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]

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]

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]

Key content As with all skills, the art of reviewing a scientific paper can be acquired, refined and perfected., It is not only a compliment to be invited to review an article but the knowledge acquired in the process, along with the continuing professional development credits gained, makes it a valuable opportunity for the reviewer, quite apart from it being a service to the journal and the scientific community., This article describes the basic principles and responsibilities of reviewing a medical paper., A considered peer review gives constructive feedback to the authors, enhances the credibility and value of the journal and is a service to medical science., Learning objectives To understand the basic principles of reviewing a paper., To be aware of the responsibilities of a reviewer., To know how to write feedback for authors and the editor., Ethical issues Plagiarism can be committed by the reviewer or author., Does the allegiance of the reviewer lie with the journal or the author? [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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.

The position of an author on the byline of a paper affects the inferences readers make about their contributions to the research. We examine gender differences in authorship in the ecology literature using two datasets: submissions to six journals between 2010 and 2015 (regardless of whether they were accepted), and manuscripts published by 151 journals between 2009 and 2015. Women were less likely to be last (i.e., "senior") authors (averaging ~23% across journals, years, and datasets) and sole authors (~24%), but more likely to be first author (~38%), relative to their overall frequency of authorship (~31%). However, the proportion of women in all authorship roles, except sole authorship, has increased year‐on‐year. Women were less likely to be authors on papers with male last authors, and all‐male papers were more abundant than expected given the overall gender ratio. Women were equally well represented on papers published in higher versus lower impact factor journals at all authorship positions. Female first authors were less likely to serve as corresponding author of their papers; this difference increased with the degree of gender inequality in the author's home country, but did not depend on the gender of the last author. First authors from non‐English‐speaking countries were less likely to serve as corresponding author of their papers, especially if the last author was from an English‐speaking country. That women more often delegate corresponding authorship to one of their coauthors may increase the likelihood that readers undervalue their role in the research by shifting credit for their contributions to coauthors. We suggest that author contribution statements be more universally adopted and that these statements declare how and/or why the corresponding author was selected for this role. We examine gender differences and geographic variation in first, last, and corresponding authorship in the ecology and evolution. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There is a widespread perception in the academic community that peer review is subject to many biases and can be influenced by the identity and biographic features (such as gender) of manuscript authors., We examined how patterns of authorship differ between men and women, and whether author gender influences editorial and peer review outcomes and/or the peer review process for papers submitted to the journal Functional Ecology between 2010 and 2014., Women represented approximately a third of all authors on papers submitted to Functional Ecology. Relative to overall frequency of authorship, women were underrepresented as solo authors (26% were women). On multi-authored papers, women were also underrepresented as last/senior authors (25% were women) but overrepresented as first authors (43% were women). Women first authors were less likely than men first authors to serve as corresponding and submitting author of their papers; this difference was not influenced by the gender of the last author. Women were more likely to be authors on papers if the last author was female., Papers with female authors (i) were equally likely to be sent for peer review, (ii) obtained equivalent peer review scores and (iii) were equally likely to be accepted for publication, compared to papers with male authors. There was no evidence that male editors or male reviewers treated papers authored by women differently than did female editors and reviewers, and no evidence that more senior editors reached different decisions than younger editors after review, or cumulative through the entire process, for papers authored by men vs. women., Papers authored by women were more likely to be reviewed by women. This is primarily because women were more likely to be invited to review if the authors on a paper were female than if the authors were male., Patterns of authorship, and the role undertaken as author (e.g., submitting and serving as corresponding author), differ notably between men and women for papers submitted to Functional Ecology. However, consistent with a growing body of literature indicating that peer review underlying the scholarly publishing process is largely gender-neutral, outcomes of editorial and peer review at Functional Ecology were not influenced by author gender. [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]

This study investigated changes in the internationality of national publishers' journals for the period 1990-2013. The patterns of foreign and interregional authorship in papers and references of 4,199 journals from 3,529 publishers were analyzed. The results revealed that foreign authorship increased from 36% to 62% during the period, but interregional authorship only grew from 77% to 82%. The growth in internationality is not the same across disciplines and regions of the world. Agricultural sciences, psychiatry/ psychology, and economics and business have the least number of foreign authors, while journals in space science, mathematics, and physics have the most. According to the number of both foreign-authored papers and foreign-authored citations, clinical medicine is one of the least international fields. Latin America and Middle East publishers have a greater tendency to publish papers from authors in their countries. In contrast, national publishers in North America have become considerably more international over time. Russia, China, and Brazil publish the least number of foreign authored-papers in their journals, while Switzerland's journals publish the most. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives The purpose of this study was to characterize the publication fate of a recent 2-year sample of manuscripts declined by Academic Emergency Medicine ( AEM), the journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine. Methods This was a retrospective analysis of manuscripts submitted to AEM in 2010 and 2011 that were declined by the AEM editorial review process. An online search was conducted for each declined paper, to determine whether or not it was published in another clinical/scientific journal after being declined by AEM. The investigators used Scopus and Google Scholar, using the submitting author's name, the verbatim title, and key words and phrases from the title, to search for subsequent publication of each paper. Results Of 1,542 manuscript submissions to the journal in 2010 and 2011, 1,052 papers were declined. Of these, 693 (65.9%) were subsequently published elsewhere, in a total of 229 journals: 362 papers in 22 different EM journals, 81 in 14 EM subspecialty journals, 237 in 185 non- EM journals, and 13 in eight nursing journals. Papers were published a median of 16.7 months (interquartile range [ IQR] = 11.8 to 22.0 months) after being declined at AEM. Of the 229 journals, 19 do not have h-indices. The median h-index of the remaining 210 journals is 36 ( IQR = 17 to 64; maximum = 229; AEM's h-index is 78). Thirty of these 210 journals, publishing 43 papers, have higher h-indices than AEM; the other 650 papers were published in journals either with lower h-indices than AEM's ( n = 180 journals) or in journals without h-indices ( n = 19 journals). U.S. and non-U.S. authors had similar rates of subsequent publication (65.3% vs 66.6%, p = 0.69) for papers initially declined by AEM. Papers in the educational advances category were less likely to be subsequently published than those in the original contributions (p < 0.0001) and brief reports (p = 0.0137) categories. Conclusions Nearly two-thirds of manuscripts declined by SAEM's journal are eventually published elsewhere, in a large number and wide variety of both EM and non- EM journals, in a median of 16.7 months. Authors of manuscripts declined by AEM should consider submission elsewhere, as subsequent publication of these manuscripts in another journal is probable. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Government policies attempting to slow the spread of COVID‐19 have reduced access to research laboratories and shifted many scholars to working from home. These disruptions will likely influence submissions to scholarly journals, and affect the time available for editors and reviewers to participate in peer review.In this editorial we examine how journal submissions, and editorial and peer review processes, have been influenced by the pandemic at six journals published by the British Ecological Society (BES).We find no evidence of a change in the geographic pattern of submissions from across the globe. We also find no evidence that submission of manuscripts by women has been more affected by pandemic disruptions than have submissions by men—the proportion of papers authored by women during the COVID period of 2020 has not changed relative to the same period in 2019.Editors handled papers just as quickly, and reviewers have agreed to review just as often, during the pandemic compared to pre‐pandemic. The one notable change in peer review during the pandemic is that reviewers replied more quickly to emails inviting them to review (albeit only 4% sooner), and those who agreed to review returned their reviews more quickly (17% sooner), during the pandemic.We thus find no evidence at these six ecology journals that submissions and peer review processes have been negatively impacted by the pandemic. Also, contrary to analyses in other disciplines, we do not find evidence that there have been disproportionate impacts of the pandemic on female authors and reviewers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Authorship is intended to convey information regarding credit and responsibility for manuscripts. However, while there is general agreement within ecology that the first author is the person who contributed the most to a particular project, there is less agreement regarding whether being last author is a position of significance and regarding what is indicated by someone being the corresponding author on a manuscript. Using an analysis of papers published in American Naturalist, Ecology, Evolution, and Oikos, I found that: (1) the number of authors on papers is increasing over time; (2) the proportion of first authors as corresponding author has increased over time, as has the proportion of last authors as corresponding author; (3) 84% of papers published in 2016 had the first author as corresponding author; and (4) geographic regions differed in the likelihood of having the first (or last) author as corresponding author. I also carried out an online survey to better understand views on last and corresponding authorship. This survey revealed that most ecologists view the last author as the 'senior' author on a paper (i.e., the person who runs the research group in which most of the work was carried out), and most ecologists view the corresponding author as the person taking full responsibility for a paper. However, there was substantial variation in views on authorship, especially corresponding authorship. Given these results, I suggest that discussions of authorship have as their starting point that the first author will be corresponding author and the senior author will be last author. I also suggest ways of deciding author order in cases where two senior authors contributed equally. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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]

Considering the fact that authorship order plays such a significant role as a basis for scientific merit, this paper looks into the practices of authorship order from a research ethical perspective. We conclude that there is a wide variety of practices and no common understanding of what the different authorship positions signify. Authorship guidelines do not provide much help. We recognize that, regardless of what system for valuing authorship positions is used, it will be misleading and unfair in most applications because relative contributions vary in ways that are not captured by fixed value assignments to authorship positions. In theory, assigning percentage figures reflecting the relative contributions of the authors would solve that problem, but we argue that such a scheme is not likely to work in practice. It can also be questioned whether relative, rather than absolute, contributions should be the basis for scientific merit. Contributorship is discussed as an alternative, but is recognized to be insufficient both in communicating absolute and relative contributions, as standardly used. However, there may be a way forward with contributorship, but then, the level of detail needs to increase considerably and its application be standardized. [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]

Journal of Animal Ecology now only accepts submissions online. When your manuscript has been prepared in accordance with the following instructions, please access the online submission site at You must select the Journal of Animal Ecology when you log on. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article calls for papers that advance understanding and expertise in the design, implementation, and evaluation of resource-oriented interventions in the workplace. The papers must advance both methodological approaches to studying resource-oriented interventions and original empirical contributions that represent innovative interventions. Also, the papers must address boundary conditions for effective interventions or discuss additional ways to measure intervention effectiveness.

Academic publishers purport to be arbiters of knowledge, aiming to publish studies that advance the frontiers of their research domain. Yet the effectiveness of journal editors at identifying novel and important research is generally unknown, in part because of the confidential nature of the editorial and peer review process. Using questionnaires, we evaluated the degree to which journals are effective arbiters of scientific impact on the domain of Ecology, quantified by three key criteria. First, journals discriminated against low‐impact manuscripts: The probability of rejection increased as the number of citations gained by the published paper decreased. Second, journals were more likely to publish high‐impact manuscripts (those that obtained citations in 90th percentile for their journal) than run‐of‐the‐mill manuscripts; editors were only 23% and 41% as likely to reject an eventual high‐impact paper (pre‐ versus postreview rejection) compared to a run‐of‐the‐mill paper. Third, editors did occasionally reject papers that went on to be highly cited. Error rates were low, however: Only 3.8% of rejected papers gained more citations than the median article in the journal that rejected them, and only 9.2% of rejected manuscripts went on to be high‐impact papers in the (generally lower impact factor) publishing journal. The effectiveness of scientific arbitration increased with journal prominence, although some highly prominent journals were no more effective than much less prominent ones. We conclude that the academic publishing system, founded on peer review, appropriately recognizes the significance of research contained in manuscripts, as measured by the number of citations that manuscripts obtain after publication, even though some errors are made. We therefore recommend that authors reduce publication delays by choosing journals appropriate to the significance of their research. Using a unique dataset of 10,580 questionnaire responses, we show that journals in the domain of ecology are effective gatekeepers, disproportionately rejecting low‐impact studies and publishing high‐impact ones. Rejected studies, once they are published in a different journal, tend to be poorly cited, and articles that obtain citation counts above the 90th percentile in their journal are far less likely to have been previously rejected than quotidian articles. Moreover, more prominent journals tend to be more stringent gatekeepers. [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]

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]

Using a specific case as an example, the article argues that the Internet allows dissemination of academic ideas to the general public in ways that can sometimes pose a threat to academic freedom. Since academic freedom is a fundamental element of academia and since it benefits society at large, it is important to safeguard it. Among measures that can be taken in order to achieve this goal, the publication of anonymous research seems to be a good option. [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]

Presents a list of forthcoming papers scheduled to be pubilshed in the "European Journal of Biochemistry," in 1988. Subjects; Authorship.

The journal impact factor is widely used as a performance indicator for single authors (despite its unsuitably in this respect). Hence, authors are increasingly exercised if there is any sign that impact factors are being manipulated. Editors who ask authors to cite relevant papers from their own journal are accused of acting unethically. This is surprising because, besides publishers, authors are the primary beneficiaries of an increased impact factor of the journal in which they publish, and because the citation process is biased anyway. There is growing evidence that quality and relevance are not always the reasons for choosing references. Authors' biases and personal environments as well as strategic considerations are major factors. As long as an editor does not force authors to cite irrelevant papers from their own journal, I consider it as a matter of caretaking for the journal and its authors if an editor brings recent papers to the authors' attention. It would be unfair to authors and disloyal to the publisher if an editor did not try to increase the impact of his/her own journal. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Key points A clear set of rules regarding authorship responsibilities in academic publications is much needed. The leading research integrity guidelines on scientific authorship, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors Recommendations, are unclear about authorship responsibilities in case of misconduct. The source of the problem is the fourth authorship criterion – it should be revised. [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]

This article reports on the findings of an international online survey of early career researchers (ECRs) with regard to their authorship and peer review, attitudes, and practices, which sought to discover how the new wave of researchers were utilizing these key aspects of the scholarly communications system. A questionnaire was developed on the back of a 3‐year longitudinal, qualitative study and was distributed through publisher lists, social media networks, university networks, and specialist ECR membership organizations. Identical English, Polish, Russian, Chinese, Spanish, and French versions of the questionnaire were used. Results from 1,600 respondents demonstrated that 82.7% had co‐authored a paper, and most had performed a variety of authorship tasks. Almost half the respondents reported being subject to various authorship policies, although a quarter said they were not aware of any such policies. Almost all Chinese ECRs reported being subject to authorship policies, but only a third of UK ECRs reported the same. Three‐quarters of ECRs had experience in responding to peer review, and half had been peer reviewers. Half the respondents had a good experience of review and viewed it as a valuable way to improve their authorship skills. However, there was some criticism of some shortcoming such as lengthy peer review and superficial or uninformed comments by reviewers. Double‐blind review was the preferred methodology, and there were few suggestions for how to improve the review process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents statistics related to the contributions and manuscripts contributed by writers to the journal from 2014-2015.

Properly assigning authorship of academic papers is often an ethical challenge. Through a hypothetical case study, the authors examine some of the potential ethical issues involved in determining who should and should not be listed as an author: the problems of honorary authorship, coerced authorship, and ghost authorship, as well as the question of how to order authors. Guidelines for avoiding and negotiating these issues are also discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents publication policies and instructions to contributors to the periodical. It is noted that manuscripts should be sent electronically and the editor, Bradford H. Gray, is responsible in making initial determination of which articles are to be included in an issue. The policies on authorship, assignment of copyright, conflict of interest, and prior dissemination relative to manuscript submission are also discussed.

Presents instructions to authors and publication policies of the periodical "Milbank Quarterly," which deals with issues in health and health care policy. Submission of manuscripts; Specifications for manuscripts; Policies on authorship, conflict of interest, prior dissemination and assignment of copyright.

Provides information about the regulations on manuscript submission of the journal, "Milbank Quarterly." Mission of the periodical; Instruction on the formatting of the manuscript; Contact information.

This study presents findings from the first year of the Harbingers research project, a 3-year longitudinal study of early career researchers ( ECRs), which sought to ascertain current and changing habits in scholarly communication. The study recruited 116 science and social science ECRs from seven countries who were subject to in-depth interviews, and this paper reports on findings regarding publishing and authorship practices and attitudes. A major objective was to determine whether ECRs are taking the myriad opportunities proffered by new digital innovations, developing within the context of open science, open access, and social media, to publish their research. The main finding is that these opportunities are generally not taken because ECRs are constrained by convention and the precarious employment environment they inhabit and know what is best for them, which is to publish (in high impact factor journals) or perish. [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]

The article offers information on AI-powered chatbots, specifically focusing on the capabilities of the GPT (generative pretrained transformer) model, such as synthesizing information and generating accurate educational brochures. It discusses the implications of using large language models (LLMs) in scientific papers, highlighting concerns about accountability and potential biases.

An introduction to the journal's special issue is presented in which the guest editors discuss the use of the system dynamics approach (SD).

The authors discuss the need for periodical editors to be good authors. In the role of an author, editors must specify research direction, explore the development of the field and choose appropriate research methods. They mention some of the common ways to learn from journals. They conclude that editors need to spare some time to improve knowledge and ability in addition to the daily tasks of editing.

This paper continues to study issues developed in a preceding manuscript which provided a definitional context for accounting history, its uses and limitations as a method of inquiry related to educational endeavours, standard setting and practice. In this study two aspects of the development of the history of accounting, subject matter and methodology, are extensively explored within the context of a definition of historiography. A set of outline tables is provided to assist researchers considering the topic areas as well as the process of historical inquiry, especially those scholars who do not specialise in historical study. As in the previous paper, an extensive bibliography is provided. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction International collaboration is recognised for enhancing the ability to approach complex problems from a variety of perspectives, increasing development of a wider range of research skills and techniques and improving publication and acceptance rates. The aim of this paper is to describe the current status of international collaboration in medical radiation science and compare this to other allied health occupations. Methods This study utilised a content analysis approach where co-authorship of a journal article was used as a proxy for research collaboration and the papers were assigned to countries based on the corporate address given in the by-line of the publication. A convenience sample method was employed and articles published in the professional medical radiation science journals in the countries represented within our research team - Australia, the United Kingdom ( UK) and the United States of America ( USA) were sampled. Physiotherapy, speech pathology, occupational therapy and nursing were chosen for comparison. Results Rates of international collaboration in medical radiation science journals from Australia, the UK and the USA have steadily increased over the 3-year period sampled. Medical radiation science demonstrated lower average rates of international collaboration than the other allied health occupations sampled. The average rate of international collaboration in nursing was far below that of the allied health occupations sampled. Overall, the UK had the highest average rate of international collaboration, followed by Australia and the USA, the lowest. Conclusion Overall, medical radiation science is lagging in international collaboration in comparison to other allied health fields. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Shares insights about professional responsibilities in academic publishing. Four principal groups of players in academic publishing who complement each other; Identification of the various processes involved in bringing a paper to print; Emphasis on the need of authors, editors, reviewers and publishers to act more responsibly and do their respective tasks to the best of their abilities.

Writing style is considered the manner in which an author expresses his thoughts, influenced by language characteristics, period, school, or nation. Often, this writing style can identify the author. One of the most famous examples comes from 1914 in Portuguese literature. With Fernando Pessoa and his heteronyms Alberto Caeiro, Álvaro de Campos, and Ricardo Reis, who had completely different writing styles, led people to believe that they were different individuals. Currently, the discussion of authorship identification is more relevant because of the considerable amount of widespread fake news in social media, in which it is hard to identify who authored a text and even a simple quote can impact the public image of an author, especially if these texts or quotes are from politicians. This paper presents a process to analyse the emotion contained in social media messages such as Facebook to identify the author's emotional profile and use it to improve the ability to predict the author of the message. Using preprocessing techniques, lexicon‐based approaches, and machine learning, we achieved an authorship identification improvement of approximately 5% in the whole dataset and more than 50% in specific authors when considering the emotional profile on the writing style, thus increasing the ability to identify the author of a text by considering only the author's emotional profile, previously detected from prior texts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The global scientific community has become increasingly diverse over recent decades, but is this ongoing development also reflected among top‐publishing authors and potential scientific leaders? We surveyed 13 leading journals in ecology, evolution, and conservation to investigate the diversity of the 100 top‐publishing authors in each journal between 1945 and 2019. Out of 1051 individual top‐publishing authors, only 11% are women. The United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, Germany, and Canada account for more than 75% of top‐publishing authors, while countries of the Global South (as well as Russia, Japan, and South Korea) were strikingly underrepresented. The number of top‐publishing authors who are women and/or are from the Global South is increasing only slowly over time. We outline transformative actions that scientific communities can take to enhance diversity, equity and inclusion at author, leadership, and society level. The resulting promotion of scientific innovation and productivity is essential for the development of global solutions in conservation science. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Key points: Letters to the editor are important to science because they are a form of post‐publication review.Examination of 3,203 letters published in exercise science and physical therapy journals revealed letters are indexed inconsistently.Issues exist with letter titles, letter authorship, and letter digital object identifiers (DOIs) and PubMed identifiers (PMIDs).Implications are that some letters are difficult to discover and cite, and some letter writers are not recognized for their intellectual contributions.Resolutions include indexing letters in PubMed under the "letter" [pt] search term and indexing each letter with the author's name, a distinct but consistently formatted title, and a unique DOI and PMID. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The authors discuss the industrialization of drug development process. They argue that good clinical practice (GNP) are applied to clinical trials for drug development that is recognized internationally. They mention that clinical investigators are sometimes not included or acknowledge in the paper which should be a concern. They state the rule of "British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology" which would reject papers that do not acknowledge clinical investigators.

Peer review is important in ensuring quality. As science and technology develops in China, the number of scientific papers is increasing, and it is interesting to discover whether there are differences between reviewers from China and those from other countries when they review manuscripts submitted by Chinese authors. This study was based on an environmental academic Chinese (English language) journal. The peer review of 157 manuscripts from Chinese authors was analyzed. There are significant differences in whether a potential reviewer accepts an invitation to review; however, the outcome of peer review is almost unaffected by the reviewer's geographical origin. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Describes the elementary level reading and authorship program `Image-Making Within the Writing Process' created at the University of New Hampshire in Durham. Process-oriented art explorations; Paper-texturing; Provision of concrete tools for thinking and designing stories; Children's personal interaction with print.

Background: The increasing number of women physicians is in contrast to their underrepresentation in academic positions and professional associations. This study aimed to evaluate the status of women physicians in the Japanese Society of Hospital General Medicine (JHGM) based on society membership, board membership, and annual meeting authorship. Methods: A cross‐sectional analysis was conducted. Information on women physicians, society and board membership, and annual meeting authorship was collected. Data from the Japanese Primary Care Association (JPCA) served as the control. The gender of authors with accepted abstracts in the JHGM and JPCA annual meetings was determined by name or Internet search. Results: In the JHGM, 14.2% of members were women physicians, compared to 19.1% in the JPCA (p < 0.001). None of the 21 JHGM board members were women, compared to 20.5% in the JPCA (p < 0.001). The average number of years of experience was significantly higher for the JHGM board members than for the JPCA board members (37.0 vs. 28.1 years, p < 0.001). Women first authors in the 2022–2023 JHGM meeting comprised 17.9%, significantly lower than the 28.4% in the 2023 JPCA meeting (p = 0.002). Similar patterns were seen for women last authors (6.0% in the JHGM vs. 18.8% in the JPCA, p < 0.001) and women chairpersons (17.9% in the JHGM vs. 40.3% in the JPCA, p = 0.036). Conclusions: The JHGM has low women representation in society and board membership, and annual meeting authorship. Strategies are needed to enhance diversity and inclusion by increasing women's participation and leadership in the JHGM. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]