Search

The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in school closures and distancing requirements that have disrupted both work and family life for many. Concerns exist that these disruptions caused by the pandemic may not have influenced men and women researchers equally. Many medical journals have published papers on the pandemic, which were generated by researchers facing the challenges of these disruptions. Here we report the results of an analysis that compared the gender distribution of authors on 1893 medical papers related to the pandemic with that on papers published in the same journals in 2019, for papers with first authors and last authors from the United States. Using mixed-effects regression models, we estimated that the proportion of COVID-19 papers with a woman first author was 19% lower than that for papers published in the same journals in 2019, while our comparisons for last authors and overall proportion of women authors per paper were inconclusive. A closer examination suggested that women's representation as first authors of COVID-19 research was particularly low for papers published in March and April 2020. Our findings are consistent with the idea that the research productivity of women, especially early-career women, has been affected more than the research productivity of men., Competing Interests: JA, MN, NS No competing interests declared, RL Founder of TIME'S UP Healthcare, a non-profit initiative that advocates for safety and equity in healthcare; advisor for FeminEM.org, a website that supports the careers of women in medicine. RJ Has stock options as compensation for her advisory board role in Equity Quotient, a company that evaluates culture in health care companies; has received personal fees from Amgen and Vizient and grants for unrelated work from the National Institutes of Health, the Doris Duke Foundation, the Greenwall Foundation, the Komen Foundation, and Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan for the Michigan Radiation Oncology Quality Consortium; has a contract to conduct an investigator-initiated study with Genentech; has served as an expert witness for Sherinian and Hasso and Dressman Benzinger LaVelle; uncompensated founding member of TIME'S UP Healthcare; member of the Board of Directors of ASCO., (© 2020, Andersen et al.)

Background: Many previous papers have investigated most-cited articles or most productive authors in academics, but few have studied most-cited authors. Two challenges are faced in doing so, one of which is that some different authors will have the same name in the bibliometric data, and the second is that coauthors' contributions are different in the article byline. No study has dealt with the matter of duplicate names in bibliometric data. Although betweenness centrality (BC) is one of the most popular degrees of density in social network analysis (SNA), few have applied the BC algorithm to interpret a network's characteristics. A quantitative scheme must be used for calculating weighted author credits and then applying the metrics in comparison., Objective: This study aimed to apply the BC algorithm to examine possible identical names in a network and report the most-cited authors for a journal related to international mobile health (mHealth) research., Methods: We obtained 676 abstracts from Medline based on the keywords "JMIR mHealth and uHealth" (Journal) on June 30, 2018. The author names, countries/areas, and author-defined keywords were recorded. The BCs were then calculated for the following: (1) the most-cited authors displayed on Google Maps; (2) the geographical distribution of countries/areas for the first author; and (3) the keywords dispersed by BC and related to article topics in comparison on citation indices. Pajek software was used to yield the BC for each entity (or node). Bibliometric indices, including h-, g-, and x-indexes, the mean of core articles on g(Ag)=sum (citations on g-core/publications on g-core), and author impact factor (AIF), were applied., Results: We found that the most-cited author was Sherif M Badawy (from the United States), who had published six articles on JMIR mHealth and uHealth with high bibliometric indices (h=3; AIF=8.47; x=4.68; Ag=5.26). We also found that the two countries with the highest BC were the United States and the United Kingdom and that the two keyword clusters of mHealth and telemedicine earned the highest indices in comparison to other counterparts. All visual representations were successfully displayed on Google Maps., Conclusions: The most cited authors were selected using the authorship-weighted scheme (AWS), and the keywords of mHealth and telemedicine were more highly cited than other counterparts. The results on Google Maps are novel and unique as knowledge concept maps for understanding the feature of a journal. The research approaches used in this study (ie, BC and AWS) can be applied to other bibliometric analyses in the future., (©Wei-Chih Kan, Willy Chou, Tsair-Wei Chien, Yu-Tsen Yeh, Po-Hsin Chou. Originally published in JMIR mHealth and uHealth (http://mhealth.jmir.org), 07.05.2020.)

Background: Despite increasing numbers of women attending medical school and completing residencies, women continue to lag behind men in academic achievement. Other specialties have found that women publish fewer journal articles than men. While family medicine is becoming increasingly gender balanced, the aim of this study was to evaluate the gender balance of published material within family medicine journals., Methods: All original articles were reviewed in five family medicine journals published in the United States (Family Medicine, Journal of Family Practice, Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine, Annals of Family Medicine, and American Family Physician) between 2006-2008. The articles were categorized based on type of publication and gender of first author. The editorial boards of each of the journals were examined to determine gender breakdown., Results: A total of 2,126 articles were included in the study. Females were first author on 712 (33.5%) of the articles, and males authored 1,414 (66.5%). There was no significant difference between years. More female authors wrote original research, and fewer wrote letters to the editor. Only Family Medicine had gender parity on its editorial board., Conclusions: Female authors wrote about a third of all original publications in family medicine journals between 2006-2009 even though they comprise 44% of the faculty. Further research can evaluate reasons for this gender disparity.

There has been a long history of research into the structure and evolution of mankind's scientific endeavor. However, recent progress in applying the tools of science to understand science itself has been unprecedented because only recently has there been access to high-volume and high-quality data sets of scientific output (e.g., publications, patents, grants) and computers and algorithms capable of handling this enormous stream of data. This article reviews major work on models that aim to capture and recreate the structure and dynamics of scientific evolution. We then introduce a general process model that simultaneously grows coauthor and paper citation networks. The statistical and dynamic properties of the networks generated by this model are validated against a 20-year data set of articles published in PNAS. Systematic deviations from a power law distribution of citations to papers are well fit by a model that incorporates a partitioning of authors and papers into topics, a bias for authors to cite recent papers, and a tendency for authors to cite papers cited by papers that they have read. In this TARL model (for topics, aging, and recursive linking), the number of topics is linearly related to the clustering coefficient of the simulated paper citation network.

Use of a team approach is a technique that can facilitate writing for professional publication. There is an art to writing with a team, which includes carefully selecting a writing partner who will complement personal skills and expertise and being able to work in a collaborative way through the writing process. There are benefits in the team approach that are of particular significance in mentoring novice writing in the publication process. However, there are also obstacles that should be anticipated and planned for.

Objective: Over half of the major papers published in the American Journal of Roentgenology (AJR) have five or more coauthors. This project was designed to evaluate the specific contributions of coauthors and the prevalence of undeserved authorship in major papers from institutions in the United States., Materials and Methods: Questionnaires were mailed to the first author of 275 major papers from institutions in the United States that were published in the AJR in 1992 and 1993. Questions focused on coauthors' contributions to research design, data collection, data analysis, and manuscript preparation, and on undeserving authorship., Results: One hundred ninety-six (72%) of the surveys were returned. Ninety-nine percent of first authors, 75% of second authors, fewer than half of third authors, and one third of fourth authors and beyond were said to have contributed to at least three of the following: research design, data collection, data analysis, and manuscript preparation (p < .02). A strong correlation was indicated between authorship position and contribution (r = -.69, p < .001), with a mean overall contribution of 63 +/- 17% (mean +/- SD) for the first author, 20 +/- 12% for the second author, 10 +/- 7% for the third author, 7 +/- 6% for the fourth author, and 5 +/- 5% for all other authors. Coauthors were listed in decreasing order of contribution in 70% of articles. However, the last author was the second major contributor in 10% of articles with three or more authors. The incidence of "undeserved" coauthors increased from 9% on papers with three authors to 30% on papers with more than six authors (mean, 17%; r = .97; p < .001). Undeserved authorship was attributed largely to individuals who contributed only cases (29%) or who created a sense of obligation or fear in the first author (40%). Manuscripts were more likely to include an undeserved coauthor when the first author was a nontenured staff member (45%) than when he or she was tenured faculty (28%) (p < .02). When decision about authorship were made at project conception, there were fewer coauthors (3.9 versus 5.4, p < .02) and a lower incidence of manuscripts with undeserving coauthors (23% versus 47%, p < .01). The final manuscript was read by all coauthors in 80% of manuscripts, and all coauthors were thought to understand the manuscript to the extent they could publicly defend it in 78% of manuscripts. The most commonly cited reason that otherwise honest individuals accept undeserved authorship was academic promotion., Conclusion: Undeserved authorship is a common and serious problem that is motivated primarily by academic promotion policies. The first two authors are said to account for the preponderance of work in almost all major papers.

Objective: To determine the contributions of each author to multiauthored biomedical research papers., Design: Mailed, self-administered survey., Participants: A total of 184 first authors from a consecutive sample of 200 papers with four or more authors published in 10 leading biomedical journals., Main Outcome Measures: First authors' ratings of which authors had made substantial contributions to the following: initial conception of the study, design of the study, provision of needed resources, collection of data, analysis and interpretation of data, and writing the first draft of the paper or revising drafts for important intellectual content., Results: The contributions of nonfirst authors varied greatly within and among papers. Even second and last authors--though they generally contributed more than other nonfirst authors--were markedly inconsistent in the extent and pattern of their contributions. Time spent on the research differed among authors by orders of magnitude. An appreciable number of authors made few or no substantial contributions to the research., Conclusions: The nature and extent of contributions of nonfirst authors to biomedical research reported in multiauthored papers cannot reliably be discerned (or discounted) by authorship or order of authors. The two core purposes of scientific authorship--to confer credit and denote responsibility for research--are not adequately being met by these authorship practices.

We reviewed the authorship characteristics, editorial processing, and final fate of 126 papers dealing with data from countries other than the United States and Canada and submitted to the American Journal of Public Health in 1989. The acceptance rate of these international health papers was 22%, similar to that of all papers (25%). Authors from developed countries had higher acceptance rates than authors from developing countries, but the highest acceptance rate (36%) was for international health papers with joint authorship from both developed and developing countries. Of 83 rejected papers, 72% were published in other journals. Of these, 45% were published in journals covered by Index Medicus, a figure similar to that for all papers rejected by the Journal.

Medical transcriptionists are medical language specialists who transcribe dictated patient reports. They interpret and edit raw data (dictation) in as complete, clear, consistent, and correct a manner as possible. Medical transcriptionists can attest to the accuracy of their transcription; they cannot attest to the accuracy of the dictation on which it is based. Patient care and well-being are at risk if proper attention is not given by the healthcare provider to the content of the patient record before the provider's signature is affixed. The provider's signature communicates accuracy of record content that only the provider can give; thus, delegation of authority to affix signatures is inappropriate and should not be allowed.

The scientific literature in diagnostic radiology for American readers was surveyed by studying the recent growth of its journals, papers and authors. The number of journals has increased rapidly, following the growth in the production of papers. Of the 36 scientific diagnostic radiology journals available at a university medical center, 18 began publication in 1973 or later. The proliferation of new journals should moderate as the size of the American diagnostic radiology research community stabilizes and the newer journals publish a growing share of the papers. Citation analysis, a method of studying interrelationships between papers and journals, showed that citations from papers published in clinical journals to papers published in diagnostic radiology journals accounted for 6% of total citations made in those clinical journals. This observation indicates that research in diagnostic radiology has considerable relevance to research in clinical medicine. Although the number of papers from American diagnostic radiology researches increased from 468 papers in two journals in 1960 to 2861 papers in 16 journals in 1984, the number of researchers increased more rapidly, resulting in a decline in aggregate productivity. At the same time, the average number of authors per paper increased from 2.15 in 1960 to 4.36 in 1985. The first authorship of a scientific paper appears to be the most suitable quantitative measure of research productivity. Study of a sample of 130 diagnostic radiology researchers showed that, on average, each researcher published 3.8 papers as first author in the 5 years from 1980 to 1984. The most prolific 15% of the authors published 52% of the papers.

Publication in leading medical journals is critical to knowledge dissemination and academic advancement alike. Leveraging a novel dataset comprised of nearly all articles published in JAMA and NEJM from 1990 to 2020, along with established reference works for name identification, we explore changing authorship demographics in two of the world's leading medical journals. Our main outcomes are the annual proportion of male and female authors and the proportion of racial/ethnic identities in junior and senior authorship positions for articles published in JAMA and NEJM since 1990. We found that women remain under-represented in research authorship in both JAMA (at its peak, 38.1% of articles had a female first author in 2011) and NEJM (peaking at 28.2% in 2002). The rate of increase is so slow that it will take more than a century for both journals to reach gender parity. Black and Hispanic researchers have likewise remained under-represented as first and last authors in both journals, even using the best-case scenario. Their appearance as authors has remained stagnant for three decades, despite attention to structural inequalities in medical academia. Thus, analysis of authorship demographics in JAMA and NEJM over the past three decades reveals the existence of inequalities in high-impact medical journal authorship. Gender and racial/ethnic disparities in authorship may both reflect and further contribute to disparities in academic advancement., (© 2022. W. Montague Cobb-NMA Health Institute.)

The article announces that Associate Editor Deborah Holtzman received the journal's Reviewer of the Year Award and the article "The Epidemic of Despair Among White Americans: Trends in the Leading Causes of Premature Death, 1999–2015" by E.M. Stein and others won the Paper of the Year Award.

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.)

Background: Recent technological developments in medicine, including modern radiology have promoted the impact of scientific researches on social life. The scientific outputs such as article and patents are products that show the scientists' attempt to access these achievements. Objectives: In the current study, we evaluate the current situation of Iranian scientists in the field of radiology and compare it with the selected countries in terms of scientific papers. For this purpose, we used scientometric tools to quantitatively assess the scientific papers in the field of radiology. Materials and Methods: Radiology papers were evaluated in the context of medical field audit using retrospective model. We used the related databases of biomedical sciences for extraction of articles related to radiology. In the next step, the situation of radiology scientific products of the country were determined with respect to the under study regional countries. Results: Results of the current study showed a ratio of 0.19% for Iranian papers in PubMed database published in 2009. In addition, in 2009, Iranian papers constituted 0.29% of the Scopus scientific database. The proportion of Iranian papers in the understudy region was 7.6%. Conclusion: To diminish the gap between Iranian scientific radiology papers and other competitor countries in the region and achievement of document 2 025 goals, multifold effort of the society of radiology is necessary. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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.

Given the steady increase in co-authored papers in economics journals, this paper reports a study of the patterns of co-authorship between US universities and colleges. A majority of institutions produce more co-authored than single-authored papers. Contacts with researchers from the same institution are still an important source of co-authored papers, even though slightly decreasing in frequency. The determinants of co-authorship outside the own institution are tested in a gravity model and it is found that distance and other geographical variables do not matter. However, the quality of co-authors' institutions, measured by rankings of institutions, has a significant impact on the number of co-authored papers in top economics journals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The accuracy and completeness of self-disclosures by authors of imaging guidelines are not well known., Objective: The aim of this study was to assess the accuracy of financial disclosures by US authors of ACR appropriateness criteria., Methods: We reviewed financial disclosures provided by US-based authors of all ACR-AC published in 2019, 2021 and 2023. For each US- based author, payment reports were extracted from the Open Payments Database (OPD) in the previous 36 months related to general category and research payments categories. We analyzed each author individually to determine if the reported disclosures matched results from OPD., Results: A total of 633 authorships, including 333 unique authors were included from 38 ACR AC articles in 2019, with 606 authorships (387 unique authors) from 35 ACR-AC articles published in 2021, and 540 authorships (367 unique authors) from 32 ACR AC articles published in 2023. Among authors who received industry payments, failure to disclose any financial relationship was seen in 125/147 unique authors in 2019, 142/148 authors in 2021 and 95/125 unique authors in 2023. The proportion of nondisclosed total value of payments was 86.1% in 2019, 88.6% in 2021 and 56.7% in 2023. General category payments were nondisclosed in 94.1% in 2019, 89.7% in 2021 and 94.4% in 2023 by payment value., Conclusion: Industry payments to authors of radiology guidelines are common and frequently undisclosed., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 The Association of University Radiologists. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

This study analysed the trends and patterns of articles published in Digital Culture and Education Journal (DCEJ) from 2009 to 2018 covering a period of 10 years. Five bibliometric measures were used for the analysis: Year-wise productivity of articles; authorship pattern of articles; core authorship; degree of author collaboration; Institution and country affiliation of authors in DCEJ. The results revealed that a total of 108 articles were published and the year 2014 (Vol. 6) had the highest number of articles with 26 (24.07%). The most prolific authors was Fabian Schäfer with three (3) articles. Single authorships were the most productive with a total of 60 (55.56%) publications. The degree of collaboration was highest at 0.8 in Volume 10 (2018). Authorship emerged from 26 countries and authors from United States of America were the highest number with 68 (30.09%). Authorship affiliated to Universities had the highest number of 161 (71.24%) articles. The findings suggests that although collaborative research is common in DCEJ, there is need to encourage multidisciplinary collaborations. This is because of the high number of single authorship patterns identified in the study. The complex nature of DCEJ will require a mix of ideas with multidisciplinary collaborations. This may be achieved by creating awareness and proper indexing in reputable databases, which will encourage visibility and build interest in the journal. Also, some important authorship information were not given such as sex and affiliations. It is recommended that the editorial team should include and ensure that future researches comply with authors' guidelines for submission. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper reviews the court-released discovery documents obtained from litigation against Monsanto over its herbicide Roundup and through Freedom of Information Act requests (requests to regulatory agencies and public universities in the United States). We sought evidence of corporate malfeasance and undisclosed conflicts of interest with respect to issues of scientific integrity. The findings include evidence of ghostwriting, interference in journal publication, and undue influence of a federal regulatory agency. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: This study presents a global research scenario in the broad domain of osteoarthritis (OA) research, using quantitative and qualitative publication and citation indicators. Methods: The study is based on 45,368 global publications, sourced from the Scopus bibliographical database, covering three decades (1994–2023). We studied the performance of the top 12 developed and top 12 developing countries. The key countries, organizations and authors at national and international levels were identified. The broad subject areas and key journals contributing to global OA research were delineated, besides identifying the broad characteristics of highly cited papers in the field. Results: The United States and China were the most productive countries, while the Netherlands and Canada made the largest citation impact. Harvard Medical School and the University of Sydney made the most contribution, while Boston University and Pfizer Inc., USA registered the highest citation impact. Hunter DJ and Guermazi A were the most productive authors, while Lohmander LS, and Hochberg MC registered the highest citation impact. Osteoarthritis and Cartilage (n = 4879) and Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases (n = 786) published the maximum papers, while Arthritis and Rheumatism and Nature Reviews Rheumatology registered the largest citation impact. The highly cited papers with 100 or more citations constituted 6.25% of the total publications. Conclusions: There has been a systematic growth of publications on OA. The research on OA was mainly done in developed countries, with the maximum publications coming from the United States of America, China and Canada. The most impactful publications on OA were from the Netherlands, Canada and the United States of America. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) is commonly defined as a transitional subclinical state between normal aging and dementia. A growing body of research indicates that health behaviors may play a protective role against cognitive decline and could potentially slow down the progression from MCI to dementia. The aim of this study is to conduct a bibliometric analysis of literature focusing on health behaviors and MCI to summarize the factors and evidence regarding the influence of health behaviors on MCI. Methods: The study performed a bibliometric analysis by retrieving publications from the Science Citation Index and Social Sciences Citation Index subdatabases within the Web of Science Core Collection. Utilizing VOSviewer and CiteSpace software, a total of 2,843 eligible articles underwent co-citation, cokeywords, and clustering analyses. This methodology aimed to investigate the current status, trends, major research questions, and potential future directions within the research domain. Results: The bibliometric analysis indicates that research on healthy behaviors in individuals with MCI originated in 2002 and experienced rapid growth in 2014, reflecting the increasing global interest in this area. The United States emerged as the primary contributor, accounting for more than one-third of the total scientific output with 982 articles. Journals that published the most articles on MCI-related health behaviors included "Journal of Alzheimer's Disease," "Neurobiology of Aging," "Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience," and other geriatricsrelated journals. High-impact papers identified by VOSviewer predominantly cover concepts related to MCI, such as diagnostic criteria, assessment, and multifactorial interventions. Co-occurrence keyword analysis highlights five research hotspots in health behavior associated with MCI: exercise, diet, risk factors and preventive measures for dementia, cognitive decline-related biomarkers, and clinical trials. Conclusion: This study provides a comprehensive review of literature on health behavior in individuals with MCI, emphasizing influential documents and journals. It outlines research trends and key focal points, offering valuable insights for researchers to comprehend significant contributions and steer future studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article reports on the request of the Journal of the American Planning Association for papers on how U.S. federal programs and policies could or should impact specific substantive planning concerns at the state, regional, and local levels. It is said that manuscripts focusing on how federal policy can leverage other efforts, or achieve positive results in efficient ways would be especially valued. Interested authors must send webstracts of not more than 450 words by September 1, 2008.

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]

Bibliometric study on researchers’ profile is important for gettings insights to research trends in Library and Information Science (LIS) or any other disciplines. Moreover, a study on a topic like this will enable library and information services to innovate better information support system to its users, especially the researchers for building stronger knowledge-based society. Hence, the present study aims to review the profile of researchers of the discipline of library and information science (LIS) across the USA, UK, and India, and study their research productions. The study will focus on PhD degree awarded in LIS between the year 2001 to 2010. The study aims to achieve some of the following objectives: evaluate their knowledge production which are based on their PhD research works, quantifying the research pattern, trends of publication, identify the most prolific authors and authorship pattern, and identify the degree of collaboration of researcher. This paper is a bibliometric study which can be used to conduct such analysis for interdisciplinary research. [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.

By exploiting the cancellation of the 2012 American Political Science Association Annual Meeting, we investigate the role of conferences in facilitating academic collaboration. We assembled data sets comprising 17,467 academics, and in difference‐in‐differences analysis we find that the conference cancellation led to a decrease in individuals’ likelihood of co‐authoring an article with another attendant by 16%. Moreover, collaborations formed among attendants of (occurring) conferences are associated with more successful co‐publications: an effect which is sharpest for teams that are new or non‐collocated. Conferences seem to de‐cluster the co‐authorship network. Altogether, our findings demonstrate the importance of conferences in scientific production. [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]

The article discusses the review process involved in the selection of articles published in the silver jubilee issue of the "American Journal of Criminal Justice." The author states that writers are discouraged from sending a paper to more than one outlet simultaneously. Articles and studies which violate this etiquette are automatically disqualified. In this regard, the author mentions that the typical article submission receives a final decision within seven weeks of receipt, through electronic communication.

Background: Global health research partnerships, which promote the exchange of ideas, knowledge and expertise across countries, are considered key to addressing complex challenges facing health systems. Yet, many studies report inequalities in these partnerships, particularly in those between high and low-and-middle-income countries (LMICs). Objective: This paper examines global research collaborations on community health worker (CHW) programmes, specifically analysing the structures of authorship teams and networks in publications reporting research on CHW programmes in low-income countries (LICs). Methods: A sub-set of 206 indexed journal articles reporting on CHW programmes in LICs was purposefully selected from a prior review of research authorship on CHW programmes in all LMICs over a five year period (2012–2016). Data on country and primary organisational affiliation and number of publications for all individual authors, programme area (e.g. maternal child health) and total citations per paper were extracted and coded in excel spreadsheets. Data were then exported and analysed in Stata/ICV.14 and Gephi. Results: The 206 papers were authored by 1045 authors from 299 institutions, based in 43 countries. Half (50.1%) the authors came from LIC-based institutions, 43.8% from high-income country (HIC) institutions, 2.9% from middle-income country (MIC) institutions and 3.2% had different first affiliations in different publications. Authors based in the USA (302) and UK (68) accounted for just over a third (35.4%) of all authors. Partnership patterns revealed a primary mode of North–South collaboration with authors from the US, and to a lesser extent the UK, playing central bridging roles between institutions. Strong network clusters of multiple-affiliated authors were evident in research on MCH and HIV/TB aspects of CHW programmes. Conclusion: Knowledge production on CHW programmes in LICs flows predominantly through a pool of connected HIC authors and North–South collaborations. There is a need for strategies harnessing more diverse, including South–South, forms of partnership. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article offers tips on the dos and don'ts in submitting papers to a journal in the U.S. It states that one must read and follow the guidelines set by the journal and must follow the standard academic English. It emphasizes that one must not follow submissions by continuously sending different versions of the paper.

Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to present a quantitative analysis of the Library and Information Science (LIS) scholarly literature published worldwide. Design/methodology/approach: The ISI Web of Science database was used as a source for extracting the data of published documents during the period 2003–2017. The analysis of the published literature was based on the following indicators: research productivity of each county, annual publications, annual citations, highly cited articles, highly cited LIS journals, most productive institutions in the field of LIS and most prolific authors. The types of documents included in this study were research articles, conference proceeding papers, book reviews and editorials. Findings: The findings revealed that the USA had the highest overall output of LIS scholarly publications. The year 2016 was identified as the most productive year for the number of publications, whereas 2017 was identified as the most productive year for the number of citations. "Impact of data sources on citation counts and rankings of LIS faculty: Web of Science versus Scopus and Google Scholar" was the most highly cited article. The Journal of Medical Library Association was the most highly cited journal in LIS. Indiana University from the USA was the most productive LIS research institution. Mike Thelwall, from the UK, is identified as the most prolific author in LIS. Originality/value: The study will be of interest for those researchers, who intend to conduct bibliometric research studies in LIS. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In innovation strategy, a type of Schumpeterian competitive strategy in business administration, "intra-individual diversity" has attracted attention as one factor for creating innovation. In this study, we redefine "framework for identifying researchers' areas of expertise" as "a framework for quantifying intra-individual diversity among researchers. Note that diversity here refers to authorship of articles in multiple research fields. The application of this framework then made it possible to visualize organizational diversity by accumulating the intra-individual diversity of researchers and to discuss the innovation strategy of the organization. The analysis in this study discusses how countries are promoting research on the topics of artificial intelligence (AI), big data, and Internet of Things (IoT) technologies, which are at the core of Industry 4.0, from an innovation perspective. Note that Industry 4.0 is a technological framework that aims to "improve the efficiency of all social systems," "create new industries," and "increase intellectual productivity." For the analysis, we used 19-year bibliographic data (2000-2018) from the top 20 countries in terms of the number of papers in AI, big data, and IoT technologies. As the results, this study classified the styles of cross-disciplinary fusion into four patterns in AI and three patterns in big data. This study did not consider the results in IoT because of only small differences between countries. Furthermore, regional differences in the style of cross-disciplinary fusion were also observed, and the global innovation patterns in Industry 4.0 were classified into seven categories. In Europe and North America, the cross-disciplinary integration style was similar to that between the United States, Germany, the Netherlands, Spain, England, Italy, Canada, and France. In Asia, the cross-disciplinary fusion style was similar between China, Japan, and South Korea., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Objectives was to conduct a bibliometric analysis of papers published in the International Journal of Adolescent Medicine and Health (IJAMH). Methods: The profile page of IJAMH was accessed on the SCOPUS database to extract the bibliometric data of all papers published from inception till date (02 June 2022) in IJAMH. Collected data were analysed using the Microsoft Office Excel 2021 and VOSviewer version 1.6.18 software. Results: The analysis was based on 1,997 papers. These papers had an average citation rate and a cumulative h-index of 6.5 and 40, respectively. A total of 104 countries/territories sourced the papers published in IJAMH, and the United States had the highest volume (29.8%) of contributions and citation metrics (TC = 5314; h-index = 32). Chinese University of Hong Kong (average citation per paper [ACP] = 15.9; h-index = 16) was the institution with the most impactful contributions to the journal. Daniel TL Shek (ACP = 12.8; h-index = 20), from Hong Kong Polytechnic University, was the author with the most impactful contribution to the journal. A total of 159 funding organisations were sponsors of papers published in IJAMH, and the top ten funding sponsors were organisations in the United States, Iran, Israel and Australia. The National Institutes of Health (n = 50; ACP = 17.1; h-index = 15), in the United States, was the most impactful sponsor of the funded papers published in the journal. Conclusion: This review shows that IJAMH is a promising journal in the field of adolescent medicine and health. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article offers updates concerning the publication "IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and CyberneticsߞPart B: Cynbernetics" in the U.S. It is stated that the publication processed 1,093 papers and project over 1,300 research in 2008. The development resulted in a larger pool of high-quality research under consideration of the publication policy. The Technical Correspondences, special class of papers in the publication, are not simply short papers but still represent significant contributions on par with regular papers. The authors are encouraged to use the National Library of Medicine vocabulary in order to help better disseminate their work in the publication.

A survey on credit issues was conducted of academic chemists in Ph.D. granting institutions in the United States. Six-hundred faculty members responded representing 16% of the survey recipients. Fifty percent of the respondents reported not receiving appropriate credit for contributions they had made to published projects. Neither the number of years after receiving their Ph.D., their fields of expertise, their total number of publications, nor their total number of single-author publications showed any significant relationship with the perception of not receiving appropriate credit. Twenty percent of the respondents had discovered that they were an author of a paper, after that paper had been submitted to a journal. Forty-nine percent reported that they had asked to have their name deleted as an author. Relationships between these perceptions and academic background factors were examined. For example, respondents who had asked to be removed from authorship were more likely to give authorship or an acknowledgement to others and were also more likely to have had an authorship problem with others, both of these factors being related to longevity as a publishing scientist. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This grounded study investigated the negotiation of authorship by faculty members, graduate student mentors, and their undergraduate protégés in undergraduate research experiences at a private research university in the northeastern United States. Semi-structured interviews using complementary scripts were conducted separately with 42 participants over a 3 year period to probe their knowledge and understanding of responsible authorship and publication practices and learn how faculty and students entered into authorship decision-making intended to lead to the publication of peer-reviewed technical papers. Herein the theoretical model for the negotiation of authorship developed through the analysis of these interviews is reported. The model identifies critical causal and intervening conditions responsible for the coping strategies faculty and students employ, which, in our study, appear to often produce unfortunate consequences for all involved. The undergraduate student researchers and their graduate student mentors interviewed in this study exhibited a limited understanding of authorship and the requirements for authorship in their research groups. The power differential between faculty and students, the students' limited epistemic development, the busy-ness of the faculty, and the faculty's failure to prioritize authorship have been identified as key factors inhibiting both undergraduate and graduate students from developing a deeper understanding of responsible authorship and publication practices. Implications for graduate education and undergraduate research are discussed, and strategies for helping all students to develop a deeper understanding of authorship are identified. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper describes a research project conducted with international doctoral students documenting student and faculty members' experiences in a writing workshop. The purpose of this study was to understand the complexities associated with international students' academic writing competencies and develop a supportive culture as they pursue their education in the US. Participation in the writing workshop aided students in progressing through the four stages of Burch's learning model. The findings suggest that, intensive writing experiences improve writing abilities, perceptions of writing, and knowledge of when to pursue writing assistance. In addition, the workshop supported the researchers in gaining insight into their international students' experiences leading towards improved pedagogy for this student population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This case study demonstrates the application of an unsupervised topic modeling algorithm to 7,773 English-language articles published in the Library Quarterly from 1931 to 2015. The analysis of 85 years of the journal's output follows an exploratory data analysis framework to generate novel hypotheses about the history of LIS using topic modeling, a method for identifying clusters of co-occurring words within large collections of text. The paper closely examines two topics that suggest differences in gender representation in the journal to propose and support a new hypothesis regarding the historical inclusion of gendered objects of study in LIS literature. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The primary objective of this study was to explore different dimensions of Journal of the Medical Library Association (JMLA) authorship from 2006-2017. Dimensions that were evaluated using coauthorship networks and affiliation data included collaboration, geographical reach, and relationship between Medical Library Association (MLA) member and nonmember authors. A secondary objective was to analyze the practice and practical application of data science skills. Methods: A team of librarians who attended the 2017 Data Science and Visualization Institute used JMLA bibliographic metadata extracted from Scopus, together with select MLA membership data from 2006-2017. Data cleaning, anonymization, analysis, and visualization were done collaboratively by the team members to meet their learning objectives and to produce insights about the nature of collaborative authorship at JMLA. Results: Sixty-nine percent of the 1,351 JMLA authors from 2006-2017 were not MLA members. MLA members were more productive and collaborative, and tended to author articles together. The majority of the authoring institutions in JMLA are based in the United States. Global reach outside of the United States and Canada shows higher authorship in English-speaking countries (e.g., Australia, United Kingdom), as well as in Western Europe and Japan. Conclusions: MLA support of JMLA may benefit a wider network of health information specialists and medical professionals than is reflected in MLA membership. Conducting coauthorship network analyses can create opportunities for health sciences librarians to practice applying emerging data science and data visualization skills. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To describe the proportions of peer-reviewed manuscripts authored by women in 5 high-impact, widely available urology journals, and to compare these to the proportion of women in urology. About 9% of attending urologists and 25% of urology residents are women. We hypothesized that women comprised fewer than 25% of first authors and fewer than 10% of last/senior authors., Methods: We searched peer-reviewed original manuscripts in the Journal of Urology, Journal of Pediatric Urology, Neurourology and Urodynamics, Urology, and Urologic Oncology from January 2014 to June 2019. First and last author gender identity was recorded. Observed and expected proportions and temporal trends were compared, with findings considered statistically significant at P < .05., Results: Of 8653 multiple-author papers, 2275 (26.3%) had women as first authors, paralleling the current proportion of women in training (P = .98). Women were senior/last authors in 1255 (14.5%) papers; this was higher than the current proportion of female urologists in practice (P < .0001) for all journals but NAU (P = .59). Only 527 (6.1%) of multiple-author papers had both female first and last authors whereas 5640 (65.3%) of papers had both male first and last authors. The first author was more likely female when the senior author was female (OR = 2.34, 95% CI: 2.06-2.65); most female-first and -last authored manuscripts were published in subspecialty journals and those utilizing double-blind peer review., Conclusion: The proportion of female first- and senior-authored manuscripts is significantly higher than the proportion of women in urology, and may reflect differential subspecialty choices and mentorship opportunities for women., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest Drs. Kieran and Holt, Mr. Whitley, and Ms. Nelson have no conflicts of interest relevant to this manuscript., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

For more than three decades, the National Weather Digest has provided a means fore NWA members to publish research or express opinions on matters important to the operational meteorological and related communities. Since The Digest was first published (1976), the papers published there have led to stronger partnerships between meteorologists in the public, private, and academic sectors, users of weather information and weather enthusiasts. The Digest was upgraded recently to an attractive, modern look and feel, with unlimited color graphics, and is now posted online as soon as it is published as a benefit of the new "members-only" portal on the NWA Web site. Previous issues are also available online for the benefit of all. Using data generated from articles published in The Digest since 1990, this study examines the characteristics of papers and their authors as published in The Digest for the past two decades by presenting statistics on the subject matter, type of article, primary data type, lead author affiliations, and author demographic information. The results show that the acceptance rates for The Digest are comparable to those of similar peer-reviewed publications. Also, most authors that publish in The Digest have published only one or two articles, are male, from the Southern or Central Regions of the National Weather Service (NWS), and work in the NWS or academia. However, The Digest draws authorship from members and non-members alike, and the topic of papers are most often phenomenological. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

No studies were reported on the field of coastal eutrophication research by using bibliometrics. The objective of this study was to evaluate the coastal eutrophication research performance based on all the related articles in Science Citation Index databases from 1993 to 2008. Document type, publication output, authorship, keywords, publication pattern, country, and institute of publication were analyzed. The USA contributed 35.0% of total articles where the ten major industrial countries accounted for the majority of the total production. An indicator citation per publication was presented in this study to evaluate the impact of number of authors, institutes, countries, and journals. The mean value of citation per publication of collaborative papers was higher than that of single country or institute publications. Collaboration trend was toward multi-authors, multi-institutes and multi-countries papers. This was coincident with the research trends of coastal eutrophication, which was thought to be a component of global change. Additionally, keywords analysis was used to indicate the formation and shift of hot research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: In the treatment of colorectal cancer, classic chemotherapy drugs such as 5-fluorouracil, capecitabine, irinotecan, oxaliplatin, trifluridine, and tipiracil have played a crucial role. Through the analysis of the top 100 most influential articles, we examined the evolution in research and current relevance, confirming the continued significance of this group of drugs despite the emergence of new treatments. The research reveals global collaboration among institutions, countries (primarily the United States, China, and Europe), and researchers, with three main themes driving the study: pharmacogenetics, new pharmaceutical formulations, and the use of adjuvants. In the landscape of colorectal cancer treatment, classical chemotherapeutic agents such as 5-fluorouracil, capecitabine, irinotecan, oxaliplatin, trifluridine, and tipiracil have historically played a pivotal role. This study presents a comprehensive bibliometric analysis of the top 100 most influential articles focusing on these classic chemotherapy drugs in the management of colorectal cancer. With this, we shed light on their current importance, despite the emergence of new therapeutic targets and treatments in the field of oncology. Systematically evaluating research outputs, this analysis reveals a prevalence of co-authorship among institutions, countries (led by the United States, China, and Europe), and researchers highlighting the global and collaborative nature of efforts in research, utilization, and development of these drugs. Three thematic axes lead the research: pharmacogenetics, the development of new pharmaceutical forms, and the use of adjuvants. This research serves as a foundation for future endeavors, aiding researchers, clinicians, and policymakers in making informed decisions about the direction of research and development in the dynamic field of colorectal cancer therapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The objective of this study was to compare middle authorships between male and female general surgeons in the United States., Methods: A stratified random sample of American College of Surgeons general surgery fellows was identified. Relevant author demographic, affiliation, and publication metrics were collected and compared across cohorts to determine which demographics were prognostic for each outcome variable. The primary endpoint was the number of middle author papers between genders., Results: Males were more likely to enter into practice earlier (p<0.001), be fellowship-trained (p<0.001), obtain higher academic rank (p<0.001), and practice at more highly ranked academic institutions (p=0.019). Females had fewer middle author publications (p=0.044) and higher annual rates of first author publications (p=0.020) despite similar rates of total publications., Conclusions: Female surgeons hold the middle author position less frequently than males despite similar total publication numbers. Reasons for this finding should be the target of future study., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors have no potential conflicts of interests to disclose., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)