Search

Automatic authorship identification is a challenging task that has been the focus of extensive research in natural language processing. Regardless of the progress made in attributing authorship, the need for corpora in under-resourced languages impedes advancing and examining present methods. To address this gap, we investigate the problem of authorship attribution in Albanian. We introduce a newly compiled corpus of Albanian newsroom columns and literary works and analyze machine-learning methods for detecting authorship. We create a set of hand-crafted features targeting various categories (lexical, morphological, and structural) relevant to Albanian and experiment with multiple classifiers using two different multiclass classification strategies. Furthermore, we compare our results to those obtained using deep learning models. Our investigation focuses on identifying the best combination of features and classification methods. The results reveal that lexical features are the most effective set of linguistic features, significantly improving the performance of various algorithms in the authorship attribution task. Among the machine learning algorithms evaluated, XGBoost demonstrated the best overall performance, achieving an F1 score of 0.982 on literary works and 0.905 on newsroom columns. Additionally, deep learning models such as fastText and BERT-multilingual showed promising results, highlighting their potential applicability in specific scenarios in Albanian writings. These findings contribute to the understanding of effective methods for authorship attribution in low-resource languages and provide a robust framework for future research in this area. The careful analysis of the different scenarios and the conclusions drawn from the results provide valuable insights into the potential and limitations of the methods and highlight the challenges in detecting authorship in Albanian. Promising results are reported, with implications for improving the methods used in Albanian authorship attribution. This study provides a valuable resource for future research and a reference for researchers in this domain., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright: © 2024 Misini et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

Objective: To identify current practice and preferences about whether and how to acknowledge authors' lived experience when authors contribute their lived experience expertise to research outputs in the context of health and healthcare., Methods: Surveys to people with lived experience and to academic researchers who had conducted research together (via consultation, partnership or lived-experience-led)., Results: Responses from 40 academic researchers and 36 lived experience contributors were included. Most respondents (n = 23 lived experience, 63.9 %; n = 28 academic, 70 %) reported an author's lived experience should be publicly recognised. Approximately half recommended that affiliations should highlight authors' lived experiences (n = 24 lived experience, 66.7 %; n = 19 academic, 47.5 %). When people with lived experience had co-authored outputs, their lived experience was not always acknowledged (n = 13/20, 65 % lived experience; n = 17/32 academic, 53.1 %)., Conclusion: Most respondents reported that a person's lived experience should be recognised on health-related research outputs, but this did not consistently occur in practice., Practice Implications: Teams planning health-related research outputs should seek input from relevant authors about their preferred practices and terms for recognising their lived experience. Unless preferred otherwise, we recommend that the lived experiences of relevant authors are acknowledged within the output and that lived experiences are presented in affiliations., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests. co-author HW is supported by the Hospital Research Foundation Group as a Research Fellow If there are other authors, they 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 Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Author affiliations are essential in bibliometric studies, requiring relevant information extraction from free-text affiliations. Precisely determining an author's location from their affiliation is crucial for understanding research networks, collaborations, and geographic distribution. Existing geoparsing tools using regular expressions have limitations due to unstructured and ambiguous affiliations, resulting in erroneous location identification, especially for unconventional variations or misspellings. Moreover, their inefficient handling of big datasets hampers large-scale bibliometric studies. Though machine learning-based geoparsers exist, they depend on explicit location information, creating challenges when detailed geographic data is absent. To address these issues, we developed and evaluated a natural language processing model to predict the city, state, and country from an author's free-text affiliation. Our model automates location inference, overcoming drawbacks of existing methods. Trained and tested with MapAffil, a publicly available geoparsed dataset of PubMed affiliations up to 2018, our model accurately retrieves high-resolution locations, even without explicit mentions of a city, state, or even country. Leveraging NLP techniques and the LinearSVC algorithm, our machine learning model achieves superior accuracy based on several validation datasets. This research demonstrates a practical application of text classification for inferring specific geographical locations from free-text affiliations, benefiting researchers and institutions in analyzing research output distribution., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Unlabelled: Analyses of women dermatology literature authorship from 2018 to 2022 reveal a slight increase in total female authors, female first authors, and female senior authors with no substantial immediate impact of COVID-19 on current trends, encouraging future examination of long-term effects and ongoing promotion of systemic initiatives to support gender equity., (© Mindy D Szeto, Melissa R Laughter, Mayra B C Maymone, Payal M Patel, Torunn E Sivesind, Colby L Presley, Steven M Lada, Kayd J Pulsipher, Henriette De La Garza, Robert P Dellavalle. Originally published in JMIR Dermatology (http://derma.jmir.org).)

Background: The procedures used to assess the methodological quality and risk of bias (RoB) of systematic reviews of observational dental studies have not been investigated. The purpose of this research was to examine the way that authors of systematic reviews of epidemiological observational studies published in dentistry conducted the methodological assessment of those primary studies. In the present article, we aimed to assess the characteristics and the level of reporting of tools used to assess the methodologies of these reviews., Methods: We searched Scopus and the Web of Science from their inceptions to June 2023 for systematic reviews with meta-analyses of observational studies published in dentistry. Document selection and data extraction were performed in duplicate and independently by two authors. In a random sample of 10% of the systematic reviews, there was an agreement of more than 80% between the reviewers; data selection and extraction were conducted in the remaining 90% of the sample by one author. Data on the article and systematic review characteristics were extracted and recorded for descriptive reporting., Results: The search in the two databases resulted in the inclusion of 3,214 potential documents. After the elimination of duplicates and the application of the eligibility criteria, a total of 399 systematic reviews were identified and included. A total of 368 systematic reviews reported a methodological tool, of which 102 used the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Additionally, 76 systematic reviews stated the use of a modified methodological tool. Information about the approach of assessing the methodological quality or RoB of primary studies but reporting no tool or tool name occurred in 25 reviews., Conclusions: The majority of authors of systematic reviews of epidemiological observational studies published in dentistry reported the tools used to assess the methodological quality or RoB of the included primary studies. Modifying existing tools to meet the individual characteristics of various studies should be considered., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Introduction: Assessing the methodological quality of economic evaluations (EEs) is crucial for evidence-based decision-making. The study aimed to evaluate EEs in restorative dentistry and endodontics, while also analyzing the scientific landscape of researchers and publications through co-authorship and citation network analysis providing an insight into the distribution of scientific expertise., Methodology: A systematic search for relevant articles from 2012 to 2022 was conducted using PubMed, Scopus, and EBSCO. The ten-point Drummond checklist was used to appraise the methodological quality of included studies. Bibliometric data for network analysis were extracted from the Dimensions database and visualized using VOSviewer software., Results: Of the 37 articles, 81.08% scored good, 16.21% average, and 2.7% poor on the methodological rating scale. Most of the included studies were in Q1 journals, with limited representation in Q2 and Q3 journals. Compliance was highest in Q2 journals (95%), followed by Q1 (88.36%), while it dropped to 40% for Q3 journals. Co-authorship analysis revealed a dense network of researchers, with Prof. Falk Schwendicke V. having a significant influence. Moreover, the Journal of Dentistry had the highest impact, followed by Journal of Endodontics and BMC Oral Health., Conclusions: Despite a diverse scientific landscape, participation from developing countries was limited emphasizing the need for inclusivity and diversity in the scientific network. While the quantity of good-quality studies was encouraging, the overall quality of evidence remains paramount for decision-making in healthcare policy and practice. Therefore, continuous efforts to improve methodological rigor and reporting practices are essential to contribute robust evidence., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Purpose: Multiple disparities have been recognized in the area of location, gender, and funding for leadership in oncology clinical trials. Understanding their intersectionality is crucial to be able to formulate policies and actions, to ensure research is representative of the global oncology community. Here, data from phase III trials presented at the ASCO Annual Meeting of 2022 (ASCO22) were analyzed., Methods: The location of institution, gender of lead and senior authors, and funding source for solid tumor phase III trial abstracts presented at the ASCO22 were analyzed. World Bank analytical grouping version 2021-2022 was used to describe regions and countries as high (HIC), upper-middle (UMIC), lower-middle (LoMIC), and low-income (LIC)., Results: Across 239 phase III abstracts, lead and senior authors respectively represented HIC institutions in 83% and 85%, UMIC in 13% and 12%, and LoMIC in 4% and 3%. No authors worked in LICs or sub-Saharan Africa. Women accounted for 29% of lead and 23% of senior authors. This distribution persisted across regions, with women as lead authors ranging from 19% (UMIC) to 31% (HIC), and as senior authors from 7% (UMIC) to 25% (HIC). Industry funded 62% of trials, academia 17%, and others 15%; 6% lacked funding. Industry funding was highest in HIC trials (66% for lead and senior authors), followed by UMICs (55% lead, 53% senior) and LoMICs (11% lead, 0% senior). Industry-sponsored trials were proportionally equally represented among female and male senior authors (63% each)., Conclusion: There is marked intersectionality in leadership of oncology clinical trials presented at the world's largest oncology conference.

Aims: To evaluate where orthodontic research papers are published and to explore potential relationships between the journal of publication and the characteristics of the research study and authorship., Methods: An online literature search of seven research databases was undertaken to identify orthodontic articles published in English language over a 12-month period (1 January-31 December 2022) (last search: 12 June 2023). Data extracted included journal, article, and author characteristics. Journal legitimacy was assessed using a ternary classification scheme including available blacklists and whitelists, cross-checking of indexing claims and history of sending unsolicited emails. The level of evidence (LOE) of all included studies was assessed using a modified Oxford LOE classification scale. Univariable and multivariable ordinal logistic regression analyses were performed to examine possible associations between the level of evidence, journal discipline, and authorship characteristics., Results: A total of 753 studies, published by 246 unique journal titles, were included and further assessed. Nearly two-thirds of orthodontic papers were published in non-orthodontic journals (62.8%) and over half (55.6%) of the articles were published in open-access policy journals. About a fifth of the articles (21.2%) were published either in presumed predatory journals or in journals of uncertain legitimacy. Journal discipline was significantly associated with the level of evidence. Higher-quality orthodontic studies were more likely published in established orthodontic journals (likelihood ratio test P < .001)., Limitations: The identification and classification of predatory journals are challenging due to their covert nature., Conclusions: The majority of orthodontic articles were published in non-orthodontic journals. In addition, approximately one in five orthodontic studies were published in presumed predatory journals or in journals of uncertain legitimacy. Studies with higher levels of evidence were more likely to be published in established orthodontic journals., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Orthodontic Society. All rights reserved. For commercial re-use, please contact reprints@oup.com for reprints and translation rights for reprints. All other permissions can be obtained through our RightsLink service via the Permissions link on the article page on our site—for further information please contact journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Artificial intelligence (AI) large language models (LLMs) now produce human-like general text and images. LLMs' ability to generate persuasive scientific essays that undergo evaluation under traditional peer review has not been systematically studied. To measure perceptions of quality and the nature of authorship, we conducted a competitive essay contest in 2024 with both human and AI participants. Human authors and 4 distinct LLMs generated essays on controversial topics in stroke care and outcomes research. A panel of Stroke Editorial Board members (mostly vascular neurologists), blinded to author identity and with varying levels of AI expertise, rated the essays for quality, persuasiveness, best in topic, and author type. Among 34 submissions (22 human and 12 LLM) scored by 38 reviewers, human and AI essays received mostly similar ratings, though AI essays were rated higher for composition quality. Author type was accurately identified only 50% of the time, with prior LLM experience associated with improved accuracy. In multivariable analyses adjusted for author attributes and essay quality, only persuasiveness was independently associated with odds of a reviewer assigning AI as author type (adjusted odds ratio, 1.53 [95% CI, 1.09-2.16]; P =0.01). In conclusion, a group of experienced editorial board members struggled to distinguish human versus AI authorship, with a bias against best in topic for essays judged to be AI generated. Scientific journals may benefit from educating reviewers on the types and uses of AI in scientific writing and developing thoughtful policies on the appropriate use of AI in authoring manuscripts., Competing Interests: Dr Silva reports employment by Universidade Federal de São Paulo, compensation from ISchemaView for consultant services, compensation from Bayer for consultant services, compensation from Boehringer Ingelheim for consultant services, employment by Sociedade Beneficente Israelita Brasileira Albert Einstein, and compensation from Pfizer for other services. Dr Khera reports grants from BridgeBio; a provisional patent for methods of generating digital twin-based data sets; an ownership stake in Ensight-AI, Inc; employment by Yale School of Medicine; grants from the National Institutes of Health; a patent pending for Methods for Neighborhood Phenomapping for Clinical Trials, No. 63/177117; a provisional patent for format independent detection of cardiovascular disease from printed ECG images with deep learning licensed to Ensight-AI, Inc; grants from Novo Nordisk; grants from Blavatnik Family Foundation; a provisional patent for machine learning method for adaptive trial enrichment; an ownership stake in Evidence2Health; grants from Doris Duke Charitable Foundation; a provisional patent for a multimodal video-based progression score for aortic stenosis using artificial intelligence; a provisional patent for artificial intelligence–guided screening of underrecognized cardiomyopathies adapted for POCUS; grants from Bristol Myers Squibb; stock holdings in Evidence2Health; a provisional patent for biometric contrastive learning for data-efficient deep learning from electrocardiographic images licensed to Ensight-AI, Inc; and a provisional patent for articles and methods for detecting hidden cardiovascular disease from portable electrocardiography. Dr Schwamm reports compensation from Medtronic for consultant services.

Objective: To understand current practices and challenges for collecting author feedback for English-language, industry-sponsored publications in Asia-Pacific (APAC), and the implications for adherence to international publication guidelines., Methods: A cross-sectional, internet-based survey of industry ('internal') authors (17 questions) and publication professionals (18 questions) supporting publications in APAC, conducted between November 18 and December 4, 2022., Results: Overall, 142 survey responses were received, of which 94 (66%) were complete and included in the analysis (33 internal authors, 61 publication professionals). Almost half (45%) of internal authors preferred a non-English language for providing feedback on publications, and most (70%) would use this language whenever possible. Internal authors favored written (91%) versus spoken (73%) English, and email was the preferred mode of communication. Publication professionals said they have observed qualitative differences when authors provide feedback in a preferred non-English language versus English. Many agreed that authors tend to provide more substantive or critical feedback when they can respond in their preferred non-English language. Internal authors had low self-assessed familiarity with key publication guidelines, while most publication professionals had a moderate or high self-assessed familiarity. The main barriers to application of publication guidelines, as rated by publication professionals, were that external authors in APAC are not familiar with global publication guidelines and do not always provide feedback/responses in writing., Conclusion: It is important to consider the diverse language, cultural, and communication preferences of individuals involved in English-language publication development in APAC, and to ensure that authors are aware of current publication guidelines and best practices.

Background: Gender disparities in plastic surgery authorship have been previously described in the literature. The relative citation ratio (RCR) index is a new metric that normalizes citation rates for field and time, which can be utilized to compare authors. This study aims to evaluate differences in gender authorship in reconstructive microsurgery (RM) papers, as well as the impact of gender on the RCR index., Methods: A PubMed query isolated RM studies between 2002 and 2020 across the 3 highest impact PS journals. Author names and RCR information were collected from NIH iCite. The likely gender was adjudicated by using NamSor-Software. Unpaired Wilcoxon rank-sum and chi-square tests were used to assess differences between groups., Results: Of 1146 articles (2172 authors), there was a significant difference between the proportion of females as senior authors compared to first authors ( P < 0.001). Overall, females represented 15.4% of all authors, 19.7% of first authors, and 11.3% of senior authors. Males had a significantly higher weighted RCR ( P < 0.0001) and number of publications ( P < 0.0001), which remained significant when stratified by first and senior author. Female authors collectively had a higher mean RCR ( P = 0.008) and among first authors ( P < 0.0001), with no significant difference among senior authors ( P = 0.47)., Conclusion: A considerably greater number of males are publishing in reconstructive microsurgery compared to females, with significantly more males being senior authors compared to first authors. Males had higher weighted RCR scores and publications compared to females. This study suggests that equity in gender authorship within the field is yet to be achieved., (Copyright © 2024 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

With the majority of medical journals having a rejection rate of >80% of submitted manuscripts, it does come as a shock and as grief to the author who great expectations before submission. Though the majority of literature available does mention how to overcome the lacunae in the manuscript before considering resubmission in another journal, none addresses the mental agony and setback the author faces and the way to overcome this setback. Every author should develop immunity and also be adequately mentally prepared to overcome this misery., Competing Interests: Declaration of conflicting interestsThe author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Introduction: Existing literature suggests that women are significantly underrepresented in the field of hematology-oncology. Women make up 35.6% of hematologists and data on females as site investigators for pivotal trials and authors in publications of pivotal trials in hematologic malignancies, specifically in the novel niche of Chimeric antigen receptor T cell (CAR-T), is sparse., Methods: We examined the proportion of women in pivotal trials, screening a total of 2180 studies from PubMed using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. 2180 initially searched records were filtered by date (2017-2023) and clinical trial status, yielding 149 records. Following a manual review, we included 15 studies that led to the approval of or anticipated approval of CD19 and BCMA CAR-T therapies in lymphoid and plasma cell malignancies. We examined overall number of female authors, number of lead female authors, and ratio of all authors to female authors in the 15 trials, which were all high impact, cited on average 1314 times., Results: Of the 436 authors assessed, 132 were female, correlating to 29.5% female authorship. The only study with female authorship >50% was ELIANA, a 2017 pediatric study. 7 of the 15 studies had female lead authors; notably, 6 out of 7 of these studies were published in 2021 or later., Conclusion: In conclusion, our data suggests gender iniquities for female investigators exist in the field of immune effector cell therapy. We suggest further investigation and strategies to decrease gendered authorship disparities., Competing Interests: Disclosure AK had no COI to declare. WW had no COI to declare. EL had no COI to declare. CT had no COI to declare. MUM had no COI to declare. TL had no COI to declare. JB had research funding from Poseida, Merck, Takes A, Astellas, Xencor, Chungchung Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi, Moderna, Aprea, Menus, and Some Works. LS had advisory board roles for Janssen and Bristol Myers Squibb. AA had no COI to declare. JPM had consultancy roles for Kite, Novartis, Nektar, Bristol Myers Squibb, Envision, Sana, Legend Biotech, CRISPR and advisory board roles for Allovir and Autolus. MH had research funding from ADC Therapeutics, Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, and Astellas Pharma; consultancy for ADC Therapeutics, Omeros, CRISPR, BMS, Kite, Abbvie, Caribou, Genmab, Allovir, CRISPR, Caribou; speaker's Bureau for ADC Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Kite; and DMC for Inc, Genentech, Myeloid Therapeutics, CRISPR. NA had an advisory board role for Bristol Myers Squibb and consultancy and institutional research funding from Kite., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Research productivity is on the rise as neurosurgical residency positions become increasingly competitive. We explored the relationship between neurosurgical residency applicant's senior author's research productivity and matching into a neurosurgery residency program., Methods: A retrospective analysis of bibliometric data for applicants who matched into neurosurgery in 2022-2023 and their senior authors was conducted using Scopus., Results: Logistic regression revealed a significant association between h-index values and top 40 match outcomes (P = 0.038). The maximum h-index of senior authors significantly predicted matches at top 40 programs (P = 0.003). Affiliation with a top 40 medical school increased both applicant and senior author h-indices (P = 0.05, P < 0.001 respectively). Linear regression of the maximum h-index of senior authors in preresidency publications explained 42% of this variability (P < 0.001). A multiple linear regression model incorporating this with publication number elucidated 69% of the variance in interns' h-index. Authorship data categorized as first, second, and third author positions showed 1847 first author, 1417 second author, and 118 third author publications over 2-years. Applicants at top 40 residency programs had more first and second author publications compared to those from nontop 40 programs (P = 0.0158, P = 0.0275)., Conclusions: There is a strong correlation between a neurosurgical applicant's academic output and that of their senior authors. The number of publications and the maximum h-index of senior authors significantly predict applicant h-indices. We also demonstrated that there is a significant difference in the academic productivity of applicants and senior authors of applicants who successfully match into a top 40 i(h)5 rated neurosurgical residency., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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).)

Introduction: Analyzing highly-cited articles can provide a retrospective assessment of research evolution and predict future developments. The aim of this study was to carry out a bibliometric analysis of the 100 most-cited articles in dentistry by authors with an Italian affiliation., Evidence Acquisition: All the articles published in journals indexed under the Scopus category "Dentistry" and with at least one author affiliated to any Italian institution were searched in September 2022. The 100 most-cited articles were selected and relevant data were extracted and summarized. The analysis of co-authorship at country level and co-occurrence of keywords was carried out., Evidence Synthesis: The 100 most-cited articles were published between 1976 and 2020. The number of citations ranged from 235 to 1683, with a mean of 361. The series included 25 citation classics (>400 citations). The majority of articles were classified as expert opinion/narrative reviews (N.=47). Almost half of the articles refer to three predominant disciplines which were implantology, periodontology and restorative dentistry. Only two articles were single-authored. In 30 articles, all the authors had an Italian affiliation and the US was the most frequent country for non-Italian authors. Only one article was published in journals owned by a non-Italian publisher., Conclusions: The present series of highly-cited articles confirms the important role of Italy in dental research. We found an absence of correlation between the level of evidence and the number of citations and a non-homogeneous distribution of highly-cited papers in the different dental disciplines. The majority of articles included in the series shared international co-authorship and were published in high-impact journals.

Introduction: We describe female authorship trends in gastroenterology (GI) randomized controlled trial literature as a novel focus on gender bias in academic GI., Methods: Using a systematic PubMed search, we extracted GI randomized controlled trial reports published from 2011 to 2022. We describe time trends in proportions of females among first and last authors overall and within GI subspecialties and high-impact journals., Results: The proportion of females increased from 25.4% to 36.8% and from 14.3% to 24.8% among first and last authors, respectively. Smaller increases in female authorship occurred in most subgroups, although there were proportionately fewer females among authors in high-impact journals and advanced therapeutic endoscopy publications., Discussion: Over the past decade, female authorship in GI RCT reports has increased. However, female representation, particularly among senior authors and in high-impact journals, remains significantly lower. Despite recent improvements, female still constitutes a minority of the authors of original GI RCTs., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of The American College of Gastroenterology.)

Objectives: To estimate gender disparities among first and last authorships in cardiothoracic randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and association of gender with publications in high-impact journals., Methods: PubMed/MEDLINE database was searched from 1 January 2014 to 31 December 2020 using R statistical software via the 'easyPubMed' package to retrieve pertinent data. The 'gender' package was utilized to determine gender using the United States Social Security Administration Baby Name Data. The percentage of female first and last authors were computed along with determining the uniqueness of the names. The association of gender and publication in high-impact peer-reviewed journals was delineated. Jonckheere's trend was computed., Results: The database search retrieved a total of 4820 RCTs, of which gender was encoded for the first author in 3247 (67%) RCTs, among which 911 (28%) studies had women as first authors, with a similar trend across 7 years (P = 0.23). Gender was encoded for the last author of 3204 (66%) RCTs, of which 622 (19%) studies had women as last authors, with a similar trend across 7 years (P = 0.45). A total of 627 studies were published in high-impact-factor journals, among which 79 (16%) studies had female first authors and 67 (13%) studies had female last authors., Conclusions: There is an obvious gender disparity of first and last authors in cardiothoracic surgery-related RCTs, with a similar trend across 7 years. However, the post-hoc analysis did demonstrate a positive trend with an increase in the number of female first authors, demonstrating progress., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery. All rights reserved.)

Curzer (Curzer 2021. Authorship and justice: Credit and responsibility, Accountability in Research 28 :1-22) has constructed cogent and important arguments against the ICMJE authorship criteria from various philosophical perspectives. Here, we provide differing opinions to Curzer's points, primarily from the perspective of biomedical sciences (for which the ICMJE authorship criteria are originally meant for). We could neither identify nor concur with Curzer's opinion of a "disconnect" between writer and researcher in contemporary biomedical science publications, or see definitive value in the notion that intellectual and non-intellectual contributors should be equally credited. Furthermore, we note that consequentialist argument for utility, Rawlsian justice, as well as Kantian deontology are all not in disagreement with the ICMJE criteria. In brief, while we find Curzer's arguments to be participant or people-centric, these are not particularly in line with either the philosophy or the practice of science. We posit that the key concept underlying the ICMJE authorship criteria, in which authorship entails a coupling of intellectual credit to accountability, should remain a cornerstone in the practice of scientific research.

Research Integrity Advisors are used in Australia to provide impartial guidance to researchers who have questions about any aspect of responsible research practice. Every Australian institution conducting research must provide access to trained advisors. This national policy could be an important part of creating a safe environment for discussing research integrity issues and thus resolving issues. We conducted the first formal study of advisors, using a census of every Australian advisor to discover their workload and attitudes to their role. We estimated there are 739 advisors nationally. We received responses to our questions from 192. Most advisors had a very light workload, with an median of just 0.5 days per month. Thirteen percent of advisors had not received any training, and some advisors only discovered they were an advisor after our approach. Most advisors were positive about their ability to help colleagues deal with integrity issues. The main desired changes were for greater advertising of their role and a desire to promote good practice rather than just supporting potential issues. Advisors might be a useful policy for supporting research integrity, but some advisors need better institutional support in terms of training and raising awareness.

Background: This study evaluates the racial distribution in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery (PRS) publication authorship and illustrates the impact underrepresented in medicine (URiM) mentorship has on increasing diverse trainee contributions to the PRS peer-reviewed literature., Methods: Articles published in the seven highest-impact PRS peer-reviewed journals within the last 10 years (2012-2022) were reviewed and analyzed for first and senior authors' race and ethnicity, publication year, and citation count., Results: A total of 23,549 publications were identified of which 8250 were from the US-based institutions. A random sampling of 778 publications (∼10 ​%) were scrutinized for first and senior author race and ethnicity. Across all journals, 64.5 ​% of senior authors were White, 29.9 ​% Asian, 4.6 ​% Hispanic, and 1.0 ​% Black. First authors were 59.5 ​% White, 32.8 ​% Asian, 5.2 ​% Hispanic, and 2.6 ​% Black (p=<0.0001). The presence of a URiM senior author increased the likelihood of a URiM first author 7-fold (p=<0.0001); 95 ​% CI [3.5-14.0]). There was no statistically significant difference in the total citation count relative to author race or ethnicity. The Aesthetic Surgery Journal had the greatest proportion of White senior authors (73.6 ​%), while Microsurgery had the highest percentage of URiM senior authors (8.7 ​%)., Conclusions: URiM authorship of PRS publications is limited and mentorship is essential to improve underrepresented perspectives in the PRS peer-reviewed literature., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors have no disclosures., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

This letter to the editor suggests adding a technical point to the new editorial policy expounded by Hosseini et al. on the mandatory disclosure of any use of natural language processing (NLP) systems, or generative AI, in writing scholarly publications. Such AI systems should naturally also be forbidden from being named as authors, because they would not have fulfilled prevailing authorship guidelines (such as the widely adopted ICMJE authorship criteria).

Objective: Describe the landscape of tobacco-related topics, funders and institutional networks in Africa., Data Sources: We searched PubMed, Embase and African Index Medicus for published articles from January 1996 to August 2018 in any language., Study Selection: Two researchers independently reviewed titles and abstracts for a focus on nicotine or tobacco product(s) and describe data or recommendations specific to Africa. Ultimately, 818 articles were identified., Data Extraction: Three independent coders conducted qualitative analyses of articles and extracted funders, study populations, countries of research focus, research topics, tobacco products, study design and data source. A bibliometric analysis estimated coauthorship networks between the countries of authors' primary institutional affiliation., Data Synthesis: All 54 African countries were represented in two or more articles. The coauthorship network included 2714 unique authors representing 90 countries. Most articles employed a cross-sectional study design with primary data collection, focused on cigarettes and studied use behaviour. Few articles examined tobacco farming or interventions for cessation or prevention. The most frequently cited funder was the US National Institutes of Health (27.2%). A range of coauthorship patterns existed between African institutions with some coauthoring with one institution while others coauthored with 761 institutions in other African countries., Conclusions: The literature review identified the need for implementation research for tobacco control interventions and policies, economic and development impacts of tobacco use research, and tobacco industry and tobacco production and farming research. Numbers of research collaborations between institutions in Africa vary, suggesting the need for regional institutional capacity building., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Echoing Arturo Casadevall and Ferric Fang in their Reforming Science: Methodological and Cultural Reforms, "great human enterprises must undergo periodic cycles of self-examination and renewal to maintain their vigor". Especially in the last decade, the research culture has undergone such cycles, partially driven by countercultural transformations that have been reshaping assumptions towards reward-deserving achievements. Addressing retractions is among the challenges in this culture. This work builds upon research carried out at the University of California, San Diego (UCSD), which explored the views of 224 reviewers serving on panels for the US National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, among others. We show results of a survey that add to our previous data. It was sent to a population of 1,089 corresponding authors affiliated with institutions from the 20 most productive countries in biomedical fields. We explored how corresponding authors of at least one retracted publication issued between 2013 and 2015 in biomedical journals envisioned the impact of different types of retractions on the careers of the first and corresponding authors. As such impact (if any) is not always immediate, we selected this time frame to ensure that potential respondents would have tangible post-retraction experience.

Biographical features like social and economic status, ethnicity, sexuality, care roles, and gender unfairly disadvantage individuals within academia. Authorship patterns should reflect the social dimension behind the publishing process and co-authorship dynamics. To detect potential gender biases in the authorship of papers and examine the extent of women's contribution in terms of the substantial volume of scientific production in Ecology, we surveyed papers from the top-ranked journal Ecology from 1999 to 2021. We developed a Women's Contribution Index (WCI) to measure gender-based individual contributions. Considering gender, allocation in the author list, and the total number of authors, the WCI calculates the sum of each woman's contribution per paper. We compared the WCI with women's expected contributions in a non-gender-biased scenario. Overall, women account for 30% of authors of Ecology, yet their contribution to papers is higher than expected by chance (i.e., over-contribution). Additionally, by comparing the WCI with an equivalent Men's Contribution Index, we found that women consistently have higher contributions compared to men. We also observed a temporal trend of increasing women's authorship and mixed-gender papers. This suggests some progress in addressing gender bias in the field of ecology. However, we emphasize the need for a better understanding of the pattern of over-contribution, which may partially stem from the phenomenon of over-compensation. In this context, women might need to outperform men to be perceived and evaluated as equals. The WCI provides a valuable tool for quantifying individual contributions and understanding gender biases in academic publishing. Moreover, the index could be customized to suit the specific question of interest. It serves to uncover a previously non-quantified type of bias (over-contribution) that, we argue, is the response to the inequitable structure of the scientific system, leading to differences in the roles of individuals within a scientific publishing team., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright: © 2024 Fontanarrosa et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

Introduction As part of the Milestones Initiative of the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME), residents in neurosurgery are expected to participate in either clinical research or basic science research. Therefore, each neurosurgical training program must offer the support and opportunity to achieve this goal. In 2012, a structured effort to promote a resident culture of research was introduced into the authors' neurosurgery residency training curriculum. This study reviews this experience over the last decade. Methods Data were collected from the authors' departmental neurosurgery website and Scopus to create a database of neurosurgical residents who graduated 10 years before and after 2012 and their publication output. Bibliometric measures were collected for all articles published by residents. Results were compared between residents who graduated before and after the introduction of the research initiative. Results A total of 127 publications were analyzed from 37 residents, constituting 174 authorships. There was a statistically significant increase in the number of publications per resident (P < 0.001), citation number per author (P = 0.002), and author h-index (P < 0.001) after implementing the initiative. There were no significant differences in the pre-residency and baseline demographic variables between the two groups. Conclusion This study relates the experience of initiating a research culture at the authors' neurosurgery training program, which did not emphasize scholarly productivity historically. The effort focused on creating a culture of curiosity as opposed to formal requirements. The results provided evidence that this strategy yielded a significant increase in academic output and impact. These findings have important implications for neurosurgical training programs., Competing Interests: Human subjects: Consent was obtained or waived by all participants in this study. Animal subjects: All authors have confirmed that this study did not involve animal subjects or tissue. Conflicts of interest: In compliance with the ICMJE uniform disclosure form, all authors declare the following: Payment/services info: All authors have declared that no financial support was received from any organization for the submitted work. Financial relationships: All authors have declared that they have no financial relationships at present or within the previous three years with any organizations that might have an interest in the submitted work. Other relationships: All authors have declared that there are no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work., (Copyright © 2024, Motiwala et al.)

Purpose: To determine how radiology, nuclear medicine, and medical imaging journals encourage and mandate the use of reporting guidelines for artificial intelligence (AI) in their author and reviewer instructions., Methods: The primary source of journal information and associated citation data used was the Journal Citation Reports (June 2023 release for 2022 citation data; Clarivate Analytics, UK). The first- and second-quartile journals indexed in the Science Citation Index Expanded and the Emerging Sources Citation Index were included. The author and reviewer instructions were evaluated by two independent readers, followed by an additional reader for consensus, with the assistance of automatic annotation. Encouragement and submission requirements were systematically analyzed. The reporting guidelines were grouped as AI-specific, related to modeling, and unrelated to modeling., Results: Out of 102 journals, 98 were included in this study, and all of them had author instructions. Only five journals (5%) encouraged the authors to follow AI-specific reporting guidelines. Among these, three required a filled-out checklist. Reviewer instructions were found in 16 journals (16%), among which one journal (6%) encouraged the reviewers to follow AI-specific reporting guidelines without submission requirements. The proportions of author and reviewer encouragement for AI-specific reporting guidelines were statistically significantly lower compared with those for other types of guidelines ( P < 0.05 for all)., Conclusion: The findings indicate that AI-specific guidelines are not commonly encouraged and mandated (i.e., requiring a filled-out checklist) by these journals, compared with guidelines related to modeling and unrelated to modeling, leaving vast space for improvement. This meta-research study hopes to contribute to the awareness of the imaging community for AI reporting guidelines and ignite large-scale group efforts by all stakeholders, making AI research less wasteful., Clinical Significance: This meta-research highlights the need for improved encouragement of AI-specific guidelines in radiology, nuclear medicine, and medical imaging journals. This can potentially foster greater awareness among the AI community and motivate various stakeholders to collaborate to promote more efficient and responsible AI research reporting practices.

The project aimed to conduct an up-to-date and comprehensive bibliometric analysis of robotic surgery to provide a detailed and holistic understanding of the field. Three strategies were employed in the data analysis i.e. search terms were explored in (A) the title, abstract, and keywords and (B) only in the title of the documents. In 3rd part we analyzed the top 100 most cited papers. Vosviewer and R Studio were utilized for detailed bibliometric and network analyses. Strategy one identified 38,469 publications, and strategy two identified 6451 publications from 2001 to 2023. The top authors, universities, countries, sponsors, and sources based on the number of publications were identified for both strategies. The top 100 most cited papers were analyzed, providing the annual number of publications and various citation metrics. Top authors (by number of publications, total citations, h-index, g-index, and m-index), universities, and countries within these highly cited papers, along with their co-authorship networks and dynamics, were examined. Co-words analysis of the top 100 most cited papers revealed the primary focus of these documents across 25 categories. This comprehensive bibliometric analysis of robotic surgery highlighted significant contributions and collaborations in the field, emphasizing the importance of global and collaborative efforts in advancing robotic surgery research., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature.)

Objective: This study used a self-authorship framework to explore if diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) and social determinants of health (SDoH)-focused laboratories and learning activities increase student confidence in understanding aspects of implicit bias and SDoH, and how these activities impact student comfort in discussing and confidence in initiating conversations on DEI/SDoH topics with colleagues, faculty, supervisors, and patients., Methods: First-year PharmD students engaged in 3 learning activities across 2 courses. Students were challenged to evaluate their biases and incorporate DEI/SDoH into their professional identity formation. This study used a mixed-methods, embedded approach to analyze assessment data collected via a questionnaire and assignments administered at 3 points during the fall semester. Quantitative analysis used a quasi-experimental, between-participants, pretest-posttest design. The qualitative component used open-ended questions to gain additional insight into participant experiences, gathered detail on perceptions, and provided context., Results: A 1-way analysis of variance showed statistically significant increases between assessment points for all items related to confidence in understanding implicit bias and SDoH. Comfort in discussing DEI/SDoH topics with supervisors/faculty and patients increased over time. Comfort in discussing DEI/SDoH topics with colleagues did not increase. Three salient themes emerged from qualitative analyses: bias and privilege awareness, education, and professionalism., Conclusion: This study found that students started evaluating their own knowledge, beliefs, and claims in social and professional settings as defined by the self-authorship framework. Student comfort and confidence in discussing DEI/SDoH topics increased over time. Findings support that engaging students in multimodal programming may support incorporation of DEI/SDoH into professional identity formation., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest None declared., (Copyright © 2024 American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Women in academia publish fewer papers and receive fewer citations than men. These gender gaps likely reflect systemic biases operating over several levels, from journal editorial policies to academic career progression. This study sought to characterize gender gaps for publications and citations in the field of gambling studies., Method: An automated gender inference procedure classified authors' binarized gender from their first names. Gender gaps were computed for publications and citations of papers in gambling studies, using the wider field of addiction science as a benchmark. Publication data were scraped from eight peer-reviewed gambling/addictions journals and separately from all gambling publications listed in PubMed., Results: Men authored 16% more publications than women among gambling papers and 23% more publications among nongambling addictions papers. Although robust gender gaps were observed in specialist gambling journals, we find limited overall evidence for gender inequality being greater in gambling studies. Indeed, among nongambling addiction papers, men published more, despite a greater apparent representation of women in the field. The gender gap was most pronounced for the last authorships, denoting seniority. Among the first authorships, there was variability between journals, and some journals displayed approximate parity. There was limited evidence for any corresponding gender gap in citation counts., Conclusions: Gender gaps in gambling research, and addiction science more broadly, adhere to wider trends in academia, including the associations with academic seniority. Variability between individual journals supports the role of journal editorial policies to increase the representation and visibility of women researchers in addiction science. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Competing Interests: Conflicts of interest and sources of funding: None declared.

To evidence the existence of a gender gap in the orthopedic scientific literature by including also differences between some specific orthopedic surgery specialities, such as hands and feet. Then, we also considered gender role in the Authorship linked with the economic wealth of each country belonging to each Author. The gender of the first Authors of journals on orthopedics and sports medicine indexing in the Scopus database with the highest impact factor (IF) related to the year 2019, for the period from January 1, 2015, to December 31, 2020, were considered. A total of 11 journals were considered, including a total of 5474 articles, 1087 (19.86%) had a woman as the first Author and 4387 (80.14%) a man. During the studied period, the trend seems to be the same (p = 0.906): Men were significantly more producing than women in the orthopedic field both by considering the topic of the journal (p = .003), all the most impacted orthopedic journals (p < 0.001) and economies (p < 0.001). There was therefore a strong significance: In the orthopedic field, there were significantly more male researchers who presented their first name in scientific publications compared to females in all orthopedic subspecialties. The economically poorer countries published less and the role of women became almost absent., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli.)

Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest and Sources of Funding: None declared.

Introduction: This academic article discusses the historical underrepresentation of female in science, with a focus on Latin America. It highlights the importance of both technical and non-technical skills in the medical-surgical field, particularly the role of research skills. The study aims to quantify and characterize the scientific output of Latin American female researchers over the past decade, providing insights into the challenges and opportunities in low and middle-income countries., Material and Methods: A retrospective cross-sectional bibliometric study was conducted in 2023, focusing on pediatric surgical science journals in Scopus and PubMed. It assessed Latin American female participation, journal details, and interaction networks, using SPSS and Gephi software. The period analyzed was from January 2012 to December 2022., Results: Between 2012 and 2022, 727 articles with Latin authorship in pediatric surgery were analyzed across 304 journals. Of these, 63.69% had female co-authors. The majority were original articles (53.13%), with contributions from Brazil, Mexico, and Chile. Notable journals included the Journal of Pediatric Surgery and Child's Nervous System. Keywords like Laparoscopy and Cardiac surgery were common. A growth trend in female Latin American publications was observed, despite temporary declines., Conclusions: This study highlights a growing trend in Latin American females' scientific contributions to pediatric surgery from 2012 to 2022, although a gender gap persists. The research mainly consists of primary data studies, with a focus on Brazil and Mexico from public institutions. The Journal of Pediatric Surgery featured prominently, and common topics included Laparoscopy, Cardiac surgery, Liver transplant, Congenital heart defects, and COVID-19., Level of Evidence: IV., Competing Interests: Conflicts of interest The authors do not have any conflicts of interest to disclose., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: The accuracy and completeness of self-disclosures of the value of industry payments by authors publishing in radiology journals are not well known. The aim of this study was to assess the accuracy of financial disclosures by US authors in five prominent radiology journals., Methods: Financial disclosures provided by US-based authors in five prominent radiology journals from original research and review articles published in 2021 were reviewed. For each author, payment reports were extracted from the Open Payments Database (OPD) in the previous 36 months related to general, research, and ownership payments. Each author was analyzed individually to determine if the reported disclosures matched results from the OPD., Results: A total of 4,076 authorships, including 3,406 unique authors, were selected from 643 articles across the five journals; 1,388 (1,032 unique authors) received industry payments within the previous 36 months, with a median total amount received per authorship of $6,650 (interquartile range, $355-$87,725). Sixty-one authors (4.4%) disclosed all industry relationships, 205 (14.8%) disclosed some of the OPD-reported relationships, and 1,122 (80.8%) failed to disclose any relationships. Undisclosed payments totaled $186,578,350, representing 67.2% of all payments. Radiology had the highest proportion of authorships disclosing some or all OPD-reported relationships (32.3%), compared with the Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology (18.2%), the American Journal of Neuroradiology (17.3%), JACR (13.1%), and the American Journal of Roentgenology (10.3%)., Conclusions: Financial relationships with industry are common among US physician authors in prominent radiology journals, and nondisclosure rates are high., (Copyright © 2024 American College of Radiology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Gender representation trends at the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES) Annual Meetings and the effect of the 2018 'We R SAGES' initiatives are unknown. We assessed gender trends in oral presentations at the SAGES Annual Meeting between 2012 and 2022 with a focus on assessing the impact of the 2018 initiatives., Methods: Abstracts selected for oral presentations from 2012 to 2022 were reviewed for presenter and first, second, and senior author gender. Gender was categorized as woman, man, or unknown using public professional profiles. Subsequent publications were identified using search engines. The primary outcome was the temporal trend of proportion of women in each role using interrupted time series analysis. Secondary outcomes included publication rates based on first and senior author genders in 2012-2018 versus 2019-2022., Results: 1605 abstracts were reviewed. The proportion of women increased linearly in all categories: presenter (2.4%/year, R 2  = 0.91), first author (2.4%/year, R 2  = 0.90), senior author (2%/year, R 2  = 0.65), and overall (2.2%, R 2  = 0.91), (p < 0.01 for all). Prior to 2018, the proportion of women increased annually for presenters (coefficient: 0.026, 95% CI [0.016, 0.037], p = 0.002) and first authors (coefficient: 0.026, 95% CI [0.016, 0.037], p = 0.002), but there was no significant increase after 2018 (p > 0.05). Female second author proportion increased annually prior to 2018 (coefficient: 0.012, 95% CI [0.003, 0.021], p = 0.042) and increased by 0.139 (95% CI [0.070, 0.208], p = 0.006) in 2018. Annual female senior author proportion did not significantly change after 2018 (p > 0.05). 1198 (75.2%) abstracts led to publications. Women were as likely as men to be first (79% vs 77%, p = 0.284) or senior author (79% vs 77%, p = 0.702) in abstracts culminating in publications. There was no difference in woman first author publication rate before and after 2018 (80% vs 79%, p = 1.000), but woman senior author publication rate increased after 2018 (71% vs 83%, p = 0.032)., Conclusion: There was an upward trend in women surgeons' presentations and associated publications in the SAGES Annual Meetings over the last decade., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Objective: Investigate the use of advanced natural language processing models to streamline the time-consuming process of writing and revising scholarly manuscripts., Materials and Methods: For this purpose, we integrate large language models into the Manubot publishing ecosystem to suggest revisions for scholarly texts. Our AI-based revision workflow employs a prompt generator that incorporates manuscript metadata into templates, generating section-specific instructions for the language model. The model then generates revised versions of each paragraph for human authors to review. We evaluated this methodology through 5 case studies of existing manuscripts, including the revision of this manuscript., Results: Our results indicate that these models, despite some limitations, can grasp complex academic concepts and enhance text quality. All changes to the manuscript are tracked using a version control system, ensuring transparency in distinguishing between human- and machine-generated text., Conclusions: Given the significant time researchers invest in crafting prose, incorporating large language models into the scholarly writing process can significantly improve the type of knowledge work performed by academics. Our approach also enables scholars to concentrate on critical aspects of their work, such as the novelty of their ideas, while automating tedious tasks like adhering to specific writing styles. Although the use of AI-assisted tools in scientific authoring is controversial, our approach, which focuses on revising human-written text and provides change-tracking transparency, can mitigate concerns regarding AI's role in scientific writing., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Medical Informatics Association.)

Item response theory (IRT) analyses are often used to evaluate measurement error in educational and psychological test instruments. In such contexts, the latent traits/proficiencies are typically assumed normally distributed and a cumulative normal/logistic measurement link function is applied. Such choices are consistent with constructs that are viewed as bipolar in nature and play a critical role in defining the latent proficiency metric against which the measurement error in the test is evaluated. Recently, alternative models that portray the construct as unipolar have been highlighted as being more appropriate for certain psychopathology and personality constructs. In this paper we extend consideration of unipolar IRT models for a recognition task measure, using several example datasets from various versions of the Author Recognition Test (ART), a measure of print exposure. We show how the decision between unipolar versus bipolar IRT modeling has substantial implications for the quantification and interpretation of measurement error in the ART. In sharp contrast to prior bipolar IRT analyses of the ART, under unipolar IRT measurement error in the ART is minimized at low levels of latent print exposure, and increases as latent print exposure increases. Implications for consideration of unipolar IRT with other constructs and measures (e.g., vocabulary, specialized forms of knowledge) that reflect a similar type of response process are considered in the discussion., (© 2023. The Psychonomic Society, Inc.)