Search

This article from the editors of the "Academy of Management Review" states that a rejection of a theory-only paper doesn't imply that the effort was in vain, as the content can be repurposed into other publication formats including literature reviews, structured theory articles, inductive and abductive studies, or deductive and hypothesis-testing research. These alternative formats address common challenges faced by theory paper authors, potentially increasing the impact and preserving core ideas of the original work. Authors are encouraged to utilize developmental feedback and resources to improve their manuscripts and explore different formats to advance their theoretical contributions, whether their initial submissions are successful or not.

In research, outcomes are often categorized as primary and secondary. The primary outcome is the most important one; it determines whether the study is considered 'successful' or not. Secondary outcomes are chosen because they provide supporting evidence for the results of the primary outcome or additional information about the subject being studied. For reasons that are explained in this paper, secondary outcomes should be cautiously interpreted. There are varying practices regarding publishing secondary outcomes. Some authors publish these separately, while others include them in the main publication. In some contexts, the former can lead to concerns about the quality and relevance of the data being published. In this article, we discuss primary and secondary outcomes, the importance and interpretation of secondary outcomes, and considerations for publishing multiple outcomes in separate papers. We also discuss the special case of secondary analyses and post hoc analyses and provide guidance on good publishing practices. Throughout the article, we use relevant examples to make these concepts easier to understand. While the article is primarily aimed at early career researchers, it offers insights that may be helpful to researchers, reviewers, and editors across all levels of expertise. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Following the onset of COVID-19, research production in economics and finance (measured by the posting of working papers) increased by 29 |$\%$|⁠. Production increases were widespread across geographies, job titles, departments, and ages with larger increases in top departments and for people under the age of 35. Men and women both experienced production increases with the exception of women between the age of 35 and 49, who experienced no production gains despite large increases for men in the same age group. COVID-19 increased reliance on past coauthorship networks, with larger production gains for authors that are more central to the network. Authors have furnished an Internet Appendix , which is available on the Oxford University Press Web site next to the link to the final published paper online. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The International Journal of Market Research (IJMR) is celebrating its sixty-fifth anniversary. Over the past decade, the journal has experienced significant growth in readership, impact factor, citations, and submissions. While the majority of accepted papers come from the United States, United Kingdom, Australia, and Germany, the journal aims to bridge the gap between academia and practice in the field of market research. In order to enhance its relevance and accessibility, IJMR will transition to an online-only format, adopt an interdisciplinary focus, provide guidelines for more user-friendly article formats, and publish a list of research priorities based on the perspectives of leading practitioners. [Extracted from the article]

A scientist reviewing a study spotted figures that looked identical to his own, leading to a frustrating campaign to prevent its publication. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the rapid evolving landscape of artificial intelligence (AI), scientific publishing is experiencing significant transformations. AI tools, while offering unparalleled efficiencies in paper drafting and peer review, also introduce notable ethical concerns. This study delineates AI's dual role in scientific publishing: as a co-creator in the writing and review of scientific papers and as an ethical challenge. We first explore the potential of AI as an enhancer of efficiency, efficacy, and quality in creating scientific papers. A critical assessment follows, evaluating the risks vs. rewards for researchers, especially those early in their careers, emphasizing the need to maintain a balance between AI's capabilities and fostering independent reasoning and creativity. Subsequently, we delve into the ethical dilemmas of AI's involvement, particularly concerning originality, plagiarism, and preserving the genuine essence of scientific discourse. The evolving dynamics further highlight an overlooked aspect: the inadequate recognition of human reviewers in the academic community. With the increasing volume of scientific literature, tangible metrics and incentives for reviewers are proposed as essential to ensure a balanced academic environment. AI's incorporation in scientific publishing is promising yet comes with significant ethical and operational challenges. The role of human reviewers is accentuated, ensuring authenticity in an AI-influenced environment. As the scientific community treads the path of AI integration, a balanced symbiosis between AI's efficiency and human discernment is pivotal. Emphasizing human expertise, while exploit artificial intelligence responsibly, will determine the trajectory of an ethically sound and efficient AI-augmented future in scientific publishing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Key points: Academia is already witnessing the abuse of authorship in papers with text generated by large language models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT.LLM‐generated text is testing the limits of publishing ethics as we traditionally know it.We alert the community to imminent risks of LLM technologies, like ChatGPT, for amplifying the predatory publishing 'industry'.The abuse of ChatGPT for the paper mill industry cannot be over‐emphasized.Detection of LLM‐generated text is the responsibility of editors and journals/publishers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper provides insights into the paper submission and review processes and the possible reasons behind paper acceptance or rejection. The main target of this paper is emerging researchers who are writing their first scientific papers in peer-reviewed journals. This manuscript gives clues on how to select a journal and what a preprint is, introduces authorship and the roles of editors, reviewers, and publishers, sheds light on the editorial process, and briefly introduces some ethical issues arising in scholarly publishing. The content is based on a course offered annually to doctoral students at the University of Milan and keeps into account frequently asked questions. The authors of this paper are an editor-in-chief and an associated editor of scientific journals, respectively. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Blockchain technology has gained significant attention in recent years for its potential to revolutionize various sectors, including finance, supply chain management, and digital forensics. While blockchain's decentralization enhances security, it complicates the identification and tracking of illegal activities, making it challenging to link blockchain addresses to real-world identities. Also, although immutability protects against tampering, it introduces challenges for forensic investigations as it prevents the modification or deletion of evidence, even if it is fraudulent. Hence, this paper provides a systematic literature review and examination of state-of-the-art studies in blockchain forensics to offer a comprehensive understanding of the topic. This paper provides a comprehensive investigation of the fundamental principles of blockchain forensics, exploring various techniques and applications for conducting digital forensic investigations in blockchain. Based on the selected search strategy, 46 articles (out of 672) were chosen for closer examination. The contributions of these articles were discussed and summarized, highlighting their strengths and limitations. This paper examines the selected papers to identify diverse digital forensic frameworks and methodologies used in blockchain forensics, as well as how blockchain-based forensic solutions have enhanced forensic investigations. In addition, this paper discusses the common applications of blockchain-based forensic frameworks and examines the associated legal and regulatory challenges encountered in conducting a forensic investigation within blockchain systems. Open issues and future research directions of blockchain forensics were also discussed. This paper provides significant value for researchers, digital forensic practitioners, and investigators by providing a comprehensive and up-to-date review of existing research and identifying key challenges and opportunities related to blockchain forensics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Monsanto company – now acquired by Bayer – has been accused of ghostwriting articles within peer review literature, with the goal of using influential names to front its content in defence of the herbicide Roundup. Here, I conduct a detailed analysis of three Monsanto review articles and a five-article journal supplement for which detailed information from company emails is publicly available following litigation over Roundup. All the articles had external, but not Monsanto authors, and ghostly practices including ghost authorship, corporate ghost authorship and ghost management were evident in their development. There was clear evidence of ghostwriting – that is, drafting of the manuscript by non-authors – in only two cases. I found no evidence of undeserving authorship among the external authors. The articles complied with the disclosure requirements of their journals, save for the journal supplement. While crude ghostwriting did occur, much of the literature involved subtler practices through which Monsanto exercised control over content, while the attribution of the articles downplayed the company's role – and correspondingly aggrandized that of the external authors. Such practices are widespread within industry journal literature and are the responsibility of byline authors and journals as well as corporations. I discuss these cultural problems and consider remedies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Literary reading is under transformation. Digital devices supplement traditional paper books with e-books and audiobooks, and at the same time, ubiquitous digital connection challenges focused reading. Based on a qualitative interview study with adult leisure readers, this article explores how affordances offered by digital technologies influence reading habits. Informants demonstrate how e-books and audiobooks enhance reading experiences, as digital affordances influence the how and the when of literary consumption. Three prominent findings are stated. (1) Readers adapt reading mode to the situation, and experienced readers have developed strategies to maximise the ultimate combination of title, format and reading conditions. (2) Digital reading favours lighter texts. This dimension is more substantial for audiobooks, relating to the wide choice of combining audiobooks with other activities. (3) Being devoted readers motivates people to develop strategies to ensure further reading. These strategies effectively make readers practically and temporally disconnect to immerse in literature. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article provides a guide on writing original research papers, emphasizing the importance of adhering to international guidelines and journal-specific instructions for successful publication. It also discusses the preparation of research papers from early study phases, the use of guidelines such as CONSORT and STROBE for different research types, and the need for clear, concise scientific language.

The article focuses on the reasons behind the rejection of papers submitted to the Journal of Mental Health, highlighting the increasing number of submissions and the rigorous review process. Topics include the importance of meeting submission criteria, considerations during the scientific evaluation process, and specific guidelines for different types of studies, such as prioritizing international importance and avoiding redundant research on topics like COVID-19.

Arguably ChatGPT jeopardizes the integrity and validity of the academic publications instead of ethically facilitating them. ChatGPT can apparently fulfill a portion of one of the four authorship criteria set by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), i.e., "drafting." However, the authorship criteria by ICMJE must all be collectively met, not singly or partially. Many published manuscripts or preprints have credited ChatGPT by including it in the author byline, and the academic publishing enterprise seems to be unguided on how to handle such manuscripts. Interestingly, PLoS Digital Health removed ChatGPT off a paper which had ChatGPT listed initially in the author byline of the preprint version. Revised publishing policies are, thus, promptly required to guide a consistent stance regarding ChatGPT or similar artificial content generators. Publishing policies must accord among publishers, preprint servers (https://asapbio.org/preprint-servers), universities, and research institutions worldwide and across different disciplines. Ideally, considering any declaration of the contribution of ChatGPT to writing any scientific article should be recognized as publishing misconduct immediately and be retracted. Meanwhile, all parties involved in the scientific reporting and publishing must be educated about how ChatGPT fails to meet the essential authorship criteria, so that no author must submit a manuscript with ChatGPT contributing as a "co-author." Meanwhile, using ChatGPT for writing laboratory reports or short summaries of experiments may be acceptable, but not for academic publishing or formal scientific reporting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article explores the impact of the Nobel Prize in Literature on the acquisition policies of literary archives. Focusing on laureates and the twenty-first-century fate of their manuscripts, it argues that the international reach of the prize is mirrored by a contemporary archival landscape that is at once global and unequal. Although many archives concentrate on collecting material from the linguistic and cultural context of which they themselves form part, the past two decades have also seen the emergence of a competitive international market for the papers of authors whose writings are marked – through high-profile distinctions such as the Nobel Prize – as belonging to the world literary canon. Illustrating its larger argument with the help of three case studies (Harold Pinter, J.M. Coetzee, Gabriel García Márquez), the article suggests that archivization consecrates laureates' papers as global heritage at the same time that it reinforces the logic of literary nativism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As the field of ophthalmology has evolved in the last several decades, so has the gender distribution of ophthalmologists. We conducted a narrative review to further characterise the status of women in the realm of publication, presentations, editorial positions, grants, academic promotion, and financial compensation. While the proportion of women publishing, presenting, and filling academic and editorial roles has increased over time, it still does not match that of men. Women are more likely to be first authors instead of senior authors, have lower average h‐indices, and are awarded fewer grants. The magnitude of some of these differences is smaller when adjusted for women's shorter career duration on average. Despite increased representation of women in ophthalmology, women continue to receive less compensation for the same work. This review highlights that more can be done to improve gender parity in ophthalmology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: To describe the use of bibliometrics in nursing and assess their contribution to research and practice. Design: A content analysis was conducted of topics, data sources and applications of bibliometrics in nursing research articles. Methods: The study universe included 129 bibliometric articles on nursing retrieved from Scopus. A content analysis was performed to identify the purposes and topics of the articles, the sources employed to collect the data, the time frames covered, the amounts of records surveyed, and the features of the nursing literature analysed in bibliometric papers. Results: Nursing bibliometric research revolves around six key areas: global descriptions of the nursing literature, literature on specific nursing research topics, nursing education, nursing profession, nursing research using a certain framework or method, and nursing literature published in a country or region. Studies rely on three types of sources to retrieve the surveyed literature: bibliographic databases, sets of disciplinary journals and samples of documents. Bibliometrics can be employed to advance nursing research (identification of research gaps, establishment of research agendas, assessment of methodological approaches, etc.) and practice (identification of professional competences, categorisation of professional tasks, recognition of educational improvements, etc.), suggesting new avenues for researchers who aim to conduct further bibliometric research in the field. Further research is needed to assess the coverage of the nursing literature by new bibliographic data sources and to explore unaddressed topics such as gender imbalance in authorship. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The value of large‐scale collaborations for solving complex problems is widely recognized, but many barriers hinder meaningful authorship for all on the resulting multi‐author publications. Because many professional benefits arise from authorship, much of the literature on this topic has focused on cheating, conflict and effort documentation. However, approaches specifically recognizing and creatively overcoming barriers to meaningful authorship have received little attention.We have developed an inclusive authorship approach arising from 15 years of experience coordinating the publication of over 100 papers arising from a long‐term, international collaboration of hundreds of scientists.This method of sharing a paper initially as a storyboard with clear expectations, assignments and deadlines fosters communication and creates unambiguous opportunities for all authors to contribute intellectually. By documenting contributions through this multi‐step process, this approach ensures meaningful engagement by each author listed on a publication.The perception that co‐authors on large authorship publications have not meaningfully contributed underlies widespread institutional bias against multi‐authored papers, disincentivizing large collaborations despite their widely recognized value for advancing knowledge. Our approach identifies and overcomes key barriers to meaningful contributions, protecting the value of authorship even on massively multi‐authored publications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An editorial is presented discussing the crucial role of practitioner papers in health marketing, emphasizing the need for collaboration between academics and practitioners. Topics include the unique value of practitioner papers, barriers and enablers to publishing, and guidance for both practitioners and editors to facilitate successful publication.

Identifying the factors that influence the citation of articles helps authors improve the impact and reach of their research. Analysis of publications in the Journal of Fish Biology between 2008 and 2021 revealed that variables such as the number of keywords, abstract length, number of authors, and page length were associated with higher impact papers. These trends applied to both review and regular papers. These findings suggest that papers that are more informative, have higher numbers of authors, and have more keywords are more likely to be cited. Adoption of some simple "best‐practice" behaviors can improve the likelihood that a paper is cited. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Apart from her familiar fiction and memory writing, Colette wrote hundreds of short pieces for the periodical press. Some of these are theatre and music criticism; many are chroniques. This article selects several of these in which Colette reflects on this very fluid genre. Firstly, she receives advice from a child about writing without an assigned topic. This is a parodic poetics. Secondly, she tells us where she finds her topics: it is in the streets, not in the "factory" that makes the paper. Yet, in an evident paradox, her vehicle for this lesson is a story about crackpots who do not respect this boundary. Thirdly, in another paradox, she wanders in the streets, writing while taking time off from writing. This last chronique foreshadows the work of Ross Chambers on Loiterature. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper deals with a new stochastic method to solve Lotka's Law with higher degree of Newton-Cotes Quadrature Rule as an alternate method to existing solution of the value determination of the constant part of the power law; so far, M.L. Pao gave a solution with an equation to determine the area under the curve with numerical integration rule with degree=1 which is also known as Trapezoidal Rule. Here, next higher degree 2, popularly known as Simpson's 1/3 rule at closed interval [x 1,] has been used to establish a deterministic equation form to solve authors' productivity realized through Lotka's Law. Re-estimating the value of C with higher degree quadrature rule is very crucial as the probability of inclusion of more area and exclusion of unnecessary area under the curve is more precise. Another area of investigation is the determination of p value (Pao determined p=20), i.e. whether p=20 can be altered? Or equation derived through Simpson's 1/3 rule, whether it can give a minimal residual error beyond p=20. This paper is dedicated to build up a mathematical equation to solve the constant value(C) of the Lotka's law equation as well as enlighten all these investigating points. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

EXCLUSIVE: Poor-quality studies are polluting the literature — a group will study the businesses that produce them to stem the flow of bogus research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Publication science is the scholarly study of various aspects of the academic publishing process. Its applications to COVID-19 literature have been limited. Here, we describe COVID-19 submissions to, and resulting articles published by, the journal Public Health Reports (PHR), an important resource for US public health practice. Methods: We reviewed PHR 's COVID-19 submissions and articles published between March 27, 2020, and March 27, 2023. We coded each article for article type, author affiliation, the categories listed in PHR 's call for COVID-19 papers, and the public health emergency preparedness and response capabilities from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Results: During the study period, PHR received 1545 COVID-19 submissions and published 190 of those articles in a collection, COVID-19 Response. The COVID-19 Response collection included 102 research articles, 29 case study/practice articles, and 24 commentaries. The corresponding author of more than half (52.1%; n = 99) of the articles was affiliated with academia. By the categories listed in PHR 's call for COVID-19 papers, 51 articles addressed health disparities, 38 addressed public health surveillance, and 34 addressed COVID-19 vaccination. By the CDC public health emergency preparedness and response capabilities, 87 articles addressed public health surveillance and epidemiologic investigation, 38 addressed community preparedness, and 32 addressed community recovery. The percentage of articles focused on policy/law was higher early in the pandemic (2020-2021) than later (2022-2023) (9.5% vs <3.0%). During the latter period, articles largely focused on vaccination (12.8%) and contact tracing (10.6%). Conclusions: Articles published in PHR 's COVID-19 Response collection covered a broad range of topics and were authored by contributors from diverse organizations. Our characterization of the COVID-19 output of a representative US public health practice journal can help academic publishing better address informational needs of public health responders. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Literature is a medium of expressing what it is to be human and to feel human, and religious texts are one category of these expressions of humanity. Christian hymns mirror the right beliefs and right practices of their faiths. As such, this study analyzed where man roots and finds his source of worth and identity through selected contemporary hymns. The hymn "My Worth is not in what I own" and "I'd rather have Jesus" were selected using deliberate sampling. The paper utilized a descriptive qualitative design, and subjected the two hymns to both document analysis and thematic analysis, where several observations and interpretations have emerged. Based on the interpreted data, linguistic features show the dominance of the first-person pronouns and negation as effective devices in pointing the meaning and source of worth and identity. Literary devices such as comparison and rhyme also affect the rhythm and understanding of the hymns toward the discovery of one's identity and worth. The Searlean assertive, declarative, and expressive acts are found to be evident in the formation and discovery of one's worth and identity, in that there is assertion, redirection, and response to the newfound/expounded identity and worth. In conclusion, this study provides compelling evidence that material pursuits of the speaker in the two hymns are in no match and comparison to the grander scale of Jesus as ultimate source of identity, worth, pleasure and treasure. These findings have important implications that hymns do not only lay out spiritual and theological truths, but also individual and psycho-social aspects of meaning making of what it is to exist, what it is to be human, and why we exist. As such, this study contributes to our understanding of hymns. Overall, this research highlights the significance of analysis of hymns and suggests potential avenues for future investigation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of ZFA: Zeitschrift für Allgemeinmedizin is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Objective: This study assessed the features of the 100 most‐cited papers on oral health‐related quality of life (OHRQoL). Methods: The 100 most‐cited OHRQoL papers were collected from Web of Science, adopting a combined keyword search strategy. Google Scholar and Scopus databases were searched to compare citations. The following data were extracted from papers: title of the paper, number of citations, authorship, country, year of publication, title of the journal, study design, sample size, topic and OHRQoL instruments used. Graphical bibliometric networks were created using VOSviewer software. Results: The number of citations of the top 100 most‐cited OHRQoL papers ranged from 73 to 949. Fifty‐six papers received at least 100 citations and two received more than 400 citations. Most papers were from Canada (23%) and had been published in Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology (37%). David Locker was the most‐cited author (25 papers; 3,521 citations). The cross‐sectional study design was the most common (68%). The impact of oral health conditions on OHRQoL (43%) was the most frequent topic, and the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP) was the most commonly used OHRQoL instrument (48%). Conclusions: This bibliometric analysis highlighted the characteristics of the 100 most‐cited OHRQoL papers, demonstrating that this field is far from saturated. This list of the most‐cited articles can provide a reference point to guide oral health research, education and services. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article is based on a Keynote Lecture at the 2022 Colloquium of the Society for Educational Studies. It analyses the articles published in four leading journals in 2021 and compares these with the same journals 20 years earlier. Key findings include a considerable increase in authorship and multiple authorship and a very strong international dimension to authorship in current UK-based journals. Two-thirds of the papers were empirical, and by far the most common type of research design was qualitative interview studies, often of a very small-scale nature. Aspects of the teaching profession were the most common form of content, and there was also a focus on social class and multi-cultural issues. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article is a longitudinal bibliometric study of articles from six major universities published over 130 years of the Journal of the American Chemical Society (JACS). The Scopus API (Application Programming Interface) was used to download bibliographic metadata in multiple tables to create a relational database for automated data extraction and manipulation scripts to analyze publishing and citation indicators. The study examined several correlations between average number of institutional, non-institutional, single-and multiple- authored, and international authors per paper and citation counts; open access trends; and page count indicators. Also reported are the characteristics of highly cited papers and the average number of citations for articles. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Problem: Writing for publication is a core activity for many medical school faculty, but faculty report numerous challenges to publication. To help address these challenges, some medical schools establish writing support programs, but those programs are often resource-intensive, involving didactic courses, accountability groups, formal mentorships, and even assistance from professional writers. Not all medical schools, however, provide resources for such programs, and many faculty members, especially clinicians, lack time needed to participate. Furthermore, success of these programs is typically judged by the total number of papers published. However, many clinicians would judge success as publication of the occasional papers they decide to write, not the total number of papers they or the group publish. With these issues in mind, we established a low-resource writing program focused on individual acceptance rates rather than total publications. Intervention: Our writing program is an informal group that meets monthly. Members bring their ideas for papers and drafts of papers, and other members provide critique and suggestions for improvement. Members then revise their papers to address that critique prior to journal submission. There are no formal or assigned mentors, courses, lectures, or writing assistants. Context: The program takes place in our family medicine department, in which faculty have various roles. Some group members are clinician-educators seeking to publish occasional clinical reviews or research articles; others are PhDs seeking to publish on aspects of their work. Impact: During the six years of the program, 86% of papers reviewed by the group were accepted for publication and 94% of those were accepted by the journal to which they were first submitted. Publication success rate of individual members averaged 79%. This exceeds the 30–40% acceptance rate for scholarly journals worldwide. Group members published an average of 5.2 papers per member, with some publishing as few as 2–3 papers and others as many as 10–11. Lessons Learned: An informal, low-resource writing program in medical school departments can help faculty reach their publication goals. We found that members were satisfied by having the group help them publish whatever number of papers they decided to write. The program's simple, informal approach fostered a culture of respectful and collegial interactions, in which members learned to depend on and accept critiques from colleagues. Finally, an unexpected benefit of our program resulted from membership of both clinicians and non-clinicians. This provided feedback from individuals with different perspectives, which enhanced development of manuscripts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper investigates the complex interplay between generative artificial intelligence (AI) and human intellect in academic writing and publishing. It examines the 'organic versus synthetic' paradox, emphasizing the implications of using generative AI tools in educational and academic integrity contexts. The paper critiques the prevalent 'publish or perish' culture in academia, highlighting the need for systemic reevaluation due to generative AI's emerging role in academic writing and reporting. It delves into the legal and ethical challenges of authorship and ownership, especially in relation to copyright laws and AI-generated content. The paper discusses generative AI's diverse roles and advocates for transparent reporting to uphold academic integrity. Additionally, it calls for a broader examination of generative AI tools and stresses the need for new mechanisms to identify generative AI use and ensure adherence to academic integrity and ethics. The implications of generative AI are also explored, suggesting the need for innovative AI-inclusive strategies in academia. The paper concludes by emphasizing the significance of generative AI in various information-processing domains, highlighting the urgency to adapt and transform academic practices in an era of rapid generative AI-driven change. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article explores the concept and importance of population health metrics, emphasizing the need for multidimensional and integrative measures to assess community health outcomes comprehensively. Topics discussed include the evolution and definitions of population health, the challenges of measuring health disparities and outcomes globally, and the role of innovative methodologies in improving population health assessment and equity.

The article focuses on the introduction of Special Sections in the periodical, inviting Guest Editors to submit proposals for thematic issues. Topics discussed include the process for proposal submission and evaluation; the importance of global relevance and high-quality content; and the journal's recent achievement of reaching Q1 ranking.

We analyze nearly 3,300 submissions to International Tax and Public Finance from 2010–2020 to identify trends in authorship, content, and the overall performance of the journal. Doing so reveals several things. First, in terms of authorship and data sources, there is a clear predominance of OECD countries, especially the US and Europe. These locations particularly dominate publications; while non-OECD authors are on 40% of submissions, they only make up 24% of publications. Second, 90% of submissions have a male coauthor. There is not, however, any significant correlation between author gender and the acceptance rate. Third, issues of tax evasion have become ever more prominent in both submissions and publications. Finally, there is a shift in research towards empirical analysis, especially that using disaggregated data. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of EMPIRIA: Revista de Metodología de Ciencias Sociales is the property of Editorial UNED and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Drawing on drafts and other material from the Harvey Sacks archive this paper examines the development of one of the defining papers of Conversation Analysis, A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-Taking for Conversation (Sacks, Schegloff, and Jefferson 1974). The discussion examines four drafts of the paper along with correspondence between the authors and with William Bright, the editor of the journal Language where it was to be published. The four drafts trace the development of the paper from a 13-page draft to the final 106-page final draft submitted to the journal. By exploring the drafts as they evolved the discussion highlights the development of the central ideas in the paper, the distinctive style of the paper as it is revised, the changes of authorship, and the role of the editor of Language, William Bright, in helping to shape the paper through his own detailed reviews. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

One of the most prevalent themes in Emeric Pressburger's work as a screenwriter is the 'good German', a character who often represents an enemy country, who is nevertheless depicted sympathetically, or, at the very least, as a morally ambiguous character. Figures of this kind appear throughout his works, including his unpublished novels and unfilmed screenplays. This paper will examine some of these unproduced works and contest that Pressburger's writing was a response to the trauma of Nazism and the Holocaust, which stood in conflict to his largely egalitarian outlook in which he believed that all people had some good attributes. In a radical turn for the Jewish screenwriter, Pressburger uses these late works to attempt to come to terms with the moral implications of the Holocaust, considering if revenge can be justified, to what extent one should forgive, and whether acts of kindness could ever outweigh the crimes a person has committed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: This study aimed to analyze the research, publication activities, and perspectives on clinical practices of rheumatology practitioners during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Materials and methods: The survey-based cross-sectional study was designed online and included 24 closed-ended questions. After performing a pilot test and validation of survey, it was conducted among clinicians between September 2021 and December 2021. Results: One-hundred fifteen clinicians (54 males, 61 females; 78.1% in rheumatology practice for at least five years) responded to the survey. The respondents indicated that they worked in coronavirus-related departments, comprising inpatient service (50.4%), consultancy (42.6%), and outpatient clinic (27.8%). Around 40% of clinicians stated they spent less time on scientific research (43.1%) and clinical learning activities (43.2%), while almost the same proportion of them spent more (41.1% and 45.0%, respectively). This study revealed that 53.5% published at least one paper covering mostly COVID-19 in the scientific citation index (SCI) or SCI-expanded (SCI-E) indexed journals. However, nearly half of them did not have any papers published in the SCI/SCI-E (46.5%) or non-SCI/SCI-E indexed (44.6%) journals. Regarding the perspectives of clinicians about clinical practices, they considered fewer biological (57.0%) and nonbiological (55.0%) drug usage, reported fewer outpatient clinic visits (88.2%), more newly diagnosed rheumatic diseases (62.5%), and more disease exacerbations (31.2%). Most of the clinicians (range, 76.2 to 86.3%) thought they accurately managed their patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. Conclusion: Clinicians published mostly coronavirus-related papers in the pandemic era, and in the self-assessment, clinicians thought that they correctly manage their patients. In addition, this study reflected the frequency of academic publications and clinicians’ work routines during the pandemic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: This study aims to shed some light on the subject matter of the exploration of public medical coverage and elderly done as such far across the world. To achieve this objective, a comprehensive bibliometric examination was used to investigate papers published between the years 1960 and 2020. An aggregate of 366 papers was selected and analysed for the same. The investigation endeavours to recognise the journals with outstanding performance in this field, distribution of papers concerning the year of their publication, most referred to papers. Then various maps depicting bibliometric networks are provided, namely, the joint-authorship network map, inter-country joint-authorship network map and keyword co-occurrence network map. Design/methodology/approach: To achieve the objective of this study, the Scopus database was used for comprehending the vast magnitude of information about numerous papers included in this paper. VOSviewer has been used to create a joint-authorship network map, inter-country joint-authorship network map and keywords concurrences network map. Findings: The result of this investigation demonstrates that the highest number of publications came out in the year 2019, the most notable journal is Journal of Aging and Social Policy, and the most referred to research paper is about long-term care insurance (LTCI) in Japan. The USA is the most productive nation with the most elevated number of papers published under its name. Tamiya N. has teamed up with the highest number of authors, which is 29. Again the USA is the nation that participated with the highest number of authors of different countries in the research paper. Originality/value: This paper accord with the current writing on public health insurance and elderly. A much far-reaching and solid image of this sector is given using the bibliometric analysis technique. The authors keen on directing future exploration on this topic can take guidance from the results of this study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Moreover, Willis was not the critic of Locke's views in the I Reasonableness of Christianity i as expressed in I The Occasional Paper: Number I i , and the "Post-Script" to I The Occasional Paper: Number V i . The stylometric evidence from the Delta analysis conflicts with the clear indications that the author of I The Occasional Paper: Number I i also wrote the "Post-Script" to I The Occasional Paper: Number V i . I The Occasional Paper i was a series of anonymous pamphlets covering a diverse range of topics, published in quarto by Matthew Wotton and running for ten numbers from 1697 to 1698.[1] The I Paper i was intended to provide a moderate Anglican perspective through a regular publication rather than one-off pamphlets.[2] It is remembered primarily for its criticisms of Locke, Toland, and its contribution to the Collier controversy.[3] It has always been attributed to Richard Willis ( I bap i . 1664, d. 1734), successively bishop of Gloucester (1715-21), Salisbury (1721-3) and Winchester (1723-34). We were unable to source any published texts for the ascribed author of I The Occasional Paper: Number X i , Mr Hodges, "fellow of Wadham College", and no ascription was provided for I The Occasional Paper: Number VII i ; hence, it was not possible to provide com- parison texts for these two I Occasional Papers i . [Extracted from the article]

The first half of 2023 was dominated by a public discussion of the nature and implications of generative artificial intelligence (genAI) models that are poised to become the most significant cross-cultural global disruptor since the invention of the World-Wide Web. It can be predicted that genAI will affect how cultural heritage is being managed and practiced, primarily by providing analysis and decision-making tools, but also by genAI generated texts and images, in particular reconstructions of objects and sites. The more speculative interpretations of contexts and alternative interpretations generated by genAI models may constitute manifestations of cultural heritage in their own right. But do these constitute human cultural heritage, or are they AI cultural heritage? This paper is a deliberation of the realities and future(s) of cultural heritage in a genAI and post-genAI world. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Inteligencia Artificial: Revista Iberoamericana de Inteligencia Artificial is the property of Sociedad Iberoamericana de Inteligencia Artificial (IBERAMIA) and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Scripta is the property of Scripta and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Given the rapid and significant increase in email data, it is crucial for both individuals and organisations to prioritise the implementation of strong cybersecurity measures to combat attacks such as phishing emails. While continuous research has been made to find the most efficient approach to combating phishing emails, cybercriminals on the other hand continue to be determined, and their techniques become more and more sophisticated. In this paper, we present a novel approach for email classification using a Siamese deep learning network in order to verify authorship. We used the writing style and behavioural characteristics of the authors in this approach to identify the true source of emails and classify them as phishing, legitimate, harassment, or suspicious. This model was evaluated on the SeFACED dataset, where it received an accuracy of 90,12%, showcasing its efficacy in classifying emails, which enhanced email security and contributed to a safer online environment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Picture a simple scenario: a worm, in its modest way, traces a trail of paint as it moves across a sheet of paper. Now shift your imagination to a more complex scene, where a chimpanzee paints on another sheet of paper. A simple question arises: Do you perceive an identical creative process in these two animals? Can both of these animals be designated as authors of their creation? If only one, which one? This paper delves into the complexities of authorship, consciousness, and agency, unpacking the nuanced distinctions between such scenarios and exploring the underlying principles that define creative authorship across different forms of life. It becomes evident that attributing authorship to an animal hinges on its intention to create, an aspect intertwined with its agency and awareness of the creative act. These concepts are far from straightforward, as they traverse the complex landscapes of animal ethics and law. But our exploration does not stop there. Now imagine a robot, endowed with artificial intelligence, producing music. This prompts us to question how we should evaluate and perceive such creations. Is the creative process of a machine fundamentally different from that of an animal or a human? As we venture further into this realm of human-made intelligence, we confront an array of ethical, philosophical, and legal quandaries. This paper provides a platform for a reflective discussion: ethologists, neuroscientists, philosophers, and bioinformaticians converge in a multidisciplinary dialogue. Their insights provide valuable perspectives for establishing a foundation upon which to discuss the intricate concepts of authorship and appropriation concerning artistic works generated by non-human entities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Recently, papers with multiple corresponding authors (co-correspondence) are frequently noticed in scientific journals. This is a trend that parallels a significant increase in research collaboration, but its rapidity raises concern about whether the legitimacy and value of the corresponding authorship are changing or even damaged. This study investigated how extensive and sound the trend of co-correspondence in science and engineering is. The increasing trend of co-correspondence papers was confirmed by examining SCOPUS index (www.scopus.com) for the papers published by scholars of the USA, Japan, South Korea, and China in 2008-09 and 2018-2019. The number of co-correspondence papers indeed increased in all four countries. However, the numbers varied significantly among the countries, markedly higher in South Korea and China cases, which also showed far higher numbers of the papers with a co-corresponding author who is the only member from his group. To dig into reality, South Korean scholars were surveyed with questionnaires regarding the trend of co-correspondence. Over 64% of respondents answered that they had participated in papers where multiple corresponding authors are listed, and 22% of them thought that the co-corresponding author did not play his due role and the co-corresponding authorship was exchanged between friends or given as a courtesy for various reasons. Although corresponding authorship allocation is majorly a concern for journal editors, a trend of inappropriate practices or misuse of co-corresponding authorship calls for local and global academic community awareness. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The authorship policies of scientific journals often assume that in order to be able to properly place credit and responsibility for the content of a collaborative paper we should be able to distinguish the contributions of the various individuals involved. Hence, many journals have introduced a requirement for author contribution statements aimed at making it easier to place credit and responsibility on individual scientists. We argue that from a purely descriptive point of view the practices of collaborating scientists are at odds with the requirement for author contribution statements. We also argue that from a normative point of view the authorship policies may be unnecessary. Our arguments draw on an examination of 35 years of retraction notices in the journal Science. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the rise of "team science" in academia, where research and academic publications are increasingly collaborative efforts. This trend has led to a significant increase in the number of multi-authored papers, with some papers having thousands of authors. However, this raises questions about the ethics of authorship and the transparency of individual contributions. The article highlights the need for clear standards and communication practices regarding authorship roles and contributions. While other disciplines have developed various methods for communicating author contributions, the journal Information Polity invites authors to be more explicit about their co-authors' inputs without imposing a single system. This promotes research ethics and transparency in the field. [Extracted from the article]