Search

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.)

The article announces the American Headache Society Early Career Lecture Award which is given to Dr. Russo and his co-authors; and Dr. Nazia Karsan and her co-authors.

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

An editorial is presented on ways that changed the conversation about sexism in medicine. Topics discussed include more collaborative research and manuscript projects have been initiated within the group; how to work ethically in social media based participant research; and traded stories of sexual harassment or unpleasant sex-based comments.

Recent studies of authorship attribution have used machine-learning methods including regularized multinomial logistic regression, neural nets, support vector machines, and the nearest shrunken centroid classifier to identify likely authors of disputed texts. These methods are all limited by an inability to perform open-set classification and account for text and corpus size. We propose a customized Bayesian logit-normal-beta-binomial classification model for supervised authorship attribution. The model is based on the beta-binomial distribution with an explicit inverse relationship between extra-binomial variation and text size. The model internally estimates the relationship of extra-binomial variation to text size, and uses Markov Chain Monte Carlo ( MCMC) to produce distributions of posterior authorship probabilities instead of point estimates. We illustrate the method by training the machine-learning methods as well as the open-set Bayesian classifier on undisputed papers of The Federalist, and testing the method on documents historically attributed to Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison. The Bayesian classifier was the best classifier of these texts. [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.

Objectives: This study aimed to analyze publications on artificial intelligence (AI) for falls in older people from a bibliometric perspective. Methods: The Web of Science database was searched for titles of English‐language articles containing the words "artificial intelligence," "deep learning," "machine learning," "natural language processing,", "neural artificial network," "fall," "geriatric," "elderly," "aging," "older," and "old age." An R‐based application (Biblioshiny for bibliometrics) and VOSviewer software were used for analysis. Results: Thirty‐seven English articles published between 2018 and 2024 were included. The year 2023 is the year with the most publications with 16 articles. The most productive research field was "Engineering Electrical Electronic" with seven articles. The most productive country was the United States, followed by China. The most common words were "injuries," "people," and "risk factors." Conclusion: Publications on AI and falls in the elderly are both few in number and the number of publications has increased in recent years. Future research should include relevant analyses in scientific databases, such as Scopus and PubMed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: A skewed percentage of industry payments goes to "key opinion leaders" (KOLs) whose prominence and influence has increased with time. Given that KOL is neither precisely defined nor quantifiable, we turned to the level of industry payments as a surrogate quantifiable metric and assessed the associations between industry payments to US rheumatologists and their authorships of publications in high‐impact rheumatology journals. Methods: Payments to US rheumatologists during the 2015‐2020 interval were obtained from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Open Payments database, and authorships were tallied for calendar year 2021 publications in the four rheumatology journals (Lancet Rheumatol, Nat Rev Rheumatol, Ann Rheum Dis, Arthritis Rheumatol) with the highest 2021 journal impact factors and journal citation indicators. Differences between groups were determined by chi‐squared test, unpaired Student's t‐test, one‐way analysis of variance (ANOVA), Mann–Whitney rank sum test, and Kruskal–Wallis one‐way ANOVA on ranks. Correlations were calculated using Spearman rank order. A P value ≤0.05 was considered significant. Results: There were 278 individual US rheumatologists who received industry payments and served as authors of publications in the four high‐impact rheumatology journals. Non–research‐associated payments to these individuals strongly correlated with research‐associated payments. Payments to male US rheumatologists were greater than those to their female counterparts, and payments strongly correlated with the number of publications among male authors but only weakly, and often not significantly, among female authors. Conclusion: A substantial fraction of the authorships in calendar year 2021 publications in four high‐impact rheumatology journals arose from a very small percentage of all US rheumatologists who had received industry payments during the 2015‐2020 interval. Payments to male US rheumatologist‐authors were strikingly different from those to female US rheumatologist‐authors, and further investigation is needed to explain the glaring difference in payments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper focuses on medical ghostwriting in the United States. I argue that medical ghostwriting often involves plagiarism and, in those cases, can be treated as an act of research misconduct by both the federal government and research institutions. I also propose several anti-ghostwriting measures, including: 1) journals should implement guarantor policies so that researchers may be better held accountable for their work; 2) research institutions and the federal government should explicitly prohibit medical ghostwriting and outline appropriate penalties; and 3) a publicly available database should be created to record researchers' ethics violations.

The article offers information related to the reports on Graduate Information Programs and Accreditation by the Information professionals Task Force of the American Society for Information Science and Technology (ASIS&T) in the U.S. It states that the reports reviews the status of information professional programs and related accreditation activities. The report further include the news from New England ASIS&T chapter (NEASIS&T) and news from Special Interest Group/Social informatics (SIG/SI). In addition, the reports contains an announcement from Special Interest Group/Intentional Information Issues (SIG/III) related to the winners of the 2008 SIG/III International Paper Context.

As the information field (I Field) becomes more recognized by different constituencies for education and research, the need to better understand its intellectual characteristics becomes more compelling. Although there are various conceptualizations of the I Field, to date, in-depth studies based on empirical evidence are scarce. This article reports a study that fills this gap. We focus on the first five I Schools in the I Caucus as a proxy to represent the I Field. The intellectual characteristics are depicted by two independent sets of data on tenure track faculty as knowledge contributors: their intellectual heritages and the intellectual substance in their journal publications. We use a critical analysis method to examine doctoral training areas and 3 years of journal publications. Our results indicate that (a) the I Field can be better conceptualized with empirical support by a four-component model that includes People, Information, Technology, and Management, as predicted by the I- Model ( Zhang & Benjamin, 2007); (b) the I Schools' faculty members are diverse, interdisciplinary, and multidisciplinary as shown by their intellectual heritages, by their research foci, by journals in which they publish, by the contexts within which they conduct research, and by the levels of analysis in research investigations; (c) the five I Schools share similarities while evincing differences in both faculty heritages and intellectual substances; (d) I School tenure track faculty members do not collaborate much with each other within or across schools although there is great potential; and (e) intellectual heritages are not good predictors of scholars' intellectual substance. We conclude by discussing the implications of the findings on I Field identity, I Field development, new I School formation and existing I School evolution, faculty career development, and collaboration within the I Field. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Efforts to combat continuing gender inequalities in academia need to be informed by evidence about where differences occur. Citations are relevant as potential evidence in appointment and promotion decisions, but it is unclear whether there have been historical gender differences in average citation impact that might explain the current shortfall of senior female academics. This study investigates the evolution of gender differences in citation impact 1996–2018 for six million articles from seven large English‐speaking nations: Australia, Canada, Ireland, Jamaica, New Zealand, UK, and the USA. The results show that a small female citation advantage has been the norm over time for all these countries except the USA, where there has been no practical difference. The female citation advantage is largest, and statistically significant in most years, for Australia and the UK. This suggests that any academic bias against citing female‐authored research cannot explain current employment inequalities. Nevertheless, comparisons using recent citation data, or avoiding it altogether, during appointments or promotion may disadvantage females in some countries by underestimating the likely greater impact of their work, especially in the long term. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Research collaboration is promoted by governments and research funders, but if the relative prevalence and merits of collaboration vary internationally then different national and disciplinary strategies may be needed to promote it. This study compares the team size and field normalized citation impact of research across all 27 Scopus broad fields in the 10 countries with the most journal articles indexed in Scopus 2008–2012. The results show that team size varies substantially by discipline and country, with Japan (4.2) having two‐thirds more authors per article than the United Kingdom (2.5). Solo authorship is rare in China (4%) but common in the United Kingdom (27%). While increasing team size associates with higher citation impact in almost all countries and fields, this association is much weaker in China than elsewhere. There are also field differences in the association between citation impact and collaboration. For example, larger team sizes in the Business, Management & Accounting category do not seem to associate with greater research impact, and for China and India, solo authorship associates with higher citation impact in this field. Overall, there are substantial international and field differences in the extent to which researchers collaborate and the extent to which collaboration associates with higher citation impact. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An introduction to articles published within the issue is presented, including one by Laurie Jinkins describing Washington State's 2019 legislation creating a public long-term care insurance program, another by James Capretta on the state's effort to test a public option in the individual insurance market, and one by David Kindig which analyzes infant mortality in the U.S. by using an unconventional approach.

The article focuses on gaining publications is of paramount importance to many junior doctors and medical students alike, often intense and challenging years of learning and training undertaken, many trainees feel the lingering need to do more to advance their future career prospects by publishing. Topics include the case from final year of medical school to more senior training, and the great source of anxiety for many trainees who on top of their heavy workloads on the ward.

Abstract: Purpose: The aims of this study were to (a) describe the information provided in author guidelines in nursing journals, (b) assess the completeness of this information, and (c) identify the extent and types of reporting guidelines used in nursing journals. Design: Content analysis of author guidelines for 245 nursing journals included in the Directory of Nursing Journals maintained at the International Academy of Nursing Editors website. Methods: Using Research Electronic Data Capture, data on 19 criteria for completeness were extracted from published author guidelines. Additional details about journal requirements, such as allowed length of manuscripts and format for the abstract, were also recorded. Reliability was established by simultaneous review of 25 journals (10%) by the research assistant and a senior member of the research team. Findings: Author guidelines were easily accessible at journal websites or through links to download the information. A majority (73.5%) had completeness scores of 75% or higher; six journals had guidelines that were 100% complete. Half of the journals used the American Psychological Association reference style, and 26.3% used the American Medical Association style. Less than one fourth had stated requirements to use reporting guidelines such as Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses (PRISMA). Conclusions: Author guidelines for nursing journals are generally complete and informative. Although specific reporting guidelines such as CONSORT and PRISMA improve the accuracy and completeness of manuscripts on various types of studies, most nursing journals do not indicate use of these for manuscript preparation. Editors who want to improve their author guidelines should use the 19 criteria for completeness as a gauge for updating and revision. Clinical Relevance: Nurses rely on the published literature to inform their practice and ensure that it is based on evidence. Guidelines for publishing in the scholarly literature assist clinicians and scholars to ensure that published articles are complete, current, concise, and accurate. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article provides an overview of the topics discussed in the journal about governmental programs and their relationships to the structure and functions of the family in the U.S. Each article gives serious attention to current government programs and their historical antecedents, philosophies of the programs and issues in their development and direction, impact of changes in family life on the programs, and impact of the programs on family life. Each author selected the topic he considered the most significant legislation in a specific area and the issues which he considered important and relevant.

The article reflects on advancements and services offered by the periodical since 50 years. It mentions a section of special issue that was drawn on by doctoral training programs in health services research and health policy analysis. It also highlights the challenges faced by the medical journal editors and efforts to tackle head on the issue of authorship.

The increasing abundance of digital textual archives provides an opportunity for understanding human social systems. Yet the literature has not adequately considered the disparate social processes by which texts are produced. Drawing on communication theory, we identify three common processes by which documents might be detectably similar in their textual features-authors sharing subject matter, sharing goals, and sharing sources. We hypothesize that these processes produce distinct, detectable relationships between authors in different kinds of textual overlap. We develop a novel n-gram extraction technique to capture such signatures based on n-grams of different lengths. We test the hypothesis on a corpus where the author attributes are observable: the public statements of the members of the U. S. Congress. This article presents the first empirical finding that shows different social relationships are detectable through the structure of overlapping textual features. Our study has important implications for designing text modeling techniques to make sense of social phenomena from aggregate digital traces. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In authorship attribution, various distance-based metrics have been proposed to determine the most probable author of a disputed text. In this paradigm, a distance is computed between each author profile and the query text. These values are then employed only to rank the possible authors. In this article, we analyze their distribution and show that we can model it as a mixture of 2 Beta distributions. Based on this finding, we demonstrate how we can derive a more accurate probability that the closest author is, in fact, the real author. To evaluate this approach, we have chosen 4 authorship attribution methods ( Burrows' Delta, Kullback- Leibler divergence, Labbé's intertextual distance, and the naïve Bayes). As the first test collection, we have downloaded 224 S tate of the U nion addresses (from 1790 to 2014) delivered by 41 U.S. presidents. The second test collection is formed by the F ederalist P apers. The evaluations indicate that the accuracy rate of some authorship decisions can be improved. The suggested method can signal that the proposed assignment should be interpreted as possible, without strong certainty. Being able to quantify the certainty associated with an authorship decision can be a useful component when important decisions must be taken. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the importance of physicians' financial disclosure for the public's health. Topics discussed include guideline from the periodical for authors to disclose their financial relationships with medical device companies, need from pharmaceutical companies to have clinical trial proof of efficacy of U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved drugs, and public access to pharmaceutical payments to physicians.

Academic journals may especially influence the development of an emerging field; early editors of public policy journals were explicit about that goal. Two leading journals-the Journal of Policy Analysis and Management and the Policy Studies Journal-were compared for changes between the early 1980s and 2007-2010. Over time, both journals published far fewer research articles by practitioners, and the non-university share of both editorial boards also declined. The journals continued to focus largely on the United States. Both showed a dramatic increase in the proportion of co-authored articles. Over time, JPAM became far more likely to publish studies by economists and far less likely to publish political scientists while PSJ increasingly published political scientists. JPAM authors now primarily reference economics journals. PSJ authors often cite political science, public administration, and other public policy journals. Both journals moved away from broad policy essays, with JPAM heavily trending to multivariate (essentially econometric) secondary analyses of large data sets and PSJ including a broader range of methodologies. Contrary to early predictions of a progressively more interdisciplinary field, the opposite trend-stronger alignments with specific disciplines-reflects public policy's ongoing challenge in transcending long-standing academic legacies and boundaries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The impact of international collaboration on research performance has been extensively explored over the past two decades. Most research, however, focuses on quantity and citation-based indicators. Using the turnover of keywords, this study develops an integrative approach, tracking and visualizing the shift of the research stream, and tests it within the context of U. S.- China collaboration in nanotechnology. The results show evidence in support of the linkage between the emergence of a new research stream of Chinese researchers when there is U. S.- China collaboration. We also find that the triggered research stream diffused further via extended coauthorship. Policy implications for science and technology development and resource allocation in the United States and China are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The purpose of this study was to examine gender disparities in dental leadership and academics in the United States. Nine journals that represent the dental specialties and high published impact factors were selected to analyze the percentage of female dentists' first and senior authorship for the years 1986, 1990, 1995, 2000, 2005, and 2008. Data on appointment status and female deanship were collected from the American Dental Association (ADA) survey, and the trends were studied. The proportion of female presidents in ADA-recognized specialty organizations was also calculated. Overall, the increase in first female authorship was not statistically significant, but the increase of last female authorship was statistically significant in a linear trend over the years. The percentage of tenured female faculty members and female deans in U.S. dental schools increased by factors of 1 .7 and 9, respectively, during the study period. However, female involvement in professional organizations was limited. Findings from this study indicate that female participation in authorship and leadership has increased over time. Nevertheless, females are still a minority in dental academics and leadership. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Conservation Biology is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Examines changes in the distribution of authorship of agricultural economic journals in the United States. Factors attributed to faculty reduction and shifts in research funding sources; Purpose of renaming regional journals; Enumeration of the renamed journals.

Background. Writing styles reflect the ways that writers think about themselves and about writing, as well as the pattern of strategies that writers consistently use to achieve their goals (Lavelle, 1993). Generally, writing styles may be considered along the deep/surface continuum with deep styles geared toward making a complex meaning beyond the given words, and surface writing reflecting a listing approach based on the reproduction of information. However, some students have adopted an Elaborative style reflecting a high degree of personal expression in writing. The Elaborative style employs a self-referencing strategy — ‘Writing makes me feel good’, ‘I put a lot of myself in writing’ represents an affective dimension in writing — one geared toward personal meaning. Unfortunately, Elaborative writing is usually encouraged only in the composition class where it is considered a precursor to academic or objective composition. Aims. The purpose of this study was to examine the relationships among writing styles as measured by the Inventory of Processes in College Composition (Lavelle, 1993), writing apprehension, and writing performance on a personal narrative writing task. Given the self-referencing strategy associated with the Elaborative style, it was hypothesised that Elaborative scale scores would predict narrative essay outcomes in terms of the degree of personal investment and complexity. Sample. The sample consisted of 74 college students enrolled in freshman composition, a general studies course at a medium size midwestern university in the United States. Methods. The Inventory of Processes in College Composition and the Daly Miller Writing Apprehension Test were administered to students during a regular, 50-minute class period. Students also responded in essay format to a personal writing prompt: ‘My Most Unforgettable Character’. Results. Results support the Elaborative writing style as predictive of the degree of personal involvement in writing a narrative essay but not as predictive of the complexity of writing outcome. Writing apprehension in conjunction with Procedural scale score were predictive of the complexity of essay outcomes and Elaborative and Low self-efficacy writing styles were predictive of writing apprehension. Conclusions. The Elaborative construct represents a highly personal and emotive approach to writing and learning and is useful in understanding writers' strengths and deficits. Elaborative writers were confident and highly invested in writing a brief narrative essay, but might be encouraged to be more planful in order to achieve a greater level of complexity. Writing apprehension has been supported as a multidimensional construct related to writing self-efficacy. Implications for instruction include offering a wide range of writing assignments, emphasis on reflection and planning, and consideration of narrative writing as an educational tool in content areas. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]