Search

One of the tasks required of most statistics researchers and academic faculty is to publish their innovative ideas in the peer‐reviewed literature. In this paper, we provide guidance about the different stages of the process as experienced authors and offer advice from those who hold the decision about the success or failure of these papers, namely the editors of applied statistics journals. The paper is organized into four sections focusing on the different stages of publishing: (1) Planning what to write about, where to submit and how to organize the paper; (2) The process of writing the paper; (3) Interpreting and responding to peer‐reviews from the journal editors and referees to prepare for resubmission; and (4) General comments about the publication process, including collaboration and mentoring. Each section starts with fundamentals provided by the moderators (C.A.C. and L.L.) on key aspects to consider on each topic and then is followed with discussion from some current and past editors of impactful journals in the field of applied statistics. Our hope is that this collection of insights may help accelerate learning about the process for young researchers and help all researchers to understand some of the important often‐unspoken aspects of the process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In research, outcomes are often categorized as primary and secondary. The primary outcome is the most important one; it determines whether the study is considered 'successful' or not. Secondary outcomes are chosen because they provide supporting evidence for the results of the primary outcome or additional information about the subject being studied. For reasons that are explained in this paper, secondary outcomes should be cautiously interpreted. There are varying practices regarding publishing secondary outcomes. Some authors publish these separately, while others include them in the main publication. In some contexts, the former can lead to concerns about the quality and relevance of the data being published. In this article, we discuss primary and secondary outcomes, the importance and interpretation of secondary outcomes, and considerations for publishing multiple outcomes in separate papers. We also discuss the special case of secondary analyses and post hoc analyses and provide guidance on good publishing practices. Throughout the article, we use relevant examples to make these concepts easier to understand. While the article is primarily aimed at early career researchers, it offers insights that may be helpful to researchers, reviewers, and editors across all levels of expertise. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Identifying factors that associate with more cited or higher quality research may be useful to improve science or to support research evaluation. This article reviews evidence for the existence of such factors in article text and metadata. It also reviews studies attempting to estimate article quality or predict long‐term citation counts using statistical regression or machine learning for journal articles or conference papers. Although the primary focus is on document‐level evidence, the related task of estimating the average quality scores of entire departments from bibliometric information is also considered. The review lists a huge range of factors that associate with higher quality or more cited research in some contexts (fields, years, journals) but the strength and direction of association often depends on the set of papers examined, with little systematic pattern and rarely any cause‐and‐effect evidence. The strongest patterns found include the near universal usefulness of journal citation rates, author numbers, reference properties, and international collaboration in predicting (or associating with) higher citation counts, and the greater usefulness of citation‐related information for predicting article quality in the medical, health and physical sciences than in engineering, social sciences, arts, and humanities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Open data as an integral part of the open science movement enhances the openness and sharing of scientific datasets. Nevertheless, the normative utilization of data journals, data papers, scientific datasets, and data citations necessitates further research. This study aims to investigate the citation practices associated with data papers and to explore the role of data papers in disseminating scientific datasets. Dataset accession numbers from NCBI databases were employed to analyze the prevalence of data citations for data papers from PubMed Central. A dataset citation practice identification rule was subsequently established. The findings indicate a consistent growth in the number of biomedical data journals published in recent years, with data papers gaining attention and recognition as both publications and data sources. Although the use of data papers as citation sources for data remains relatively rare, there has been a steady increase in data paper citations for data utilization through formal data citations. Furthermore, the increasing proportion of datasets reported in data papers that are employed for analytical purposes highlights the distinct value of data papers in facilitating the dissemination and reuse of datasets to support novel research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

According to an article in Pulse International, many faculty members in medical universities and colleges in Pakistan have been promoted by publishing papers in substandard medical journals over the past four years. This has created a dilemma for junior faculty members and postgraduates who are not receiving proper guidance or assistance from their seniors. The article highlights the prevalence of unethical publication practices and gift authorship in Pakistan. The Pakistan Medical and Dental Council (PMandDC) has identified these substandard journals and is now working to evaluate and improve their standards, including organizing training courses for editors and staff members. The PMandDC is committed to upholding peer review, publication ethics, and authorship criteria set by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. [Extracted from the article]

In this article we study the particularities of editorial practice in contexts of confinement in Argentina through the systematization and analysis of five publications, already published or in the process of being published, which were formulated within the framework of pedagogical-political practices carried on by the Prisons Extension Program of the Philosophy and Literature Faculty of the University of Buenos Aires. These five cases will be addressed in order to observe what meanings guide the editorial processes through the marks imprinted on them by the specificity of the writing that summons them and the territory to which they belong. Publishing in the context of a pedagogical project developed by the university configures collective territories where writing and publications can display and carry plural voices, which are strengthened in that plurality forged in the heat of individual and collective subjectivation processes made possible by education and writing. Editorial practice is inseparably intertwined with actions aimed at defending rights, narrating lived experiences and building a collective history which are part of the desires and expectations regarding publication. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction The outbreak of COVID-19 has produced an unprecedented number of trials and articles. Objective To study the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on otolaryngology-head and neck surgery (ORL-HNS) journal processing times. Methods Original papers search of published in selected ORL-HNS journals in terms of times from submission-to-acceptance (S-A), acceptance-to-first online publication (A-P), and submission-to-online publication (S-P). Papers were divided into those published in the pre-COVID-19 era and those during the COVID-19 era. The latter were further divided into unrelated to COVID-19 and related to COVID-19. Results A total of 487 articles from 5 selected ORL-HNS journals were included, of which 236 (48.5%) were published during the pre-COVID-19 era and 251 (51.5%) were published during the COVID-19 era. Among them, 180 (37%) papers were not related to COVID-19, and 71 (14.5%) were related to COVID-19. The S-A duration of COVID-19-related articles was significantly shorter compared with that of papers submitted in the pre-COVID-19 era and to papers submitted in the COVID-19 era but unrelated to COVID-19 (median 6 to 34 days compared to 65 to 125 and 46 to 127, respectively) in all 5 journals. The most prominent reductions in S-A and S-P times were documented in the laryngology and otology/neurotology disciplines, respectively. Conclusions Processing times of the included papers were significantly shorter in most of the selected ORL-HNS journals during the COVID-19 era compared with the pre-COVID-19 era. COVID-19-related papers were processed more rapidly than non-COVID-19-related papers. These findings testify to the possibility of markedly expediting S-P times and hopefully set a precedent for postpandemic publishing schedules. Level Of Evidence: 5 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper investigates retracted articles indexed in the Scientific Electronic Library Online (SciELO) Brazil, using bibliometric techniques to identify the characteristics of these retractions and relevant citation trends. All records of retracted articles from the first record in October 2004 to April 2022 were included. Sixty-seven retractions and 870 citations pre- and post-retraction were analyzed. Results indicate a change of scenario that began in 2015, with recurrences of retracted articles allegedly produced by paper mills. The prevalence of retractions derived from professional misconduct in health research and the frequency of post-retraction citations in health sciences raise concerns in the chain of stakeholders, public health, and scientific development. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Research theses can have a significant impact on the development of applied sciences, especially when their results are published. Objective This study aims to determine publication rate of papers extracted from the medical residency and master’s degree theses of Guilan University of Medical Sciences (GUMS) during 2008-2018. Methods This is a descriptive cross-sectional study. The data were collected from the medical residency and master’s degree theses of GUMS from 2008 to 2018. Then, they were searched in international and national databases according to the title, keywords, and names of supervisors, advisors, and students. Results Of 774 theses, 449 (58 %) papers had been extracted and published in journals indexed by ISI/ PubMed (41.2%), Scopus (11.8%), BIOSIS, Chemical Abstract, and Embase (0.44%) and others (46.56%). Most of them (98.66%) were original research. Moreover, in 383(85.3%) of the theses, there was no statistician or data advisor. The median time from defending theses to the publication of a paper from them was two years. Conclusion The publication of papers extracted from the theses of GUMS has increased, and more than 50% of them have been published in journals indexed by ISI, PubMed, and Scopus. However, the factors associated with the publication of papers need to be surveyed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To study the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on journal processing times before publication in the field of otolaryngology-head and neck surgery (ORL-HNS). Online search of original papers published in selected ORL-HNS journals in terms of times from submission to acceptance (S-A), acceptance to first online publication (A-P), and submission to online publication (S-P). Papers were divided into those published in the pre-COVID-19 era and those during the COVID-19 era. The latter were further divided into unrelated to COVID-19 and related to COVID-19. A total of 487 articles from 5 selected ORL-HNS journals were included, of which 236 (48.5%) were published during the pre-COVID-19 era and 251 (51.5%) were published during the COVID-19 era. Among them, 180 (37%) papers were not related to COVID-19, and 71 (14.5%) were related to COVID-19. The S-A duration of COVID-19-related articles was significantly shorter compared to papers submitted in the pre-COVID-19 era and to papers submitted in the COVID-19 era but unrelated to COVID-19 (median 6–34 days compared to 65–125 and 46–127, respectively) in all 5 journals. The most prominent reductions in S-A and S-P times were documented in the laryngology and otology/neurotology disciplines, respectively. Processing times of the included papers were significantly shorter in most of the selected ORL-HNS journals during the COVID-19 era compared to the pre-COVID-19 era. COVID-19-related papers were processed more rapidly than non-COVID-19-related papers. These findings testify to the possibility of markedly expediting S-P times and hopefully set a precedent for post-pandemic publishing schedules. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the reasons behind the rejection of papers submitted to the Journal of Mental Health, highlighting the increasing number of submissions and the rigorous review process. Topics include the importance of meeting submission criteria, considerations during the scientific evaluation process, and specific guidelines for different types of studies, such as prioritizing international importance and avoiding redundant research on topics like COVID-19.

The article focuses on the importance of quantifying the impact and quality of research articles, discussing traditional metrics such as the Journal Impact Factor (JIF), CiteScore, and the H-index. It also introduces alternative metrics (Altmetrics) like the Altmetric Attention Score (AAS), emphasizing their role in measuring the reach and success of research articles through social media engagement.

This article discusses OpenAI's ChatGPT, a generative pre‐trained transformer, which uses natural language processing to fulfill text‐based user requests (i.e., a "chatbot"). The history and principles behind ChatGPT and similar models are discussed. This technology is then discussed in relation to its potential impact on academia and scholarly research and publishing. ChatGPT is seen as a potential model for the automated preparation of essays and other types of scholarly manuscripts. Potential ethical issues that could arise with the emergence of large language models like GPT‐3, the underlying technology behind ChatGPT, and its usage by academics and researchers, are discussed and situated within the context of broader advancements in artificial intelligence, machine learning, and natural language processing for research and scholarly publishing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

During the coronavirus pandemic, changes in the way science is done and shared occurred, which motivates meta‐research to help understand science communication in crises and improve its effectiveness. The objective is to study how many Spanish scientific papers on COVID‐19 published during 2020 share their research data. Qualitative and descriptive study applying nine attributes: (a) availability, (b) accessibility, (c) format, (d) licensing, (e) linkage, (f) funding, (g) editorial policy, (h) content, and (i) statistics. We analyzed 1,340 papers, 1,173 (87.5%) did not have research data. A total of 12.5% share their research data of which 2.1% share their data in repositories, 5% share their data through a simple request, 0.2% do not have permission to share their data, and 5.2% share their data as supplementary material. There is a small percentage that shares their research data; however, it demonstrates the researchers' poor knowledge on how to properly share their research data and their lack of knowledge on what is research data. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An editorial is presented discussing the crucial role of practitioner papers in health marketing, emphasizing the need for collaboration between academics and practitioners. Topics include the unique value of practitioner papers, barriers and enablers to publishing, and guidance for both practitioners and editors to facilitate successful publication.

The article comments on the anxiety and mental health problem facing editors in preventing the publication of scientific misconduct and fraud and paper mill activities and calls for the protection of the scientific record. It attributes the problem with paper mill-produced manuscripts to pressure on academics, educational workload in universities and funding. It suggests having an authorship policy, investigation of suspected unethical behavior and peer review to combat publishing misconduct.

Editors rely on peer reviewers' comments and insight as they make decisions about submitted manuscripts. This article describes what reviewers need to consider when accepting a peer review assignment and the essential elements they should include in their peer review. What reviewers need to consider when accepting a peer review assignment—and the essential elements they should include in their review. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The controversy over vaccines, which has recently intensified following the COVID-19 pandemic, provokes heated debates, with both advocates and opponents raising allegations of bias and fraud in research. Researchers whose work raises doubts about the safety of certain vaccines claim to be victims of discriminatory treatment aimed at suppressing dissent, including the unjustified retraction of their published research. Such practices have previously been discussed in other controversial fields in science (e.g., AIDS, the environment, and water fluoridation) but not in the field of vaccines. The purpose of this study was to analyze, for the first time, the subjective views of researchers whose papers were retracted. Study participants are active researchers, most with international reputations in their respective fields. They perceived retraction as a means of censoring and silencing critical voices with the aim of preserving the pro-vaccination agenda of interested parties. Participants also reported additional measures aimed at harming them personally and professionally. These findings point to the need for a fair, open, and honest discourse about the safety of vaccines for the benefit of public health and the restoration of trust in science and medicine. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A stylised fact in bibliometric research is that in the field of management studies, half or more of the papers published are never cited. If true, this implies that efforts and resources are considerably wasted because half of the academic work is not considered worthy by the same community that developed them. We studied a sample of 2777 papers published in 20 journals and representing different levels of quality. Of these, only 191 papers, representing 6.5% of the sample, were never cited, suggesting that the aforementioned stylised fact is a myth. We identified the factors that contribute to the level of citations, including the ranking of the journal in the quality list, time since last citation, and number of authors. The implications discussed suggest a need for reflection regarding the relevance of the factors that predict future citations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: This study assessed the features of the 100 most‐cited papers on oral health‐related quality of life (OHRQoL). Methods: The 100 most‐cited OHRQoL papers were collected from Web of Science, adopting a combined keyword search strategy. Google Scholar and Scopus databases were searched to compare citations. The following data were extracted from papers: title of the paper, number of citations, authorship, country, year of publication, title of the journal, study design, sample size, topic and OHRQoL instruments used. Graphical bibliometric networks were created using VOSviewer software. Results: The number of citations of the top 100 most‐cited OHRQoL papers ranged from 73 to 949. Fifty‐six papers received at least 100 citations and two received more than 400 citations. Most papers were from Canada (23%) and had been published in Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology (37%). David Locker was the most‐cited author (25 papers; 3,521 citations). The cross‐sectional study design was the most common (68%). The impact of oral health conditions on OHRQoL (43%) was the most frequent topic, and the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP) was the most commonly used OHRQoL instrument (48%). Conclusions: This bibliometric analysis highlighted the characteristics of the 100 most‐cited OHRQoL papers, demonstrating that this field is far from saturated. This list of the most‐cited articles can provide a reference point to guide oral health research, education and services. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Reasons underlying retractions of papers authored by the Iran-affiliated highly cited researchers (HCRs) have not been documented. Here, we report that 229 of the Iran-affiliated researchers were listed by the Clarivate Analytics as HCRs. We investigated the Retraction Watch Database and found that, in total, 51 papers authored by the Iran-affiliated HCRs were retracted from 2006 to 2019. Twenty-three of the 229 HCRs (10%) had at least one paper retracted. One of the listed HCRs had 22 papers retracted; 14 of the 23 (60.8%) had only one paper retracted. Among the 51 retracted papers, three had been authored by two female authors. Eight (16.8%) retracted papers had international co-authorships. The shortest and longest times from publication to retraction were 20 and 2610 (mean ± SD, 857 ± 616) days, respectively. Of the 51 papers, 43 (84%) had a single reason for retraction, whereas eight had multiple reasons. Among the 43 papers, 23 (53%) were retracted due to fake peer-review, eight (19%) were duplications, six (14%) had errors, four (9%) had plagiarism, and two (5%) were labelled as “limited or no information.” Duplication of data, which is easily preventable, amounted to 27%. Any publishing oversight committed by an HCR may not be tolerated because they represent the stakeholders of the scientific literature and stand as role-models for other peer researchers. Future policies supporting the Iranian academia should radically change by implementation of educational and awareness programs on publishing ethics to reduce the rate of retractions in Iran. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Since 2012 the series has produced 13 volumes, the latest being I The Castle of Truth and Other Revolutionary Tales i by Hermynia zur Mühlen (1883-1951), which Zipes both translated and edited. The Castle of Truth and Other Revolutionary Tales: by Hermynia zur Mühlen, edited and translated by Jack Zipes, Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press, 2020, ix + 216 pp., $19.95/£16.99 (paper) In his series, I Oddly Modern Fairy Tales i , published by Princeton University Press, Jack Zipes, a prominent folklore and fairy-tales scholar, revives narratives written by talented but neglected or forgotten authors of the first half of the twentieth century that resonate with political and social conflicts of our times. [Extracted from the article]

The demanding promotion of university professors is being taken advantage of by international publishers to develop a fast business, that is framed in supposedly fraudulent activities of apparently scientific magazines, but without impact indexes that some experts already qualify as "epidemic" (García-Puente, 2019) and "plague" (Silva, 2016). This research uses the mystery client technique (Morena, 2013) to respond to an intentional sample of call for papers (CFP) submitted to researchers between January and April 2020, with a previously published article, that was intentionally altered to appear to be a scientific paper, but which violates the guidelines of originality and rigor: the order of the paragraphs is altered and translated into English with DeepL, without subsequent monitoring. During the period, 98 PICs were received and 38 submissions were made. The results are eloquent: none has been rejected, and within an average of 6 days 17 publication acceptances are confirmed. In all cases, payment is requested in advance. The article allows us to identify the profile of the journals, their recruitment strategies, the use of claims of: indexing, ethical standards and peer review and the naming strategies to simulate international prestige. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In 2014 leading publishers withdrew more than 120 nonsensical publications automatically generated with the SCIgen program. Casual observations suggested that similar problematic papers are still published and sold, without follow‐up retractions. No systematic screening has been performed and the prevalence of such nonsensical publications in the scientific literature is unknown. Our contribution is 2‐fold. First, we designed a detector that combs the scientific literature for grammar‐based computer‐generated papers. Applied to SCIgen, it has a 83.6% precision. Second, we performed a scientometric study of the 243 detected SCIgen‐papers from 19 publishers. We estimate the prevalence of SCIgen‐papers to be 75 per million papers in Information and Computing Sciences. Only 19% of the 243 problematic papers were dealt with: formal retraction (12) or silent removal (34). Publishers still serve and sometimes sell the remaining 197 papers without any caveat. We found evidence of citation manipulation via edited SCIgen bibliographies. This work reveals metric gaming up to the point of absurdity: fraudsters publish nonsensical algorithmically generated papers featuring genuine references. It stresses the need to screen papers for nonsense before peer‐review and chase citation manipulation in published papers. Overall, this is yet another illustration of the harmful effects of the pressure to publish or perish. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Document type (DT) assignment is an important feature from literature databases. This work evaluated how the literature databases and the publisher websites labeled "Top 100" (T100) papers, a recurring act for which researchers identify and analyze the 100 most cited entities (e.g. articles) within a pre-defined literature set. T100 papers concurrently indexed in the Web of Science (WoS), Scopus and PubMed databses were identified. Among the 248 T100 papers analyzed, no general consensus or consistent pattern was found for labeling T100 papers by the three data sources and the publishers' websites. All four sources labeled between 30-40% of the T100 papers as reviews. However, PubMed mostly did not give DT labels to the rest of the papers whereas WOS, Scopus, and publisher websites labeled them as articles. The inter-rater agreement was only fair; the decision seemed to be influenced by whether the authors mentioned the word "review" suggestive of the publication/document type in the title, abstract or keywords. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

When writing a research paper, the author has to select information to include in the paper to support various arguments. The information has to be organized and synthesized into a coherent whole through relationships and information structures. There is hardly any research on the information structure of research papers, and how information structure supports rhetorical and argument structures. Thus, this study is focused on information organization in the Abstract and Introduction sections of sociology research papers, analyzing the information structure of research objective, question, hypothesis, and result statements. The study is limited to research papers reporting research that investigated cause–effect relations between two concepts. Two semantic frames were developed to specify the types of information associated with cause–effect and comparison relations, and used as coding schemes to annotate the text for different information types. Six link patterns between the two frames were identified—showing how comparisons are used to support the claim that the cause‐effect relation is valid. This study demonstrated how semantic frames can be incorporated in discourse analysis to identify deep structures underlying the argument structure. The results carry implications for the knowledge representation of academic research in knowledge graphs, for semantic relation extraction, and teaching of academic writing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article examines the joint makulatura campaign of 1974–91 by the Soviet Supply Committee (Gossnab) and the State Committee for Publishing (Goskomizdat), a campaign in which readers could exchange collected wastepaper for vouchers to obtain the popular and otherwise unavailable titles of the makulatura book series. Through analysis of the debate in Literaturnaia gazeta on the perceived waste and shortage of printing paper, the official campaign instructions, and the changing "editorial" paratexts of the makulatura books, the article sheds light on the public negotiations about the campaign and the value and reuse value of paper and reading matter in late Soviet society. By materializing the abstract relation between paper and books, the makulatura experiment turned both paper scrap and books into collection items and readers into paper suppliers. This materialization gave both readers and writers a marked awareness of paper as a raw material and a medium of cultural production. However, the shift of readers from the receiver to the producer side of the textual communication circuit also implied a collision of logics from the different perspectives of authors, collectors, publishers, and supply agencies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

"Cruel Care: A History of Children at Our Borders" by Jordana Silverstein is a powerful examination of Australia's immigration policies and their impact on children. The book challenges the prevailing reasoning behind mandatory detention for asylum-seekers and argues that the system is rooted in colonial control. Silverstein analyzes the emotional rhetoric surrounding children and how it has been used to justify harsh policies. The book also explores issues such as the best interests of the child, manufactured crises for political gain, and the unique Australian program of indefinite offshore detention. Silverstein's work is well-researched and thought-provoking, offering valuable insights for readers with diverse perspectives. [Extracted from the article]

IX & X, Plays 2 & 3 i , 248-51 wilde, oscar: Hamby, James, review of Donohue, I The Complete Works of Oscar Wilde, Vols. IX & X, Plays 2 & 3 i , 248-51 I Early English Books Online i , reviewed, 114-17 edgar, eleazar: Mansky, Joseph, "The Case of Eleazar Edgar: I Leicester's Commonwealth i and the Book Trade in 1604", 233-41 editing: Bouchard, Mathieu D. S., "A Revised Account of the 1714 I Works of Mr. William Shakespear i ", 419-461; Hamby, James, review of Donohue, I The Complete Works of Oscar Wilde, Vols. IX & X, Plays 2 & 3 i , reviewed, 248-51 drama: Hamby, James, review of Donohue, I The Complete Works of Oscar Wilde, Vols. [Extracted from the article]

An introduction is presented in which the editor discusses various articles on topics including ENT specialist training in the United Kingdom, providing valuable insights for aspiring ENT surgeons regarding portfolio building, competitiveness of the process, and strategies for success.

Objective: To assess the overall trends in the development and citation impact of high‐impact papers in nursing research worldwide to gain insight into the focus areas of nursing research. Background: Bibliometric method is proved to be effective in analysing the papers' characteristics, and it gained considerable interest from the scientific community in recent years. An analysis of the characteristics and intrinsic patterns of high‐impact papers in nursing research will provide an objective reflection of the research hot spots. Nursing managers can pointedly increase funding amount and strengthen research cooperation in order to put the scientific results into management practice. Methods: Bibliometric methods and visualization software were used to comprehensively analyse high‐impact papers in nursing research in terms of development trends, countries/regions, distribution of subject areas, research institutes, collaborative networks and subject terms. Results: There were 6,886 papers between 2008 and 2018. The number of papers increased from 528 in 2008 to 723 in 2015, and then remained above 600 in 2016 and 2017. These papers were mainly distributed in nursing, oncology, paediatrics, gynaecology, teaching and education, and cardiac and cardiovascular systems and were cited by 128,845 papers that came from 89 Web of Science subject areas. Papers in nursing research accounted for the largest share of these citations. The top five countries in the world in terms of the number of high‐impact papers were the United States, Australia, the United Kingdom, Canada and Sweden. The research institutions with the highest number of high‐impact papers worldwide were the University of California System, the University of Pennsylvania, the University of North Carolina, the University of London and the University of Technology Sydney. In this data set, it was shown that research collaborative circles have been formed in the United States, Australia, Canada and Europe; the subject‐term analysis indicated that 'women' and 'students' have always been high‐interest populations for high‐impact papers and that cancer is still one of the greatest threats to human health. Furthermore, the subject terms of high‐impact papers in nursing research have gradually evolved from 'disease' and 'therapy' to 'symptoms'. Conclusion: In recent years, the number of high‐impact papers published each year in nursing research has grown over time. Nursing has been shown to be a highly specialized subject, and the majority of its high‐impact papers have been published by research institutions. Although cross‐regional collaborations are beginning to emerge, there is much room for improvement in this regard. Finally, women, students, cancer and symptomatic care are the current focus areas in nursing research. Implications for Nursing Management: This study informs nursing managers within the nursing research field about subject areas, collaborative networks and hot topics. It is beneficial to pay attention to studies, manage scientific outputs, allocate resources, seek cooperation and improve the work efficiency of scientific research management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the article, the authors present their analysis of the characteristics of article submissions to the journal, including the number of foreign submissions and the topics tackled like social epidemiology, methodology or statistics, and psychiatric epidemiology.

An editorial is presented the Pentatone label's deliberate development of a Mahler cycle with the Czech Philharmonic and conductor Semyon Bychkov, emphasizing the release of Mahler's second symphony as the third installment, and highlighting Bychkov's deep connection to the work throughout his career. The topics include the orchestral collaboration's significance, Bychkov's history with Mahler's second symphony, and the hope for the completion of the cycle despite economic uncertainties.

The article calls on authors to submit papers or articles for the William M. Jones Award to be presented at the 2024 American Culture Association annual meeting.

It is rare to see practising nurses from black, Asian or minority ethnic backgrounds publishing articles in professional journals. In our experience most nurses who publish scholarly papers are undertaking postgraduate studies or are in research roles, and are of white heritage. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: In 2017, one study (Derek Pyne; Journal of Scholarly Publishing; DOI: 10.3138/jsp.48.3.137; University of Toronto Press) in the "predatory" publishing literature attracted global media attention. Now, over three years, according to adjusted Google Scholar data, with 53 citations (34 in Clarivate Analytics' Web of Science), that paper became that author's most cited paper, accounting for one-third of his Google Scholar citations. Design/methodology/approach: In this paper, the authors conducted a bibliometric analysis of the authors who cited that paper. Findings: We found that out of the 39 English peer-reviewed journal papers, 11 papers (28%) critically assessed Pyne's findings, some of which even refuted those findings. The 2019 citations of the Pyne (2017) paper caused a 43% increase in the Journal of Scholarly Publishing 2019 Journal Impact Factor, which was 0.956, and a 7.7% increase in the 2019 CiteScore. Originality/value: The authors are of the opinion that scholars and numerous media that cited the Pyne (2017) paper were unaware of its flawed findings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article describes the Paper Authoring Tool (PAT), funded by the periodical "Addiction," and designed to write-up randomized control trials. Widely available to any researcher, it generates a Word file and a machine-readable version of the paper to support automated evidence synthesis in the form of a JSON-LD file.

This paper explores the potential of language models such as ChatGPT to transform library cataloging. Through experiments with ChatGPT, the author demonstrates its ability to generate accurate MARC records using RDA and other standards such as the Dublin Core Metadata Element Set. These results demonstrate the potential of ChatGPT as a tool for streamlining the record creation process and improving efficiency in library settings. The use of AI-generated records, however, also raises important questions related to intellectual property rights and bias. The paper reviews recent studies on AI in libraries and concludes that further research and development of this innovative technology is necessary to ensure its responsible implementation in the field of library cataloging. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article offers information on how to submit articles to be published in the journal, including the topics accepted and the email address for submission.

Background: Every year the scientific sessions of Annual National Conference of Indian Psychiatric Society (ANCIPS) are marked by presentation of free papers, posters, and award paper sessions, which are usually meant for presentation of new research which is not yet published. Hence, it is expected that these papers will be published in near future so that the scientific literature is distributed and shared with wider audience. Aim: This paper aims to evaluate the abstract to publication rate of papers presented during ANCIPS in the years 2012–2014. Materials and Methods: For this study, all the free papers, posters, and award papers presented during the ANCIPS of 2012–2014 were listed, and electronic searches were carried out to search for published articles. In addition, one of the authors of papers not found in the electronic searches were contacted through E-mail. Results: A total of 1081 papers were presented during the ANCIPS in the 3 year period under study. Of these, 64 were award papers, 622 were free papers, and 395 were posters. Majority (n = 807; 74.6%) of these could be categorized as research data-based presentations; this was followed by case reports/series (203; 18.8%), review of literature (n = 35; 3.3%), and others (n = 36; 3.3%). Overall, only 27% of the papers were published after at least 5 years of the presentation. Of all the award papers, 69.6% of papers were published, whereas only 26.8% of free oral papers and 22.5% of free posters were published. About half (45.6%) of the papers were published in national journals. In terms of indexing, among those which were published, 62.8% were published in Medline-indexed (PubMed-listed) Journals with a mean impact factor of 1. Conclusion: The present study shows that only 27% of the abstracts presented during the ANCIPS are ultimately published as full text articles in the next 5 years. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In many disciplines, most conference presentations end when the conference does; they do not go on to become peer-reviewed articles. Yet there is also research to suggest that continuing to work with a conference paper to turn it into an article leads to higher research productivity overall, with additional benefits of increasing a researcher's confidence, motivation, and capacity for further research (Lee & Boud, 2003). This article was itself once a conference presentation or, more precisely, a workshop entitled Transforming Your Conference Paper into a Journal Article developed for the University of Saskatchewan and the Saskatchewan Library Association member librarians, and presented to researchers and writers from diverse disciplines. At those presentations attendees asked whether I would be turning this presentation into an article--a very meta question that did indeed seem like a logical next step! Synthesizing multidisciplinary scholarship on academic writing, resources from academic writing coaches, and case studies, this piece is intended to be a DIY workshop focusing on concrete strategies for addressing major barriers in the conference paper-to-article editing process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A quantitative analysis supports the argument that very low acceptance rates of conference papers are more likely to impede publication of bold and innovative research results than to indicate the chosen papers' prestige and elite status. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]