2013)A Review of Microsoft Academic Services for Science of Science Studies (2019)The rapid, massive growth of COVID-19 authors in the scientific literature (2021)Generative AI and the Automating of Academia (2023)Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement (1999)AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both (2017)The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews (2021)Prevalence of Health Misinformation on Social Media—Challenges and Mitigation Before, During, and Beyond the COVID-19 Pandemic: Scoping Literature Review (2022)Digital Trace Data Collection for Social Media Effects Research: APIs, Data Donation, and (Screen) Tracking (2023)Quantifying the impact of misinformation and vaccine-skeptical content on Facebook (2024)How to fight an infodemic (2020)The role of artificial intelligence in achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (2020)Aion Framework: Dimensional Emergence of AI Consciousness, Observer-Induced Collapse, and Cosmological Portal Dynamics (2023)Combating misinformation in the age of LLMs: Opportunities and challenges (2024)Impact of misinformation from generative AI on user information processing: How people understand misinformation from generative AI (2024)Mapping the Ethics of Generative AI: A Comprehensive Scoping Review (2024)Abstracts written by ChatGPT fool scientists (2023)Best Practices for Using AI Tools as an Author, Peer Reviewer, or Editor (2023)ChatGPT and other artificial intelligence applications speed up scientific writing (2023)Nonhuman “Authors” and Implications for the Integrity of Scientific Publication and Medical Knowledge (2023)Current safeguards, risk mitigation, and transparency measures of large language models against the generation of health disinformation: repeated cross sectional analysis (2024)The Role of Google Scholar in Evidence Reviews and Its Applicability to Grey Literature Searching (2015)The academic, economic and societal impacts of Open Access: an evidence-based review (2016)Potential predatory and legitimate biomedical journals: can you tell the difference? A cross-sectional comparison (2017)Why we publish where we do: Faculty publishing values and their relationship to review, promotion and tenure expectations (2020)scite: A smart citation index that displays the context of citations and classifies their intent using deep learning (2021)The Peer Review Process: Past, Present, and Future (2024)The impact of ChatGPT feedback on the development of EFL students’ writing skills (2024)Artificial Intelligence in Peer Review: Enhancing Efficiency While Preserving Integrity (2025)Artificial intelligence-assisted academic writing: recommendations for ethical use (2025)
this work references cited by second hop

References

  • 2016The Mass Production of Redundant, Misleading, and Conflicted Systematic Reviews and Meta‐analyses1,481 cited
  • 2010Do Pressures to Publish Increase Scientists' Bias? An Empirical Support from US States Data804 cited
  • 2023ChatGPT and the rise of large language models: the new AI-driven infodemic threat in public health706 cited
  • 2022Infodemics and health misinformation: a systematic review of reviews615 cited
  • 2024Using artificial intelligence in academic writing and research: An essential productivity tool574 cited
  • 2013Open access: The true cost of science publishing524 cited
  • 2014Who publishes in “predatory” journals?360 cited
  • 2016Scientific literature: Information overload324 cited
  • 2023Artificial Intelligence Can Generate Fraudulent but Authentic-Looking Scientific Medical Articles: Pandora’s Box Has Been Opened301 cited
  • 2018Thousands of scientists publish a paper every five days241 cited
  • 2023The use of artificial intelligence to improve the scientific writing of non-native english speakers158 cited
  • 2017The science that’s never been cited123 cited
  • 2023How ChatGPT and other AI tools could disrupt scientific publishing120 cited
  • 2019Low income countries have the highest percentages of open access publication: A systematic computational analysis of the biomedical literature

Only edges whose both ends are imported exist here. Widen the year window, or show the whole map. Back to the work

100 cited
  • 2017And, not or: Quality, quantity in scientific publishing67 cited
  • 2023How covid-19 bolstered an already perverse publishing system49 cited
  • Cited by

    No citing works inside the corpus for this window.