Beyond disclaimers: the need for a curation-based model of PubMed

References

• PubMed. PubMed overview, 2024. Available from https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/about/. [last updated 2023 August 15; cited 2024 April 10].
   Google Scholar
• NLM. MEDLINE: overview, 2024 [last reviewed 2023 October 4; cited 2024 April 10]. Available from https://www.nlm.nih.gov/medline/medline_overview.html
   Google Scholar
• NLM. OLD MEDLINE Data. 2024. [cited 2024 April 10]. Available from https://www.nlm.nih.gov/databases/databases_oldmedline.html
   Google Scholar
• NLM. About PMC. 2024. [cited 2024 April 10]. Available from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/about/intro/
   Google Scholar
• Misra DP, Ravindran V, Wakhlu A, et al. Publishing in black and white: the relevance of listing of scientific journals. Rheumatol Int. 2017;37(11):1773–1778. doi:10.1007/s00296-017-3830-2.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ossom Williamson P, Minter CIJ. Exploring PubMed as a reliable resource for scholarly communications services. J Med Libr Assoc. 2019;107(1):16–29. doi:10.5195/jmla.2019.433.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bromme R. Informed trust in science: lessons from the COVID 19 pandemic for the conceptualization of science literacy. Unterrichtswissenschaft. 2022;50(3):331–345. (in German with English abstract) doi:10.1007/s42010-022-00159-6.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Schoch CL, Ciufo S, Domrachev M, et al. NCBI taxonomy: a comprehensive update on curation, resources and tools. Database (Oxford). 2020;2020:baaa062. doi:10.1093/database/baaa062.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Caplan AL. Regaining trust in public health and biomedical science following covid: the role of scientists. Hastings Cent Rep. 2023;53 Suppl 2: s 105–S109. doi:10.1002/hast.1531.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Djulbegovic B. Acknowledgment of uncertainty: a fundamental means to ensure scientific and ethical validity in clinical research. Curr Oncol Rep. 2001;3(5):389–395. doi:10.1007/s11912-001-0024-5.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Popper KR. Science: conjectures and refutations. In: Popper KR, editor. Conjectures and refutations: the growth of scientific knowledge. New York, USA: Harper & Row; 1962. p. 1–22.
   Google Scholar
• Espay AJ, Herrup K, Daly T. Finding the falsification threshold of the toxic proteinopathy hypothesis in neurodegeneration. Handb Clin Neurol. 2023;192:143–154. doi:10.1016/B978-0-323-85538-9.00008-0.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Goldenberg MJ. Public trust in science. Interdisc Sci Rev. 2023;48(2):366–378. doi:10.1080/03080188.2022.2152243.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cogdill KW, Friedman CP, Jenkins CG, et al. Information needs and information seeking in community medical education. Acad Med. 2000;75(5):484–486. doi:10.1097/00001888-200005000-00020.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Groote SL, Shultz M, Blecic DD. Information-seeking behavior and the use of online resources: a snapshot of current health sciences faculty. J Med Libr Assoc. 2014;102(3):169–176. doi:10.3163/1536-5050.102.3.006.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Quesenberry AC, Oelschlegel S, Earl M, et al. The impact of library resources and services on the scholarly activity of medical faculty and residents. Med Ref Serv Q. 2016;35(3):259–265. doi:10.1080/02763869.2016.1189778.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dunn K, Marshall JG, Wells AL, et al. Examining the role of MEDLINE as a patient care information resource: an analysis of data from the value of libraries study. J Med Libr Assoc. 2017;105(4):336–346. doi:10.5195/jmla.2017.87.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Falagas ME, Pitsouni EI, Malietzis GA, et al. Comparison of PubMed, scopus, web of science, and google scholar: strengths and weaknesses. Faseb J. 2008;22(2):338–342. doi:10.1096/fj.07-9492LSF.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Teixeira da Silva JA. Does the culture of science publishing need to change from the status quo principle of “trust me”? Nowotwory J Oncol. 2022;72(2):137–138. doi:10.5603/NJO.a2022.0001.
   Google Scholar
• Angell M. Publish or perish: a proposal. Ann Intern Med. 1986;104(2):261–262. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-104-2-261.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rawat S, Meena S. Publish or perish: where are we heading? J Res Med Sci. 2014;19(2):87–89.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vervaart P. Ethics in online publications. Electronic J Int Fed Clin Chem Lab Med. 2014;25(3):244–251.
   Google Scholar
• Pérez-Neri I, Pineda C, Sandoval H. Threats to scholarly research integrity arising from paper mills: a rapid scoping review. Clin Rheumatol. 2022;41(7):2241–2248. doi:10.1007/s10067-022-06198-9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Christopher J. The raw truth about paper mills. FEBS Lett. 2021;595(13):1751–1757. doi:10.1002/1873-3468.14143.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Teixeira da Silva JA. “Tortured phrases” in covid-19 literature: can they serve as epistemic markers to assess the integrity of biomedical information? philmed. 2023;4(1):1–24. doi:10.5195/pom.2023.164.
   Google Scholar
• Daly T, Mastroleo I, Gorski D, et al. The ethics of innovation for alzheimer’s disease: the risk of overstating evidence for metabolic enhancement protocols. Theor Med Bioeth. 2020;41(5-6):223–237. doi:10.1007/s11017-020-09536-7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Piller C. Blots on a field? Science. 2022;377(6604):358–363. doi:10.1126/science.add9993.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mavrogenis AF, Quaile A, Scarlat MM. The good, the bad and the rude peer-review. Int Orthop. 2020;44(3):413–415. doi:10.1007/s00264-020-04504-1.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Teixeira da Silva JA, Daly T. Against "silent" retractions in neuroscience. Eur J Neurosci. (in press). 2024. doi:10.1111/ejn.16330.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Manca A, Moher D, Cugusi L, et al. How predatory journals leak into PubMed. CMAJ. 2018;190(35):E1042–E1045. doi:10.1503/cmaj.180154.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Manca A, Moher D, Cugusi L, et al. The authors respond to "rigorous policies ensure integrity of NLM literature databases. CMAJ. 2019;191(10):E290–E290. doi:10.1503/cmaj.71703.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Topper L, Marill J, Kelly C, et al. Rigorous policies ensure integrity of NLM literature databases. CMAJ. 2019;191(10):E289–E289. doi:10.1503/cmaj.71602.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• PubMed. Retraction statement. 2024. [cited 2024 April 10]. Available from https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=retraction±statement(1,342 results).
   Google Scholar
• PubMed. Expression of concern. 2024. [cited 2024 April 10]. Available from https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=%22expression+of+concern%22&sort=date&size=200(2,077results)
   Google Scholar
• Neale AV, Northrup J, Dailey R, et al. Correction and use of biomedical literature affected by scientific misconduct. Sci Eng Ethics. 2007;13(1):5–24. doi:10.1007/s11948-006-0003-1.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Phogat, R., Manjunath, B. C., Sabbarwal, B., Bhatnagar, A., Reena, & Anand, D. (2023). Misconduct in biomedical research: a meta-analysis and systematic review.J Int Soc Prev Community Dent, 13(3), 185–193. doi:10.4103/jispcd.JISPCD_220_22.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Oransky I. Retractions are increasing, but not enough. Nature. 2022;608(7921):9–9. doi:10.1038/d41586-022-02071-6.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shimray SR. Research done wrong: a comprehensive investigation of retracted publications in COVID-19. Account Res. 2023;30(7):393–406. doi:10.1080/08989621.2021.2014327.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Taros T, Zoppo C, Yee N, et al. Retracted covid-19 articles: significantly more cited than other articles within their journal of origin. Scientometrics. 2023;128(5):2935–2943. doi:10.1007/s11192-023-04707-4.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kayne S. Homeopathy in the 21st century, and comparisons with hahnemann. Homeopathy. 2021;110(4):292–302. doi:10.1055/s-0041-1727160.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ernst E. A systematic review of systematic reviews of homeopathy. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2002;54(6):577–582. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2125.2002.01699.x.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Posadzki P, Alotaibi A, Ernst E. Adverse effects of homeopathy: a systematic review of published case reports and case series. Int J Clin Pract. 2012;66(12):1178–1188. doi:10.1111/ijcp.12026.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stub T, Kristoffersen AE, Overvåg G, et al. Adverse effects in homeopathy. A systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. Explore (NY). 2022;18(1):114–128. doi:10.1016/j.explore.2020.11.008.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• NLM. Disclaimer. 2024. [cited 2024 April 10]. Available from https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/disclaimer/
   Google Scholar
• Teixeira da Silva JA. Is the validity, credibility, and reliability of literature indexed in PubMed at risk? Med J Armed Forces India. 2023;79(5):601–602. doi:10.1016/j.mjafi.2021.03.009.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Chen E, Bullard J, Giustini D. Automated indexing using NLM's medical text indexer (MTI) compared to human indexing in medline: a pilot study. J Med Libr Assoc. 2023;111(3):684–694. doi:10.5195/jmla.2023.1588.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Teixeira da Silva JA. Junk science, junk journals, and junk publishing management: risk to science’s credibility. Philosophia (Ramat Gan). 2023;51(3):1–4. doi:10.1007/s11406-022-00590-0.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• NLM. How to include a journal in PMC. 2024. Available from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/pub/addjournal/ [last modified 2019 July 9; cited 2024 April 10].
   Google Scholar
• Babin J, Hulland J. Exploring online consumer curation as user-generated content: a framework and agenda for future research, with implications for brand management. SJME. 2019;23(3):325–338. doi:10.1108/SJME-07-2019-0053.
   Google Scholar
• Daly TP. Need for truthfulness in dementia research. BMJ. 2023;380:255. doi:10.1136/bmj.p255.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Frandsen TF. How can a questionable journal be identified: frameworks and checklists. Learned Publishing. 2019;32(3):221–226. doi:10.1002/leap.1230.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yeo-Teh NSL, Tang BL. Post-publication peer review with an intention to uncover data/result irregularities and potential research misconduct in scientific research: vigilantism or volunteerism? Sci Eng Ethics. 2023;29(4):24. doi:10.1007/s11948-023-00447-z.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thelwall M, Allen L, Papas E-R, et al. Does the use of open, non-anonymous peer review in scholarly publishing introduce bias? Evidence from the F1000Research post-publication open peer review publishing model. J Inform Sci. 2021;47(6):809–820. doi:10.1177/0165551520938678.
   Google Scholar
• Bordignon F. Self-correction of science: a comparative study of negative citations and post-publication peer review. Scientometrics. 2020;124(2):1225–1239. doi:10.1007/s11192-020-03536-z.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Teixeira da Silva JA, Al-Khatib A, Dobránszki J. Fortifying the corrective nature of post-publication peer review: identifying weaknesses, use of journal clubs, and rewarding conscientious behavior. Sci Eng Ethics. 2017;23(4):1213–1226. doi:10.1007/s11948-016-9854-2.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Teixeira da Silva JA. PubMed commons closure: a step back in post-publication peer review. AME Med J. 2018;3:30–30. doi:10.21037/amj.2018.02.07.
   Google Scholar
• Teixeira da Silva JA, Daly T. The diagnostic accuracy of AI-based predatory journal detectors: an analogy to diagnosis. Diagnosis (Berl). 2023;10(4):446–447. doi:10.1515/dx-2023-0039.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar