Search

Why authors choose some references in preference to others is a question that is still not wholly answered despite its being of interest to scientists. The relevance of references is twofold: They are a mechanism for tracing the evolution of science, and because they enhance the image of the cited authors, citations are a widely known and used indicator of scientific endeavor. Following an extensive review of the literature, we selected all papers that seek to answer the central question and demonstrate that the existing theories are not sufficient: Neither citation nor indicator theory provides a complete and convincing answer. Some perspectives in this arena remain, which are isolated from the core literature. The purpose of this article is to offer a fresh perspective on a 30-year-old problem by extending the context of the discussion. We suggest reviving the discussion about citation theories with a new perspective, that of the readers, by layers or phases, in the final choice of references, allowing for a new classification in which any paper, to date, could be included. [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.

Current conventions for the writing of medical scientific papers impede clear communication of scientific research results. This article discusses the reasons for this and how to ameliorate them. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In many scientific fields, the order of coauthors on a paper conveys information about each individual's contribution to a piece of joint work. We argue that in prior network analyses of coauthorship networks, the information on ordering has been insufficiently considered because ties between authors are typically symmetrized. This is basically the same as assuming that each coauthor has contributed equally to a paper. We introduce a solution to this problem by adopting a coauthorship credit allocation model proposed by Kim and Diesner (2014), which in its core conceptualizes coauthoring as a directed, weighted, and self-looped network. We test and validate our application of the adopted framework based on a sample data of 861 authors who have published in the journal Psychometrika. The results suggest that this novel sociometric approach can complement traditional measures based on undirected networks and expand insights into coauthoring patterns such as the hierarchy of collaboration among scholars. As another form of validation, we also show how our approach accurately detects prominent scholars in the Psychometric Society affiliated with the 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]

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]

This study presents an analysis of the use of bibliographic references by individual scientists in three different research areas. The number and type of references that scientists include in their papers are analyzed, the relationship between the number of references and different impact-based indicators is studied from a multivariable perspective, and the referencing patterns of scientists are related to individual factors such as their age and scientific performance. Our results show inter-area differences in the number, type, and age of references. Within each area, the number of references per document increases with journal impact factor and paper length. Top-performance scientists use in their papers a higher number of references, which are more recent and more frequently covered by the Web of Science. Veteran researchers tend to rely more on older literature and non- Web of Science sources. The longer reference lists of top scientists can be explained by their tendency to publish in high impact factor journals, with stricter reference and reviewing requirements. Long reference lists suggest a broader knowledge on the current literature in a field, which is important to become a top scientist. From the perspective of the 'handicap principle theory,' the sustained use of a high number of references in an author's oeuvre is a costly behavior that may indicate a serious, comprehensive, and solid research capacity, but that only the best researchers can afford. Boosting papers' citations by artificially increasing the number of references does not seem a feasible strategy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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

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

The position of geography journals published by learned societies has undergone major changes over the last decades. Growth of scientific output, specialisation, the growing importance of English as the common language for scientific publication and changes in the science publishing industry due to the rise of the Internet have challenged and continue to challenge the classic geography journals from the various national geography societies. This paper shows how these journals perform in terms of numbers of citations, internationalisation of authorship and exposure in libraries, databases and on the web, compared to some key journals from commercial publishers. It discusses choices made by these journals and the threats and opportunities they are confronted with. The paper concludes that although the conditions for non-UK and non-US society journals in geography have become less favourable, there are viable routes forward. On the occasion of its publication centennial, the position of the Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie ( TESG) is highlighted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The h-index was devised to represent a scholar's contributions to his field with respect to the number of publications and citations. It does not, however, take into consideration the scholar's position in the authorship list. I recommend a new supplementary index to score academics, representing the relative contribution to the papers with impact, be reported alongside the h-index. I call this index the AP-index, and it is simply defined as the average position in which an academic appears in authorship lists, on articles that factor in to that academic's h-index. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The title of a journal paper offers a crucial portal into any scientific field. It determines whether interested readers locate the paper and whether others have enough interest sparked to lead them to read the abstract. This article looks at authored journal paper titles in Medical Education over its first 50 years ( n = 6357) of publication and Medical Teacher over its first 35 years of publication, revealing both trends in areas of interest and how those interests are worded. Word clouds per decade showed a shift from teaching to learning and from examination to assessment, and new foci on learning, patients, research and feedback in both journals. The average length of title in Medical Education peeked in the 2000s, dropping to 70 characters in the 2010s, with no titles being longer than 140 characters (the length of a tweet) in this last decade. Abbreviations were used sparingly. The use of humorous titles, although not common, has increased in recent years. The use of the colon showed a marked increase in the 1980s, dropping a little in the 2000s but resurging in the 2010s. Titles posed as a question increased steadily, appearing to plateau in the 2000s at 11%. The use of humour and questions suggests that the authors of these articles are submitting papers to be selected by the human rather than just the virtual eye. We also hypothesise that the use of humour may indicate a maturation of medical education as a subject. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The vast amount of scientific publications available online makes it easier for students and researchers to reuse text from other authors and makes it harder for checking the originality of a given text. Reusing text without crediting the original authors is considered plagiarism. A number of studies have reported the prevalence of plagiarism in academia. As a consequence, numerous institutions and researchers are dedicated to devising systems to automate the process of checking for plagiarism. This work focuses on the problem of detecting text reuse in scientific papers. The contributions of this paper are twofold: (a) we survey the existing approaches for plagiarism detection based on content, based on content and structure, and based on citations and references; and (b) we compare content and citation-based approaches with the goal of evaluating whether they are complementary and if their combination can improve the quality of the detection. We carry out experiments with real data sets of scientific papers and concluded that a combination of the methods can be beneficial. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Digital technologies such as iPads are now ubiquitous in classrooms and family homes, enabling new possibilities for all learners but particularly for those with disabilities. Existing literature explores how children with learning disabilities create and benefit from personalised digital stories but does not unpack theoretical understandings of their 'authorship'. This paper addresses this gap by proposing an original model of 'distributed authorship' with three axes of distribution—interpersonal, technological and temporal—to account for the authorial contributions of young people with learning disabilities. Five families were given an iPad with Pictello storymaking app and instructed to use it with their young person in any way which was engaging for them. Data generation over 12 weeks included weekly diaries, home videos, semi‐structured interviews and story collection. Findings indicated that whilst ability to directly engage with the app varied, all the young people could be said to exert authorial influence on the stories distributed across three axes: support from others, support from the technology itself and incorporation of prior embodied agency. The study has theoretical implications for our understanding of 'authorship' as well as implications for pedagogy and practice by reconceptualising severely disabled children as literate learners and co‐authors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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

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

The author reflects on the instructions for authors and papers published in the Australian Journal of Rural Health (AJRH). He emphasizes on the significant of sources required to be reviewed on topics for an article. Further, for research articles he suggests re-analyzing evidence before publishing and offered are tips on developing ideas for an article.

The article presents the editorial policy of the journal regarding the subject of authorship.

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

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.

Introduction: To explore academia perceptions and experience with unethical authorship practices in their respective institutions.Method: 21 in-depth interviews were carried out.Results: Our analysis revealed variability in experiences with various types of unethical authorship practices among the interviewees. Second, we found that unethical authorship practices are not so unusual among academia although the exact numbers of incidents are unknown due to the fact that such practices are seldom reported. Third, our interviewees revealed that the culture of 'publish or perish' could be the main contributor to unethical practices of authorship because publication records are the main criteria for researcher's career evaluation besides, others, which are set by the university.Conclusion: It was suggested that the institution must play a proactive role in educating and promoting awareness on authorship guidelines, through education and training, ethical leadership as well as promoting the importance of publication ethics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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

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

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

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

Masood M, Thaliath ET, Bower EJ, Newton JT. An appraisal of the quality of published qualitative dental research. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 2011; 39: 193-203. © 2010 John Wiley & Sons A/S To appraise the quality of published qualitative research in dentistry and identify aspects of quality, which require attention in future research. Qualitative research studies on dental topics were appraised using the critical appraisal skills programme (CASP) appraisal framework for qualitative research. The percentage of CASP criteria fully met during the assessment was used as an indication of the quality of each paper. Individual criteria were not weighted. Forty-three qualitative studies were identified for appraisal of which 48% had a dental public health focus. Deficiencies in detail of reporting, research design, methodological rigour, presentation of findings, reflexivity, credibility of findings and relevance of study were identified. Problems with quality were apparent irrespective of journal impact factor, although papers from low impact factor journals exhibited the most deficiencies. Journals with the highest impact factors published the least qualitative research. The quality of much of the qualitative research published on dental topics is mediocre. Qualitative methods are underutilized in oral health research. If quality guidelines such as the CASP framework are used in the context of a thorough understanding of qualitative research design and data analysis, they can promote good practice and the systematic assessment of qualitative research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article offers information on the criteria that should be observed by authors who want their material to be featured for the publication in "The Photogrammetric Record."

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.

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

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

The editor describes the peer review process through which submissions to the journal are accepted or rejected. The journal publishes high quality submissions with a broad scope, international outlook or a particular focus on ambiguous issues in paediatric dentistry. The editor thanks the editorial board and reviewers for the journal and announces that Dr Shiu-Yin Cho, School Dental Care Service, Department of Health, Hong Kong is the Reviewer of the Year for 2012.

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]

The article announces the periodical's 2016 Awards given to authors for their research papers related to gerontological nursing literature including Beryl Cable-Williams, Hiromi Hirata, and Esther Coker.

Discussions are an important part of medical education research papers, but there is little guidance on how to write up the discussion section. A good discussion section should relate closely to the results; it should include a balanced review of the strengths and weaknesses of the study; it should be realistic in evaluating the applicability of the results; and it should mention the feasibility of widespread adoption of the intervention. This paper describes a review of the discussion sections of research papers published in Medical Education. The review led to further discussion. Common errors in writing discussion sections include: minimising the weaknesses of a study or exaggerating its strengths; closing down debate too early or opening up new arguments at too late a stage; and getting carried away by the potential of technology or getting very carried away by the potential of technology. Some discussions can be too long, but restricted word counts keep abstracts mercifully short. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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

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

The article offers information regarding the Call for Proposals campaign of the 2008 Annual Meeting National Council Measurement in Education. The proposals must contain all the information specified in the Call for Proposals, which is discussed according to categories. The acceptance of all submitted proposals will be due on June 1 to August 1, 2007. The submission of the proposals involve the commitment to complete the promised work in a timely manner and to attend the Annual Meeting in New York City on March 25 to 27, 2008.

The editor provides guidelines for writing articles for the Journal of Wildlife Management. Guidelines regarding the title of articles, authorship and writing of abstracts are provided. It also includes guidelines for the paper's introduction section, the study area and the study methods. Results, acknowledgements and literature citing guidelines are also provided.

Accessible summary: People with intellectual disability do not often take part in research.We wanted to include people with intellectual disability on our research committee.We worked with two people with intellectual disability to help with their roles on the research committee. We talk about some ideas that made this work well.Two people with intellectual disability share their ideas on being a part of a Research Reference Committee. This paper reports the use of a dialogic approach to working inclusively with two young people with intellectual disability as part of a Research Reference Committee for a project that examined how adults with intellectual disability and their families plan for their future. The paper begins with an overview of the role of the Research Reference Committee written by the research team to provide the context for reporting. We then discuss and reflect on how we used mediated talk to working with the young people with intellectual disability to develop strategies for enabling them to actively contribute to the reference committee. The third section of the paper was co‐written with authors 3 and 4. The structure follows their decisions about how they wanted to write this section in ways that allowed them to tell their stories of participation as narratives, using their own words. In the discussion, we acknowledge the challenges of co‐authorship and consider the benefits of using an iterative dialogical approach to enable the active participation of these young people in a reference committee, and as a method of co‐authoring that allows a broader dissemination the voices of the young people with intellectual disability in research outputs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary: This paper investigates a series of glyptic inscriptions attested on Crete at the end of the third and beginning of the second millennium BC, collectively referred to as the 'Archanes Script'. These minute engravings are considered to represent the earliest appearance of writing west of Egypt, and the first 'true' writing in the Aegean. Though mentioned in passing in almost every study of Bronze Age Aegean writing, few scholars have ever offered a definition of what exactly they consider the 'Archanes Script' to be. No work or scholarly consensus exists delineating which signs constitute its signary, or even which documents comprise its corpus. Study of the seals as objects in their own right, examining script signs alongside associated iconography, material qualities and form, has been rare. This paper offers the first complete overview and redefinition of the Archanes Script since its discovery in the 1960s and initial definition by Paul Yule in 1980. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A letter to the editor from the author of the article "The Birth of Geriatrics in America" in a 2014 issue, regarding her accidental omission of co-authors John Morley and John Burton is presented.

Context: Gender bias has been observed in the authorship and editorship of academic literature in varied medical specialties. This is important as peer‐reviewed publications, and participation on editorial boards, are closely related to academic productivity and advancement. The aim of this paper was to examine whether gender‐based disparities in authorship and editorship exist in leading medical education journals. Methods: A retrospective bibliometric review was conducted of articles published at eight different time‐points across a 49‐year time period (specifically: 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000, 2005, 2010, 2015 and 2019) in four leading medical education journals (Academic Medicine, BMC Medical Education, Medical Education and Medical Teacher). First and last (as a proxy for senior) author gender was determined for each article, along with the gender of the 2019 editorial board members of each journal. Chi‐square tests for trend were conducted to examine variations in author gender distributions over time, and binomial tests of proportions were conducted to examine gender distributions in authorship and editorship in 2019. Logistic regression analyses were carried out to determine factors that predicted the odds of authorship by women. Results: A total of 5749 articles were included. A significant trend of increased women as first and last authors was observed across all journals. The percentage of women first authors increased from 6.6% in 1970 to 53.7% in 2019 (P <.001), and women last authors increased from 9.5% in 1970 to 46% in 2019 (P <.001). Overall, the distributions of women first authors, last authors and editorial board members in 2019 indicated greater gender parity than many other fields of medicine. Conclusions: Positive progress towards gender parity has been made in medical education scholarship. However, future research and efforts are needed to ensure the continued participation, and highlighting, of women in medical education scholarship and to address other factors which may hinder academic advancement for women in this field. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

SUMMARY The written communication of new ideas and current developments is a crucial part of the progress of radiological sciences. Research results cannot be incorporated into the body of scientific knowledge, unless they are published. In radiology, questions on authorship ethics have received limited attention. Among the topics discussed in this article are the incentives that stimulate radiologists to write and the obstacles to successful authorship. Practices causing concern to editors, authors and readers are examined, such as the excessive growth through recent years in the numbers of authors per paper, unjustified co-authorships, wasteful publication practices and fraudulent research. The relationship between the abuses of authorship and the pressure exerted on researchers to publish is exemplified. Further issues addressed include the responsibilities of authors, the proposed principles for authorship, the determination of the sequence of authors in multi-authored papers and the concept of publication credit. The editor's role in preventing unethical authorship is examined and emphasis is placed on the proposals that have been made to achieve the required reforms by eradicating the publish or perish mentality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]