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.)

Honesty of publications is fundamental in science. Unfortunately, science has an increasing fake paper problem with multiple cases having surfaced in recent years, even in renowned journals. There are companies, the so-called paper mills, which professionally fake research data and papers. However, there is no easy way to systematically identify these papers. Here, we show that scanning for exchanged authors in resubmissions is a simple approach to detect potential fake papers. We investigated 2056 withdrawn or rejected submissions to Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's Archives of Pharmacology (NSAP), 952 of which were subsequently published in other journals. In six cases, the stated authors of the final publications differed by more than two thirds from those named in the submission to NSAP. In four cases, they differed completely. Our results reveal that paper mills take advantage of the fact that journals are unaware of submissions to other journals. Consequently, papers can be submitted multiple times (even simultaneously), and authors can be replaced if they withdraw from their purchased authorship. We suggest that publishers collaborate with each other by sharing titles, authors, and abstracts of their submissions. Doing so would allow the detection of suspicious changes in the authorship of submitted and already published papers. Independently of such collaboration across publishers, every scientific journal can make an important contribution to the integrity of the scientific record by analyzing its own pool of withdrawn and rejected papers versus published papers according to the simple algorithm proposed in the present paper., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

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., (© 2024 Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Ophthalmologists.)

Background and Aims: Highly cited papers (HCPs) can influence both research and clinical practice. They help to identify core literature and important advances in a field. This study aimed to assess the current status and prospects of South Asia COVID-19 research from the HCPs using bibliometric indicators. Methodology: COVID-19 literature from South Asia published between December 2019 and 29 November 2023 in the Scopus database was analysed. The top HCPs, having more than 200 citations, were evaluated. Information about citation counts, authors and organisations and their affiliations, year of publication, source journal, geographical origin, subject, article type, funding details, etc. were retrieved and analysed. Data and visualisation analysis was undertaken using Microsoft Excel and other bibliometric software. Results: The 298 South Asia HCPs were published from 2020 to 2023 and were cited 200–3,596 times, with a mean average of 413.9 citations per paper (CPP). Around 24.5% and 51.3% of HCPs received external funding support and were involved in international collaboration, respectively. The most productive organisations were the Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, and the Indian Institute of Technology, New Delhi, while the most impactful organisations were Bai Jerbai Wadia Hospital for Children, Mumbai, and Kokilaben Dhirubhai Ambani Hospital & Medical Research Institute, Mumbai. The most productive journals were Diabetes and Metabolic Syndrome: Clinical Research & Reviews. Conclusions: This study has identified core and significant authors, organisations, journals, subject fields and significant keywords, collaborators and funding agencies involved in South Asia's COVID-19 research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The study is undertaken to compare the use of non-alphanumeric characters in the titles of articles published in the IASLIC Bulletin (IB) and the Annals of Library and Information Studies (ALIS). This study is based on the total 567 publications appeared on IB and ALIS between the year 2011 and 2021. This study includes the distribution of publications by year, patterns of authorship, and the use of five often used non-alphanumeric characters: colon, comma, hyphen, question mark, and parenthesis. ALIS published 336 papers and IB published 231 articles over the study period, with an average relative growth rate (RGR) of 1.63 %. Cooperative authoring is more prevalent in both journals. The outcome also shows that 389 titles-216 in ALIS and 173 in IB-of the total 567 contributions appeared with non-alphanumeric characters. The colon (:) is the most often used alpha numeric character; in ALIS (78.85 %) and IB (64.51 %), double authors use it frequently. The study is an original research work intends to have a profound and noteworthy effect on researchers and library patrons who delve into the world of non-alphanumeric characters in research paper titles. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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

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

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]

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

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

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]

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

Literature being an expression of an author, its commodification historically has assigned a value to it primarily in terms of authorship credit. Arguably reproducing published content without attributing the requisite source, termed as plagiarism is ethically discrediting to this premise. However, simply weighing its proportion based on digitally assigned semantic similarity may not be completely justifiable in the present-day digital atmosphere. It should be noted that while technology can facilitate plagiarism detection, digitization by way of providing greater access to published content is also the facilitator of plagiarism. While the scientific community is often severe in its approach toward the act of plagiarism, there is still a lack of clarity around the code of conduct of the same as there are several grey areas related to such a misconduct on which the law remains silent. By revisiting the historical evolution of the credit of authorship and the copyright law this piece presents an analytical vista pertaining to plagiarism in a different light. By identifying the gaps in the present-day handling of these age-old concepts, one may find that there is an unmet need to revisit the legal aspects of handling cases of plagiarism taking into consideration the digital environment., (Copyright © 2024 Copyright: © 2024 Indian Journal of Public Health.)

Background: Large language models (LLM) have unknown implications for medical research. This study assessed whether LLM-generated abstracts are distinguishable from human-written abstracts and to compare their perceived quality., Methods: The LLM ChatGPT was used to generate 20 arthroplasty abstracts (AI-generated) based on full-text manuscripts, which were compared to originally published abstracts (human-written). Six blinded orthopaedic surgeons rated abstracts on overall quality, communication, and confidence in the authorship source. Authorship-confidence scores were compared to a test value representing complete inability to discern authorship., Results: Modestly increased confidence in human authorship was observed for human-written abstracts compared with AI-generated abstracts (p = 0.028), though AI-generated abstract authorship-confidence scores were statistically consistent with inability to discern authorship (p = 0.999). Overall abstract quality was higher for human-written abstracts (p = 0.019)., Conclusions: AI-generated abstracts' absolute authorship-confidence ratings demonstrated difficulty in discerning authorship but did not achieve the perceived quality of human-written abstracts. Caution is warranted in implementing LLMs into scientific writing., (© 2024 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Purpose: While males have dominated the physician lines over the last decades the recent female doctors' number increasing might progressively reduce this gender gap. This might be not fully true in the academic/research area. We aimed to analyze the gender distribution of first/senior Italian authors on neuroendocrine neoplasm papers published on peer reviewed journals., Methods: Publications from January 2019 to September 2023 were reviewed; only papers with first and/or senior Italian authors were included. First/senior author gender, type of article, co-authorship with foreign authors were the variable analyzed., Results: 742 papers with Italian first and/or senior authors were retrieved, 449 (60.5%) multicentric, 285 (38.4%) original articles. A female author was first and senior author in 386/742 (52%) and in 228/742 (31%) papers, respectively. 150 (20.2%) papers included foreign coauthors, being an Italian female researcher first author in 50 papers (33%), senior author in 28 (18.6%). The number of Italian female first/senior authors has been increasing over the years (22 in 2019, 113 in 2022; 16 in 2019, 62 in 2022, respectively). The first/senior female authors were mainly Oncologists/Endocrinologists/Pathologists rather than Gastroenterologists/Nuclear Medicine doctors/Surgeons/Radiologists., Conclusion: There has been an increase in the prevalence of female authorship of published research in the neuroendocrine setting over the last 5 years, which partially reflects the current distributions in this field, taking into account that several specialties with different gender distribution are involved. However, senior authorship continues to be primarily men. Efforts should be made to improve proportionate gender representation in both clinical and academic/research setting., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Italian Society of Endocrinology (SIE).)

The landscape of research roles within academic journals often remains uncharted territory, with authorial contributions frequently reduced to linear hierarchies (e.g., professor and assistant professor). The Kano model, traditionally used in customer satisfaction research, offers a nuanced framework for identifying the multifaceted roles of authors in scholarly publications. This study utilizes the Kano model to dissect and categorize the roles of authors in the medicine field. To conform to the hypothesis, China is the research leader while the US is the research collaborator, as reflected in the publications of the journal of Medicine (Baltimore) in the year 2023. We conducted a comprehensive bibliometric analysis of all research articles published in the journal of Medicine (Baltimore) in 2023. The Kano model was applied to classify authors into 5 categories reflective of their research roles: followers, leaders, partners, contributors, and collaborators. Data on author publications and co-authorship networks with multi-author rates (MARs) were analyzed to assign Kano categories based on the authorship positions of first and corresponding authors. Descriptive statistics and network analysis tools were used to interpret the data, including radar plots, geographical maps, and Kano diagrams. The analysis covered 1976 articles, uncovering a complex network of author roles that extends beyond the conventional binary distinction of lead and supporting authors (i.e., leading, and following researchers). A research leader in China and a collaborator in the US were conformed to support the hypothesis, based on their publications (1148 vs 51) and MARs (12.20% vs 19.61%). The Kano classification was visually adapted to classify authors (or entities) into 5 categories. The combined choropleth and geographical network maps were illustrated to identify author roles in research briefly. The Kano model serves as an effective tool for uncovering the diverse contributions of authors in medical research. By moving beyond the lead and follower dichotomy, this study highlights the intricate ecosystem of authorial roles, emphasizing the importance of each in advancing knowledge within the field of medicine. Future application of the Kano model could foster a more collaborative and inclusive recognition of contributions across various disciplines., Competing Interests: The authors have no funding and conflicts of interest to disclose., (Copyright © 2024 the Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.)

The concept of impact beam plots (IBPs) has been introduced in academia as a means to profile individual researchers. Despite its potential, there has been a lack of comprehensive analysis that evaluates the research profiles of highly published authors through the lens of collaborative maps. This study introduces a novel approach, the rating scale for research profiles (RSRP), to create collaborative maps for prolific authors. The initial hypothesis posited that each of the research profiles would attain a grade A, necessitating empirical verification. This research employed collaborative maps to analyze the publication patterns of authors using the Web of Science database, focusing on co-authorship patterns and the impact of their scholarly work. The study relied on various bibliometric indicators, such as publication count, citation metrics, h-index, and co-authorship networks, to provide a detailed assessment of the contributions made by each author in their field. Additionally, authors' IBPs were generated and assessed alongside collaborative maps, using a grading scale ranging from A (excellent) to F (lacking any articles as first or corresponding author). The analysis confirmed that all 4 research profiles achieved a grade A, with their centroids located in the third quadrant, indicating a high level of scholarly impact. The h-indexes for the authors were found to be 38, 51, 53, and 59, respectively. Notably, Dr Tseng from Taiwan showed a distinct pattern, with a significant number of solo-authored publications in the second quadrant, in contrast to the other 3 authors who demonstrated a greater emphasis on collaboration, as evidenced by their positioning in the first quadrant. The study successfully demonstrates that RSRP and IBPs can be effectively used to analyze and profile the research output of highly published authors through collaborative maps. The research confirms the initial hypothesis that all 4 profiles would achieve a grade A, indicating an excellent level of scholarly impact and a strong presence in their respective fields. The utility of collaborative maps can be applied to bibliometric indicators in assessing the contributions and impact of scholars in the academic community., Competing Interests: The authors have no funding and conflicts of interest to disclose., (Copyright © 2024 the Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.)

Background: The increase in authors per scientific article in many different medical and scientific disciplines has raised concerns over ethical authorship. Trends in authorship in dermatopathology are unknown., Methods: Cross-sectional study of a random sample of 200 articles from the Journal of Cutaneous Pathology (1981-2020)., Results: The number of authors per article increased by an estimated 96% between 1981 and 2020 (2.7-5.3), while the relative citation ratio decreased by an estimated 56% during the same period (1.19-0.52). Higher author counts were not associated with higher relative citation ratios (p = 0.2349) or analytic study designs (p = 0.2987). Higher relative citation ratios were associated with analytic study designs (p = 0.0374)., Conclusions: There has been significant growth in authorship credit at the journal without a corresponding increase in research impact or study rigor. Remedial measures to stem authorship inflation and promote more impactful studies may be necessary., (© 2024 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

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., (© 2024 Japan Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

An introduction is presented in which the editor discusses various articles on topics including ENT specialist training in the United Kingdom, providing valuable insights for aspiring ENT surgeons regarding portfolio building, competitiveness of the process, and strategies for success.

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

Having an academic paper published in a journal is an important stage for sharing the findings with colleagues. However, getting sufficient citations from the article is another stage for the academicians, which is more important than publishing the paper. In this presentation, we aimed to provide comprehensive guidelines for increasing citations of academic articles, focusing on critical aspects of paper presentation and dissemination. This presentation covers essential factors like using a concise, informative title, including authors' names without typological mistakes, writing a clear and precise abstract containing quantitative data followed by relevant and sufficient keywords, and ensuring significant, novel findings are well-presented. We emphasized the importance of high-quality tables, figures, up-to-date references, and effective networking and collaborations. Adhering to these principles enhances academic papers' visibility, readability, and impact, significantly increasing the likelihood of high citation rates. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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

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

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

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

The article offers a look into the continuing evolution of the journal. Several undergoing changes to the journal to improve reader experience include shift in how information is distributed to include multiple formats, blending of online and print publications, update editorial guidelines and expectations for how papers are to be submitted, and reduced time to complete reviews of papers submitted.

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

Some researchers publish a new paper every five days, on average. Data trackers suspect not all their manuscripts were produced through honest labour. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]