Search

Objective: The primary objective of this inquiry was to explore the nexus between authorship attribution in medical literature and accountability for scientific impropriety while assessing the influence of authorial multiplicity on the severity of sanctions imposed., Methods: Probit regression models were employed to scrutinize the impact of authorship on assuming accountability for scientific misconduct, and unordered multinomial logistic regression models were used to examine the influence of authorship and the number of bylines on the severity of punitive measures., Results: First authors and corresponding authors were significantly more likely to be liable for scientific misconduct than other authors and were more likely to be penalized particularly severely. Furthermore, a negative correlation was observed between the number of authors' affiliations and the severity of punitive measures., Conclusion: Authorship exerts a pronounced influence on the attribution of accountability in scientific research misconduct, particularly evident in the heightened risk of severe penalties confronting first and corresponding authors owing to their principal roles. Hence, scientific research institutions and journals must delineate authorship specifications meticulously, ascertain authors' contributions judiciously, bolster initiatives aimed at fostering scientific research integrity, and uphold an environment conducive for robust scientific inquiry., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright: © 2024 Peng et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

Authorship of peer-reviewed journal articles and abstracts has become the primary currency and reward unit in academia. Such a reward is crucial for students and postdocs who are often under-compensated and thus highly value authorship as an incentive. While numerous scientific and publishing organizations have written guidelines for determining author qualifications and author order, there remains much ambiguity when it comes to how these criteria are weighed by research faculty. Here, we sought to provide some initial insight on how faculty view the relative importance of 11 criteria for scientific authorship. We distributed an online survey to 564 biomedical engineering, biology, and bioengineering faculty members at 10 research institutions across the United States. The response rate was approximately 18%, resulting in a final sample of 102 respondents. Results revealed an agreement on some criteria, such as time spent conducting experiments, but there was a lack of agreement regarding the role of funding procurement. This study provides quantitative assessments of how faculty members in the biosciences evaluate authorship criteria. We discuss the implications of these findings for researchers, especially new graduate students, to help navigate the discrepancy between official policies for authorship and the contributions that faculty truly value.

Moderate-to-severe psoriasis is associated with significant comorbidity, an impaired quality of life, and increased medical costs, including those associated with treatments. Systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs) of randomized clinical trials are considered two of the best approaches to the summarization of high-quality evidence. However, methodological bias can reduce the validity of conclusions from these types of studies and subsequently impair the quality of decision making. As co-authorship is among the most well-documented forms of research collaboration, the present study aimed to explore whether authors' collaboration methods might influence the methodological quality of SRs and MAs of psoriasis. Methodological quality was assessed by two raters who extracted information from full articles. After calculating total and per-item Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) scores, reviews were classified as low (0-4), medium (5-8), or high (9-11) quality. Article metadata and journal-related bibliometric indices were also obtained. A total of 741 authors from 520 different institutions and 32 countries published 220 reviews that were classified as high (17.2%), moderate (55%), or low (27.7%) methodological quality. The high methodological quality subnetwork was larger but had a lower connection density than the low and moderate methodological quality subnetworks; specifically, the former contained relatively fewer nodes (authors and reviews), reviews by authors, and collaborators per author. Furthermore, the high methodological quality subnetwork was highly compartmentalized, with several modules representing few poorly interconnected communities. In conclusion, structural differences in author-paper affiliation network may influence the methodological quality of SRs and MAs on psoriasis. As the author-paper affiliation network structure affects study quality in this research field, authors who maintain an appropriate balance between scientific quality and productivity are more likely to develop higher quality reviews.

Quantifying and comparing the scientific output of researchers has become critical for governments, funding agencies and universities. Comparison by reputation and direct assessment of contributions to the field is no longer possible, as the number of scientists increases and traditional definitions about scientific fields become blurred. The h-index is often used for comparing scientists, but has several well-documented shortcomings. In this paper, we introduce a new index for measuring and comparing the publication records of scientists: the pagerank-index (symbolised as π). The index uses a version of pagerank algorithm and the citation networks of papers in its computation, and is fundamentally different from the existing variants of h-index because it considers not only the number of citations but also the actual impact of each citation. We adapt two approaches to demonstrate the utility of the new index. Firstly, we use a simulation model of a community of authors, whereby we create various 'groups' of authors which are different from each other in inherent publication habits, to show that the pagerank-index is fairer than the existing indices in three distinct scenarios: (i) when authors try to 'massage' their index by publishing papers in low-quality outlets primarily to self-cite other papers (ii) when authors collaborate in large groups in order to obtain more authorships (iii) when authors spend most of their time in producing genuine but low quality publications that would massage their index. Secondly, we undertake two real world case studies: (i) the evolving author community of quantum game theory, as defined by Google Scholar (ii) a snapshot of the high energy physics (HEP) theory research community in arXiv. In both case studies, we find that the list of top authors vary very significantly when h-index and pagerank-index are used for comparison. We show that in both cases, authors who have collaborated in large groups and/or published less impactful papers tend to be comparatively favoured by the h-index, whereas the pagerank-index highlights authors who have made a relatively small number of definitive contributions, or written papers which served to highlight the link between diverse disciplines, or typically worked in smaller groups. Thus, we argue that the pagerank-index is an inherently fairer and more nuanced metric to quantify the publication records of scientists compared to existing measures.

Bibliometric studies offer numerous ways of analyzing scientific work. For example, co-citation and bibliographic coupling networks have been widely used since the 1960s to describe the segmentation of research and to look the development of the scientific frontier. In addition, co-authorship and collaboration networks have been employed for more than 30 years to explore the social dimension of scientific work. This paper introduces publication authorship as a complement to these established approaches. Three data sets of academic articles from accounting, astronomy, and gastroenterology are used to illustrate the benefits of publication authorship for bibliometric studies. In comparison to bibliographic coupling, publication authorship produces significantly better intra-cluster cosine similarities across all data sets, which in the end yields a more fine-grained picture of the research field in question. Beyond this finding, publication authorship lends itself to other types of documents such as corporate reports or meeting minutes to study organizations, movements, or any other concerted activity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Peer-reviewed literature is commonly used to assess academic progress and research excellency. However, representation in authorship of global health publications is biased and unfair. In order to shed light on current gaps towards attaining gender equality in scientific production and shift power asymmetries in global health research, we conducted an assessment of authorship trends from 1972 to 2021 with a focus on gender and geographic representation in scientific articles authored or co-authored by researchers affiliated with UNDP/UNFPA/UNICEF/WHO/World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction (HRP)., Methods: We searched PubMed, Web of Science, and HRP public reports for publications where at least one author was affiliated with HRP. Our main outcome measures were author gender and location of author affiliation, classified by region and country income group. We used descriptive statistics to characterize the publications under analysis as well as the total number of authors from the included papers. We applied a logistic regression model to explore associations between author gender and other characteristics of published articles and a time series analysis to assess how time can influence the inclusion of women as authors in a publication. Python and R were used for all analyses., Results: A total of 1,484 publications with 14,424 listed authors representing 5,950 unique authors were included in our analysis: 42.5% were female, 35.1% male, and 22.4% unknown (p<0.0001). First authorship was more likely female (56.9%) and from a high-income country (74.6%, p<0.0001) while last authorship was mostly male (53.7%) also from a high-income country (82.5%, p<0.0001). Females more frequently published papers using qualitative data (61.4%) and reviews/estimates (59.4%) while men published more case control (70.7%) and randomised controlled studies (53.0%), p<0.0001. The adjusted odds of there being a female author increased 4% for every additional year that passed., Conclusion: While there are more females authoring articles as compared to the past, they are still lagging behind with regards to seniority and prestige. Likewise, female representation is closely tied to what institution they are affiliated with and where that institution is located. Global health research institutions need to actively promote change by ensuring women are included in research and research outputs, giving them opportunities to lead., Competing Interests: I have read the journal’s policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: VB and AT were both employed by HRP at the time of this analysis. LOC was contracted by HRP to conduct this analysis. The authors have declared that no other competing interests exist., (Copyright: © 2024 Oliveira-Ciabati et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

The proliferation of team-authored academic work has led to the proliferation of two kinds of authorship misconduct: ghost authorship, in which contributors are not listed as authors and honorary authorship, in which non-contributors are listed as authors. Drawing on data from a survey of 2,222 social scientists from around the globe, we study the prevalence of authorship misconduct in the social sciences. Our results show that ghost and honorary authorship occur frequently here and may be driven by social scientists' misconceptions about authorship criteria. Our results show that they frequently deviate from a common point of authorship reference (the ICMJE authorship criteria). On the one hand, they tend to award authorship more broadly to more junior scholars, while on the other hand, they may withhold authorship from senior scholars if those are engaged in collaborations with junior scholars. Authorship misattribution, even if it is based on a misunderstanding of authorship criteria rather than egregious misconduct, alters academic rankings and may constitute a threat to the integrity of science. Based on our findings, we call for journals to implement contribution disclosures and to define authorship criteria more explicitly to guide and inform researchers as to what constitutes authorship in the social sciences. Our results also hold implications for research institutions, universities, and publishers to move beyond authorship-based citation and publication rankings in hiring and tenure processes and instead to focus explicitly on contributions in team-authored publications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Double-blind peer review is considered a pillar of academic research because it is perceived to ensure a fair, unbiased, and fact-centered scientific discussion. Yet, experienced researchers can often correctly guess from which research group an anonymous submission originates, biasing the peer-review process. In this work, we present a transformer-based, neural-network architecture that only uses the text content and the author names in the bibliography to attribute an anonymous manuscript to an author. To train and evaluate our method, we created the largest authorship-identification dataset to date. It leverages all research papers publicly available on arXiv amounting to over 2 million manuscripts. In arXiv-subsets with up to 2,000 different authors, our method achieves an unprecedented authorship attribution accuracy, where up to 73% of papers are attributed correctly. We present a scaling analysis to highlight the applicability of the proposed method to even larger datasets when sufficient compute capabilities are more widely available to the academic community. Furthermore, we analyze the attribution accuracy in settings where the goal is to identify all authors of an anonymous manuscript. Thanks to our method, we are not only able to predict the author of an anonymous work but we also provide empirical evidence of the key aspects that make a paper attributable. We have open-sourced the necessary tools to reproduce our experiments., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright: © 2023 Bauersfeld et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

Reviewer assignment is critical to peer review systems, such as peer-reviewed research conferences or peer-reviewed funding applications, and its effectiveness is a deep concern of all academics. However, there are some problems in existing peer review systems during reviewer assignment. For example, some of the reviewers are much more stringent than others, leading to an unfair final decision, i.e., some submissions (i.e., papers or applications) with better quality are rejected. In this paper, we propose a context-aware reviewer assignment for trust enhanced peer review. More specifically, in our approach, we first consider the research area specific expertise of reviewers, and the institution relevance and co-authorship between reviewers and authors, so that reviewers with the right expertise are assigned to the corresponding submissions without potential conflict of interest. In addition, we propose a novel cross-assignment paradigm, and reviewers are cross-assigned in order to avoid assigning a group of stringent reviewers or a group of lenient reviewers to the same submission. More importantly, on top of them, we propose an academic CONtext-aware expertise relevanCe oriEnted Reviewer cross-assignmenT approach (CONCERT), which aims to effectively estimate the “true” ratings of submissions based on the ratings from all reviewers, even though no prior knowledge exists about the distribution of stringent reviewers and lenient reviewers. The experiments illustrate that compared with existing approaches, our proposed CONCERT approach can less likely assign more than one stringent reviewers or lenient reviewers to a submission simultaneously and significantly reduce the influence of ratings from stringent reviewers and lenient reviewers, leading to trust enhanced peer review and selection, no matter what kind of distributions of stringent reviewers and lenient reviewers are. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In innovation strategy, a type of Schumpeterian competitive strategy in business administration, "intra-individual diversity" has attracted attention as one factor for creating innovation. In this study, we redefine "framework for identifying researchers' areas of expertise" as "a framework for quantifying intra-individual diversity among researchers. Note that diversity here refers to authorship of articles in multiple research fields. The application of this framework then made it possible to visualize organizational diversity by accumulating the intra-individual diversity of researchers and to discuss the innovation strategy of the organization. The analysis in this study discusses how countries are promoting research on the topics of artificial intelligence (AI), big data, and Internet of Things (IoT) technologies, which are at the core of Industry 4.0, from an innovation perspective. Note that Industry 4.0 is a technological framework that aims to "improve the efficiency of all social systems," "create new industries," and "increase intellectual productivity." For the analysis, we used 19-year bibliographic data (2000-2018) from the top 20 countries in terms of the number of papers in AI, big data, and IoT technologies. As the results, this study classified the styles of cross-disciplinary fusion into four patterns in AI and three patterns in big data. This study did not consider the results in IoT because of only small differences between countries. Furthermore, regional differences in the style of cross-disciplinary fusion were also observed, and the global innovation patterns in Industry 4.0 were classified into seven categories. In Europe and North America, the cross-disciplinary integration style was similar to that between the United States, Germany, the Netherlands, Spain, England, Italy, Canada, and France. In Asia, the cross-disciplinary fusion style was similar between China, Japan, and South Korea., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

The question of whether it is appropriate to attribute authorship to deceased individuals of original studies in the biomedical literature is contentious. Authorship guidelines utilized by journals do not provide a clear consensus framework that is binding on those in the field. To guide and inform the implementation of authorship frameworks it would be useful to understand the extent of the practice in the scientific literature, but studies that have systematically quantified the prevalence of this phenomenon in the biomedical literature have not been performed to date. To address this issue, we quantified the prevalence of publications by deceased authors in the biomedical literature from the period 1990-2020. We screened 2,601,457 peer-reviewed papers from the full text Europe PubMed Central database. We applied natural language processing, stringent filtering and manual curation to identify a final set of 1,439 deceased authors. We then determined these authors published a total of 38,907 papers over their careers with 5,477 published after death. The number of deceased publications has been growing rapidly, a 146-fold increase since the year 2000. This rate of increase was still significant when accounting for the growing total number of publications and pool of authors. We found that more than 50% of deceased author papers were first submitted after the death of the author and that over 60% of these papers failed to acknowledge the deceased authors status. Most deceased authors published less than 10 papers after death but a small pool of 30 authors published significantly more. A pool of 266 authors published more than 90% of their total publications after death. Our analysis indicates that the attribution of deceased authorship in the literature is not an occasional occurrence but a burgeoning trend. A consensus framework to address authorship by deceased scientists is warranted., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Selecting appropriate feature subsets is a vital task in machine learning. Its main goal is to remove noisy, irrelevant, and redundant feature subsets that could negatively impact the learning model's accuracy and improve classification performance without information loss. Therefore, more advanced optimization methods have been employed to locate the optimal subset of features. This paper presents a binary version of the dwarf mongoose optimization called the BDMO algorithm to solve the high-dimensional feature selection problem. The effectiveness of this approach was validated using 18 high-dimensional datasets from the Arizona State University feature selection repository and compared the efficacy of the BDMO with other well-known feature selection techniques in the literature. The results show that the BDMO outperforms other methods producing the least average fitness value in 14 out of 18 datasets which means that it achieved 77.77% on the overall best fitness values. The result also shows BDMO demonstrating stability by returning the least standard deviation (SD) value in 13 of 18 datasets (72.22%). Furthermore, the study achieved higher validation accuracy in 15 of the 18 datasets (83.33%) over other methods. The proposed approach also yielded the highest validation accuracy attainable in the COIL20 and Leukemia datasets which vividly portray the superiority of the BDMO. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The loss of talented women from senior academic positions has partly resulted from a lower number of published papers and the accompanying reduced visibility of female compared to male scientists. The reasons for these gender-differences in authorship is unclear. One potential reason is a bias in the editorial and review process of scientific journals. We investigated whether patterns of authorship and editorial outcome were biased according to gender and geographic location in the Journal of Evolutionary Biology. Such potential bias may contribute to inequality in the field. We found patterns of gender differences in authorship, but this was unrelated to the editorial decision of whether to publish the manuscript. Female first-authors (the lead role) were six times less likely to be named as the corresponding author than male first-authors, and female first-authors were more likely to be displaced as corresponding authors by female co-authors than were male first-authors. We found an under-representation of female first- and last-authors compared to baseline populations of members of the European Society for Evolutionary Biology (which publishes the Journal of Evolutionary Biology) and of Evolutionary Biology faculty at the world top-10 universities for the Life Sciences. Also, manuscripts from Asia were five times more likely to be rejected on the final decision, independent of gender. Overall our results suggest that the peer review processes we investigated at the Journal of Evolutionary Biology are predominately gender-neutral, but not neutral to geographic location. Editorial gender-bias is thus unlikely to be a contributing factor to differences in authorship in this journal. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy (DCM) is a common and disabling condition, with a relatively modest research capacity. In order to accelerate knowledge discovery, the AO Spine RECODE-DCM project has recently established the top priorities for DCM research. Uptake of these priorities within the research community will require their effective dissemination, which can be supported by identifying key opinion leaders (KOLs). In this paper, we aim to identify KOLs using artificial intelligence. We produce and explore a DCM co-authorship network, to characterise researchers' impact within the research field., Methods: Through a bibliometric analysis of 1674 scientific papers in the DCM field, a co-authorship network was created. For each author, statistics about their connections to the co-authorship network (and so the nature of their collaboration) were generated. Using these connectedness statistics, a neural network was used to predict H-Index for each author (as a proxy for research impact). The neural network was retrospectively validated on an unseen author set., Results: DCM research is regionally clustered, with strong collaboration across some international borders (e.g., North America) but not others (e.g., Western Europe). In retrospective validation, the neural network achieves a correlation coefficient of 0.86 (p<0.0001) between the true and predicted H-Index of each author. Thus, author impact can be accurately predicted using only the nature of an author's collaborations., Discussion: Analysis of the neural network shows that the nature of collaboration strongly impacts an author's research visibility, and therefore suitability as a KOL. This also suggests greater collaboration within the DCM field could help to improve both individual research visibility and global synergy., Competing Interests: Have read the journal’s policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: BMD is a National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Clinical Doctoral Research Fellow. This report is independent research arising from a NIHR doctoral research fellowship. The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the National Institute for Health Research or the Department of Health and Social Care. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.

Nowadays, forensic authorship authentication plays a vital role in identifying the number of unknown authors as a result of the world's rapidly rising internet use. This paper presents two-level learning techniques for authorship authentication. The learning technique is supplied with linguistic knowledge, statistical features, and vocabulary features to enhance its efficiency instead of learning only. The linguistic knowledge is represented through lexical analysis features such as part of speech. In this study, a two-level classifier has been presented to capture the best predictive performance for identifying authorship. The first classifier is based on vocabulary features that detect the frequency with which each author uses certain words. This classifier's results are fed to the second one which is based on a learning technique. It depends on lexical, statistical and linguistic features. All of the three sets of features describe the author's writing styles in numerical forms. Through this work, many new features are proposed for identifying the author's writing style. Although, the proposed new methodology is tested for Arabic writings, it is general and can be applied to any language. According to the used machine learning models, the experiment carried out shows that the trained two-level classifier achieves an accuracy ranging from 94% to 96.16%., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

In this paper, we develop two automated authorship attribution schemes, one based on Multiple Discriminant Analysis (MDA) and the other based on a Support Vector Machine (SVM). The classification features we exploit are based on word frequencies in the text. We adopt an approach of preprocessing each text by stripping it of all characters except a-z and space. This is in order to increase the portability of the software to different types of texts. We test the methodology on a corpus of undisputed English texts, and use leave-one-out cross validation to demonstrate classification accuracies in excess of 90%. We further test our methods on the Federalist Papers, which have a partly disputed authorship and a fair degree of scholarly consensus. And finally, we apply our methodology to the question of the authorship of the Letter to the Hebrews by comparing it against a number of original Greek texts of known authorship. These tests identify where some of the limitations lie, motivating a number of open questions for future work. An open source implementation of our methodology is freely available for use at https://github.com/matthewberryman/author-detection. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Authorship is the currency of an academic career for which the number of papers researchers publish demonstrates creativity, productivity, and impact. To discourage coercive authorship practices and inflated publication records, journals require authors to affirm and detail their intellectual contributions but this strategy has been unsuccessful as authorship lists continue to grow. Here, we surveyed close to 6000 of the top cited authors in all science categories with a list of 25 research activities that we adapted from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) authorship guidelines. Responses varied widely from individuals in the same discipline, same level of experience, and same geographic region. Most researchers agreed with the NIH criteria and grant authorship to individuals who draft the manuscript, analyze and interpret data, and propose ideas. However, thousands of the researchers also value supervision and contributing comments to the manuscript, whereas the NIH recommends discounting these activities when attributing authorship. People value the minutiae of research beyond writing and data reduction: researchers in the humanities value it less than those in pure and applied sciences; individuals from Far East Asia and Middle East and Northern Africa value these activities more than anglophones and northern Europeans. While developing national and international collaborations, researchers must recognize differences in peoples values while assigning authorship. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Scholars traditionally receive career credit for a paper based on where in the author list they appear, but position in an author list often carries little information about what the contribution of each researcher was. "Contributorship" refers to a movement to formally document the nature of each researcher's contribution to a project. We discuss the emerging CRediT standard for documenting contributions and describe a web-based app and R package called tenzing that is designed to facilitate its use. tenzing can make it easier for researchers on a project to plan and record their planned contributions and to document those contributions in a journal article., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

In this study, it was investigated whether early tweets counts could differentially benefit female and male (first, last) authors in terms of the later citation counts received. The data for this study comprised 47,961 articles in the research area of Life Sciences & Biomedicine from 2014-2016, retrieved from Web of Science's Medline. For each article, the number of received citations per year was downloaded from WOS, while the number of received tweets per year was obtained from PlumX. Using the hurdle regression model, I compared the number of received citations by female and male (first, last) authored papers and then I investigated whether early tweet counts could predict the later citation counts received by female and male (first, last) authored papers. In the regression models, I controlled for several important factors that were investigated in previous research in relation to citation counts, gender or Altmetrics. These included journal impact (SNIP), number of authors, open access, research funding, topic of an article, international collaboration, lay summary, F1000 Score and mega journal. The findings showed that the percentage of papers with male authors in first or last authorship positions was higher than that for female authors. However, female first and last-authored papers had a small but significant citation advantage of 4.7% and 5.5% compared to male-authored papers. The findings also showed that irrespective of whether the factors were included in regression models or not, early tweet counts had a weak positive and significant association with the later citations counts (3.3%) and the probability of a paper being cited (21.1%). Regarding gender, the findings showed that when all variables were controlled, female (first, last) authored papers had a small citation advantage of 3.7% and 4.2% in comparison to the male authored papers for the same number of tweets., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

The purpose of this paper was to assess the presence of researchers on two author identifier services (ORCID and ResearcherID) and to compare the results with two academic social networks (Academia.edu and ResearchGate) using the categories of discipline, career advancement, and gender in a medium sized multidisciplinary university in France (University of Caen Normandy). Metrics such as number of publications per researcher, h-indexes, and average number of citations were also assessed. Of the 1,047 researchers studied, 673 (64.3%) had at least one profile on the four sites, and the number of researchers having multiple profiles decreased as more sites were studied. Researchers with only one profile numbered 385 (36.8%), while 204 (19.5%) had two, 68 (6.5%) had three, and only 16 (1.5%) had four. ResearchGate had by far the highest number of researchers present, with 569 (54.3%), whereas presence on the other sites was about 15%. We found that, apart from Academia.edu, researchers in Sciences, Technology, and Medicine (STM) were over-represented. Overall, experienced male researchers were over-represented on the sites studied. Our results show that, because of the numerous profiles lacking publication references (particularly on ORCID) and a low presence of researchers on the four sites studied (except for ResearchGate), assessing the number of publications, h-indexes, or average number of citations per article of individuals or institutions remains challenging. Finally, our data showed that French researchers have not adopted the use of the two author identifier sites (i.e. ORCID and ResearcherID). As long as French researchers remain reticent, these sites will not be able to provide the services for which they were created: addressing the problem of author misidentification, consequently providing exhaustive access to scientific production and bibliometric indicators of individual researchers and their institutions., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Academic institutions need to maintain publication lists for thousands of faculty and other scholars. Automated tools are essential to minimize the need for direct feedback from the scholars themselves who are practically unable to commit necessary effort to keep the data accurate. In relying exclusively on clustering techniques, author disambiguation applications fail to satisfy key use cases of academic institutions. Algorithms can perfectly group together a set of publications authored by a common individual, but, for them to be useful to an academic institution, they need to programmatically and recurrently map articles to thousands of scholars of interest en masse. Consistent with a savvy librarian's approach for generating a scholar's list of publications, identity-driven authorship prediction is the process of using information about a scholar to quantify the likelihood that person wrote certain articles. ReCiter is an application that attempts to do exactly that. ReCiter uses institutionally-maintained identity data such as name of department and year of terminal degree to predict which articles a given scholar has authored. To compute the overall score for a given candidate article from PubMed (and, optionally, Scopus), ReCiter uses: up to 12 types of commonly available, identity data; whether other members of a cluster have been accepted or rejected by a user; and the average score of a cluster. In addition, ReCiter provides scoring and qualitative evidence supporting why particular articles are suggested. This context and confidence scoring allows curators to more accurately provide feedback on behalf of scholars. To help users to more efficiently curate publication lists, we used a support vector machine analysis to optimize the scoring of the ReCiter algorithm. In our analysis of a diverse test group of 500 scholars at an academic private medical center, ReCiter correctly predicted 98% of their publications in PubMed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Scientific collaboration is an important mechanism that enables the integration of the least developed countries into research activities. In the present study, we use the order of author signatures and addresses for correspondence in scientific publications as variables to analyze the interactions between countries of very high (VHHD), high (HHD), medium (MHD), and low human development (LHD). Methodology: We identified all documents published between 2011 and 2015 in journals included in the Science Citation Index-Expanded categories’ of Tropical Medicine, Infectious Diseases, Parasitology, and Pediatrics. We then classified the countries participating in the publications according to their Human Development Index (HDI), analyzing the international collaboration; positioning and influence of some countries over others in cooperative networks; their leadership; and the impact of the work based on the HDI and the type of collaboration. Results: We observed a high degree of international collaboration in all the areas analyzed, in the case of both LHD and MHD countries. We identified numerous cooperative links between VHHD countries and MHD/LHD countries, reflecting the fact that cooperative links are an important mechanism for integrating research activities into the latter. The countries with large emerging economies, such as Brazil and China stand out due to the dominance they exert in the collaborations established with the United States, the UK, and other European countries. The analysis of the leadership role of the countries, measured by the frequency of lead authorships, shows limited participation by MHD/LHD countries. This reduced participation among less developed countries is further accentuated by their limited presence in the addresses for correspondence. We observed significant statistical differences in the degree of citation according to the HDI of the participating countries. Conclusions: The order of signatures and the address for correspondence in scientific publications are bibliographic characteristics that facilitate a precise, in-depth analysis of cooperative practices and their associations with concepts like dominance or leadership. This is useful to monitor the existing balance in research participation in health research publications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Despite the extensive literature investigating stylometry analysis in authorship attribution research, translator stylometry is an understudied research area. The identification of translator stylometry contributes to many fields including education, intellectual property rights and forensic linguistics. In a two stage process, this paper first evaluates the use of existing lexical measures for the translator stylometry problem. Similar to previous research we found that using vocabulary richness in its traditional form as it has been used in the literature could not identify translator stylometry. This encouraged us to design an approach with the aim of identifying the distinctive patterns of a translator by employing network-motifs. Networks motifs are small sub-graphs which aim at capturing the local structure of a complex network. The proposed approach achieved an average accuracy of 83% in three-way classification. These results demonstrate that classic tools based on lexical features can be used for identifying translator stylometry if they get augmented with appropriate non-parametric scaling. Moreover, the use of complex network analysis and network motifs mining provided made it possible to design features that can solve translator stylometry analysis problems., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Collaboration among scientists has a major influence on scientific progress. Such collaboration often results from scientific meetings, where scientists gather to present and discuss their research and to meet potential collaborators. However, most scientific meetings have inherent biases, such as the availability of research funding or the selection bias of professional societies that make it difficult to study the effect of the meeting per se on scientific productivity. To evaluate the effects of scientific meetings on collaboration and progress independent of these biases, we conducted a study of the annual symposia held by the International Milk Genomics Consortium (IMGC) over a 12-year period. In our study, we conducted permutation testing to analyze the effectiveness of the IMGC in facilitating collaboration and productivity in a community of milk scientists who were meeting attendees relative to non-attendees. Using the number of co-authorships on published papers as a measure of collaboration, our analysis revealed that scientists who attended the symposium were associated with more collaboration than were scientists who did not attend. Furthermore, we evaluated the scientific progress of consortium attendees by analyzing publication rate and article impact. We found that IMGC attendees, in addition to being more collaborative, were also more productive and influential than were non-attendees who published in the same field. The results of our study suggest that the annual symposium encouraged interactions among disparate scientists and increased research productivity, exemplifying the positive effect of scientific meetings on both collaboration and progress., Competing Interests: DGL and JBG have received travel expenses for attendance to the annual IMGC meeting. Prior to her death, GP was the Executive Director of the California Dairy Research Foundation, a non-profit public research management organization. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials. The authors have no other competing interests.

We aimed to assess which factors correlate with collaborative behavior and whether such behavior associates with scientific impact (citations and becoming a principal investigator). We used the R index which is defined for each author as log(Np)/log(I1), where I1 is the number of co-authors who appear in at least I1 papers written by that author and Np are his/her total papers. Higher R means lower collaborative behavior, i.e. not working much with others, or not collaborating repeatedly with the same co-authors. Across 249,054 researchers who had published ≥30 papers in 2000-2015 but had not published anything before 2000, R varied across scientific fields. Lower values of R (more collaboration) were seen in physics, medicine, infectious disease and brain sciences and higher values of R were seen for social science, computer science and engineering. Among the 9,314 most productive researchers already reaching Np ≥ 30 and I1 ≥ 4 by the end of 2006, R mostly remained stable for most fields from 2006 to 2015 with small increases seen in physics, chemistry, and medicine. Both US-based authorship and male gender were associated with higher values of R (lower collaboration), although the effect was small. Lower values of R (more collaboration) were associated with higher citation impact (h-index), and the effect was stronger in certain fields (physics, medicine, engineering, health sciences) than in others (brain sciences, computer science, infectious disease, chemistry). Finally, for a subset of 400 U.S. researchers in medicine, infectious disease and brain sciences, higher R (lower collaboration) was associated with a higher chance of being a principal investigator by 2016. Our analysis maps the patterns and evolution of collaborative behavior across scientific disciplines.

This paper describes how Atomic Layer Deposition (ALD) has evolved over time using a combination of bibliometric, social network, and text analysis. We examined the rate of knowledge production as well as changes in authors, journals, and collaborators, showing a steady growth of ALD research. The study of the collaboration network of ALD scientists over time points out that the ALD research community is becoming larger and more interconnected, with a largest connected component that spans 90% of the authors in 2015. In addition, the evolution of network centrality measures (degree and betweenness centrality) and author productivity revealed the central figures in ALD over time, including new "stars" appearing in the last decade. Finally, the study of the title words in our dataset is consistent with a shift in focus on research topics towards energy applications and nanotechnology.

Open peer review (OPR) is a cornerstone of the emergent Open Science agenda. Yet to date no large-scale survey of attitudes towards OPR amongst academic editors, authors, reviewers and publishers has been undertaken. This paper presents the findings of an online survey, conducted for the OpenAIRE2020 project during September and October 2016, that sought to bridge this information gap in order to aid the development of appropriate OPR approaches by providing evidence about attitudes towards and levels of experience with OPR. The results of this cross-disciplinary survey, which received 3,062 full responses, show the majority (60.3%) of respondents to be believe that OPR as a general concept should be mainstream scholarly practice (although attitudes to individual traits varied, and open identities peer review was not generally favoured). Respondents were also in favour of other areas of Open Science, like Open Access (88.2%) and Open Data (80.3%). Among respondents we observed high levels of experience with OPR, with three out of four (76.2%) reporting having taken part in an OPR process as author, reviewer or editor. There were also high levels of support for most of the traits of OPR, particularly open interaction, open reports and final-version commenting. Respondents were against opening reviewer identities to authors, however, with more than half believing it would make peer review worse. Overall satisfaction with the peer review system used by scholarly journals seems to strongly vary across disciplines. Taken together, these findings are very encouraging for OPR's prospects for moving mainstream but indicate that due care must be taken to avoid a "one-size fits all" solution and to tailor such systems to differing (especially disciplinary) contexts. OPR is an evolving phenomenon and hence future studies are to be encouraged, especially to further explore differences between disciplines and monitor the evolution of attitudes.

Some scholars add authors to their research papers or grant proposals even when those individuals contribute nothing to the research effort. Some journal editors coerce authors to add citations that are not pertinent to their work and some authors pad their reference lists with superfluous citations. How prevalent are these types of manipulation, why do scholars stoop to such practices, and who among us is most susceptible to such ethical lapses? This study builds a framework around how intense competition for limited journal space and research funding can encourage manipulation and then uses that framework to develop hypotheses about who manipulates and why they do so. We test those hypotheses using data from over 12,000 responses to a series of surveys sent to more than 110,000 scholars from eighteen different disciplines spread across science, engineering, social science, business, and health care. We find widespread misattribution in publications and in research proposals with significant variation by academic rank, discipline, sex, publication history, co-authors, etc. Even though the majority of scholars disapprove of such tactics, many feel pressured to make such additions while others suggest that it is just the way the game is played. The findings suggest that certain changes in the review process might help to stem this ethical decline, but progress could be slow.

Authorship attribution is to identify the most likely author of a given sample among a set of candidate known authors. It can be not only applied to discover the original author of plain text, such as novels, blogs, emails, posts etc., but also used to identify source code programmers. Authorship attribution of source code is required in diverse applications, ranging from malicious code tracking to solving authorship dispute or software plagiarism detection. This paper aims to propose a new method to identify the programmer of Java source code samples with a higher accuracy. To this end, it first introduces back propagation (BP) neural network based on particle swarm optimization (PSO) into authorship attribution of source code. It begins by computing a set of defined feature metrics, including lexical and layout metrics, structure and syntax metrics, totally 19 dimensions. Then these metrics are input to neural network for supervised learning, the weights of which are output by PSO and BP hybrid algorithm. The effectiveness of the proposed method is evaluated on a collected dataset with 3,022 Java files belong to 40 authors. Experiment results show that the proposed method achieves 91.060% accuracy. And a comparison with previous work on authorship attribution of source code for Java language illustrates that this proposed method outperforms others overall, also with an acceptable overhead.

BACKGROUND: The assessment of bone age and skeletal maturity and its comparison to chronological age is an important task in the medical environment for the diagnosis of pediatric endocrinology, orthodontics and orthopedic disorders, and legal environment in what concerns if an individual is a minor or not when there is a lack of documents. Being a time-consuming activity that can be prone to inter- and intra-rater variability, the use of methods which can automate it, like Machine Learning techniques, is of value. OBJECTIVE: The goal of this paper is to present the state of the art evidence, trends and gaps in the research related to bone age assessment studies that make use of Machine Learning techniques. METHOD: A systematic literature review was carried out, starting with the writing of the protocol, followed by searches on three databases: Pubmed, Scopus and Web of Science to identify the relevant evidence related to bone age assessment using Machine Learning techniques. One round of backward snowballing was performed to find additional studies. A quality assessment was performed on the selected studies to check for bias and low quality studies, which were removed. Data was extracted from the included studies to build summary tables. Lastly, a meta-analysis was performed on the performances of the selected studies. RESULTS: 26 studies constituted the final set of included studies. Most of them proposed automatic systems for bone age assessment and investigated methods for bone age assessment based on hand and wrist radiographs. The samples used in the studies were mostly comprehensive or bordered the age of 18, and the data origin was in most of cases from United States and West Europe. Few studies explored ethnic differences. CONCLUSIONS: There is a clear focus of the research on bone age assessment methods based on radiographs whilst other types of medical imaging without radiation exposure (e.g. magnetic resonance imaging) are not much explored in the literature. Also, socioeconomic and other aspects that could influence in bone age were not addressed in the literature. Finally, studies that make use of more than one region of interest for bone age assessment are scarce. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Contemporary biomedical research is performed by increasingly large teams. Consequently, an increasingly large number of individuals are being listed as authors in the bylines, which complicates the proper attribution of credit and responsibility to individual authors. Typically, more importance is given to the first and last authors, while it is assumed that the others (the middle authors) have made smaller contributions. However, this may not properly reflect the actual division of labor because some authors other than the first and last may have made major contributions. In practice, research teams may differentiate the main contributors from the rest by using partial alphabetical authorship (i.e., by listing middle authors alphabetically, while maintaining a contribution-based order for more substantial contributions). In this paper, we use partial alphabetical authorship to divide the authors of all biomedical articles in the Web of Science published over the 1980-2015 period in three groups: primary authors, middle authors, and supervisory authors. We operationalize the concept of middle author as those who are listed in alphabetical order in the middle of an authors' list. Primary and supervisory authors are those listed before and after the alphabetical sequence, respectively. We show that alphabetical ordering of middle authors is frequent in biomedical research, and that the prevalence of this practice is positively correlated with the number of authors in the bylines. We also find that, for articles with 7 or more authors, the average proportion of primary, middle and supervisory authors is independent of the team size, more than half of the authors being middle authors. This suggests that growth in authors lists are not due to an increase in secondary contributions (or middle authors) but, rather, in equivalent increases of all types of roles and contributions (including many primary authors and many supervisory authors). Nevertheless, we show that the relative contribution of alphabetically ordered middle authors to the overall production of knowledge in the biomedical field has greatly increased over the last 35 years.

It is often argued that female researchers publish on average less than male researchers do, but male and female authored papers have an equal impact. In this paper we try to better understand this phenomenon by (i) comparing the share of male and female researchers within different productivity classes, and (ii) by comparing productivity whereas controlling for a series of relevant covariates. The study is based on a disambiguated Swedish author dataset, consisting of 47,000 researchers and their WoS-publications during the period of 2008-2011 with citations until 2015. As the analysis shows, in order to have impact quantity does make a difference for male and female researchers alike-but women are vastly underrepresented in the group of most productive researchers. We discuss and test several possible explanations of this finding, using a data on personal characteristics from several Swedish universities. Gender differences in age, authorship position, and academic rank do explain quite a part of the productivity differences.

Scholars (n = 580) from 69 countries who had contributed articles in the field of Economics during the year 2015 participated in a survey that gauged their perceptions of various aspects of co-authorship, including its benefits, motivations, working relationships, order of authorship and association preferences. Among the main findings, significant differences emerged in the proportion of co-authored papers based on age, gender and number of years the researchers had spent in their present institution. Female scholars had a greater proportion of co-authored papers than male scholars. Respondents considered improved quality of paper, contribution of mutual expertise, and division of labor as the biggest benefits of and motivation for co-authorship. Contrary to common perceptions that Economics researchers used a predominantly alphabetical order of authorship, our study found that a considerable percentage of respondents (34.5%) had practiced an order of authorship based on the significance of the authors' contribution to the work. The relative importance of tasks differed significantly according to whether researchers co-authored as mentors or co-authored as colleagues. Lastly, researchers were found to associate, to varying degrees, with other researchers based on socio-academic parameters, such as nationality, ethnicity, gender, professional position and friendship. The study indicates that Economics authors perceive co-authorship as a rewarding endeavor. Nonetheless, the level of contribution and even the choice of association itself as a co-author depends to a great extent on the type of working relationship and socio-academic factors.

Transdisciplinary collaboration is the key for innovation. An evaluation mechanism is necessary to ensure that academic credit for this costly process can be allocated fairly among coauthors. This paper proposes a set of quantitative measures (e.g., t&#95;credit and t&#95;index) to reflect authors' transdisciplinary contributions to publications. These measures are based on paper-topic probability distributions and author-topic probability distributions. We conduct an empirical analysis of the information retrieval domain which demonstrates that these measures effectively improve the results of harmonic&#95;credit and h&#95;index measures by taking into account the transdisciplinary contributions of authors. The definitions of t&#95;credit and t&#95;index provide a fair and effective way for research organizations to assign credit to authors of transdisciplinary publications.

In this paper we analyse the word frequency profiles of a set of works from the Shakespearean era to uncover patterns of relationship between them, highlighting the connections within authorial canons. We used a text corpus comprising 256 plays and poems from the 16th and 17th centuries, with 17 works of uncertain authorship. Our clustering approach is based on the Jensen-Shannon divergence and a graph partitioning algorithm, and our results show that authors' characteristic styles are very powerful factors in explaining the variation of word use, frequently transcending cross-cutting factors like the differences between tragedy and comedy, early and late works, and plays and poems. Our method also provides an empirical guide to the authorship of plays and poems where this is unknown or disputed.

Research collaborations are encouraged because a synergistic effect yielding good results often appears. However, creating and organizing a strong research group is a difficult task. One of the greatest concerns of an individual researcher is locating potential collaborators whose expertise complement his best. In this paper, we propose a method that makes link predictions in co-authorship networks, where topological features between authors such as Adamic/Adar, Common Neighbors, Jaccard's Coefficient, Preferential Attachment, Katzβ, and PropFlow may be good indicators of their future collaborations. Firstly, these topological features were systematically extracted from the network. Then, supervised models were used to learn the best weights associated with different topological features in deciding co-author relationships. Finally, we tested our models on the co-authorship networks in the research field of Coronary Artery Disease and obtained encouraging accuracy (the precision, recall, F1 score and AUC were, respectively, 0.696, 0.677, 0.671 and 0.742 for Logistic Regression, and respectively, 0.697, 0.678, 0.671 and 0.743 for SVM). This suggests that our models could be used to build and manage strong research groups.

This paper analyzes the effects of the co-authorship and bibliographic coupling networks on the citations received by scientific articles. It expands prior research that limited its focus on the position of co-authors and incorporates the effects of the use of knowledge sources within articles: references. By creating a network on the basis of shared references, we propose a way to understand whether an article bridges among extant strands of literature and infer the size of its research community and its embeddedness. Thus, we map onto the article--our unit of analysis--the metrics of authors' position in the co-authorship network and of the use of knowledge on which the scientific article is grounded. Specifically, we adopt centrality measures--degree, betweenneess, and closeness centrality--in the co-authorship network and degree, betweenness centrality and clustering coefficient in the bibliographic coupling and show their influence on the citations received in first two years after the year of publication. Findings show that authors' degree positively impacts citations. Also closeness centrality has a positive effect manifested only when the giant component is relevant. Author's betweenness centrality has instead a negative effect that persists until the giant component--largest component of the network in which all nodes can be linked by a path--is relevant. Moreover, articles that draw on fragmented strands of literature tend to be cited more, whereas the size of the scientific research community and the embeddedness of the article in a cohesive cluster of literature have no effect.

Bibliographic analysis has been a very powerful tool in evaluating the effective contributions of a researcher and determining his/her future research potential. The lack of an absolute quantification of the author's scientific contributions by the existing measurement system hampers the decision-making process. In this paper, a new metric system, Absolute index (Ab-index), has been proposed that allows a more objective comparison of the contributions of a researcher. The Ab-index takes into account the impact of research findings while keeping in mind the physical and intellectual contributions of the author(s) in accomplishing the task. The Ab-index and h-index were calculated for 10 highly cited geneticists and molecular biologist and 10 young researchers of biological sciences and compared for their relationship to the researchers input as a primary author. This is the first report of a measuring method clarifying the contributions of the first author, corresponding author, and other co-authors and the sharing of credit in a logical ratio. A java application has been developed for the easy calculation of the Ab-index. It can be used as a yardstick for comparing the credibility of different scientists competing for the same resources while the Productivity index (Pr-index), which is the rate of change in the Ab-index per year, can be used for comparing scientists of different age groups. The Ab-index has clear advantage over other popular metric systems in comparing scientific credibility of young scientists. The sum of the Ab-indices earned by individual researchers of an institute per year can be referred to as Pr-index of the institute.

Background: The practice of giving certain authors equal credit in original research publications was increasingly common in some specialty. This study aimed to investigate the prevalence and characteristics of designating some authors with equally credited authors (ECAs) in major anaesthesia journals., Methodology/principal Findings: The practice of giving authors equal credit was searched and identified in the three major anaesthesia journals between January 1, 2002 and December 31, 2011. Papers with ECAs had a higher proportion of the total number of articles in 2011 versus published in 2002 (Anesthesiology, 8.8% vs. 0.9%; British Journal of Anaesthesia, 8.8% vs. 0%; Anesthesia & Analgesia, 3.4% vs. 0.3%; totally, 6.4% vs. 0.4%). A significant increasing trend in annual proportion of articles with ECA was found in the three journals. The first two authors listed in the byline had equal credit in most cases., Conclusions/significance: The practice of giving authors equal credit in original research papers is increasingly common in major anaesthesia journals. It may be warranted for the journals to guide the authors how to regard this practice.

Gender disparities appear to be decreasing in academia according to a number of metrics, such as grant funding, hiring, acceptance at scholarly journals, and productivity, and it might be tempting to think that gender inequity will soon be a problem of the past. However, a large-scale analysis based on over eight million papers across the natural sciences, social sciences, and humanities reveals a number of understated and persistent ways in which gender inequities remain. For instance, even where raw publication counts seem to be equal between genders, close inspection reveals that, in certain fields, men predominate in the prestigious first and last author positions. Moreover, women are significantly underrepresented as authors of single-authored papers. Academics should be aware of the subtle ways that gender disparities can occur in scholarly authorship.

Current metrics for estimating a scientist's academic performance treat the author's publications as if these were solely attributable to the author. However, this approach ignores the substantive contributions of co-authors, leading to misjudgments about the individual's own scientific merits and consequently to misallocation of funding resources and academic positions. This problem is becoming the more urgent in the biomedical field where the number of collaborations is growing rapidly, making it increasingly harder to support the best scientists. Therefore, here we introduce a simple harmonic weighing algorithm for correcting citations and citation-based metrics such as the h-index for co-authorships. This weighing algorithm can account for both the nvumber of co-authors and the sequence of authors on a paper. We then derive a measure called the 'profit (p)-index', which estimates the contribution of co-authors to the work of a given author. By using samples of researchers from a renowned Dutch University hospital, Spinoza Prize laureates (the most prestigious Dutch science award), and Nobel Prize laureates in Physiology or Medicine, we show that the contribution of co-authors to the work of a particular author is generally substantial (i.e., about 80%) and that researchers' relative rankings change materially when adjusted for the contributions of co-authors. Interestingly, although the top University hospital researchers had the highest h-indices, this appeared to be due to their significantly higher p-indices. Importantly, the ranking completely reversed when using the profit adjusted h-indices, with the Nobel laureates having the highest, the Spinoza Prize laureates having an intermediate, and the top University hospital researchers having the lowest profit adjusted h-indices, respectively, suggesting that exceptional researchers are characterized by a relatively high degree of scientific independency/originality. The concepts and methods introduced here may thus provide a more fair impression of a scientist's autonomous academic performance.

This paper examines the proximity of authors to those they cite using degrees of separation in a co-author network, essentially using collaboration networks to expand on the notion of self-citations. While the proportion of direct self-citations (including co-authors of both citing and cited papers) is relatively constant in time and across specialties in the natural sciences (10% of references) and the social sciences (20%), the same cannot be said for citations to authors who are members of the co-author network. Differences between fields and trends over time lie not only in the degree of co-authorship which defines the large-scale topology of the collaboration network, but also in the referencing practices within a given discipline, computed by defining a propensity to cite at a given distance within the collaboration network. Overall, there is little tendency to cite those nearby in the collaboration network, excluding direct self-citations. These results are interpreted in terms of small-scale structure, field-specific citation practices, and the value of local co-author networks for the production of knowledge and for the accumulation of symbolic capital. Given the various levels of integration between co-authors, our findings shed light on the question of the availability of 'arm's length' expert reviewers of grant applications and manuscripts.

Background: Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (CEA) has been promoted as an important research methodology for determining the efficiency of healthcare technology and guiding medical decision-making. Our aim was to characterize the collaborative patterns of CEA conducted over the past two decades in Spain., Methods and Findings: A systematic analysis was carried out with the information obtained through an updated comprehensive literature review and from reports of health technology assessment agencies. We identified CEAs with outcomes expressed as a time-based summary measure of population health (e.g. quality-adjusted life-years or disability-adjusted life-years), conducted in Spain and published between 1989 and 2011. Networks of coauthorship and institutional collaboration were produced using PAJEK software. One-hundred and thirty-one papers were analyzed, in which 526 authors and 230 institutions participated. The overall signatures per paper index was 5.4. Six major groups (one with 14 members, three with 7 members and two with 6 members) were identified. The most prolific authors were generally affiliated with the private-for-profit sector (e.g. consulting firms and the pharmaceutical industry). The private-for-profit sector maintains profuse collaborative networks including public hospitals and academia. Collaboration within the public sector (e.g. healthcare administration and primary care) was weak and fragmented., Conclusions: This empirical analysis reflects critical practices among collaborative networks that contributed substantially to the production of CEA, raises challenges for redesigning future policies and provides a framework for similar analyses in other regions.

Questionable authorship practices in scientific publishing are detrimental to research quality and management. The existing literature dealing with the prevalence, and perceptions, of such practices has focused on the medical sciences, and on experienced researchers. In contrast, this study investigated how younger researchers (PhD students) from across the faculties view fair authorship attribution, their experience with granting guest authorships to more powerful researchers and their reasons for doing so. Data for the study were collected in a survey of European PhD students. The final dataset included 1,336 participants from five European countries (Denmark, Hungary, Ireland, Portugal, and Switzerland) representing all major disciplines. Approximately three in ten reported that they had granted at least one guest authorship to "a person in power". Half of these indicated that they had done so because they had been told to do so by the person in power. Participants from the medical, natural and technical sciences were much more likely to state that they had granted a guest authorship than those from other faculties. We identified four general views about what is sufficient for co-authorship. There were two dominant views. The first (inclusive view) considered a broad range of contributions to merit co-authorship. The second (strongly writing-oriented) emphasised that co-authors must have written a piece of the manuscript text. The inclusive view dominated in the natural, technical, and medical sciences. Participants from other faculties were more evenly distributed between the inclusive and writing oriented view. Those with an inclusive view were most likely to indicate that they have granted a guest authorship. According to the experiences of our participants, questionable authorship practices are prevalent among early-career researchers, and they appear to be reinforced through a combination of coercive power relations and dominant norms in some research cultures, particularly in the natural, technical, and medical sciences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]