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]

Background: The research of alcohol consumption-related problems is a multidisciplinary field. The aim of this study is to analyze the worldwide scientific production in the area of alcohol-drinking and alcohol-related problems from 2005 to 2009., Methods: A MEDLINE and Scopus search on alcohol (alcohol-drinking and alcohol-related problems) published from 2005 to 2009 was carried out. Using bibliometric indicators, the distribution of the publications was determined within the journals that publish said articles, specialty of the journal (broad subject terms), article type, language of the publication, and country where the journal is published. Also, authorship characteristics were assessed (collaboration index and number of authors who have published more than 9 documents). The existing research groups were also determined., Results: About 24,100 documents on alcohol, published in 3,862 journals, and authored by 69,640 authors were retrieved from MEDLINE and Scopus between the years 2005 and 2009. The collaboration index of the articles was 4.83 ± 3.7. The number of consolidated research groups in the field was identified as 383, with 1,933 authors. Documents on alcohol were published mainly in journals covering the field of "Substance-Related Disorders," 23.18%, followed by "Medicine," 8.7%, "Psychiatry," 6.17%, and "Gastroenterology," 5.25%., Conclusions: Research on alcohol is a consolidated field, with an average of 4,820 documents published each year between 2005 and 2009 in MEDLINE and Scopus. Alcohol-related publications have a marked multidisciplinary nature. Collaboration was common among alcohol researchers. There is an underrepresentation of alcohol-related publications in languages other than English and from developing countries, in MEDLINE and Scopus databases., (Copyright © 2012 by the Research Society on Alcoholism.)

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]

To more reasonably allocate a paper's credit, this article argues that both a paper's authors and references contribute to a given paper. Accordingly, we quantitatively represent the proportion of contributions from each author and reference to a paper. A paper's credit can be allocated among its authors and references based on their contributions. All papers carry innate credit because of publication. If cited, they also carry external credit from the citing papers. The proportion of a paper's credit allocated to references can be regarded as a credit output and serves as an input for these references. In this scenario, only the credit assigned to a paper's authors remains as the paper's deserved credit. The credit of papers can be transferred in a direction opposite that of knowledge diffusion. Via this method, the estimate of an individual reference's contribution incorporates content‐based citation analysis, a promising method to differentiate different citations. A paper's deserved credit represents the contribution of the paper's authors to the scientific community via the new knowledge they provide in the paper. Therefore, it is rational to evaluate papers according to their deserved credit, not the credit they carry. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: This quali‐quantitative study analysed the 100 most‐cited papers in core dental public health (DPH) journals focusing on understanding international knowledge production. Methods: The DPH journals were selected from titles and scopes at Web of Science Core Collection database up to March 2020. Further comparisons were performed at Scopus and Google Scholar databases. Some bibliometric parameters were extracted as follows: title, number of citations, citation density (number of citations per year), first author's country, year of publication, study design and subject. VOSviewer software was used to create graphical bibliometric maps. Results: Papers were ranked by the total number of citations, which ranged from 104 to 1,019, and six papers were cited more than 400 times. Papers were published from 1974 to 2013, mainly in Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology. Most frequent study designs were cross‐sectional (30%) and nonsystematic review (25%). Most papers were from Europe (54%) and North America (31%). First authors were predominantly from the United Kingdom (17%), United States of America (17%) and Canada (14%). VOSviewer map of co‐authorship demonstrated the existence of clusters in the research collaboration. Although epidemiology was the most frequent subject (84%), health services research presented eight times higher citation density. Conclusions: Top 100 most‐cited papers in core DPH journals were predominantly observational studies from Anglo‐Saxon countries. Top 100 most‐cited papers in core DPH journals tend to be cross‐sectional studies carried out in the United States with highest citation in health services research. Locker D, Petersen PE and Sheiham A are a landmark for DPH field. [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]

As a follow-up to the highly cited authors list published by Thomson Reuters in June 2014, we analyzed the top 1% most frequently cited papers published between 2002 and 2012 included in the Web of Science ( WoS) subject category 'Information Science & Library Science.' In all, 798 authors contributed to 305 top 1% publications; these authors were employed at 275 institutions. The authors at Harvard University contributed the largest number of papers, when the addresses are whole-number counted. However, Leiden University leads the ranking if fractional counting is used. Twenty-three of the 798 authors were also listed as most highly cited authors by Thomson Reuters in June 2014 (). Twelve of these 23 authors were involved in publishing 4 or more of the 305 papers under study. Analysis of coauthorship relations among the 798 highly cited scientists shows that coauthorships are based on common interests in a specific topic. Three topics were important between 2002 and 2012: (a) collection and exploitation of information in clinical practices; (b) use of the Internet in public communication and commerce; and (c) scientometrics. [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.

This paper examines the citation counts of papers published in the first 25 years of the Sociology of Health and Illness. According to this measure only a small number of papers have made a major impact on the discipline of sociology of health and illness and an analysis of these select papers identifies some common themes. In particular, ‘successful’ papers have provided important theoretical constructs for the field while exploration of aspects of identity has been a recurrent focus. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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.

This paper attempts to explain the mechanics of writing a research paper in visualization. This serves as a useful starting point for those who have never written a research paper before or have very little previous experience. After all, no one is born knowing how to write one. And yet, there are certain elements, a commonality, that should be found in virtually all good visualization research papers. We give our recommendations as to each section a good research paper consists of as well as what each section contains. This paper itself follows our recommended structure. We believe that paper writing should start with the abstract. The abstract can be approximately 6-12 sentences. It is a difficult starting point, but it forces the author to write down a concise description of what they are researching and what the benefits are. Chances are, if the author cannot start out by writing an abstract, then it is not clear in the author's mind what the paper should be about. Of course, the abstract will be refined and updated during the paper writing process. The abstract should concisely (1) identify the research topic, (2) describe the novelty of the presented work and (3) identify the benefits and advantages that result. [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]

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.)

The BRICS countries ( Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) are notable for their increasing participation in science and technology. The governments of these countries have been boosting their investments in research and development to become part of the group of nations doing research at a world-class level. This study investigates the development of the BRICS countries in the domain of top-cited papers (top 10% and 1% most frequently cited papers) between 1990 and 2010. To assess the extent to which these countries have become important players at the top level, we compare the BRICS countries with the top-performing countries worldwide. As the analyses of the (annual) growth rates show, with the exception of Russia, the BRICS countries have increased their output in terms of most frequently cited papers at a higher rate than the top-cited countries worldwide. By way of additional analysis, we generate coauthorship networks among authors of highly cited papers for 4 time points to view changes in BRICS participation (1995, 2000, 2005, and 2010). Here, the results show that all BRICS countries succeeded in becoming part of this network, whereby the Chinese collaboration activities focus on the US. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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 purpose of this article was to explain a process for embedding an article within a master student's thesis or paper. Embedding an article within the thesis or paper eliminates some of the work that comes with condensing and revising a master's paper into a publishable article. Once the student is aware of the format and the expectation of a publishable article, a target journal should be identified. Authorship is an element that needs to be carefully considered. This should be discussed at or before the proposal meeting and should be in the form of a written agreement. A final consideration is to determine what will happen if the graduate student does not take the initiative to publish. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper examines the practices of natural science researchers and the recognition authors receive in multi-authored papers at Japanese universities. The ' Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals: Writing and Editing for Biomedical Publication' by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, which sets global standards for authorship ethics in many natural science fields, notes problems in two areas in particular: with 'gift authors' (people who are indicated as authors, but who do not actually contribute to the work) and with 'ghost authors' (people, often students or researchers in lower positions, who are not properly represented in the paper even though they make essential contributions to it). We also note the recent complaints by junior researchers about these violations, which are claimed to be harassment or bullying using power differences. Our survey of researchers in natural sciences at 15 top Japanese universities shows that, despite the different specialized fields, few researchers actually meet the gold standard of authorship criteria of proper authorship and about half think that their violation might be condoned. The data are analyzed taking into consideration a particular local context. Through the exploratory research above, we speculate that most natural science researchers in Japan may be either confused about or struggle with the situation where the strict global criteria conflict with specific local cultures that often condone gift and ghost authorships. Those who are already socialized in such local cultures take unethical authorships for granted, while others view it as an intersection of harassment and misconduct. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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.

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]

A call for papers about a special issue of the journal on cognitive and applied ageing is presented.

Abstract Over the past few decades, there has been an increase in the number of multi-author papers within scientific journals. This increase, in combination with the pressure to publish within academia, has precipitated various unethical authorship practices within biomedical research. These include dilution of authorship responsibility, ‘guest’, ‘pressured’ and ‘ghost’ authorship, and obfuscation of authorship credit within by-lines. Other authorship irregularities include divided and duplicate publication. This article discusses these problems and why the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors guidelines are failing to control them. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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]

Objective: To investigate authorship trends in Cochrane reviews from 1996 to 2018, and to examine if the authorship criteria from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) were met for Cochrane reviews with more than 15 authors based on the text in the section "Contributions of authors.", Methods: The median number of authors per review was calculated, and authorship trends within each editorial group were analyzed. The section "Contributions of authors" was assessed about the first and second authorship criteria from the ICMJE for reviews with more than 15 authors., Results: A total of 7447 Cochrane reviews were studied based on data from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. The median number of authors per Cochrane review was 3 in 1996 (IQR 2.5-3, range 2-3), 4 in 2007 (IQR 3-5, range 1-13), and 5 in 2018 (IQR 4-7, range 2-22). Within each editorial group, the total number of authors either increased (26/55, 47%) or was unchanged (29/55, 53%). Based on the text in "Contributions of authors," 59% (16/27) of the reviews with more than 15 authors had authors that did not fulfil the ICMJE authorship criteria. However, the text in "Contributions of authors" was often difficult to interpret., Conclusions: The number of authors per Cochrane review gradually increased from 1996 to 2018. The ICMJE authorship criteria were probably not met by all authors in more than half of the reviews with more than 15 authors., (© 2020 Chinese Cochrane Center, West China Hospital of Sichuan University and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.)

Context: Authorship has major implications for researchers' careers. Hence, journals require researchers to meet formal authorship criteria. However, researchers frequently admit to violating these criteria, which suggests that authorship is a complex issue. This study aims to unpack the complexities inherent in researchers' conceptualisations of questionable authorship practices and to identify factors that make researchers vulnerable to engaging in such practices., Methods: A total of 26 North American medical education researchers at a range of career stages were interviewed. Participants were asked to respond to two vignettes, of which one portrayed honorary authorship and the other described an author order scenario, and then to describe related authorship experiences. Data were analysed using thematic analysis., Results: Participants conceptualised questionable authorship practices in various ways and articulated several ethically grey areas. Personal and situational factors were identified, including hierarchy, resource dependence, institutional culture and gender; these contributed to participants' vulnerability to and involvement in questionable authorship practices. Participants described negative instances of questionable authorship practices as well as situations in which these practices were used for virtuous purposes. Participants rationalised engagement in questionable authorship practices by suggesting that, although technically violating authorship criteria, such practices could be reasonable when they seemed to benefit science., Conclusions: Authorship guidelines portray authorship decisions as being black and white, effectively sidestepping key dimensions that create ethical shades of grey. These findings show that researchers generally recognise these shades of grey and in some cases acknowledge having bent the rules themselves. Sometimes their flexibility is driven by benevolent aims aligned with their own values or prevailing norms such as inclusivity. At other times participation in these practices is framed not as a choice, but rather as a consequence of researchers' vulnerability to individual or system factors beyond their control. Taken together, these findings provide insights to help researchers and institutions move beyond recognition of the challenges of authorship and contribute to the development of informed, evidence-based solutions., (© 2019 John Wiley & Sons Ltd and The Association for the Study of Medical Education.)

More than 50% of medical students and 45% of practising doctors are female in the UK. In the specialty of anaesthesia, 32% of consultants are female. However, compared with males, females are under-represented as authors of articles published in high-impact journals. We investigated the proportion of female first authors by examining the case reports submitted to Anaesthesia Cases since its inception in 2013. We defined authors by their sex (male or female), that is, biological characteristics, rather than their gender. There were a total of 802 submissions to Anaesthesia Cases over 4.5 years. Sixteen submissions were excluded and of the remaining 786 submissions, 279 were accepted and 507 rejected, an acceptance rate of 35.5%. Twenty (2.5%) authors' sex could not be identified. The overall proportion of female first authors was 37.1%. The proportion of female first authors of accepted case reports was 42.1% and females were first authors of rejected case reports in 34.4%. We found that, compared with previous studies on female sex and gender bias in publishing, there was a relatively high proportion of female first authors publishing in Anaesthesia Cases and female first authors were more likely to be accepted than male first authors. Authorship is considered to reflect career success and there continues to be sex/gender inequity that must be tackled at all levels, from application to medical school, through research funding, journals and Editorial Boards., (© 2019 Association of Anaesthetists.)

The article offers information on the journal's invitation for the submission of papers on the topics of open science, qualitative methods, and social psychology.

Presents a case studies of multiple authorship in South African biomedical papers. Relationship between the number of authors per paper and other attributes; Geopolitical source of the publication; Number of references cited per paper; Length of articles.

Presents guidelines for writing research papers. Reason that research is not complete unless it is written up in an informative paper; Information on organizing a paper; Description of each section of a research paper; Ways to prepare for the actual writing process.

In this series we address key topics for clinicians who conduct research as part of their work in the ED. Analysis of research data does not represent the completion of a project as the findings need to be communicated to clinicians and other researchers in the field. In this section, we describe how to write up clinical research data for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. We also describe the editorial and peer-review process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The purpose of this article is to analyze the acknowledgment (ACK) paratext of medical research articles written in English and Spanish in three geographical contexts: Venezuela, Spain, and the United States of America. We thus randomly selected 150 research articles from leading medical journals in each country. The frequency and length of ACKs, the number of named and unnamed acknowledgees, the reasons why they were acknowledged, the number of grants received, and the sources of funding were recorded. The motivations that underpinned each ACK were classified according to B. Cronin's (1995) and C.L. Giles & I.G. Councill's (2004) typology. Results were analyzed by means of chi-square tests. Our results show that ACKs from the English-language corpus are significantly more frequent and longer than those from both the Spanish and Venezuelan samples. The number of persons acknowledged and the number of grants received also were significantly greater in the U.S. sample than they were in the two Spanish-language corpora. Differences were found in the number and types of funding sources. Moreover, in the three corpora, technical/instrumental assistance was more frequently acknowledged than was peers' ideational input. A small-scale ethnographic research study was conducted with Spanish and Venezuelan researchers to get firsthand feedback on the motivations that could lie behind their ACK behavior. We conclude that “backstage solidarity” (E. Goffman, 1959, p. 177; also see B. Cronin & S. Franks, 2006, p. 1915) significantly differs from one context to another, and that the communicative and sociocultural conventions of academic contributorship are not only discipline-dependent but also language- and context-dependent. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article provides the first historical analysis of the relationship between collaboration and scientific impact using three indicators of collaboration (number of authors, number of addresses, and number of countries) derived from articles published between 1900 and 2011. The results demonstrate that an increase in the number of authors leads to an increase in impact, from the beginning of the last century onward, and that this is not due simply to self-citations. A similar trend is also observed for the number of addresses and number of countries represented in the byline of an article. However, the constant inflation of collaboration since 1900 has resulted in diminishing citation returns: Larger and more diverse (in terms of institutional and country affiliation) teams are necessary to realize higher impact. The article concludes with a discussion of the potential causes of the impact gain in citations of collaborative papers. [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]

: [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]

The article talks about the quality of papers submitted to the journal for publication.

Measuring publication success of a researcher is a complicated task as publications are often co‐authored by multiple authors, and so, it requires comparison of solo publications with joint publications. In this paper, like Price (1981), we argue for an egalitarian perspective in accomplishing this task. More specifically, we justify the need for an ethical perspective in quantifying academic author by identifying certain ethical difficulties of some popular contemporary indices used for this purpose. And then we show that for any given dataset of research papers, the unique method satisfying the ethical notions of identity independence and performance invariance must be the egaliatarian E‐index proposed by Bose, Pal, and Sappington (2010) and Price (1981). In our setting, this egalitarian method divides authorship of joint projects equally among authors and sums across all publications of each author. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An editorial is presented how to write a paper for publication. Topics include planning of the successful publication, writing the abstract being the first section of the paper, and writing the methods section needs to convey a variety of information to reader, in order to meet their needs for assessing the quality of the study.

Focuses on a bibliometric study which seeks to provide a quantitative analysis of the authorship of `Nature, Science, and Cell,' from 1991 to 1993. Sources from which data was gathered; Results of the study; Implications of the results.

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]