The undeclared use of third-party service providers in academic publishing is unethical: an epistemic reflection and scoping review.

Jaime A Teixeira da Silva, Timothy Daly, Jens C T��rp, Bernhard A Sabel, Graham Kendall
Author Information
  1. Jaime A Teixeira da Silva: , Miki-cho, Japan. jaimetex@yahoo.com. ORCID
  2. Timothy Daly: Bioethics Program, FLACSO Argentina, Buenos Aires, Argentina. tdaly@flacso.org.ar. ORCID
  3. Jens C T��rp: Department of Oral Health & Medicine, University Center for Dental Medicine UZB, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland. jens.tuerp@unibas.ch. ORCID
  4. Bernhard A Sabel: Institute of Medical Psychology, Medical Faculty, Otto-von-Guericke University of Magdeburg, Leipziger Stra��e 44, Magdeburg, 39120, Germany. bernhard.sabel@med.ovgu.de. ORCID
  5. Graham Kendall: School of Engineering and Computing, MILA University, No. 1, Persiaran MIU, 71800 Putra Nilai, Negeri Sembilan Darul Khusus, Malaysia. Graham.Kendall@mila.edu.my. ORCID

Abstract

There is a substantial body of scientific literature on the use of third-party services (TPS) by academics to assist as "publication consultants" in scholarly publishing. TPS provide a wide range of scholarly services to research teams that lack the equipment, skills, motivation, or time to produce a paper without external assistance. While services such as language editing, statistical support, or graphic design are common and often legitimate, some TPS also provide illegitimate services and send unsolicited e-mails (spam) to academics offering these services. Such illegitimate types of TPS have the potential to threaten the integrity of the peer-reviewed scientific literature. In extreme cases, for-profit agencies known as "paper mills" even offer fake scientific publications or authorship slots for sale. The use of such illegitimate services as well as the failure to acknowledge their use is an ethical violation in academic publishing, while the failure to declare support for a TPS can be considered a form of contract fraud. We discuss some literature on TPS, highlight services currently offered by ten of the largest commercial publishers and expect authors to be transparent about the use of these services in their publications. From an ethical/moral (i.e., non-commercial) point of view, it is the responsibility of editors, journals, and publishers, and it should be in their best interest to ensure that illegitimate TPS are identified and prohibited, while publisher-employed TPS should be properly disclosed in their publications.

Keywords

References

  1. Abbott A (2019) The science institutions hiring integrity inspectors to vet their papers. Nature 575(7783):430���433. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-03529-w [DOI: 10.1038/d41586-019-03529-w]
  2. Al-Khatib A, Teixeira da Silva JA (2017) What rights do authors have? Sci Eng Ethics 23(3):947���949. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-016-9808-8 [DOI: 10.1007/s11948-016-9808-8]
  3. Badenhorst C, Xu X (2016) Academic publishing: making the implicit explicit. Publications 4(3):24. https://doi.org/10.3390/publications4030024 [DOI: 10.3390/publications4030024]
  4. Benderly BL (2016) Outsourcing, coming soon to a lab near you. Science. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.caredit.a1600127 [DOI: 10.1126/science.caredit.a1600127]
  5. Bik EM, Casadevall A, Fang FC (2016) The prevalence of inappropriate image duplication in biomedical research publications. mBio 7(3):e00809-16. https://doi.org/10.1128/mBio.00809-16
  6. Borrego �� (2023) Article processing charges for open access journal publishing: a review. Learned Publishing 36(3):359���378. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1558 [DOI: 10.1002/leap.1558]
  7. Buchsbaum S (2019) From ���hot type��� to Evise: a 50-year career in journal editing. Psychiatry Res 277:10���13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2018.12.104 [DOI: 10.1016/j.psychres.2018.12.104]
  8. Buck E, Haslam A, Tuia J, Prasad V (2023) Frequency and characteristics of trials using medical writer support in high-impact oncology journals. JAMA Network Open 6(2):e2254405. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.54405 [DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.54405]
  9. Burrough-Boenisch J (2019) Do freelance editors for academic and scientific researchers seek acknowledgement? A cross-sectional study. Eur Sci Edit, 45(2), 32���37. https://doi.org/10.20316/ESE.2019.45.18019
  10. Butler L-A, Matthias L, Simard M-A, Mongeon P, Haustein S (2022) The oligopoly���s shift to open access publishing: how for-profit publishers benefit from gold and hybrid article processing charges. In: 26th International Conference on Science, Technology and Innovation Indicators (STI 2022), Granada, Spain, pp 1���5. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6951572
  11. Byrne JA, Christopher J (2020) Digital magic, or the dark arts of the 21st century ��� how can journals and peer reviewers detect manuscripts and publications from paper mills? FEBS Lett 594(4):583���589. https://doi.org/10.1002/1873-3468.13747 [DOI: 10.1002/1873-3468.13747]
  12. Byrne JA, Park Y, Richardson RAK, Pathmendra P, Sun M, Stoeger T (2022) Protection of the human gene research literature from contract cheating organizations known as research paper mills. Nucl Acids Res 50(21):12058���12070. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkac1139 [DOI: 10.1093/nar/gkac1139]
  13. Candal-Pedreira C, Ross JS, Ruano-Ravina A, Egilman DS, Fern��ndez E, P��rez-R��os M (2022) Retracted papers originating from paper mills: cross sectional study. BMJ 379:e071517. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj-2022-071517 [DOI: 10.1136/bmj-2022-071517]
  14. Chew FS, Llewellyn K, Olsen KM (2004) Electronic publishing in radiology: beginnings, current status, and expanding horizons. J Am College Radiol 1(10):741���748. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2004.05.010 [DOI: 10.1016/j.jacr.2004.05.010]
  15. Christopher J (2021) The raw truth about paper mills. FEBS Lett 595(13):1751���1757. https://doi.org/10.1002/1873-3468.14143 [DOI: 10.1002/1873-3468.14143]
  16. COPE & STM (2022) Paper mills ��� research report from COPE & STM ��� English. Version 1: June 2022. Committee on Publication Ethics. https://doi.org/10.24318/jtbG8IHL
  17. Coutellec L (2020) Ethics and scientific integrity in biomedical research. In: Iphofen, R. (ed) Handbook of research ethics and scientific integrity. Springer, Cham, Switzerland, pp. 1���14. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-76040-7_36-1
  18. Das N, Das S (2014) Hiring a professional medical writer: is it equivalent to ghostwriting? Biochemia Medica 24(1):19���24. https://doi.org/10.11613/BM.2014.004 [DOI: 10.11613/BM.2014.004]
  19. Draeger E, Sawant A, Johnstone C, Koger B, Becker S, Vujaskovic Z, Jackson IL, Poirier Y (2020) A dose of reality: how 20 years of incomplete physics and dosimetry reporting in radiobiology studies may have contributed to the reproducibility crisis. Int J Rad Oncol Biol Phys 106(2):243���252. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2019.06.2545 [DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2019.06.2545]
  20. Ellis C, Zucker IM, Randall D (2018) The infernal business of contract cheating: understanding the business processes and models of academic custom writing sites. Int J Educ Integr 14:1. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-017-0024-3 [DOI: 10.1007/s40979-017-0024-3]
  21. Else H (2022) Paper-mill detector put to the test in push to stamp out fake science. Nature 612(7940):386���387. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-022-04245-8 [DOI: 10.1038/d41586-022-04245-8]
  22. Else H, Van Noorden R (2021) The fight against fake-paper factories that churn out sham science. Nature 591(7851):516���519. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-021-00733-5 [DOI: 10.1038/d41586-021-00733-5]
  23. Friedbichler M, Friedbichler I, T��rp JC (2008) Scientific communication in the age of globalization. Trends, challenges and initial solutions for dentistry in German-speaking countries. Schweizer Monatsschrift f��r Zahnmedizin 118(12):1193���1212 (in German with English abstract) [PMID: 19192594]
  24. Gertel A, Winchester C, Wooley K, Yarker Y (2018) The development and uptake of the Joint Position Statement on the role of professional medical writers. Eur Sci Edit 44(4):83���84. https://doi.org/10.20316/ESE.2018.44.18008 [DOI: 10.20316/ESE.2018.44.18008]
  25. Guraya SY, Norman RI, Khoshhal KI, Guraya SS, Forgione A (2016) Publish or perish mantra in the medical field: a systematic review of the reasons, consequences and remedies. Pakistan J Med Sci 32(6):1562���1567. https://doi.org/10.12669/pjms.326.10490 [DOI: 10.12669/pjms.326.10490]
  26. Heidegger M (2002) Supplements. In: van Buren J (ed) From the earliest essays to being and time and beyond. State University of New York Press, New York, USA, pp 111���145
  27. Heriyati D, Sari RL, Ekasari WF, Kurnianto S (2023) Understanding contract cheating behavior among Indonesian university students: an application of the theory of planned behavior. J Acad Ethics 21(3):541���564. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-023-09470-y [DOI: 10.1007/s10805-023-09470-y]
  28. Hosseini M, Resnik DB, Holmes K (2023) The ethics of disclosing the use of artificial intelligence tools in writing scholarly manuscripts. Res Ethics 19(4):449���465. https://doi.org/10.1177/17470161231180449 [DOI: 10.1177/17470161231180449]
  29. ICMJE (International Committee of Medical Journal Editors). (2024). Defining the role of authors and contributors. http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/defining-the-role-of-authors-and-contributors.html ; http://www.icmje.org/icmje-recommendations.pdf (last updated: March 2024; last accessed: 17 May 2024)
  30. Ingstrup MB, Aarikka-Stenroos L, Adlin N (2021) When institutional logics meet: alignment and misalignment in collaboration between academia and practitioners. Ind Market Manag 92:267���276. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2020.01.004 [DOI: 10.1016/j.indmarman.2020.01.004]
  31. Jaszi P, Woodmansee M (2013) Beyond authorship: Refiguring rights in traditional culture and bioknowledge. In: Biagioli M, Galison P (eds) Scientific Authorship: Credit and Intellectual Property in Science, Routledge, Oxon, pp 195���223
  32. Kaebnick GE, Magnus DC, Kao A, Hosseini M, Resnik D, Dubljevi�� V, Rentmeester C, Gordijn B, Cherry MJ (2023) Editors��� statement on the responsible use of generative AI technologies in scholarly journal publishing. The Hastings Center Report 53(5):3���6. https://doi.org/10.1002/hast.1507 [DOI: 10.1002/hast.1507]
  33. Kapoor S, Narayanan A (2023) Leakage and the reproducibility crisis in machine-learning-based science. Patterns (New York, N.Y.) 4(9):100804. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.patter.2023.100804 [DOI: 10.1016/j.patter.2023.100804]
  34. Kendall G, Teixeira da Silva JA (2024) Risks of abuse of large language models, like ChatGPT, in scientific publishing: authorship, predatory publishing, and paper mills. Learned Publishing 37(1):55���62. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1578 [DOI: 10.1002/leap.1578]
  35. Kendall G, Yee A, McCollum B (2016) Is there a role for publication consultants and how should their contribution be recognized? Sci Eng Ethics 22(5):1553���1560. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-015-9710-9 [DOI: 10.1007/s11948-015-9710-9]
  36. Kim SG (2023) Using ChatGPT for language editing in scientific articles. Maxillofacial Plast Reconstr Surge 45:13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40902-023-00381-x [DOI: 10.1186/s40902-023-00381-x]
  37. Kim E-YJ, LaBianca AS (2018) Ethics in academic writing help for international students in higher education: perceptions of faculty and students. J Acad Ethics 16(1):39���59. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-017-9299-5 [DOI: 10.1007/s10805-017-9299-5]
  38. Kohane IS, Altman RB (2000) The new peer review. Proceedings of the AMIA Symposium, pp 433-437. PMID: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11079920
  39. Lines L (2016) Substantive editing as a form of plagiarism among postgraduate students in Australia. Assess Eval Higher Educ 41(3):368���383. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2015.1013919 [DOI: 10.1080/02602938.2015.1013919]
  40. Lingard L (2023) Writing with ChatGPT: an illustration of its capacity, limitations & implications for academic writers. Perspect Med Educ 12(1):261���270. https://doi.org/10.5334/pme.1072 [DOI: 10.5334/pme.1072]
  41. Lozano GA (2014) Ethics of using language editing services in an era of digital communication and heavily multi-authored papers. Sci Eng Ethics 20(2):363���377. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-013-9451-6 [DOI: 10.1007/s11948-013-9451-6]
  42. Manley S (2019) Predatory journals on trial. Allegations, responses, and lessons for scholarly publishing from FTC v. OMICS. J Scholar Publish 50(3):183���200. https://doi.org/10.3138/jsp.50.3.02 [DOI: 10.3138/jsp.50.3.02]
  43. Markowitz DM, Hancock JT (2016) Linguistic obfuscation in fraudulent science. J Language Soc Psychol 35(4):435���445. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X15614605 [DOI: 10.1177/0261927X15614605]
  44. Matarese V, Shashok K (2020) Acknowledging editing and translation: a pending issue in accountability. Account Res 27(4):238���239. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2020.1737525 [DOI: 10.1080/08989621.2020.1737525]
  45. Nishikawa-Pacher A (2022) Who are the 100 largest scientific publishers by journal count? A webscraping approach. J Document 78(7):450���463. https://doi.org/10.1108/JD-04-2022-0083 [DOI: 10.1108/JD-04-2022-0083]
  46. Olson PJ (2020) The case for journal style guides. Sci Edit 43(1):11���13
  47. Park Y, West RA, Pathmendra P, Favier B, Stoeger T, Capes-Davis A, Cabanac G, Labb�� C, Byrne JA (2022) Identification of human gene research articles with wrongly identified nucleotide sequences. Life Sci Alliance 5:e202101203. https://doi.org/10.26508/lsa.202101203
  48. Parker L, Boughton S, Lawrence R, Bero L (2022) Experts identified warning signs of fraudulent research: a qualitative study to inform a screening tool. J Clin Epidemiol 151:1���17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.07.006 [DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.07.006]
  49. Patience GS, Galli F, Patience PA, Boffito DC (2019) Intellectual contributions meriting authorship: survey results from the top cited authors across all science categories. PLoS One 14(1):e0198117. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0198117 [DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0198117]
  50. P��rez-Neri I, Pineda C, Sandoval H (2022) Threats to scholarly research integrity arising from paper mills: a rapid scoping review. Clin Rheumatol 41(7):2241���2248. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10067-022-06198-9 [DOI: 10.1007/s10067-022-06198-9]
  51. Price B (2015) Writing up research for publication. Nurs Stand 29(19):52���59. https://doi.org/10.7748/ns.29.19.52.e8764 [DOI: 10.7748/ns.29.19.52.e8764]
  52. Ritter K (2005) The economics of authorship: online paper mills, student writers, and first-year composition. College Compos Commun 56(4):601���631. https://doi.org/10.58680/ccc20054824 [DOI: 10.58680/ccc20054824]
  53. Sabel BA, Knaack E, Gigerenzer G, Bilc M (2023) Fake publications in biomedical science: red-flagging method indicates mass production. medRxiv, (preprint, not peer reviewed). https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.05.06.23289563
  54. Sabel BA, Seifert R (2021) How criminal science publishing gangs damage the genesis of knowledge and technology ��� a call to action to restore trust. Naunyn-Schmiedeberg���s Arch Pharmacol 394(11):2147���2151. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00210-021-02158-3 [DOI: 10.1007/s00210-021-02158-3]
  55. Seifert R (2021) How Naunyn-Schmiedeberg���s Archives of Pharmacology deals with fraudulent papers from paper mills. Naunyn-Schmiedeberg���s Arch Pharmacol 394(3):431���436. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00210-021-02056-8 [DOI: 10.1007/s00210-021-02056-8]
  56. Stocks A, Simcoe D, Toroser D, DeTora L (2018) Substantial contribution and accountability: best authorship practices for medical writers in biomedical publications. Curr Med Res Opin 34(6):1163���1168. https://doi.org/10.1080/03007995.2018.1451832 [DOI: 10.1080/03007995.2018.1451832]
  57. Stupple A, Singerman D, Celi LA (2019) The reproducibility crisis in the age of digital medicine. NPJ Digit Med 2:2. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41746-019-0079-z [DOI: 10.1038/s41746-019-0079-z]
  58. Sweeney S (2023) Who wrote this? Essay mills and assessment ��� considerations regarding contract cheating and AI in higher education. Int J Manage Educ 21(2):100818. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2023.100818 [DOI: 10.1016/j.ijme.2023.100818]
  59. Teixeira da Silva JA (2017) Ethical exceptionalism: can publishing rules be manipulated to give the impression of ethical publishing? Bangladesh J Med Sci 16(4):610���614. https://doi.org/10.3329/bjms.v16i4.33623 [DOI: 10.3329/bjms.v16i4.33623]
  60. Teixeira da Silva JA (2020) Simplify manuscript submission and optimize authors��� resources by eliminating formatting and cover letters. Eur Sci Edit 46:e52063. https://doi.org/10.3897/ese.2020.e52063 [DOI: 10.3897/ese.2020.e52063]
  61. Teixeira da Silva JA (2021a) Outsourced English revision, editing, publication consultation, and integrity services should be acknowledged in an academic paper. J Nanopart Res 23(4):81. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-021-05199-0
  62. Teixeira da Silva JA (2021b) Paper mills and on-demand publishing: risks to the integrity of journal indexing and metrics. Med J Armed Forces India 77(1):119���120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mjafi.2020.08.003
  63. Teixeira da Silva JA (2022a) Does the culture of science publishing need to change from the status quo principle of ���trust me���? Nowotwory J Oncol 7(2):137���138. https://doi.org/10.5603/NJO.a2022.0001
  64. Teixeira da Silva JA (2022b) A synthesis of the formats for correcting erroneous and fraudulent academic literature, and associated challenges. J Gen Philosophy Sci 53(4):583���599. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10838-022-09607-4
  65. Teixeira da Silva JA (2022c) When academic papers��� stated emails do not match authors��� affiliations: a new budding crisis in paper mill-ridden academic publishing? Epist��m��s Metron Logos 8:1���8. https://doi.org/10.12681/eml.31441
  66. Teixeira da Silva JA (2023) Must the ICMJE and COPE guidelines and/or recommendations be interpreted (and used) as voluntary advice or as mandatory rules? Health Policy Technol 12(4):100817. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hlpt.2023.100817 [DOI: 10.1016/j.hlpt.2023.100817]
  67. Teixeira da Silva JA, Vuong Q-H (2021) Do legitimate publishers profit from error, misconduct or fraud? Exchanges 8(3):55���68. https://doi.org/10.31273/eirj.v8i3.785 [DOI: 10.31273/eirj.v8i3.785]
  68. Teixeira da Silva JA, Dobr��nszki J, Van PT, Payne WA (2013) Corresponding authors: rules, responsibilities and risks. Asian Austr J Plant Sci Biotechnol 7(Special issue 1):16���20
  69. Teixeira da Silva JA, Tsigaris P, Vuong Q-H (2023) Acknowledgments in scientific papers. Publish Res Quart 39(3):280���299. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12109-023-09955-z [DOI: 10.1007/s12109-023-09955-z]
  70. Tsigaris P, Teixeira da Silva JA (2023) The role of ChatGPT in scholarly editing and publishing. Eur Sci Edit 49:e101121. https://doi.org/10.3897/ese.2023.e101121 [DOI: 10.3897/ese.2023.e101121]
  71. Tsigaris P, Kendall G, Teixeira da Silva JA (2023) What does ChatGPT advise about predatory publishing? J Profess Nurs 49:188���189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.profnurs.2023.08.002 [DOI: 10.1016/j.profnurs.2023.08.002]
  72. Tumin D, Tobias JD (2019) The peer review process. Saudi J Anaesthes 13(Suppl 1):S52���S58. https://doi.org/10.4103/sja.SJA_544_18 [DOI: 10.4103/sja.SJA_544_18]
  73. Turner J (2011) Rewriting writing in higher education: the contested spaces of proofreading. Stud High Educ 36(4):427���440. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075071003671786 [DOI: 10.1080/03075071003671786]
  74. Uysal HH, Selvi B (2021) Writing centers as a solution to the problems of international scholars in writing for publication. Int Online J Educ Teaching (IOJET) 8(1):288���309
  75. Wager E, Barbour V, Yentis S, Kleinert S (2009) Retractions: Guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Croat Med J 50(6):532���535. https://doi.org/10.3325/cmj.2009.50.532 [DOI: 10.3325/cmj.2009.50.532]
  76. Weaver S (2019) The harms of ignoring the social nature of science. Synthese 196(1):355���375. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-017-1479-8 [DOI: 10.1007/s11229-017-1479-8]
  77. Whitbeck C (1995) Truth and trustworthiness in research. Sci Eng Ethics 1(4):403���416. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02583258 [DOI: 10.1007/BF02583258]
  78. Wittau J, Seifert R (2024) Metadata analysis of retracted fake papers in Naunyn-Schmiedeberg���s Archives of Pharmacology. Naunyn-Schmiedeberg���s Arch Pharmacol 397(6):3995���4011. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00210-023-02850-6
  79. Wykes T, Parkinson A (2023) The anxiety of the lone editor: fraud, paper mills and the protection of the scientific record. J Mental Health 32(5):865���868. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638237.2023.2232217 [DOI: 10.1080/09638237.2023.2232217]
  80. Xu Y, Li W (2023) The causes and prevention of commercial contract cheating in the era of digital education: a systematic & critical review. J Acad Ethics 21(2):303���321. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-022-09457-1 [DOI: 10.1007/s10805-022-09457-1]
  81. Yeo-Teh NSL, Tang BL (2023) 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 29(4):24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-023-00447-z [DOI: 10.1007/s11948-023-00447-z]
  82. Zakaria MS (2022) Online manuscript editing services for multilingual authors: a content analysis study. Sci Technol Librar 41(1):90���111. https://doi.org/10.1080/0194262X.2021.1932695 [DOI: 10.1080/0194262X.2021.1932695]

MeSH Term

Publishing
Humans
Authorship

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0servicesTPSuseillegitimatescientificliteraturepublishingpublicationsthird-partyacademicsscholarlyprovideeditingsupportfailureacademicpublisherssubstantialbodyassist"publicationconsultants"widerangeresearchteamslackequipmentskillsmotivationtimeproducepaperwithoutexternalassistancelanguagestatisticalgraphicdesigncommonoftenlegitimatealsosendunsolicitede-mailsspamofferingtypespotentialthreatenintegritypeer-reviewedextremecasesfor-profitagenciesknown"papermills"evenofferfakeauthorshipslotssalewellacknowledgeethicalviolationdeclarecanconsideredformcontractfrauddiscusshighlightcurrentlyofferedtenlargestcommercialexpectauthorstransparentethical/moralienon-commercialpointviewresponsibilityeditorsjournalsbestinterestensureidentifiedprohibitedpublisher-employedproperlydisclosedundeclaredserviceprovidersunethical:epistemicreflectionscopingreviewEnglishEthicsLanguageOutsourcingSupportTranslationUnethicalbehavior

Similar Articles

Cited By

No available data.