Search

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

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

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

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

The author discusses the rise of regional research collaboration which is changing the balance of science worldwide. The author states that collaboration is a good practice, in which knowledge is better transferred and co-authored writings are cited more frequently. The author also mentions co-authorship as a valid alternative for collaboration that reflects tangible engagement between countries such as Germany and Great Britain as well as China and the U.S.

There is a natural curiosity within the economic academic community regarding who are the most frequent contributors to the economic literature. This paper presents an analysis of the top publishers in the ‘Blue Ribbon Eight’ economics journals, over the past 50 years (1954-2003), plus two 25-year subperiods of 1954-1978 and 1979-2003. While it is tempting to use these results to rank economics departments, this paper is meant to be an historical appreciation of these authors and journals and not meant to imply any type of current ranking. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary  The macro-level country-by-country co-authorship, cross-reference and cross-citation analysis started in our previous paper,1 continues with revealing the cross-national preference stucture of the 36 selected countries. Preference indicators of co-authorship, cross-reference and cross-citation are defined, presented and discussed. The study revealed that geopolitical location, cultural relations and language are determining factors in shaping preferences whether in co-authorship, cross-reference or cross-citation. Areas like Central Europe, Scandinavia, Latin America (supplemented with Spain and Portugal), the Far East or the Australia-New Zealand-South Africa triad form typical “clusters” with mutually strong preferences towards each other. The USA appears to have a distinguished role enjoying universal preference, which - in the cross-reference and cross-citation case - is asymmetric for the greater part of the countries under study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The formation of an academic field is evidenced by many factors, including the growth of relevant research articles and the increasing impact of highly cited publications. Building upon recent scoping reviews of journal publications in STEM education, this study aimed to provide a systematic review of high impact empirical studies in STEM education to gain insights into the development of STEM education research paradigms. Through a search of the Web of Science core database, we identified the top 100 most-cited empirical studies focusing on STEM education that were published in journals from 2000 to 2021 and examined them in terms of various aspects, including the journals where they were published, disciplinary content coverage, research topics and methods, and authorship's nationality/region and profession. The results show that STEM education continues to gain more exposure and varied disciplinary content with an increasing number of high impact empirical studies published in journals in various STEM disciplines. High impact research articles were mainly authored by researchers in the West, especially the United States, and indicate possible "hot" topics within the broader field of STEM education. Our analysis also revealed the increased participation and contributions from researchers in diverse fields who are working to formulate research agendas in STEM education and the nature of STEM education scholarship. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Presently, there are six undergraduate HRSA-funded MCH pipeline training programs (MCHPTP) in the nation and they have gained significant momentum since inception by recruiting, training and mentoring undergraduate students in a comprehensive MCH-focused approach. This article describes the outcomes from the 6 training programs; and primarily Baylor College of Medicine–Texas Southern University (BCM–TSU's) collaborative strategy focusing on the MCH research training and outcomes, which align with HRSA's MCH bureau's missions. Description: Each MCHPTP offers trainees interdisciplinary MCH research experiences through intra/inter-institutional collaborations and partnerships, but BCM–TSU's MCHPTP was the only one with the primary focus to be research. As a case study, the BCM–TSU Program developed an innovative research curriculum integrated with MCH Foundations Course that comprised 2 hour weekly meetings. Students were split into collaborative research groups of 4–5 students, with multidisciplinary peer-mentors, clinical fellows and MCH research faculty from institutions at the world—renowned Texas Medical Center. Assessment: Since the inception of the MCH mentorship programs, all six MCHPTPs have enrolled up to 1890 trainees and/or interns. BCM–TSU Program trainees are defined as undergraduate students in their 1st or 2nd year of college while research interns are upper classmen in their 3rd or 4th year of college. The case study showed that BCM–TSU Program trainees demonstrated outstanding accomplishments in the area of research through primary and co-authorships of 13 peer-reviewed journal publications by 78 trainees, over a period of 3 years, in addition to dozens of presentations at local, regional and national conferences. Conclusions: The research productivity of students in the six MCHPTPs is strongly indicative of the success of integrating MCH research mentoring into MCH didactic training. The development of a diverse and robust MCH mentorship program promotes and strengthens research activities in areas of high priority such as addressing health disparities in MCH morbidity and mortality in the U.S. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The author reflects on ways to write popular science for the popular audience in the U.S. The author suggests that writers should go beyond the traditional norms of writing research paper. He states that writers should know their readers and should maintain their interests so they will keep reading until the end. Moreover, he suggests that the first paragraph should be the most important part of the paper and it should answer the five cardinal questions like why, what, who and how.

Criminology and criminal justice (CCJ) as an academic discipline has experienced an increase in the focus on various aspects of academic productivity in recent years. Much of the extant literature examining journal article authorship has focused on various measures of the publication productivity of specific authors but not on the characteristics of the authors themselves. The current study expands upon previous work by examining several author characteristics across different journal types and research methodologies, with a particular focus on how gender relates to these issues. The findings reveal several interesting differences with regard to gender, academic rank, and university affiliation. Among these findings is evidence that although males are more likely to author CCJ articles regardless of journal type, females are more likely to be lead authors in regional journal articles and more likely to publish with other female authors. Regional journals are also the publication outlet of choice for students and assistant professors in the beginning of their careers. The findings also provide evidence of important differences in author rank, academic affiliation, methodology, and publication outlet for articles authored by females. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The author reflects on several concerns expressed regarding the authorship of a research article, journal editorial and textbook in the U.S. which were financed by GlaxoSmithKline. The author mentions that the incident is considered by some groups as endemic in biomedical literature since the authors of the works were concealed from readers. However, the author notes that the academic researchers involved in the case denied that their papers were influenced by the pharmaceutical company.

Determining appropriate authorship recognition in student-faculty collaborative research is a complex task. In this quantitative study, responses from 1346 students and faculty in education and some social science disciplines at 36 research-intensive institutions in the United States were analyzed to provide a description of current and recommended practices for authorship in student-faculty collaborative research. The responses revealed practices and perceptions that are not aligned with ethical guidelines and a lack of consensus among respondents about appropriate practice. Faculty and student respondents agreed that students deserve more authorship recognition than they get in common practice but they did not agree on the appropriate authorship arrangement for several of the collaborative scenarios described in the study or on the relative value of various contributions to research projects. The misalignment with ethical codes and lack of consensus among the respondents is problematic because student-faculty collaborative research is common and authored publications are powerful indicators of research competency. With these detailed results, students and faculty can better anticipate areas where their perspectives are likely to differ and faculty can work to clarify ambiguous expectations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Editorial. Discusses the influence of commercial and financial interests on authors of research articles. Impact of the Bayh-Dole act of 1980 in the U.S. on the increase of universities seeking patent rights on their discoveries; Increase in overall support by the corporate industry of academic research; Concern of universities on the author's motivation; Likelihood of drug sponsored studies to report favorable outcomes.