Search

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]

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]

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]

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 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]

When writing a research paper, the author has to select information to include in the paper to support various arguments. The information has to be organized and synthesized into a coherent whole through relationships and information structures. There is hardly any research on the information structure of research papers, and how information structure supports rhetorical and argument structures. Thus, this study is focused on information organization in the Abstract and Introduction sections of sociology research papers, analyzing the information structure of research objective, question, hypothesis, and result statements. The study is limited to research papers reporting research that investigated cause–effect relations between two concepts. Two semantic frames were developed to specify the types of information associated with cause–effect and comparison relations, and used as coding schemes to annotate the text for different information types. Six link patterns between the two frames were identified—showing how comparisons are used to support the claim that the cause‐effect relation is valid. This study demonstrated how semantic frames can be incorporated in discourse analysis to identify deep structures underlying the argument structure. The results carry implications for the knowledge representation of academic research in knowledge graphs, for semantic relation extraction, and teaching of academic writing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article describes the Paper Authoring Tool (PAT), funded by the periodical "Addiction," and designed to write-up randomized control trials. Widely available to any researcher, it generates a Word file and a machine-readable version of the paper to support automated evidence synthesis in the form of a JSON-LD file.

As the field of ecology evolves, analyses synthesizing trends in key topics addressed over the decades can provide historical context for the development of novel theories and methods, identify "hot topics" over time, and guide future research directions. Such syntheses in a field that aims to diversify can also help quantify efforts to increase representation and authorship by underrepresented groups in STEM. To identify hot topics in ecology, we analyzed key themes in the top‐cited ecology papers in three two‐decade timeframes spanning 1960–2019. We also analyzed authorship trends (gender identity and nationality) in the top‐cited papers. We documented a shift from descriptive studies in single biological systems in the 1960–1970, to more synthesis‐based papers and studies discussing human impacts on the environment in the 1980–1990, while the 2000s were dominated by novel quantitative and macroecological approaches. The top‐cited papers were overwhelmingly from the United States and Europe, highlighting the need to make studies from across the globe more visible and accessible in the ecological literature. Finally, we detected a trend for more papers led by women authors, but a decline in papers with women last authors, indicating a need to retain women in leadership positions. Overall, our hot topics analysis highlights the expanding breadth and quantitative nature of ecology, but illustrates barriers to diversity in the perspectives represented in the top‐cited papers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

When writing a research paper, the author has to select information to include in the paper to support various arguments. The information has to be organized and synthesized into a coherent whole through relationships and information structures. There is hardly any research on the information structure of research papers, and how information structure supports rhetorical and argument structures. Thus, this study is focused on information organization in the Abstract and Introduction sections of sociology research papers, analyzing the information structure of research objective, question, hypothesis, and result statements. The study is limited to research papers reporting research that investigated cause–effect relations between two concepts. Two semantic frames were developed to specify the types of information associated with cause–effect and comparison relations, and used as coding schemes to annotate the text for different information types. Six link patterns between the two frames were identified—showing how comparisons are used to support the claim that the cause‐effect relation is valid. This study demonstrated how semantic frames can be incorporated in discourse analysis to identify deep structures underlying the argument structure. The results carry implications for the knowledge representation of academic research in knowledge graphs, for semantic relation extraction, and teaching of academic writing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents the discussion on following papers being accepted for publication in a future issue of the Health Information and Libraries Journal including survey of US academic libraries highlighting the COVID-19 experience.

An editorial is presented clarifying the scope of Nursing Inquiry and the types of manuscripts that align with its aims, including discursive papers, critical analyses, and theoretical debates on nursing and healthcare practices. It emphasizes the importance of avoiding a prescribed formula and standardized formats, and encourages authors to engage in critical reflection and present well-developed narrative logic in their submissions to advance the discipline's shared body of knowledge.

Introduction: While authorship plays a powerful role in the academy, research indicates many authors engage in questionable practices like honorary authorship. This suggests that authorship may be a contested space where individuals must exercise agency-a dynamic and emergent process, embedded in context-to negotiate potentially conflicting norms among published criteria, disciplines and informal practices. This study explores how authors narrate their own and others' agency in making authorship decisions., Method: We conducted a mixed-methods analysis of 24 first authors' accounts of authorship decisions on a recent multi-author paper. Authors included 14 females and 10 males in health professions education (HPE) from U.S. and Canadian institutions (10 assistant, 6 associate and 8 full professors). Analysis took place in three phases: (1) linguistic analysis of grammatical structures shown to be associated with agency (coding for main clause subjects and verb types); (2) narrative analysis to create a 'moral' and 'title' for each account; and (3) dialectic integration of (1) and (2)., Results: Descriptive statistics suggested that female participants used we subjects and material verbs (of doing) more than men and that full professors used relational verbs (of being and having) more than assistant and associate. Three broad types of agency were narrated: distributed (n = 15 participants), focusing on how resources and work were spread across team members; individual (n = 6), focusing on the first author's action; and collaborative (n = 3), focusing on group actions. These three types of agency contained four subtypes, e.g. supported, contested, task-based and negotiated., Discussion: This study highlights the complex and emergent nature of agency narrated by authors when making authorship decisions. Published criteria offer us starting point-the stated rules of the authorship game; this paper offers us a next step-the enacted and narrated approach to the game., (© 2021 Association for the Study of Medical Education and John Wiley & Sons Ltd. This article has been contributed to by US Government employees and their work is in the public domain in the USA.)

An introduction is presented in which author discusses articles on topics including focuses on promoting environmental sustainability and an opportunity to share projects related to improve the environmental footprint of critical care.

The article presents the discussion on nurse scientists understanding and supporting the importance of interdisciplinary research. Topics include knowledge of other disciplines having the expertise needed for answering increasingly complex questions about health and illness; and nursing science being built on a strong foundation of knowing being necessary for improving nursing practice.

In the article, the author calls for papers on the topics of organizational risk and the COVID-19 pandemic, with submission deadline scheduled on February 1, 2022.

Coauthorship prediction applies predictive analytics to bibliographic data to predict authors who are highly likely to be coauthors. In this study, we propose an approach for coauthorship prediction based on bibliographic network embedding through a graph‐based bibliographic data model that can be used to model common bibliographic data, including papers, terms, sources, authors, departments, research interests, universities, and countries. A real‐world dataset released by AMiner that includes more than 2 million papers, 8 million citations, and 1.7 million authors were integrated into a large bibliographic network using the proposed bibliographic data model. Translation‐based methods were applied to the entities and relationships to generate their low‐dimensional embeddings while preserving their connectivity information in the original bibliographic network. We applied machine learning algorithms to embeddings that represent the coauthorship relationships of the two authors and achieved high prediction results. The reference model, which is the combination of a network embedding size of 100, the most basic translation‐based method, and a gradient boosting method achieved an F1 score of 0.9 and even higher scores are obtainable with different embedding sizes and more advanced embedding methods. Thus, the strengths of the proposed approach lie in its customizable components under a unified framework. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Despite a recent drive to increase diversity, the global academic workforce is skewed in favor of authors from high‐income countries, and women are under‐represented in the published medical literature. Objectives: To explore the trends in authorship of three high‐impact otolaryngology journals over a ten‐year period (2011–2020). Methods: Journals selected: JAMA Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, The Laryngoscope and Rhinology. Articles were reviewed from four issues per journal per year, and data was collected on: time of publication; subspeciality; number of authors; sex of first and last authors; country of practice of first author and country where each study was conducted. Trends were examined though univariate and multivariate logistic regression models. Results: 2998 articles were included. 93.9% of first authors and 94.2% of studies were from high‐income countries. Women were first authors in 31.5% (n = 912) and senior authors in 18.4% (n = 524) of articles. Female first authorship significantly increased between 2011 and 2020 however female senior authorship remained the same. There have been no significant changes in the proportion of published articles from low‐and middle‐income countries (LMIC) over time (p =.65). Amongst the LMIC articles, 72% came from Brazil, Turkey or China and there were no published papers from countries with a low‐income economy (gross national income per capita of $1085 or less). Conclusions: Although female first authorship has increased in the last decade, there has been minimal other demographic change in authorship over this time. High‐impact otolaryngology journals poorly represent academia in low‐and‐middle income countries. There is a need for increased advocacy promoting gender and geographical research equity in academic medicine. Level of Evidence: III. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To identify the 10 most numerically prolific authors publishing in the field of orthodontics for each year over the last decade (2011‐2020), describe the characteristics of these outputs and identify trends in the types of study being published. Materials and Methods: A Scopus literature search was conducted to identify the 10 most numerically prolific publishing authors in orthodontics for each year during this decade. Number and characteristics of all publications for each author were analysed with descriptive and inferential statistics. Results: Forty‐nine different individual authors were identified who were collectively prolific for between 1‐8 years within the assessment decade. These authors published a total of 2025 papers, with a median annual output of 18 papers per year; however, half of these authors published between 15‐24 papers per year (range 5‐200). Amongst authors, 2 or more collaborated on only 7% of the identified papers. The median number of authors per paper was 5 (range 1‐27) with significant variation according to study design (P <.001). The majority of authors originated from Brazil (19.3%), Italy (14.1%) and India (12.7%). Most papers described non‐prospective clinical studies (38.1%), case reports or case series (11.1%) and narrative reviews (10.8%). Finally, prolific authors had a smaller annual output when publishing in orthodontic journals (P <.001) and when publishing experimental primary research (P =.04). Conclusions: A cohort of prolific authors in orthodontics between 2011‐2020 was identified. Extreme variation was found in annual output between these authors but case reports, non‐prospective clinical studies and narrative reviews predominated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents the discussion on significant increase in the submission and publication of research papers in nutrition and dietetics which was associated with the COVID‐19 pandemic. Topics include recruited to participate in a study which utilised an online food frequency questionnaire to look at nutrient intake and to self‐report for having diagnosis of type‐2 diabetes; and food frequency questionnaires having low validity while assessing intakes of micronutrients and trace elements.

The article focuses on the professional responsibility of contributing to the literature and emphasizes the importance of promoting research activity among trainees. Topics include the role of academic activities during residency, the benefits of writing papers for professional growth and patient care; and the need for institutions to provide support and infrastructure for trainees to engage in research for contributing to the literature throughout their careers.

Key points: The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) recommendations for authorship are the dominant guidelines that guide who, and under what circumstances, an individual can be an author of an academic paper.Large language models (LLMs) and AI, like ChatGPT, given their ability and versatility, pose a challenge to the human‐based authorship model.Several journals and publishers have already prohibited the assignment of authorship to AI, LLMs, and even ChatGPT, not recognizing them as valid authors.We debate this premise, and asked ChatGPT to opine on this issue. ChatGPT considers itself as an invalid author.We applied the CRediT criteria to AI, finding that it was definitively able to satisfy three out of the 14 criteria, but only in terms of assistance. This was validated by ChatGPT itself. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Meaningful community engagement process involves focusing on the community needs, building community capacity and employing culturally tailored and community‐specific strategies. In the current practices of community‐engaged health and wellness research, generally, community engagement activities commence with the beginning of a particular research project on a specific topic and end with the completion of the project. The outcomes of the community engagement, including the trust, partnership and contribution of the community to research, thus remain limited to that specific project and are not generally transferred and fostered further to the following project on a different topic. In this viewpoint article, we discussed a philosophical approach to community engagement that proposes to juxtapose community engagement for the specific short‐term research project and the overarching long‐term programme of research with the finite game and infinite game concepts, respectively. A finite game is a concept of a game where the players are known, rules are fixed and when the agreed‐upon goal is achieved, the game ends. On the other hand, in infinite games, the players may be both known and unknown, have no externally fixed rules and have the objective of continuing the game beyond a particular research project. We believe community engagement needs to be conducted as an infinite game that is, at the programme of research level, where the goal of the respective activities is not to complete a research project but to successfully engage the community itself is the goal. While conducting various research projects, that is, finite games, the researchers need to keep an infinite game mindset throughout, which includes working with the community for a just cause, building trust and community capacity to maximise their contribution to research, prioritising community needs and having the courage to lead the community if need be. Patient or Public Contribution: While preparing this manuscript, we have partnered actively with community champions, activists, community scholars and citizen researchers at the community level from the very beginning. We had regular interactions with them to get their valuable and insightful inputs in shaping our reflections. Their involvement as coauthors in this paper also provided a learning opportunity for them and facilitated them to gain insight on knowledge engagement. All authors support greater community/citizen/public involvement in research in an equitable manner. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: Contribution to the authorship, including that for case reports, should be appropriately evaluated. I have noticed a scarcity of case reports with clinic doctors listed as coauthors, prompting this investigation. I sought to offer suggestions on the possible reasons for this trend. Methods: I checked case reports published in the Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Research, the Journal of Medical Case Reports, and the BMJ Case Reports. I identified case reports listing a clinic doctor as a coauthor. I consulted eight professors at Jichi Medical University to ascertain whether case reports from their departments included clinic doctors as coauthors and, if not, the reasons. Results: Among 65 case reports from Japanese institutes published in the Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Research, only one paper lists a clinic doctor as a coauthor. Of 100 and 50 papers published in the Journal of Medical Case Reports and BMJ Case Reports, respectively, none listed a clinic doctor as a coauthor. Six out of eight professors admitted to never considering the idea of including clinic doctors as coauthors. Conclusions: The scarcity of case reports with clinic doctors as coauthors extends beyond Japanese obstetrics and gynecology, encompassing various specialties worldwide. Center doctors do not think of the idea that a clinic doctor should be a coauthor. A clinic doctor who transferred the patient should be considered as a candidate coauthor depending on his/her scientific contribution. Such an approach could foster an environment encouraging doctors to contribute to academic writing, regardless of their workplace. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: This article reviews the extant literature on southern politics and gun/firearm ownership in the South as a precursor to three symposium papers. Methods: We employ standard literature review techniques to synthesize two significant bodies of literature. The latter part of the article introduces the three papers in the symposium. Results: We find that the papers in this symposium share two common themes: continued southern distinctiveness, and the importance of the role of race in southern politics and policy‐making. Conclusion: We find support for a hypothesis that the South remains distinctive as a region in the policy arena of gun ownership/firearm policy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As the field of health professions education (HPE) continues to evolve, it is necessary to occasionally pause and reflect on the potential effects and outcomes of our research practices. While future‐casting does not guarantee that impending negative consequences will be evaded, the exercise can help us avoid pitfalls. In this paper, we reflect on two terms that have taken hold as powerful idols in HPE research that stand above questioning and apart from critique: patient outcomes and productivity. We argue that these terms, and the ways of thinking they uphold, threaten the sustainability of HPE research—one at the level of the community and one at the level of the scholar. First, we suggest that HPE research's history of endorsing a linear and causal association ethos has driven its quest to connect education to patient outcomes. To ensure the sustainability of HPE scholarship, we must deconstruct and disempower patient outcomes as one of HPE's god‐terms, as the pinnacle goal of educational activities. To be sustained, HPE research needs to value all of its contributions equally. A second god‐term is productivity; it impairs the sustainability of the careers of individual researchers. Problems of honorary authorship, research output expectations, and comparisons with other fields have constructed a space where only scholars with sufficient privilege can prevail. If productivity persists as a god‐term, the field of HPE research could decay into a space where new scholars are silenced—not because they fail to make important contributions, but because access is restricted by existing research metrics. These are two of many god‐terms threatening the sustainability of HPE research. By highlighting patient outcomes and productivity and by acknowledging our own participation in propagating them, we hope to encourage others to recognize how our collective choices threaten the sustainability of our field. @LaraVarpio & @Sherbino warn of the threat inherent in not questioning terms like patient outcomes and productivity. This paper urges a shift towards valuing a wider array of contributions to ensure sustainability [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Journal editors are the main gatekeepers in scientific publishing. Yet there is a concern that they may receive preferential treatment when submitting manuscripts to their own journals. The prevalence of such self‐publishing is not known, nor the consequences for reliability and trustworthiness of published research. This study aimed to systematically review the literature on the prevalence of editors publishing in their own journals and to conduct a normative ethical analysis of this practice. A systematic review was performed using the following databases: Medline, PsycInfo, Scopus and Web of Science. Articles that provided primary data about editors publishing in own journals were included. We identified 15 studies meeting inclusion criteria. There was large variability of self‐publishing across fields, journals and editors, ranging from those who never published in their own journal to those publishing extensively in their own journal. Many studies suffered from serious methodological limitations. Nevertheless, our results show that there are settings where levels of self‐publication are very high. We recommend that editors‐in‐chief and associate editors who have considerable power in journals refrain from publishing research articles in their own journals. Journals should have clear processes in place about the treatment of articles submitted by editorial board members. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The most highly cited forensic practitioners in the United States were identified using a publicly available citation database that used six different citation metrics to calculate each person's composite citation score. The publication and citation data were gleaned from Elsevier's SCOPUS database, which contained information about ~7 million scientist each of whom had at least five entries in the database. Each individual was categorized into 22 scientific fields and 176 subfields, one of which was legal and forensic medicine (LFM). The database contained citation records for 13,388 individuals having LFM as their primary research discipline and 282 of these (2%) were classified as being highly cited. Another 99 individuals in the database had LFM as their secondary discipline, making a total of 381 highly cited forensic practitioners from 35 different countries. The career‐long publication records of each individual were compared using their composite citation scores. Of the 381 highly cited scientists, 93 (24%) had an address somewhere in the United States. The various branches of forensics they specialized in were anthropology, criminalistics, DNA/genetics, odontology, pathology, statistics/epidemiology, and toxicology. The two most highly cited scientists, according to their composite citation score, were both specialists in DNA/genetics. Bibliometric methods are widely used for evaluating research performance in academia and a similar approach might be useful in jurisprudence, such as when an expert witness is instructed to testify in court and explain the meaning of scientific evidence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Principles and applications of open science (also referred to as open research or open scholarship) in psychology have emerged in response to growing concerns about the replicability, transparency, reproducibility, and robustness of psychological research alongside global moves to open science in many fields. Our objective in this paper is to inform ways of collectively constructing open science practices and systems that are appropriate to, and get the best out of, the full range of qualitative and mixed‐method approaches used in psychology. We achieve this by describing three areas of open research practice (contributorship, pre‐registration, and open data) and explore how and why qualitative researchers might consider engaging with these in ways that are compatible with a qualitative research paradigm. We argue it is crucial that open research practices do not (even inadvertently) exclude qualitative research, and that qualitative researchers reflect on how we can meaningfully engage with open science in psychology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Contributor Role Ontologies and Taxonomies (CROTs) are standard vocabularies to describe individual contributions to a scholarly project or research output. Contributor Roles Taxonomy (CRediT) is one of the most widely used CROTs, and has been adopted by numerous journals to describe author's contributions, and recently formalized as a ANSI/NISO standard. Despite these developments, there is still much work left to be done to improve how CROTs are used across different research domains, research output types, and scholarly workflows. In this paper, we describe how CROTs could be extended to include roles from various disciplines in an ethical and inclusive manner. We explore potential approaches to apply CROTs to diverse research objects and various disciplines; as well as envision their integration into various scholarly workflows, such as promotion and tenure in academic institutions. Lastly, we discuss potential mechanisms for wide adoption and use. While acknowledging that improving current systems of attribution is a slow and iterative process, we believe that engaging the community in the evolution of CROTs will ultimately enhance the ethical attribution of credit and responsibilities in scholarly publications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: The contribution of African authors to the biomedical literature is small. We evaluated the African and non‐African scientific production published in the international literature on the COVID‐19 in Africa during the first year of the epidemic (2020). Methods: Papers on COVID‐19 in Africa were extracted from the Medline (PubMed) database for bibliometric analysis including the proportions of three leading and last authors by study type, study country, authors' and laboratories/institutions' countries of affiliation and journal ranking. Results: A total of 160 articles fulfilling the inclusion criteria were analysed. The majority (91.3%) was produced by half (53.7%) of African countries, with important regional disparities, and generally without sources of funding mentioned. The majority (>85.0) of authors in lead positions (first, second, third and last authors) were Africans. Only a small number (8.7%) of studies on COVID‐19 in Africa were carried out by laboratories not on the African continent (mainly Europe, USA and China) and generally received funding. The last and first authors were more frequently of non‐African origin in journals with an Impact Factor ranking ≥1, and more frequently of African origin in journals with a lower ranking (< 1). The first and last non‐African authors tended to report their studies in high ranking ≥1 journals. Conclusions: Our study demonstrates that the emergence of promising African research capable of publishing in indexed but low‐impact factor medical journals and reveals the persistence of a North‐South asymmetry in international cooperation in biomedical research with Africa. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This special issue looks at some of the ways that images are adopted, co‐opted, and adapted in the life sciences and beyond. It brings together papers that investigate the role of visualization in scientific knowledge‐production with contributions that focus on the distribution and dissemination of knowledge to a broader audience. A commentary provides a critical perspective. In this editorial we introduce circulation as a practice to better understand scientific images. Along two themes, we highlight connections across the papers. First, the social life of scientific representation follows the contexts, settings, and spaces through which images circulate. Second, authorship, expertise, and trust inform the capacity and the failure of images to circulate. Altogether, this volume raises a set of new questions about circulation as practice in the historiography of images in the life sciences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The author, the editor-in-chief of the "International Journal of Paediatric Dentistry," offers several recommendations to improve the quality of research paper submissions to journals. The recommendations include ensuring journal fit, making the study hypothesis clear and following submission instructions. Also suggested are writing the methods section like a recipe, ensuring adequate statistical expertise and contextualizing findings in the discussion section.

This paper presents a comprehensive review of previously overlooked names published in the third volume of the Encyclopédie by Diderot and d'Alembert in 1753. These names primarily originate from Tournefort's pre‐Linnaean work, including textual copies of Tournefort's descriptions. We identified 21 names as having been validly published. Notably, among these are five generic names (Castanea, Chamaemelum, Chrysanthemoides, Citreum, Cydonia) wherein the taxonomic authorship shifts from Miller to Daubenton according to priority. Consequently, by our typifications, Miller's names from 1754 are later isonyms. Additionally, the generic name Chamaebuxus takes priority over Polygaloides. As a result, we propose a new combination, Chamaebuxus paucifolia and designate types for 31 generic names and isonyms: Caprifolium, Castanea, Chamaebuxus, Chamaecerasus, Chamaemelum, Chamaerhododendros, Chrysanthemoides, Cichorium, Cicuta, Cicutaria, Clandestina, Clymenum, Colocynthis, Citreum, Clematitis, Coa, Comaroides, Cydonia, Gramen, Scorpioides, and Sisarum, and lectotypes for two species names: Chamaebuxus paucifolia and Polygala uniflora. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Key points: Research assistants are frequently excluded from authorship for several reasons—including the perception that they merely provide paid administrative help.Authorship criteria should be based on the people who are both shapers and doers rather than the ICMJE recommendations which can be differently interpreted.The pressure for single‐authored papers in some disciplines may lead to the exclusion of substantive contributors from authorship lists.The CRediT taxonomy is a preferable means of recognizing and rewarding authors but may find resistance of those unwilling to disclose exact contributions.Publishers can assist in recognizing all contributing authors by requiring affirmation that all who have significantly contributed are credited as authors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The paper reports a longitudinal analysis of the topical and methodological development of Library and Information Science (LIS). Its focus is on the effects of researchers' disciplines on these developments. The study extends an earlier cross‐sectional study (Vakkari et al., Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2022a, 73, 1706–1722) by a coordinated dataset representing a content analysis of articles published in 31 scholarly LIS journals in 1995, 2005, and 2015. It is novel in its coverage of authors' disciplines, topical and methodological aspects in a coordinated dataset spanning two decades thus allowing trend analysis. The findings include a shrinking trend in the share of LIS from 67 to 36% while Computer Science, and Business and Economics increase their share from 9 and 6% to 21 and 16%, respectively. The earlier cross‐sectional study (Vakkari et al., Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2022a, 73, 1706–1722) for the year 2015 identified three topical clusters of LIS research, focusing on topical subfields, methodologies, and contributing disciplines. Correspondence analysis confirms their existence already in 1995 and traces their development through the decades. The contributing disciplines infuse their concepts, research questions, and approaches to LIS and may also subsume vital parts of LIS in their own structures of knowledge production. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Often mentioned as an afterthought in sentences about her more (in)famous husband, Sally R. Binford has long been a focus of feminist archaeological discussion. She helped create the 'New Archaeology' and thus set the stage for an academic revolution, yet she has become one of the discipline's hidden figures, overshadowed by the lengthy career of Lewis Binford. Sally's own words allow us insight into the dynamic between the two Binfords; a case study on academic exploitation that may be more of a rule than of an exception. Rossiter's (1993) 'Matthew/Matilda effect'—the paradigm whereby the work of influential scientific men can often be directly attributed to their unpublished or otherwise disenfranchised wives—is a useful analytical lens with which to expand discussions of ethics in citation, collaboration, and mentorship. How does archaeology as a discipline reconcile the legacy of unattributed fieldwork and research that has bolstered its growth? A review of publicly available documents on authorship and attribution reveals a lack of clear guidance on the subject. Institutional frameworks can ensure that students and faculty have these types of discussions early and often. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The analysis of international and collaborative publication trends in prominent behavior‐analytic journals has been a topic of interest for behavioral researchers. This paper focuses on publication trends from 1997 through 2020 in three prominent journals: Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior (JEAB), Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis (JABA), and Perspectives on Behavior Science (PBS). The variable of interest was the percentage of articles published per geographical category—Australasia/East Asia, Europe, Latin America, Middle East, North America, and Africa. The results showed that 79, 96, and 87% of the published articles in JEAB, JABA, and PBS, respectively, were conducted by researchers with a North American affiliation. Furthermore, 12, 4, and 4% of the articles in JEAB, JABA, and PBS, respectively, were coauthored by at least two researchers from different geographical categories. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The author reflects on their process of handling articles for the journal's special section "Registered Reports" (RR), particularly on their focus on the originality of the research and the soundness of the used methods.

Background and Objective: We examined whether the use of visual abstracts on social media platforms can improve comprehensive social media and conventional metrics such as total altmetric attention score, full text page views and citation counts (study outcomes) through retrospective cohort study. Methods: We included all original research articles (Total 307 articles: N = 69 in visual abstract group and N = 238 in control group) published between July 2018 and January 2019 in the JAMA, BMJ and the NEJM and used negative binomial regression to adjust for article characteristics. Results: Adjusted analysis showed no significant differences between articles with and without visual abstracts in the altmetric attention score (p = 0.37) and in number of page views (p = 0.44). Citations in the Web of Science core collection were found to be statistically significant favouring control group (p = 0.028). We also found no significant differences in altmetric attention score and page views after stratification for article type [randomised controlled trial (RCT) vs. non‐RCT]. Citations counts were found to be borderline significant for RCT (p = 0.04) and non‐significant for non‐RCT. Conclusion: Visual abstracts might not be effective in disseminating scientific research. We should look at other innovative ways to improve the visibility of the research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Much published research writing is dull and dry at best, impenetrable and off‐putting at worst. This state of affairs both frustrates readers and impedes research uptake. Scientific conventions of objectivity and neutrality contribute to the problem, implying that 'good' research writing should have no discernible authorial 'voice'. Yet some research writers have a distinctive voice in their work that may contribute to their scholarly influence. In this study, we explore this notion of voice, examining what strong research writers aim for with their voice and what strategies they use. Methods: Using a combination of purposive, snowball and theoretical sampling, we recruited 21 scholars working in health professions education or adjacent health research fields, representing varied career stages, research paradigms and geographical locations. We interviewed participants about their approaches to writing and asked each to provide one to three illustrative publications. Iterative data collection and analysis followed constructivist grounded theory principles. We analysed interview transcripts thematically and examined publications for evidence of the writers' described approaches. Results: Participants shared goals of a voice that was clear and logical, and that engaged readers and held their attention. They accomplished these goals using approaches both conventional and unconventional. Conventional approaches included attention to coherence through signposting, symmetry and metacommentary. Unconventional approaches included using language that was evocative (metaphor, imagery), provocative (pointed critique), plainspoken ('non‐academic' phrasing), playful (including humour) and lyrical (attending to cadence and sound). Unconventional elements were more prominent in non‐standard genres (e.g. commentaries), but also appeared in empiric papers. Discussion: What readers interpret as 'voice' reflects strategic use of a repertoire of writing techniques. Conventional techniques, used expertly, can make for compelling reading, but strong writers also draw on unconventional strategies. A broadened writing repertoire might assist health professions education research writers in effectively communicating their work. Make your next research manuscript more engaging & memorable. This qualitative study of 21 health research writers offers a repertoire of conventional & unconventional strategies you can try. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents the discussion on research community increasingly partners with consumers and community in the design and conduct of research. Topics include Recent studies have explored the perceptions of Editor-in-Chiefs regarding the acceptability for consumer co-researchers to be authors on papers; and authorship were developed by the scientific community to ensure appropriate attribution for the work.

The recently developing coffee market has been characterized by profound changes caused by new solutions and technologies for coffee preparation. The polylaminate materials that compose most popular capsules make them a type of waste that is difficult to manage and recycle. This paper analyses the scientific references that deal with studying and improving the management processes of waste coffee capsules, as well as the studies that have analysed their environmental impact. Through a bibliographic review, some encouraging aspects emerged in the recovery of materials that can be adequately recycled (plastics and metals), as well as their possible use for the production of biogas and energy recovery. The need to manually separate the components that make up the capsule still represents one of the main challenges. Many efforts are still needed to favour the environmental sustainability of this waste from a strategic, technological and consumer empowerment point of view. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Peer review aims to provide meaningful feedback to research authors so that they may improve their work, and yet it constitutes a particularly challenging context for the exchange of feedback. We explore how research authors navigate the process of interpreting and responding to peer review feedback, in order to elaborate how feedback functions when some of the conditions thought to be necessary for it to be effective are not met. Methods: Using constructivist grounded theory methodology, we interviewed 17 recently published health professions education researchers about their experiences with the peer review process. Data collection and analysis were concurrent and iterative. We used constant comparison to identify themes and to develop a conceptual model of how feedback functions in this setting. Results: Although participants expressed faith in peer review, they acknowledged that the process was emotionally trying and raised concerns about its consistency and credibility. These potential threats were mitigated by factors including time, team support, experience and the exercise of autonomy. Additionally, the perceived engagement of reviewers and the cultural norms and expectations surrounding the process strengthened authors' willingness and capacity to respond productively. Our analysis suggests a model of feedback within which its perceived usefulness turns on the balance of threats and countermeasures. Conclusions: Feedback is a balancing act. Although threats to the productive uptake of peer review feedback abound, these threats may be neutralised by a range of countermeasures. Among these, opportunities for autonomy and cultural normalisation of both the professional responsibility to engage with feedback and the challenge of doing so may be especially influential and may have implications beyond the peer review setting. In this meta‐research, Watling et al. frame peer review feedback as a tricky balancing act, highlighting that although threats to uptake abound, they may be neutralized by a range of countermeasures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study investigates scholars' citation behaviors from a fine‐grained perspective. Specifically, each scholarly citation is considered multidimensional rather than logically unidimensional (i.e., present or absent). Thirty million articles from PubMed were accessed for use in empirical research, in which a total of 15 interpretable features of scholarly citations were constructed and grouped into three main categories. Each category corresponds to one aspect of the reasons and motivations behind scholars' citation decision‐making during academic writing. Using about 500,000 pairs of actual and randomly generated scholarly citations, a series of Random Forest‐based classification experiments were conducted to quantitatively evaluate the correlation between each constructed citation feature and citation decisions made by scholars. Our experimental results indicate that citation proximity is the category most relevant to scholars' citation decision‐making, followed by citation authority and citation inertia. However, big‐name scholars whose h‐indexes rank among the top 1% exhibit a unique pattern of citation behaviors—their citation decision‐making correlates most closely with citation inertia, with the correlation nearly three times as strong as that of their ordinary counterparts. Hopefully, the empirical findings presented in this paper can bring us closer to characterizing and understanding the complex process of generating scholarly citations in academia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Key points: This article highlights two types of publishing fraud: fake acceptance letter and financial fraud.Prepared by a third party, fake acceptance letters affirm that a paper, which we had never received before, has been accepted by IPSR.In the financial fraud case, a third party pretends to be an editor of IPSR, sends out authentic looking fake acceptance letters and then solicits authors to pay an article processing fee (APC). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Over the course of the nineteenth century, literary manuscripts came to be seen as tangible evidence of the creative process and as a key to the personality of the author. The material traces of writing were understood to outlive their creators and promise to resurrect the authorial body through the magic of the relic. This article reconstructs how authorial script gradually transformed into a collectible object pursued as a memento and a commodity. Letters, drafts, and fair copies by major modern writers found their way into the collections of British aristocrats and American industrialists at the same time that hunting for literary autographs diversified into a middle‐class pursuit. Surveying recent scholarship on nineteenth‐century collecting and material culture, the essay offers a condensed cultural history of the literary manuscript as a collectible and draws attention to how collectors and collecting feature in fictional texts of the period. It focuses on the artefactual mobility and custodial afterlives of Romantic papers in Victorian literature and culture, exploring a form of collecting which crossed boundaries between periods and national literary traditions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: People living with dementia face a constant struggle in re‐establishing their means of living a meaningful life. Journal writing exhibits the potential to help them regain a sense of control over their lives. This study explores the experience, meaning, and value of journal writing for people living with dementia who autonomously engage in the activity. Methods: We conducted individual, semi‐structured interviews with eight people living with dementia who each kept a personal, paper‐based daily journal. The interviews were thematically analyzed. Results: We identified four main themes. Theme 1. Recognition of the harsh reality of life under dementia. Theme 2. Observation of and compensation for weaknesses. Theme 3. Reacknowledgement and reaffirmation of one's identity, and Theme 4. Resignation and regret over comparisons to one's 'former' self. Themes 2 and 3 suggest that journal writing enabled self‐reflection on daily activity functions and sense of self. However, Theme 4 represents the downside where an individual more acutely realises their deteriorating condition and regrets over their perceived loss of self. Conclusion: While acknowledging the possible adverse effect of amplifying pessimistic perceptions toward life, journal writing is a powerful 'self‐help' strategy for people living with dementia and provides an avenue to recover and thrive. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The author reflects on the implication of text recycling and redundant publication or salami slicing as self-plagiarism. A study funded by the National Science Foundation found that not recycling own words can do harm. It mentions the role of problems with copyright infringement in the decision of editors to use duplication software in the case of text recycling. Also explained are the problems arising from salami slicing such as questions on the integrity of a scientist.