J Korean Med Sci.  2024 Aug;39(32):e231. 10.3346/jkms.2024.39.e231.

Evolution of Research Reporting Standards: Adapting to the Influence of Artificial Intelligence, Statistics Software, and Writing Tools

• Alnaimat F
• Al-Halaseh S
• AlSamhori ARF

• KMID: 2558530
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2024.39.e231

Abstract

Reporting standards are essential to health research as they improve accuracy and transparency. Over time, significant changes have occurred to the requirements for reporting research to ensure comprehensive and transparent reporting across a range of study domains and foster methodological rigor. The establishment of the Declaration of Helsinki, Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT), Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE), and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) are just a few of the historic initiatives that have increased research transparency. Through enhanced discoverability, statistical analysis facilitation, article quality enhancement, and language barrier reduction, artificial intelligence (AI)—in particular, large language models like ChatGPT—has transformed academic writing. However, problems with errors that could occur and the need for transparency while utilizing AI tools still exist. Modifying reporting rules to include AI-driven writing tools such as ChatGPT is ethically and practically challenging. In academic writing, precautions for truth, privacy, and responsibility are necessary due to concerns about biases, openness, data limits, and potential legal ramifications. The CONSORT-AI and Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT)-AI Steering Group expands the CONSORT guidelines for AI clinical trials—new checklists like METRICS and CLEAR help to promote transparency in AI studies. Responsible usage of technology in research and writing software adoption requires interdisciplinary collaboration and ethical assessment. This study explores the impact of AI technologies, specifically ChatGPT, on past reporting standards and the need for revised guidelines for open, reproducible, and robust scientific publications.

Keyword

Machine Learning; Artificial Intelligence; Research; Data Reporting; ChatGPT

Reference

1. Malički M, Aalbersberg IJ, Bouter L, Mulligan A, Ter Riet G. Transparency in conducting and reporting research: a survey of authors, reviewers, and editors across scholarly disciplines. PLoS One. 2023; 18(3):e0270054. PMID: 36888682.

2. Simera I, Moher D, Hirst A, Hoey J, Schulz KF, Altman DG. Transparent and accurate reporting increases reliability, utility, and impact of your research: reporting guidelines and the EQUATOR Network. BMC Med. 2010; 8(1):24. PMID: 20420659.

3. Turner L, Shamseer L, Altman DG, Weeks L, Peters J, Kober T, et al. Consolidated standards of reporting trials (CONSORT) and the completeness of reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published in medical journals. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012; 11(11):MR000030. PMID: 23152285.

4. Gawande A. The Checklist Manifesto: How to Get Things Right. 1st ed. New York, NY, USA: Metropolitan Books;2010.

5. Bergs J, Hellings J, Cleemput I, Zurel Ö, De Troyer V, Van Hiel M, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of the effect of the World Health Organization surgical safety checklist on postoperative complications. Br J Surg. 2014; 101(3):150–158. PMID: 24469615.

6. Haynes AB, Weiser TG, Berry WR, Lipsitz SR, Breizat AH, Dellinger EP, et al. A surgical safety checklist to reduce morbidity and mortality in a global population. N Engl J Med. 2009; 360(5):491–499. PMID: 19144931.

7. Gasparyan AY, Ayvazyan L, Blackmore H, Kitas GD. Writing a narrative biomedical review: considerations for authors, peer reviewers, and editors. Rheumatol Int. 2011; 31(11):1409–1417. PMID: 21800117.

8. Altman DG, Simera I. A history of the evolution of guidelines for reporting medical research: the long road to the EQUATOR Network. J R Soc Med. 2016; 109(2):67–77. PMID: 26880653.

9. Altman DG. The scandal of poor medical research. BMJ. 1994; 308(6924):283–284. PMID: 8124111.

10. Jüni P, Altman DG, Egger M. Systematic reviews in health care: assessing the quality of controlled clinical trials. BMJ. 2001; 323(7303):42–46. PMID: 11440947.

11. Simera I, Altman DG. Writing a research article that is “fit for purpose”: EQUATOR Network and reporting guidelines. Evid Based Med. 2009; 14(5):132–134. PMID: 19794009.

12. Grant A. Reporting controlled trials. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1989; 96(4):397–400. PMID: 2751952.

13. Squires BP, Elmslie TJ. Reports of randomized controlled trials: what editors want from authors and peer reviewers. CMAJ. 1990; 143(5):381–382. PMID: 2390750.

14. Begg C, Cho M, Eastwood S, Horton R, Moher D, Olkin I, et al. Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials. The CONSORT statement. JAMA. 1996; 276(8):637–639. PMID: 8773637.

15. Simera I, Altman DG, Moher D, Schulz KF, Hoey J. Guidelines for reporting health research: the EQUATOR network’s survey of guideline authors. PLoS Med. 2008; 5(6):e139. PMID: 18578566.

16. Goodyear MD, Krleza-Jeric K, Lemmens T. The Declaration of Helsinki. BMJ. 2007; 335(7621):624–625. PMID: 17901471.

17. Tong A, Flemming K, McInnes E, Oliver S, Craig J. Enhancing transparency in reporting the synthesis of qualitative research: ENTREQ. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2012; 12(1):181. PMID: 23185978.

18. Husereau D, Drummond M, Petrou S, Carswell C, Moher D, Greenberg D, et al. Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement. BMJ. 2013; 346(1):f1049. PMID: 23529982.

19. Wharton T. Rigor, transparency, and reporting social science research: why guidelines don’t have to kill your story. Res Soc Work Pract. 2017; 27(4):487–493. PMID: 28706432.

20. Munafò MR, Nosek BA, Bishop DVM, Button KS, Chambers CD, Percie du Sert N, et al. A manifesto for reproducible science. Nat Hum Behav. 2017; 1(1):0021. PMID: 33954258.

21. Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) Methodology Committee. Draft methodology report: “our questions, our decisions: standards for patient-centered outcomes research”. Updated 2012. Accessed March 30, 2024. https://www.pcori.org/assets/MethodologyReport-Comment.pdf .

22. Hutton B, Wolfe D, Moher D, Shamseer L. Reporting guidance considerations from a statistical perspective: overview of tools to enhance the rigour of reporting of randomised trials and systematic reviews. Evid Based Ment Health. 2017; 20(2):46–52. PMID: 28363989.

23. Jelinek T, Shumard A, Modi J, Smith C, Nees D, Hughes G, et al. Endorsement of reporting guidelines and clinical trial registration across Scopus-indexed rheumatology journals: a cross-sectional analysis. Rheumatol Int. 2024; 44(5):909–917. PMID: 37861727.

24. Christensen G, Wang Z, Levy Paluck E, Swanson N, Birke D, Miguel E, et al. Open science practices are on the rise: the state of social science (3S) survey. Updated 2020. Accessed March 30, 2024. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/0hx0207r .

25. Grant S, Wendt KE, Leadbeater BJ, Supplee LH, Mayo-Wilson E, Gardner F, et al. Transparent, open, and reproducible prevention science. Prev Sci. 2022; 23(5):701–722. PMID: 35175501.

26. Simera I, Moher D, Hoey J, Schulz KF, Altman DG. A catalogue of reporting guidelines for health research. Eur J Clin Invest. 2010; 40(1):35–53. PMID: 20055895.

27. Hariton E, Locascio JJ. Randomised controlled trials - the gold standard for effectiveness research: study design: randomised controlled trials. BJOG. 2018; 125(13):1716. PMID: 29916205.

28. Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D. CONSORT Group. CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMC Med. 2010; 8(1):18. PMID: 20334633.

29. Vandenbroucke JP, von Elm E, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, Mulrow CD, Pocock SJ, et al. Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): explanation and elaboration. Epidemiology. 2007; 18(6):805–835. PMID: 18049195.

30. Sporbeck B, Jacobs A, Hartmann V, Nast A. Methodological standards in medical reporting. J Dtsch Dermatol Ges. 2013; 11(2):107–120. PMID: 23279950.

31. Panic N, Leoncini E, de Belvis G, Ricciardi W, Boccia S. Evaluation of the endorsement of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement on the quality of published systematic review and meta-analyses. PLoS One. 2013; 8(12):e83138. PMID: 24386151.

32. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Syst Rev. 2021; 10(1):89. PMID: 33781348.

33. Isaacs T, Chalmers H. Reducing ‘avoidable research waste’ in applied linguistics research: insights from healthcare research. Lang Teach. 2023; 1–18.

34. Gallo V, Egger M, McCormack V, Farmer PB, Ioannidis JP, Kirsch-Volders M, et al. STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology--Molecular Epidemiology (STROBE-ME): an extension of the STROBE statement. PLoS Med. 2011; 8(10):e1001117. PMID: 22039356.

35. Gale NK, Heath G, Cameron E, Rashid S, Redwood S. Using the framework method for the analysis of qualitative data in multi-disciplinary health research. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2013; 13(1):117. PMID: 24047204.

36. Vlahov D. Transparent Reporting of Evaluations with Nonrandomized Designs (TREND). J Urban Health. 2004; 81(2):163–164. PMID: 15136648.

37. Shannon-Baker P. Making paradigms meaningful in mixed methods research. J Mixed Methods Res. 2016; 10(4):319–334.

38. Helm JM, Swiergosz AM, Haeberle HS, Karnuta JM, Schaffer JL, Krebs VE, et al. Machine learning and artificial intelligence: definitions, applications, and future directions. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med. 2020; 13(1):69–76. PMID: 31983042.

39. Jarrahi MH. Artificial intelligence and the future of work: human-AI symbiosis in organizational decision making. Bus Horiz. 2018; 61(4):577–586.

40. Kaplan A, Haenlein M. Siri, Siri, in my hand: Who’s the fairest in the land? On the interpretations, illustrations, and implications of artificial intelligence. Bus Horiz. 2019; 62(1):15–25.

41. Tai MC. The impact of artificial intelligence on human society and bioethics. Tzu Chi Med J. 2020; 32(4):339–343. PMID: 33163378.

42. França C. AI empowering research: 10 ways how science can benefit from AI. arXiv. July. 17. 2023; DOI: 10.48550/arXiv.2307.10265.

43. AlSamhori AR, AlSamhori JF, AlSamhori AF. ChatGPT role in a medical survey. High Yield Med Rev. 2023; 1(2):

44. Masuadi E, Mohamud M, Almutairi M, Alsunaidi A, Alswayed AK, Aldhafeeri OF. Trends in the usage of statistical software and their associated study designs in health sciences research: a bibliometric analysis. Cureus. 2021; 13(1):e12639. PMID: 33585125.

45. Darsie JA. Statistical software properties: definition, inference and monitoring. Comput Sci Eng Theses Dissertations Stud Res. 2012. 48.

46. Godfrey AJR, Loots MT. Statistical software (R, SAS, SPSS, and Minitab) for blind students and practitioners. J Stat Softw. 2014; 58(1):1–25.

47. Muenchen RA. The popularity of data science software. Updated 2023. Accessed June 7, 2024. https://r4stats.com/articles/popularity/ .

48. Ell PS. A survey of visualisation tools in the social sciences. Updated 1999. Accessed March 30, 2024. http://www.agocg.ac.uk/reports/visual/survey/visurvey.pdf .

49. Everitt BS, Rabe-Hesketh S. Handbook of Statistical Analyses Using Stata. 4th ed. New York, NY, USA: Chapman and Hall/CRC eBooks;2006.

50. Tamkin A, Brundage M, Clark J, Ganguli D. Understanding the capabilities, limitations, and societal impact of large language models. arXiv. February. 4. 2021; DOI: 10.48550/arXiv.2102.02503.

51. Singhal K, Azizi S, Tu T, Mahdavi SS, Wei J, Chung HW, et al. Large language models encode clinical knowledge. Nature. 2023; 620(7972):172–180. PMID: 37438534.

52. Flanagin A, Bibbins-Domingo K, Berkwits M, Christiansen SL. Nonhuman “authors” and implications for the integrity of scientific publication and medical knowledge. JAMA. 2023; 329(8):637–639. PMID: 36719674.

53. Sallam M. ChatGPT utility in healthcare education, research, and practice: systematic review on the promising perspectives and valid concerns. Healthcare (Basel). 2023; 11(6):887. PMID: 36981544.

54. Ray PP. ChatGPT: a comprehensive review on background, applications, key challenges, bias, ethics, limitations and future scope. Internet Things Cyber Phys Syst. 2023; 3:121–154.

55. Al-Halaseh S, Alnaimat F. Enhancing reliability in anti-aging research: a call for adherence to reporting standards. Anti Aging East Eur. 2023; 2(4):189–192.

56. van Dis EA, Bollen J, Zuidema W, van Rooij R, Bockting CL. ChatGPT: five priorities for research. Nature. 2023; 614(7947):224–226. PMID: 36737653.

57. Ang TL, Choolani M, See KC, Poh KK. The rise of artificial intelligence: addressing the impact of large language models such as ChatGPT on scientific publications. Singapore Med J. 2023; 64(4):219–221. PMID: 37006087.

58. Schmidt PG, Meir AJ. Using generative AI for literature searches and scholarly writing: is the integrity of the scientific discourse in Jeopardy? Not Am Math Soc. 2024; 71(1):93–104.

59. Sample I. Science journals ban listing of ChatGPT as co-author on papers. Updated 2023. Accessed June 7, 2024. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2023/jan/26/science-journals-ban-listing-of-chatgpt-as-co-author-on-papers .

60. Venerito V, Gupta L. Large language models: rheumatologists’ newest colleagues? Nat Rev Rheumatol. 2024; 20(2):75–76. PMID: 38177451.

61. Yoo JH. Let’s look on the bright side of ChatGPT. J Korean Med Sci. 2023; 38(27):e231. PMID: 37431546.

62. Krusche M, Callhoff J, Knitza J, Ruffer N. Diagnostic accuracy of a large language model in rheumatology: comparison of physician and ChatGPT-4. Rheumatol Int. 2024; 44(2):303–306. PMID: 37742280.

63. Alnaimat F, Sweis NJ, Sweis JJ, Ascoli C, Korsten P, Rubinstein I, et al. Reproducibility and rigor in rheumatology research. Front Med (Lausanne). 2023; 9:1073551. PMID: 36687429.

64. Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Authorship and AI tools: COPE position statement. Updated 2023. Accessed June 7, 2024. https://publicationethics.org/cope-position-statements/ai-author .

65. Weidener L, Fischer M. Proposing a principle-based approach for teaching AI ethics in medical education. JMIR Med Educ. 2024; 10:e55368. PMID: 38285931.

66. Sprent P. Statistics in medical research. Swiss Med Wkly. 2003; 133(3940):522–529. PMID: 14655052.

67. Lottu OA, Ezeigweneme CA, Olorunsogo T, Adegbola A. Telecom data analytics: informed decision-making: a review across Africa and the USA. World J Adv Res Rev. 2024; 21(1):1272–1287.

68. Cooper H, Hedges LV, Valentine JC. The Handbook of Research Synthesis and Meta-Analysis. New York, NY, USA: Russell Sage Foundation;2019.

69. Greenhalgh T, Fahy N. Research impact in the community-based health sciences: an analysis of 162 case studies from the 2014 UK Research Excellence Framework. BMC Med. 2015; 13(1):232. PMID: 26391108.

70. Rehman A, Naz S, Razzak I. Leveraging big data analytics in healthcare enhancement: trends, challenges and opportunities. Multimedia Syst. 2022; 28(4):1339–1371.

71. Deaton A, Cartwright N. Understanding and misunderstanding randomized controlled trials. Soc Sci Med. 2018; 210:2–21. PMID: 29331519.

72. Batko K, Ślęzak A. The use of Big Data Analytics in healthcare. J Big Data. 2022; 9(1):3. PMID: 35013701.

73. Allioui H, Mourdi Y. Exploring the full potentials of IoT for better financial growth and stability: a comprehensive survey. Sensors (Basel). 2023; 23(19):8015. PMID: 37836845.

74. Wedel M, Kannan PK. Marketing analytics for data-rich environments. J Mark. 2016; 80(6):97–121.

75. Antwiadjei L. Evolution of business organizations: an analysis of robotic process automation. Eduzone Int Peer Rev Multidiscip J. 2021; 10(2):101–105.

76. Percie du Sert N, Ahluwalia A, Alam S, Avey MT, Baker M, Browne WJ, et al. Reporting animal research: explanation and elaboration for the ARRIVE guidelines 2.0. PLoS Biol. 2020; 18(7):e3000411. PMID: 32663221.

77. Alowais SA, Alghamdi SS, Alsuhebany N, Alqahtani T, Alshaya AI, Almohareb SN, et al. Revolutionizing healthcare: the role of artificial intelligence in clinical practice. BMC Med Educ. 2023; 23(1):689. PMID: 37740191.

78. Menke J, Eckmann P, Ozyurt IB, Roelandse M, Anderson N, Grethe J, et al. Establishing institutional scores with the rigor and transparency index: large-scale analysis of scientific reporting quality. J Med Internet Res. 2022; 24(6):e37324. PMID: 35759334.

79. O’Kane P, Smith A, Lerman MP. Building transparency and trustworthiness in inductive research through computer-aided qualitative data analysis software. Organ Res Methods. 2021; 24(1):104–139.

80. Miller JB, Schoenberg MR, Bilder RM. Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT): considerations for neuropsychological research. Clin Neuropsychol. 2014; 28(4):575–599. PMID: 24766549.

81. Yuan I, Topjian AA, Kurth CD, Kirschen MP, Ward CG, Zhang B, et al. Guide to the statistical analysis plan. Paediatr Anaesth. 2019; 29(3):237–242. PMID: 30609103.

82. Colquhoun D. The reproducibility of research and the misinterpretation of p-values. R Soc Open Sci. 2017; 4(12):171085. PMID: 29308247.

83. Mohr DC, Schueller SM, Riley WT, Brown CH, Cuijpers P, Duan N, et al. Trials of intervention principles: evaluation methods for evolving behavioral intervention technologies. J Med Internet Res. 2015; 17(7):e166. PMID: 26155878.

84. Mondal H, Juhi A, Dhanvijay AD, Pinjar MJ, Mondal S. Free software applications for authors for writing a research paper. J Family Med Prim Care. 2023; 12(9):1802–1807. PMID: 38024912.

85. Doskaliuk B, Zimba O. Beyond the keyboard: academic writing in the era of ChatGPT. J Korean Med Sci. 2023; 38(26):e207. PMID: 37401498.

86. Lingard L. The writer’s craft. Perspect Med Educ. 2015; 4(2):79–80. PMID: 25850627.

87. Roig M. Avoiding Plagiarism, Self-Plagiarism, and Other Questionable Writing Practices: A Guide to Ethical Writing. Rockville, MD, USA: Office of Research Integrity;2011.

88. Levin JR, Marshall HH. Publishing in the Journal of Educational Psychology: reflections at midstream. J Educ Psychol. 1993; 85(1):3–6.

89. AMA Manual of Style Committee. AMA Manual of Style: A Guide for Authors and Editors. 11th ed. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press;2020.

90. Das N, Panjabi M. Plagiarism: why is it such a big issue for medical writers? Perspect Clin Res. 2011; 2(2):67–71. PMID: 21731858.

91. Habibzadeh F. GPTZero performance in identifying artificial intelligence-generated medical texts: a preliminary study. J Korean Med Sci. 2023; 38(38):e319. PMID: 37750374.

92. Mitchell E, Lee Y, Khazatsky A, Manning CD, Finn C. DetectGPT: zero-shot machine-generated text detection using probability curvature. arXiv. July. 23. 2023; DOI: 10.48550/arXiv.2301.11305.

93. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). Defining the role of authors and contributors. Updated 2024. Accessed June 7, 2024. https://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/defining-the-role-of-authors-and-contributors.html .

94. Flanagin A, Pirracchio R, Khera R, Berkwits M, Hswen Y, Bibbins-Domingo K. Reporting use of AI in research and scholarly publication-JAMA Network guidance. JAMA. 2024; 331(13):1096–1098. PMID: 38451540.

95. Jarrah AM, Wardat Y, Fidalgo P. Using ChatGPT in academic writing is (not) a form of plagiarism: what does the literature say? Online J Commun Media Technol. 2023; 13(4):e202346.

96. World Association of Medical Editors (WAME). Recommendations on publication ethics policies for medical journals. Accessed June 7, 2024. https://wame.org/recommendations-on-publication-ethics-policies-for-medical-journals .

97. Lund BD, Wang T. Chatting about ChatGPT: how may AI and GPT impact academia and libraries? Libr Hi Tech News. 2023; 40(3):26–29.

98. Zhou J, Ke P, Qiu X, Huang M, Zhang J. ChatGPT: potential, prospects, and limitations. Front Inf Technol Electron Eng. 2024; 25(1):6–11.

99. Hosseini M, Horbach SP. Fighting reviewer fatigue or amplifying bias? Considerations and recommendations for use of ChatGPT and other large language models in scholarly peer review. Res Integr Peer Rev. 2023; 8(1):4. PMID: 37198671.

100. Fecher B, Hebing M, Laufer M, Pohle J, Sofsky F. Friend or foe? Exploring the implications of large language models on the science system. AI Soc. 2023.

101. Zhang J, Zhang ZM. Ethics and governance of trustworthy medical artificial intelligence. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2023; 23(1):7. PMID: 36639799.

102. Wang C, Liu S, Yang H, Guo J, Wu Y, Liu J. Ethical considerations of using ChatGPT in health care. J Med Internet Res. 2023; 25:e48009. PMID: 37566454.

103. Meyer JG, Urbanowicz RJ, Martin PCN, O’Connor K, Li R, Peng PC, et al. ChatGPT and large language models in academia: opportunities and challenges. BioData Min. 2023; 16(1):20. PMID: 37443040.

104. Barroga E, Mitoma H. Improving scientific writing skills and publishing capacity by developing university-based editing system and writing programs. J Korean Med Sci. 2019; 34(1):e9. PMID: 30618516.

105. Park HY, Suh CH, Woo S, Kim PH, Kim KW. Quality reporting of systematic review and meta-analysis according to PRISMA 2020 guidelines: results from recently published papers in the Korean Journal of Radiology . Korean J Radiol. 2022; 23(3):355–369. PMID: 35213097.

106. Song JE. Strategies to improve the quality of reporting nursing research. Korean J Women Health Nurs. 2022; 28(2):77–82. PMID: 36312862.

107. CONSORT-AI and SPIRIT-AI Steering Group. Reporting guidelines for clinical trials evaluating artificial intelligence interventions are needed. Nat Med. 2019; 25(10):1467–1468. PMID: 31551578.

108. Liu X, Cruz Rivera S, Moher D, Calvert MJ, Denniston AK. SPIRIT-AI and CONSORT-AI Working Group. Reporting guidelines for clinical trial reports for interventions involving artificial intelligence: the CONSORT-AI extension. Nat Med. 2020; 26(9):1364–1374. PMID: 32908283.

109. Sallam M, Barakat M, Sallam M. A preliminary checklist (METRICS) to standardize the design and reporting of studies on generative artificial intelligence-based models in health care education and practice: development study involving a literature review. Interact J Med Res. 2024; 13:e54704. PMID: 38276872.

110. Sallam M, Barakat M, Sallam M. Pilot testing of a tool to standardize the assessment of the quality of health information generated by artificial intelligence-based models. Cureus. 2023; 15(11):e49373. PMID: 38024074.

111. Hopewell S, Boutron I, Chan AW, Collins GS, de Beyer JA, Hróbjartsson A, et al. An update to SPIRIT and CONSORT reporting guidelines to enhance transparency in randomized trials. Nat Med. 2022; 28(9):1740–1743. PMID: 36109642.

112. Gasparyan AY, Yessirkepov M, Voronov AA, Gorin SV, Koroleva AM, Kitas GD. Statement on publication ethics for editors and publishers. J Korean Med Sci. 2016; 31(9):1351–1354. PMID: 27510376.