Hypothesis, analysis and synthesis: it's all Greek to me!

Iliopoulos, I.; Ananiadou, S.; Danchin, A.; Ioannidis, J. P.; Katsikis, P. D.; Ouzounis, C. A.; Promponas, V. J.

doi:10.1101/561175

Home/Archive/bioRxiv

bioRxiv · 10.1101/561175

Hypothesis, analysis and synthesis: it's all Greek to me!

Iliopoulos, I.·Ananiadou, S.·Danchin, A.·Ioannidis, J. P.·Katsikis, P. D.·Ouzounis, C. A.·Promponas, V. J.

View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

The linguistic foundations of science and technology have relied on a range of terms many of which are borrowed from ancient languages, a known but little researched fact from a statistical perspective. Precise definitions and novel concepts are often crafted with those -- frequently used -- terms, yet their etymology from Greek or Latin might not always be fully appreciated. Herein, we demonstrate that frequently used terms span almost the entire PubMed(R) database, while a handful of terms of Greek origin retrieve 80% of all entries. We argue that the etymology of those critical terms needs to be fully grasped to ensure correct use, in conjunction with other concepts. We further propose a number of terms for genomics, using prepositions that can accurately define subtle sub-disciplines of this ever-expanding field. Finally, we invite commentary by both the science community and the humanities, for possible adoption of suggested terms, not least to avoid inaccurate usage or inappropriate notions that may compromise clarity of meaning.

Source connections

Published article ↗

Explore related subjects

scientific communication and education Preprint

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

Iliopoulos, I., Ananiadou, S., Danchin, A., Ioannidis, J. P., Katsikis, P. D., Ouzounis, C. A., Promponas, V. J.. 2019-02-28. Hypothesis, analysis and synthesis: it's all Greek to me!. https://doi.org/10.1101/561175

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related preprints

bioRxiv2026

Evaluating Large Language Models as Tools to Navigate Researchers in Rapidly Evolving Research Landscapes: A Case Study in Cancer Drug Response Prediction

Large Language Models (LLMs) have emerged as promising tools for assisting researchers in automating and accelerating the synthesis of literature reviews. However, their reliability is a significant concern due to issues like factual inaccuracies and hallucinations. The key question is whether LLMs can reliably provide comprehensive, up-to-date overviews and analyses. This study evaluates the performance of three leading LLMs (OpenAI's ChatGPT, Google's Gemini, and DeepSeek) on the complex task of generating a comprehensive survey paper on deep learning for cancer Drug Response Prediction (DRP). By testing both standard and Deep Research (DR) / Deep Think (DT) modes of LLMs with prompts of varying detail, this paper assesses key academic dimensions, including reference management, content quality, and analytical depth. Key findings reveal that while DR modes of LLMs significantly improve reliability by eliminating hallucinations, performance variations exist across models and prompts. A trade-off between reference quantity and integration quality was observed, and even the best-performing models lacked the analytical depth of human experts, often requiring extensive human supervision. The study concludes that LLMs currently serve as powerful assistive tools but still cannot replace the critical validation and synthesis provided by human researchers. Choosing the best LLM to use depends on the task in hand, while several strategies can be implemented to improve the produced output.

scientific communication and education↗

bioRxiv2019

A qualitative study exploring researchers’ perspectives on authorship decision-making

BackgroundAuthorship has major implications for a researchers promotion and tenure, future funding, and career opportunities. Due in part to these high-stakes consequences, many journals require authors to meet formal authorship criteria, e.g. the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) criteria for authorship. Yet on multiple surveys, researchers admit to violating these criteria, suggesting that authorship practices are a complex issue. Using qualitative methods, we aimed to unpack the complexities inherent in researchers conceptualizations of questionable authorship practices and to identify factors that make researchers vulnerable to engaging in such practices.\n\nMethods and FindingsWe conducted an interview study with a purposeful sample of 26 North American medical education researchers holding MD (n=17) and PhD (n=9) degrees and representing a range of career stages. We asked participants to respond to two vignettes - one portraying honorary authorship, the other describing an author order scenario - and then to describe related authorship experiences. Through thematic analysis, we found that participants, even when familiar with ICMJE criteria, conceptualized questionable authorship practices in various ways and articulated several ethical gray areas. We identified personal and situational factors, including hierarchy, resource dependence, institutional culture and gender, that contributed to participants vulnerability to and involvement in questionable authorship practices. Participants described negative instances of questionable authorship practices as well as situations in which these practices occurred for virtuous purposes. Participants rationalized that engagement in questionable authorship practices, while technically violating authorship criteria, could be reasonable when the practices seemed to benefit science and junior researchers. Participants described negative instances of questionable authorship practices as well as situations in which these practices occurred for virtuous purposes. Participants rationalized that engagement in questionable authorship practices, while technically violating authorship criteria, could be reasonable when the practices seemed to benefit science and junior researchers.\n\nConclusionAuthorship guidelines, such as the ICMJE criteria, portray authorship decisions as black and white, effectively sidestepping key dimensions that create ethical shades of gray. Our findings show that researchers generally recognize these shades of gray and in some cases acknowledge breaking or bending the rules themselves. Sometimes, their flexibility in applying rules of authorship is driven by benevolent aims that align with their own values or prevailing norms such as generosity and inclusivity. Other times, their participation in questionable authorship practices is framed not as a choice, but rather as a consequence of their vulnerability to individual or system factors beyond their control. Taken together, the findings reported here provide insights that may help researchers and institutions move beyond recognition of the challenges of authorship and contribute to the development of informed, evidence-based solutions for questionable authorship practices.

scientific communication and education↗

bioRxiv2019

Prevalence and Determinants of Caesarean Section in South and South-east Asian Women

BackgroundCaesarean section is considered a preferable and safe method of delivery. In the last decade, its prevalence has increased in both developed and developing countries. In the context of developing countries viz., South Asia (the highest populated region) and South-east Asia (the third highest populated region), the preference for, and variation in, caesarean section delivery and its associated maternal socioeconomic characteristics are still to be determined.\n\nObjectiveTo study the magnitude of caesarean delivery in the South and South-east Asian countries, by correlating the maternal socioeconomic characteristics with the preference for caesarean sections.\n\nMethodologyData on ever-married women of nine developing countries of South and South-east Asia viz., Vietnam, India, Maldives, Timor-Leste, Nepal, Indonesia, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Cambodia, from Demographic and Health Survey has considered. Both bivariate and multivariate binary logistic regression models were used to estimate the probability that a woman undergoes caesarean section and to assess the influence of maternal socioeconomic characteristics towards the preference for caesarean section.\n\nConclusionIn seven urban and four rural regions of nine South and South-East Asian countries, a significant inclination towards the caesarean delivery above the more recent outdate WHO recommended optimal range of 10-15% or the more recent study by top researchers of 19% has been found. The analysis confirmed that the prevalence of caesarean section and its associated maternal socioeconomic characteristics varied widely among these nine South and South-East Asian countries.

scientific communication and education↗