Search

OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the global trend in artificial intelligence (AI)-based research productivity involving radiology and its subspecialty disciplines. CONCLUSION. The United States is the global leader in AI radiology publication productivity, accounting for almost half of total radiology AI output. Other countries have increased their productivity. Notably, China has increased its productivity exponentially to close to 20% of all AI publications. The top three most productive radiology subspecialties were neuroradiology, body and chest, and nuclear medicine.

OBJECTIVE. The impact of open access (OA) journals is still understudied in the field of radiology. In this study, we compared the measures of impact (e.g., CiteScore, citation count, SCImago Journal Rank) between OA and subscription radiology journals. MATERIALS AND METHODS. We collected data on journals included in the Scopus Source List on November 1, 2018. We filtered the list for radiology journals for the years from 2011 to 2017. OA journals covered by Scopus (Elsevier) are indicated as OA if the journal is listed in the Directory of Open Access Journals, the Directory of Open Access Scholarly Resources, or both. We also compared citation metrics between OA and subscription radiology journals. RESULTS. The 2017 Scopus report included 265 radiology journals. The percentage of OA journals increased from 14.7% in 2011 to 21.9% in 2017 (49% increase). The median scholarly output and the citation count were both significantly lower in OA radiology journals compared with subscription journals ( p < 0.001 and p = 0.016, respectively). The proportion of documents that received at least one citation was higher in OA (50.2%) compared with subscription journals (44.4%), but the difference was not statistically significant. CONCLUSION. This study found that the trend toward OA publishing in the fields of radiology and nuclear medicine has slowed in recent years, although the percent cited (i.e., the proportion of documents that receive at least one citation) is higher for OA journals. We believe the radiology field should be more supportive of OA publishing.

Objective: The purpose of this study was to describe trends over time in female authorship in the radiology literature and to investigate the tendency of female first authors to publish with female senior authors., Materials and Methods: Data on the gender of academic physician authors based in the United States for all major articles published in three general radiology journals--Radiology, AJR, and Academic Radiology--were collected and analyzed for the years 1978, 1988, 1998, 2008, and 2013. Multivariate logistic regression was used to identify significant trends over time, and a chi-square test of independence was performed to determine significant relations between the genders of first and senior authors., Results: The gender of 4182 of 4217 (99.17%) authors with MD degrees was determined. The proportion of original research articles published by women as first authors increased from 8.33% in 1978 to 32.35% in 2013 (p < 0.001). The proportion of original research articles with women as senior authors increased from 6.75% in 1978 to 21.90% in 2013 (p < 0.001). Female first and senior authorship increased significantly over time (first author, p < 0.001; senior author, p < 0.001). There was a statistically significant relation between the genders of first and senior authors of original research articles and guest editorials (p < 0.001)., Conclusion: Over 35 years, there was a statistically significant upward linear trend of female physician participation in authorship of academic radiology literature. Female first authors were more likely to publish with female senior authors.

Objective: The purpose of this study was to determine authorship trends in two leading radiology journals over the past 2 decades., Materials and Methods: All original articles (n = 5195) published in AJR and Radiology for the periods 1991-1993, 2001-2003, and 2011-2013 were reviewed. The following variables were extrapolated from each article: number of authors, radiologic subspecialty, and country of origin. The number of authors listed per article was correlated with the publication period, journal, radiologic subspecialty, and country of origin., Results: The mean number of authors per article increased from 5.1 in 1991-1993 to 6.2 in 2001-2003 and to 7.1 in 2011-2013 across both journals (p < 0.0001). Both AJR and Radiology had statistically significant increases in the number of authors per article over time, but the number of authors per article in Radiology was significantly higher than that in AJR (p < 0.0001 for all study periods). The number of authors per article significantly increased for all radiologic subspecialties. The mean numbers of authors per article by country of origin are as follows: Italy, 8.3; Japan, 7.6; France, 7.5; Germany, 7.4; China, 7.3; Austria, 7.2; and South Korea, 6.8. These were significantly higher than the mean number of authors from Switzerland, which was 6.3., Conclusion: The number of authors significantly and consistently increased in two leading radiology journals over the past 2 decades.

Unlabelled: OBJECTIVE; There is evidence in academic medicine that the number of authors per paper has increased over time. The goal of this study was to quantitatively analyze authorship trends in the field of radiology over 20 years., Materials and Methods: A search of the National Library of Medicine MEDLINE database was conducted to identify articles published by radiology departments between 1991 and 2012. Country of origin, article study design, and journal impact factor were recorded. The increase in number of authors per paper was assessed by linear and nonlinear regression. Pearson correlation was used to assess the relation between journal impact factor and number of authors., Results: A total of 142,576 articles and 699,257 authors were identified during the study period. The mean number of authors per paper displayed linear growth from 3.9 to 5.7 (p < 0.0001). The proportion of single authors declined from 11% in 1991 to 4.4% in 2012. The number of clinical trials increased in a linear pattern, review articles in an exponential pattern, and case reports in a logistic pattern (p < 0.0001 for each). Countries with the highest number of authors per paper were Japan, Italy, and Germany. The number of articles funded by the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) displayed exponential growth and of non-NIH-funded articles displayed linear growth (p < 0.0001 for each). A negligible relation was observed between journal impact factor and number of authors (Pearson r = 0.1066)., Conclusion: Radiology has had a steady increase in mean number of authors per paper since the early 1990s that has varied by study design. The increase is probably multi-factorial and includes components of author inflation and increasing complexity of research. Findings support the need for reemphasis of authorship criteria to preserve authorship value and accountability.

Objective: The digital media revolution is in full swing, fueled by rapid growth of the Internet and proliferation of handheld devices capable of accessing electronically data from virtually anywhere. With this growth of digital media, the printing industry is seeing declines in circulation and advertising revenue., Conclusion: Scholarly journals, including the American Journal of Roentgenology, are not immune from this changing paradigm. The scholarly journal of the future should be a platform for the active exchange of new information and ideas.

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

In November 1895, a German physicist named Wilhelm Conrad Roentgen read before the Physico-Medical Society of Würzburg a paper reporting his discovery of a new type of radiation that he called X-rays. Only 11 years later, the American Journal of Roentgenology began to chronicle progress in the new science of roentgenology, and it has continued to fulfill this mission for 89 of the 100 years since Roentgen's discovery. My purpose in this address is to focus attention on the AJR as part of the centennial of the discovery of the X-ray. I wish to pay tribute to the Journal as a vital part of the American Roentgen Ray Society (ARRS), and--most important--to acknowledge it as a priceless archive and a treasured heritage to be passed on to future generations of all radiologists. I will recognize the contributions of the key people in the recent history of the AJR who have made the Journal what it is today, reflect on the changes that have occurred during my tenure as editor, and finally, discuss the challenges that I think the Journal will face in the future. This constitutes my valedictory report--my farewell reflections on the Journal, now that my tenure as editor is ending on July 1, 1995.

Objective: The statistical procedures appearing in Radiology and the AJR were analyzed to determine the types of statistical tests used in major articles, their relative frequencies, and whether these methods differed according to radiologic subspecialty., Materials and Methods: Six hundred sixty-nine major articles published in Radiology or the AJR during 1993 were reviewed for statistical content. These articles were first classified by radiologic subspecialty or principal focus according to the named journal section where each appeared (e.g., breast imaging, musculoskeletal radiology, neuroradiology). The statistical methods used in each article were then assigned to one of 18 categories (e.g., descriptive, basic t- and z-tests, correlation/regression techniques, and nonparametric statistics)., Results: Of the 669 major articles analyzed, 294 (44%) used no statistical methods or descriptive statistics only, 179 (27%) used only one type of statistical method, 102 (15%) used two methods, and 94 (14%) used three or more methods. Statistical techniques were most likely to be used in articles classified as cardiac (85% used statistical analysis) or contrast agents (79%), but least likely to be used in gastrointestinal/abdominal imaging (45%), radiotherapy (44%), or miscellaneous topics (29%). Five basic categories of statistical methods--basic z- and t-tests, basic decision statistics (sensitivity, specificity), basic contingency table analysis (chi 2, McNemar), correlation/regression techniques (linear regression, Pearson coefficients), and basic nonparametric tests (Wilcoxon, Mann-Whitney U)--account for the complete statistical analysis appearing in approximately 80% of the major articles., Conclusion: Approximately half the major articles appearing in Radiology or AJR used no statistics, descriptive analysis only, or a simple inferential test employing t-tests or confidence intervals; advanced statistical techniques were found in only 20% of articles. Statistical analysis was most likely to be used in articles dealing with cardiac radiology or contrast agents and least likely to be used in articles on abdominal/gastrointestinal radiology, radiotherapy, and miscellaneous radiologic topics.

Objective: The purpose of this study was to determine whether significant changes have occurred in the number of foreign articles published in the American Journal of Roentgenology since 1980., Materials and Methods: A total of 3398 articles published in AJR during two 3-year periods (1980-1982 and 1990-1992) were classified by type, subject, radiologic technique, organ system, and national origin. Additionally, 2865 manuscripts submitted to AJR from 1990 to 1992 were analyzed to determine the probability of manuscript acceptance based on country of origin., Results: From 1980 to 1992, 158 (10%) of 1610 articles published in AJR originated from institutions outside the United States. By 1990-1992, international articles accounted for 441 (25%) of 1788 published papers (p < .00001). Although the total number of published articles from most nations increased during the decade, Korea, Japan, and Germany made the largest advances. International contributions in the 1990s were most numerous in the following areas: adult radiology, abdominal/gastrointestinal imaging, pulmonary/thoracic imaging, sonography, and interventional radiology. Notwithstanding these trends, manuscripts submitted from international sources are somewhat less likely to be accepted for publication than those originating from the United States (acceptance rate for major papers 27% vs 33%, p = .01)., Conclusion: The American Journal of Roentgenology is becoming increasingly internationalized, with Korea, Japan, and Germany making particularly striking advances in the past decade.