Search

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

Writing about complementary medicine, whether intended for book or journal publication, has often suffered from three flaws: inadequate attention to the origin and nature of knowledge claims; careless use of problematic concepts such as 'holistic' or 'natural' and poor application of basic principles of good scholarship. In this paper I present guidelines to promote better writing. With respect to knowledge claims, authors need to be explicit about the origin of the claim; that is, the reasons why they believe it to be true. Many books and papers on complementary medicine are flawed because their authors avoided explaining why they have made particular claims. Claims can be justified by using personal experience or by quoting scientific research. When using personal experience, authors need to: describe the practitioners concerned; use generalities about practitioners with care and be wary when referring to 'classical' or 'traditional' practitioners. When quoting scientific research, authors should: cite references and use these sparingly and specifically; avoid 'secondary sourcing', reliance on abstracts and the referencing of authorities; use 'weasel words' ('may' or 'can') with extreme care; think carefully about causal inferences and take care with laboratory-based research. Many of the concepts found in books and papers on complementary medicine are used rather carelessly. Concepts such as holism or 'natural' medicine, or even the concept of 'complementary' and 'conventional' medicine, are often taken to have simple and obvious meanings. Yet these concepts are extremely slippery and open to differing interpretations, especially if they are used with insufficient care. Authors should apply basic principles of good scholarship by displaying thoroughness and attention to detail; reflecting on the validity of each point made; reflecting on the limitations of their arguments and maintaining a level of disinterestedness. However, authors should avoid trying to sound academic for the sake of it: the use of long words, obscure jargon and dense and lengthy prose does not make a work scholarly.

Objective. To probe into the characteristics of authors, institutes and region distribution of papers published in "Space Medicine & Medical Engineering" (SMME), as well as its papers indexed and cited by CBMDisc, CB-ISITC and CSCD-CD98; to look into its core authors, core regions and core institutes. Method. Bibliometric method was used to analyse its published papers, cited papers and indexed papers. Result. 716 papers have been published in SMME, among which 622 were coauthor papers (86.9%); 94 were single author papers (13.1%); organization collaboration papers 109 (15.2%); institutes 548 (76.5%); colleges and Universities 132 (18.4%); hospitals 36 (5.1%). CBMDisc and CB-ISTIC index rate were 81% and 75% of its papers respectively, SMME's 39 papers were cited in 25 journals via CSCD-CD98, 10 of 42 core authors are cited. Conclusion. Papers published in SMME per issue have been increasing in 10 years, core region is Beijing. Core authors have been formed in SMME. Papers indexed by CBMDisc and CB-ISTIC are also increasing. But its citation status is not ideal, and high cited papers and high cited authors are few. Numbers and types of Natural Scientific Foundation supported papers are increasing.

Fifty issues of the British Medical Journal (BMJ), The Lancet, The British Journal of Psychiatry and Psychological Medicine were scrutinized. Papers were designated as invited or peer reviewed and the geographical location of the first author was recorded. For UK-based authors, the latitude and longitude of the host institution was noted and was allocated to one of the UK regions. Of invited papers 805 of 1227 (66%) were by UK-based authors compared with 1442 of 2896 peer reviewed papers (50%), odds ratio 1.92 (95% CI 1.67-2.21) with a similar pattern prevailing in each of the four journals. Within the UK, authorships of invited versus peer reviewed papers showed a preponderance of invited authors based in southeast England, odds ratio 1.30 (95% CI 1.09-1.56). For individual Journals, the Lancet and the British Journal of Psychiatry showed fewer regional disparities in authorship than the BMJ and Psychological Medicine. These disparities may lead to nationalism and parochiality in the content of invited papers. Journal editors may wish to review selection practices for authorship of invited papers.

We organize a statistician's potential scientific and intellectual contributions to a medical study into three types of activities relating to design, implementation and analysis. For each type, we describe high-level, mid-level and low-level contributions. Using this framework, we develop a point system to assess whether authorship is justified. Although we recommend discussion and resolution of authorship issues early in the course of any project, our system is especially useful when this has not been done.

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.

Background and aim: Despite the increasing share of educated women over time, women still play a lesser role in academic and leadership status, receiving honorary awards and academic advancement. Since compiling academic articles is considered as one of the most significant factors of success in academic careers; therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate gender cooperation pattern among the authors of articles in Journals of Geography and Urban Planning, Geography and Development, and Natural Environment Hazards until 2019. Materials and methods: In the present applied and descriptive study, the statistical population included all indexed articles and information of authors in the Journals of Geography in Sistan and Baluchestan University. For this purpose, some factors such as the number of articles published in quarterly journals, number of authors, number of female authors as well as gender of first authors and corresponding authors were analyzed using independent t-test in SPSS and Excel. Findings: In reviewing the articles, 37.5% of the articles were written by three authors, indicating the authors' tendency to collaborate in this field. Moreover, the main hypotheses of the study stating no difference in the gender of the first and corresponding authors were rejected. The findings indicated that women had a small share in the status of writing articles in these quarterly journals and women attended as the first and corresponding authors only in 15.5% and 14.4% of the articles. Conclusion: Although women's participation in the articles published in the quarterly journals has increased during the recent years, their absence still remains in the main status of the articles and they have a very small share in the main status of authors of the articles (first author and corresponding author).

Holism is claimed to be the signifying feature that sets women's health apart from traditional approaches to health care. As such, articles published in the nursing literature about women's health would, one might expect, reflect the centrality of holism to women's health care nursing. The findings of a study which examined the content and the focus of articles published about women's health in journals indexed by CINAHL in the period 1993-1995 challenge this assumption. It was found that women's health is a taken-for-granted notion and is used interchangeably and synonymously to refer to reproductive health, maternal health, neonatal health, family health and (hetero) sexual health. Confounding the view that holism is foundational to a women's health perspective, the papers forming the study's sample largely depict issues to do with women's health from a narrow and stereotypical perspective and with a bio-medical focus. Women were referred to as fragmented bodies, body parts and diseases, and were depicted as being passive and silent. By contrast, the voice (and the activity) of nurses and nursing's imperative to intervene was clearly discernible.

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.

There are many varieties of medical writing. This paper suggests a sound, practical approach for writing up a research project in the conventional format for a medical or scientific journal. The structure of a scientific paper is well established, to accommodate the "Why" of the project (the Introduction), the "Who, when, where and how" (the Methods) and the "What" (the Results). The Discussion (the "So what") should be in three parts--discussion and explanation of results, disputation, and disquisition (implications for practice and for future work). Guidelines are given for getting started and for producing a paper that will, hopefully, be published and read.

Objective: To study whether reviewers aware of author identity are biased in favor of authors with more previous publications., Design: Randomized controlled trial., Setting: Editorial office of the Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics., Participants: Two "blinded" and two "nonblinded" reviewers assigned to 57 consecutive manuscripts submitted between September 1991 and March 1992., Outcome Measures: Spearman rank correlation coefficients were used to compare the sum of rating scores of 1 to 5 (1, accept; 5, reject) given by the two blinded reviewers, the two nonblinded reviewers, and the editors to the number of articles published previously by the first and senior authors (as determined from requested curricula vitae). Blinded reviewers were sent a questionnaire asking whether they could determine the identity of the authors, how they knew, and whether they thought binding changed the quality or difficulty of their review., Results: The Wilcoxon Sign Rank Test disclosed no differences between blinded and nonblinded scores. The number of previous articles by the senior author was significantly correlated (P < .01) with blinded scores (r = -.45) and editors' decisions (r = -.45), but not with nonblinded scores; the number of articles by the first author was correlated (P < .05) with editors' decisions (r = -.35) but not with blinded or nonblinded scores. Fifty (46%) of 108 blinded reviewers correctly guessed the identity of the authors, mostly from self-references and knowledge of the work; 86% believed blinding did not change the quality of their review, and 73% believed it did not change the difficulty of performing a review., Conclusions: Blinded reviewers and editors in this study, but not nonblinded reviewers, gave better scores to authors with more previous articles. These results suggest that blinded reviewers may provide more unbiased reviews and that nonblinded reviewers may be affected by various types of bias.

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.

Purpose: While males have dominated the physician lines over the last decades the recent female doctors' number increasing might progressively reduce this gender gap. This might be not fully true in the academic/research area. We aimed to analyze the gender distribution of first/senior Italian authors on neuroendocrine neoplasm papers published on peer reviewed journals., Methods: Publications from January 2019 to September 2023 were reviewed; only papers with first and/or senior Italian authors were included. First/senior author gender, type of article, co-authorship with foreign authors were the variable analyzed., Results: 742 papers with Italian first and/or senior authors were retrieved, 449 (60.5%) multicentric, 285 (38.4%) original articles. A female author was first and senior author in 386/742 (52%) and in 228/742 (31%) papers, respectively. 150 (20.2%) papers included foreign coauthors, being an Italian female researcher first author in 50 papers (33%), senior author in 28 (18.6%). The number of Italian female first/senior authors has been increasing over the years (22 in 2019, 113 in 2022; 16 in 2019, 62 in 2022, respectively). The first/senior female authors were mainly Oncologists/Endocrinologists/Pathologists rather than Gastroenterologists/Nuclear Medicine doctors/Surgeons/Radiologists., Conclusion: There has been an increase in the prevalence of female authorship of published research in the neuroendocrine setting over the last 5 years, which partially reflects the current distributions in this field, taking into account that several specialties with different gender distribution are involved. However, senior authorship continues to be primarily men. Efforts should be made to improve proportionate gender representation in both clinical and academic/research setting., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Italian Society of Endocrinology (SIE).)

The landscape of research roles within academic journals often remains uncharted territory, with authorial contributions frequently reduced to linear hierarchies (e.g., professor and assistant professor). The Kano model, traditionally used in customer satisfaction research, offers a nuanced framework for identifying the multifaceted roles of authors in scholarly publications. This study utilizes the Kano model to dissect and categorize the roles of authors in the medicine field. To conform to the hypothesis, China is the research leader while the US is the research collaborator, as reflected in the publications of the journal of Medicine (Baltimore) in the year 2023. We conducted a comprehensive bibliometric analysis of all research articles published in the journal of Medicine (Baltimore) in 2023. The Kano model was applied to classify authors into 5 categories reflective of their research roles: followers, leaders, partners, contributors, and collaborators. Data on author publications and co-authorship networks with multi-author rates (MARs) were analyzed to assign Kano categories based on the authorship positions of first and corresponding authors. Descriptive statistics and network analysis tools were used to interpret the data, including radar plots, geographical maps, and Kano diagrams. The analysis covered 1976 articles, uncovering a complex network of author roles that extends beyond the conventional binary distinction of lead and supporting authors (i.e., leading, and following researchers). A research leader in China and a collaborator in the US were conformed to support the hypothesis, based on their publications (1148 vs 51) and MARs (12.20% vs 19.61%). The Kano classification was visually adapted to classify authors (or entities) into 5 categories. The combined choropleth and geographical network maps were illustrated to identify author roles in research briefly. The Kano model serves as an effective tool for uncovering the diverse contributions of authors in medical research. By moving beyond the lead and follower dichotomy, this study highlights the intricate ecosystem of authorial roles, emphasizing the importance of each in advancing knowledge within the field of medicine. Future application of the Kano model could foster a more collaborative and inclusive recognition of contributions across various disciplines., Competing Interests: The authors have no funding and conflicts of interest to disclose., (Copyright © 2024 the Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.)

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.

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.

A handy method is described of selecting among the inevitable onslaught of 100 to 200 potential coauthors that mysteriously appear whenever a journal article is submitted for publication. The "relative authorship weighting scale" helps to decide who actually qualifies as an author and serves as an objective means of determining the appropriate order in which these various goldbrickers should be listed on the manuscript.

The study "Retracted papers originating from paper mills: cross sectional study" examines the scientific misconduct of so-called paper mills, which produce and sell fake articles. The authors mainly come from Chinese institutions and most of the articles were published in high-impact factor journals. The study identified 1182 retracted articles from paper mills and warns that this could only be the tip of the iceberg. The falsification of scientific literature through manipulated data is a serious problem. Editorial boards of scientific journals must take measures to detect and reject such submissions. [Extracted from the article]

The value of large‐scale collaborations for solving complex problems is widely recognized, but many barriers hinder meaningful authorship for all on the resulting multi‐author publications. Because many professional benefits arise from authorship, much of the literature on this topic has focused on cheating, conflict and effort documentation. However, approaches specifically recognizing and creatively overcoming barriers to meaningful authorship have received little attention.We have developed an inclusive authorship approach arising from 15 years of experience coordinating the publication of over 100 papers arising from a long‐term, international collaboration of hundreds of scientists.This method of sharing a paper initially as a storyboard with clear expectations, assignments and deadlines fosters communication and creates unambiguous opportunities for all authors to contribute intellectually. By documenting contributions through this multi‐step process, this approach ensures meaningful engagement by each author listed on a publication.The perception that co‐authors on large authorship publications have not meaningfully contributed underlies widespread institutional bias against multi‐authored papers, disincentivizing large collaborations despite their widely recognized value for advancing knowledge. Our approach identifies and overcomes key barriers to meaningful contributions, protecting the value of authorship even on massively multi‐authored publications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article explores the impact of the Nobel Prize in Literature on the acquisition policies of literary archives. Focusing on laureates and the twenty-first-century fate of their manuscripts, it argues that the international reach of the prize is mirrored by a contemporary archival landscape that is at once global and unequal. Although many archives concentrate on collecting material from the linguistic and cultural context of which they themselves form part, the past two decades have also seen the emergence of a competitive international market for the papers of authors whose writings are marked – through high-profile distinctions such as the Nobel Prize – as belonging to the world literary canon. Illustrating its larger argument with the help of three case studies (Harold Pinter, J.M. Coetzee, Gabriel García Márquez), the article suggests that archivization consecrates laureates' papers as global heritage at the same time that it reinforces the logic of literary nativism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A follow-up study was conducted 25 years after the 1997 British Medical Journal report. Articles with at least one Japanese author were defined as ‘Article by Japanese’ and those with no Japanese authors were defined as ‘Article by Non-Japanese’. The number of authors per article for the years 2000, 2010, and 2020 in Circulation, Circulation Research, and the Japanese Circulation Journal was studied. Results are: (1) In all journals and all years covered, ‘Article by Japanese’ had more authors per article than ‘Article by Non-Japanese’. Twenty-five years later, the results were similar. (2) Comparison by year revealed that all journals showed increases with time in the number of authors per article. We have discussed the problem of the Science Council of Japan’s statement, influence on practising physicians and sample providers, and influence on international collaborations. This 25-year follow-up study highlights once again the need for global discussions on the qualifications for authorship in research studies.

The author offers a response to an article by Amanda McGraw and Mary Mason about the formulaic essay and its power to defuse reading responses. She talks about the choices that have a real impact on the students' outcomes, practical strategies shared by McGraw and Mason as an alternative to rigid scaffolds that each focus on the qualities of good writing rather than formulas, and factor that play a significant role in the reluctance to change the approach to the teaching of reading and writing.

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

Purpose: The diversity of authors in orthopaedic literature is fundamental to the distribution of unique discoveries, innovations, and advancements. The purpose of the current study was to create and validate a comprehensive Author Diversity Scoring System (ADSS) to quantify authorship diversity in orthopaedic manuscripts., Methods: Six items were included in the initial ADSS. The ADSS and associated survey were sent to 120 experts to evaluate the clarity, simplicity, and relevancy its components. Responses were used to validate the ADSS using Content Validity Ratio (CVR) and Content Validity Index (CVI)., Results: The initial ADSS contained author gender, ethnicity, academic rank/title, country of origin of the article, affiliated institution, and the publication history of the senior/corresponding author as representative items. Subsequently, 21 experts completed the survey (response rate 17.5%). Following validation, the final ADSS included author gender, ethnicity, and region of article origin, scored cumulatively on a 0-30 point scale with increasing scores indicating greater author diversity., Conclusion: The validated ADSS scoring system quantitatively assesses manuscript author diversity., (© 2024. The Author(s) under exclusive licence to SICOT aisbl.)

Background: While other otolaryngology subspecialties have established female authorship trends, there is no comprehensive study within head and neck surgery (HNS)., Methods: Five researchers recorded the gender identity of first and senior authors from HNS subspecialty papers (head and neck oncology, endocrine surgery, salivary gland pathology, and microsurgery) derived from 10 journals in otolaryngology and oncology in the years 2013, 2016, 2019, and 2022., Results: From 3457 articles, 6901 unique author identities were analyzed. Female authors represented 32% (N = 1103) of first authors and 20% (N = 690) of senior authors. Female authors were less likely to publish in microvascular and reconstructive surgery. Senior female authors were more likely to publish in higher impact journals than male senior authors, and first female authors had an increased likelihood of funding compared to their male counterparts., Conclusions: While female authors remain underrepresented in certain literature, we illustrate promising trends in productivity, funding allocation, and impact., (© 2024 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Background: Anesthesiology departments and professional organizations increasingly recognize the need to embrace diverse membership to effectively care for patients, to educate our trainees, and to contribute to innovative research. 1 Bibliometric analysis uses citation data to determine the patterns of interrelatedness within a scientific community. Social network analysis examines these patterns to elucidate the network's functional properties. Using these methodologies, an analysis of contemporary scholarly work was undertaken to outline network structure and function, with particular focus on the equity of node and graph-level connectivity patterns., Methods: Using the Web of Science, this study examines bibliographic data from 6 anesthesiology-specific journals between January 1, 2017, and August 26, 2022. The final data represent 4453 articles, 19,916 independent authors, and 4436 institutions. Analysis of coauthorship was performed using R libraries software. Collaboration patterns were assessed at the node and graph level to analyze patterns of coauthorship. Influential authors and institutions were identified using centrality metrics; author influence was also cataloged by the number of publications and highly cited papers. Independent assessors reviewed influential author photographs to classify race and gender. The Gini coefficient was applied to examine dispersion of influence across nodes. Pearson correlations were used to investigate the relationship between centrality metrics, number of publications, and National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding., Results: The modularity of the author network is significantly higher than would be predicted by chance (0.886 vs random network mean 0.340, P < .01), signifying strong community formation. The Gini coefficient indicates inequity across both author and institution centrality metrics, representing moderate to high disparity in node influence. Identifying the top 30 authors by centrality metrics, number of published and highly cited papers, 79.0% were categorized as male; 68.1% of authors were classified as White (non-Latino) and 24.6% Asian., Conclusions: The highly modular network structure indicates dense author communities. Extracommunity cooperation is limited, previously demonstrated to negatively impact novel scientific work. 2 , 3 Inequitable node influence is seen at both author and institution level, notably an imbalance of information transfer and disparity in connectivity patterns. There is an association between network influence, article publication (authors), and NIH funding (institutions). Female and minority authors are inequitably represented among the most influential authors. This baseline bibliometric analysis provides an opportunity to direct future network connections to more inclusively share information and integrate diverse perspectives, properties associated with increased academic productivity. 3 , 4., Competing Interests: Conflicts of Interest: See Disclosures at the end of the article., (Copyright © 2024 International Anesthesia Research Society.)

Recently, papers with multiple corresponding authors (co-correspondence) are frequently noticed in scientific journals. This is a trend that parallels a significant increase in research collaboration, but its rapidity raises concern about whether the legitimacy and value of the corresponding authorship are changing or even damaged. This study investigated how extensive and sound the trend of co-correspondence in science and engineering is. The increasing trend of co-correspondence papers was confirmed by examining SCOPUS index (www.scopus.com) for the papers published by scholars of the USA, Japan, South Korea, and China in 2008-09 and 2018-2019. The number of co-correspondence papers indeed increased in all four countries. However, the numbers varied significantly among the countries, markedly higher in South Korea and China cases, which also showed far higher numbers of the papers with a co-corresponding author who is the only member from his group. To dig into reality, South Korean scholars were surveyed with questionnaires regarding the trend of co-correspondence. Over 64% of respondents answered that they had participated in papers where multiple corresponding authors are listed, and 22% of them thought that the co-corresponding author did not play his due role and the co-corresponding authorship was exchanged between friends or given as a courtesy for various reasons. Although corresponding authorship allocation is majorly a concern for journal editors, a trend of inappropriate practices or misuse of co-corresponding authorship calls for local and global academic community awareness. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the navigating manuscript rejection. Topics include the study demonstrating how common manuscript rejection is among faculty of all academic ranks in hopes to normalize rejection and open conversations about rejection in mentorship; approach, innovations related to the study design, and reason for the rejection of the study to quantify on the fate of manuscripts.

Quantifying and comparing the scientific output of researchers has become critical for governments, funding agencies and universities. Comparison by reputation and direct assessment of contributions to the field is no longer possible, as the number of scientists increases and traditional definitions about scientific fields become blurred. The h-index is often used for comparing scientists, but has several well-documented shortcomings. In this paper, we introduce a new index for measuring and comparing the publication records of scientists: the pagerank-index (symbolised as π). The index uses a version of pagerank algorithm and the citation networks of papers in its computation, and is fundamentally different from the existing variants of h-index because it considers not only the number of citations but also the actual impact of each citation. We adapt two approaches to demonstrate the utility of the new index. Firstly, we use a simulation model of a community of authors, whereby we create various 'groups' of authors which are different from each other in inherent publication habits, to show that the pagerank-index is fairer than the existing indices in three distinct scenarios: (i) when authors try to 'massage' their index by publishing papers in low-quality outlets primarily to self-cite other papers (ii) when authors collaborate in large groups in order to obtain more authorships (iii) when authors spend most of their time in producing genuine but low quality publications that would massage their index. Secondly, we undertake two real world case studies: (i) the evolving author community of quantum game theory, as defined by Google Scholar (ii) a snapshot of the high energy physics (HEP) theory research community in arXiv. In both case studies, we find that the list of top authors vary very significantly when h-index and pagerank-index are used for comparison. We show that in both cases, authors who have collaborated in large groups and/or published less impactful papers tend to be comparatively favoured by the h-index, whereas the pagerank-index highlights authors who have made a relatively small number of definitive contributions, or written papers which served to highlight the link between diverse disciplines, or typically worked in smaller groups. Thus, we argue that the pagerank-index is an inherently fairer and more nuanced metric to quantify the publication records of scientists compared to existing measures.

The concept of impact beam plots (IBPs) has been introduced in academia as a means to profile individual researchers. Despite its potential, there has been a lack of comprehensive analysis that evaluates the research profiles of highly published authors through the lens of collaborative maps. This study introduces a novel approach, the rating scale for research profiles (RSRP), to create collaborative maps for prolific authors. The initial hypothesis posited that each of the research profiles would attain a grade A, necessitating empirical verification. This research employed collaborative maps to analyze the publication patterns of authors using the Web of Science database, focusing on co-authorship patterns and the impact of their scholarly work. The study relied on various bibliometric indicators, such as publication count, citation metrics, h-index, and co-authorship networks, to provide a detailed assessment of the contributions made by each author in their field. Additionally, authors' IBPs were generated and assessed alongside collaborative maps, using a grading scale ranging from A (excellent) to F (lacking any articles as first or corresponding author). The analysis confirmed that all 4 research profiles achieved a grade A, with their centroids located in the third quadrant, indicating a high level of scholarly impact. The h-indexes for the authors were found to be 38, 51, 53, and 59, respectively. Notably, Dr Tseng from Taiwan showed a distinct pattern, with a significant number of solo-authored publications in the second quadrant, in contrast to the other 3 authors who demonstrated a greater emphasis on collaboration, as evidenced by their positioning in the first quadrant. The study successfully demonstrates that RSRP and IBPs can be effectively used to analyze and profile the research output of highly published authors through collaborative maps. The research confirms the initial hypothesis that all 4 profiles would achieve a grade A, indicating an excellent level of scholarly impact and a strong presence in their respective fields. The utility of collaborative maps can be applied to bibliometric indicators in assessing the contributions and impact of scholars in the academic community., Competing Interests: The authors have no funding and conflicts of interest to disclose., (Copyright © 2024 the Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.)