Search

Introduction: This study presents a global research scenario in the broad domain of osteoarthritis (OA) research, using quantitative and qualitative publication and citation indicators. Methods: The study is based on 45,368 global publications, sourced from the Scopus bibliographical database, covering three decades (1994–2023). We studied the performance of the top 12 developed and top 12 developing countries. The key countries, organizations and authors at national and international levels were identified. The broad subject areas and key journals contributing to global OA research were delineated, besides identifying the broad characteristics of highly cited papers in the field. Results: The United States and China were the most productive countries, while the Netherlands and Canada made the largest citation impact. Harvard Medical School and the University of Sydney made the most contribution, while Boston University and Pfizer Inc., USA registered the highest citation impact. Hunter DJ and Guermazi A were the most productive authors, while Lohmander LS, and Hochberg MC registered the highest citation impact. Osteoarthritis and Cartilage (n = 4879) and Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases (n = 786) published the maximum papers, while Arthritis and Rheumatism and Nature Reviews Rheumatology registered the largest citation impact. The highly cited papers with 100 or more citations constituted 6.25% of the total publications. Conclusions: There has been a systematic growth of publications on OA. The research on OA was mainly done in developed countries, with the maximum publications coming from the United States of America, China and Canada. The most impactful publications on OA were from the Netherlands, Canada and the United States of America. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The author discusses the rise of regional research collaboration which is changing the balance of science worldwide. The author states that collaboration is a good practice, in which knowledge is better transferred and co-authored writings are cited more frequently. The author also mentions co-authorship as a valid alternative for collaboration that reflects tangible engagement between countries such as Germany and Great Britain as well as China and the U.S.

Objective: To determine the extent to which Chinese medical (CM) journals incorporate Consolidated Standards for Reporting of Trials (CONSORT) into their 'instruction to authors'. Methods: We reviewed the latest 'instruction to authors' of the CM journals in China which indexed by MEDLINE in 2010 or Excerpta Medica Database (EMBASE) in 2012 and extracted all information of CONSORT, International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), other reporting guidelines or clinical trial registration. By reading the instructions to authors and reviewing recent studies published in those journals, those that do not publish clinical trials were excluded. We also contacted each of journals by telephone on contributor's status to ask them whether mentioned CONSORT in their instructions and incorporated it into their editorial and peer-review process. Full-text papers of randomized controlled trials (RCTs, from January 2011 to March 2012) published in the journals which mentioned 'CONSORT' in their instructions for authors were downloaded. Results: Seven CM journals were included. Three of these journals mentioned CONSORT in its instructions. By telephone survey, all journals gave responses and all respondents knew CONSORT statement. Three of 7 journals required authors to comply with the CONSORT statement and provide the CONSORT checklist and a flow chart of the trial. The rest 4 journals recommended authors of RCTs to refer to the CONSORT statement. From January 2011 to March 2012, a total of 50 RCTs were obtained from the 3 journals endorsing the CONSORT statement; 17 (17/50, 34%) contained a flow diagram in their manuscript, and none of those RCTs had mentioned the trial registration information. Conclusions: The endorsement of CONSORT by CM journals' 'instruction to authors' was not satisfactory. The spread of CONSORT endorsement should be wider in instructing the performance of CM clinical trials in the future. Chinese journals should introduce CONSORT to their authors and require authors to comply with CONSORT when they submit their research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Starting from Chinese A-listed firms' loan announcements, this research creatively constructs a dynamic, variant-linkage, and more comprehensive banking network in China during 2007 and 2016. Exploiting techniques from the literature on complex networks, we find that China's banking network exhibits more clustering, more coherence, higher centrality, and even more heterogeneity. Empirical results show that the above network features, especially the heterogeneity of the network, have a great impact on financial systemic risk. A network with higher clustering coefficient, higher coherence, lower centrality, and greater heterogeneity is associated with a lower financial systemic risk. A range of policy measures can be drawn from our results, including macro-prudential policy, increasing network stability, and applying surcharges for systemically important financial institutions so as to minimize financial systemic risk. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To assess the prevalence of plagiarism in manuscripts submitted for publication in the Croatian Medical Journal (CMJ). All manuscripts submitted in 2009-2010 were analyzed using plagiarism detection software: eTBLAST, CrossCheck, and WCopyfind. Plagiarism was suspected in manuscripts with more than 10% of the text derived from other sources. These manuscripts were checked against the Déjà vu database and manually verified by investigators. Of 754 submitted manuscripts, 105 (14%) were identified by the software as suspicious of plagiarism. Manual verification confirmed that 85 (11%) manuscripts were plagiarized: 63 (8%) were true plagiarism and 22 (3%) were self-plagiarism. Plagiarized manuscripts were mostly submitted from China (21%), Croatia (14%), and Turkey (19%). There was no significant difference in the text similarity rate between plagiarized and self-plagiarized manuscripts (25% [95% CI 22-27%] vs. 28% [95% CI 20-33%]; U = 645.50; P = 0.634). Differences in text similarity rate were found between various sections of self-plagiarized manuscripts (H = 12.65, P = 0.013). The plagiarism rate in the Materials and Methods (61% (95% CI 41-68%) was higher than in the Results (23% [95% CI 17-36%], U = 33.50; P = 0.009) or Discussion (25.5 [95% CI 15-35%]; U = 57.50; P < 0.001) sections. Three authors were identified in the Déjà vu database. Plagiarism detection software combined with manual verification may be used to detect plagiarized manuscripts and prevent their publication. The prevalence of plagiarized manuscripts submitted to the CMJ, a journal dedicated to promoting research integrity, was 11% in the 2-year period 2009-2010. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]