Search

Objective: The primary objective of this inquiry was to explore the nexus between authorship attribution in medical literature and accountability for scientific impropriety while assessing the influence of authorial multiplicity on the severity of sanctions imposed., Methods: Probit regression models were employed to scrutinize the impact of authorship on assuming accountability for scientific misconduct, and unordered multinomial logistic regression models were used to examine the influence of authorship and the number of bylines on the severity of punitive measures., Results: First authors and corresponding authors were significantly more likely to be liable for scientific misconduct than other authors and were more likely to be penalized particularly severely. Furthermore, a negative correlation was observed between the number of authors' affiliations and the severity of punitive measures., Conclusion: Authorship exerts a pronounced influence on the attribution of accountability in scientific research misconduct, particularly evident in the heightened risk of severe penalties confronting first and corresponding authors owing to their principal roles. Hence, scientific research institutions and journals must delineate authorship specifications meticulously, ascertain authors' contributions judiciously, bolster initiatives aimed at fostering scientific research integrity, and uphold an environment conducive for robust scientific inquiry., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright: © 2024 Peng 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.)

Honesty of publications is fundamental in science. Unfortunately, science has an increasing fake paper problem with multiple cases having surfaced in recent years, even in renowned journals. There are companies, the so-called paper mills, which professionally fake research data and papers. However, there is no easy way to systematically identify these papers. Here, we show that scanning for exchanged authors in resubmissions is a simple approach to detect potential fake papers. We investigated 2056 withdrawn or rejected submissions to Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's Archives of Pharmacology (NSAP), 952 of which were subsequently published in other journals. In six cases, the stated authors of the final publications differed by more than two thirds from those named in the submission to NSAP. In four cases, they differed completely. Our results reveal that paper mills take advantage of the fact that journals are unaware of submissions to other journals. Consequently, papers can be submitted multiple times (even simultaneously), and authors can be replaced if they withdraw from their purchased authorship. We suggest that publishers collaborate with each other by sharing titles, authors, and abstracts of their submissions. Doing so would allow the detection of suspicious changes in the authorship of submitted and already published papers. Independently of such collaboration across publishers, every scientific journal can make an important contribution to the integrity of the scientific record by analyzing its own pool of withdrawn and rejected papers versus published papers according to the simple algorithm proposed in the present paper., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

As the field of ophthalmology has evolved in the last several decades, so has the gender distribution of ophthalmologists. We conducted a narrative review to further characterise the status of women in the realm of publication, presentations, editorial positions, grants, academic promotion, and financial compensation. While the proportion of women publishing, presenting, and filling academic and editorial roles has increased over time, it still does not match that of men. Women are more likely to be first authors instead of senior authors, have lower average h-indices, and are awarded fewer grants. The magnitude of some of these differences is smaller when adjusted for women's shorter career duration on average. Despite increased representation of women in ophthalmology, women continue to receive less compensation for the same work. This review highlights that more can be done to improve gender parity in ophthalmology., (© 2024 Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Ophthalmologists.)

Women are underrepresented in senior academic positions within microbiology globally. Studies show that gender bias affects the progression of women in academia, but there is evidence that improving conscious awareness of bias can improve equity in this regard. Here we analyse the publication data associated with review articles within the microbiology field to investigate the statistical associations with author gender. We analyse the data from review articles published between 2010 and 2022 in three leading microbiology review journals: Nature Reviews Microbiology , Trends in Microbiology and Annual Review of Microbiology . We find a significant association between the gender of the lead author and the gender of co-authors in multi-author publications. Review articles with men lead authors have a significantly reduced proportion of women co-authors compared to reviews with women lead authors. Given the existing differences in the proportions of men and women in lead author positions, this association may have important consequences for the relative visibility of women in microbiology, along with negative impacts on scientific output relating to reduced collaboration diversity.

The study is undertaken to compare the use of non-alphanumeric characters in the titles of articles published in the IASLIC Bulletin (IB) and the Annals of Library and Information Studies (ALIS). This study is based on the total 567 publications appeared on IB and ALIS between the year 2011 and 2021. This study includes the distribution of publications by year, patterns of authorship, and the use of five often used non-alphanumeric characters: colon, comma, hyphen, question mark, and parenthesis. ALIS published 336 papers and IB published 231 articles over the study period, with an average relative growth rate (RGR) of 1.63 %. Cooperative authoring is more prevalent in both journals. The outcome also shows that 389 titles-216 in ALIS and 173 in IB-of the total 567 contributions appeared with non-alphanumeric characters. The colon (:) is the most often used alpha numeric character; in ALIS (78.85 %) and IB (64.51 %), double authors use it frequently. The study is an original research work intends to have a profound and noteworthy effect on researchers and library patrons who delve into the world of non-alphanumeric characters in research paper titles. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article from the editors of the "Academy of Management Review" states that a rejection of a theory-only paper doesn't imply that the effort was in vain, as the content can be repurposed into other publication formats including literature reviews, structured theory articles, inductive and abductive studies, or deductive and hypothesis-testing research. These alternative formats address common challenges faced by theory paper authors, potentially increasing the impact and preserving core ideas of the original work. Authors are encouraged to utilize developmental feedback and resources to improve their manuscripts and explore different formats to advance their theoretical contributions, whether their initial submissions are successful or not.

Abstract Objective The aim of this study was to identify and analyze the gender breakdown of first authorship contributing to the most‐cited papers in the field of otolaryngology, with a goal of identifying trends in gender representation in publishing. Methods The top 150 most‐cited papers were identified using the Science Citation Index of the Institute for Scientific Information. Among the first authors, gender, h‐index, percentage of first, last, and corresponding authorship positions, total publications, and citations were analyzed. Results The majority of papers were in the English language, from the United States, of clinical nature, and on otologic topics. Eighty‐one percent of papers (n = 122) had men who were first authors, although there was no difference in h‐index score, authorship position, number of publications, citations, and average citations/year between men and women first authors. Upon subgroup analysis by decade (1950s–2010s), there was no difference in the number of articles by women first authors (P = 0.11); however, there was a statistically significant increase in the percentage of women authors (P = 0.001) in papers published later compared to those published earlier. Conclusions While a promising number of women otolaryngologists are publishing high‐powered articles, future initiatives to promote academic inclusivity of women should be considered.

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

Key points: Academia is already witnessing the abuse of authorship in papers with text generated by large language models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT.LLM‐generated text is testing the limits of publishing ethics as we traditionally know it.We alert the community to imminent risks of LLM technologies, like ChatGPT, for amplifying the predatory publishing 'industry'.The abuse of ChatGPT for the paper mill industry cannot be over‐emphasized.Detection of LLM‐generated text is the responsibility of editors and journals/publishers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the rapid evolving landscape of artificial intelligence (AI), scientific publishing is experiencing significant transformations. AI tools, while offering unparalleled efficiencies in paper drafting and peer review, also introduce notable ethical concerns. This study delineates AI's dual role in scientific publishing: as a co-creator in the writing and review of scientific papers and as an ethical challenge. We first explore the potential of AI as an enhancer of efficiency, efficacy, and quality in creating scientific papers. A critical assessment follows, evaluating the risks vs. rewards for researchers, especially those early in their careers, emphasizing the need to maintain a balance between AI's capabilities and fostering independent reasoning and creativity. Subsequently, we delve into the ethical dilemmas of AI's involvement, particularly concerning originality, plagiarism, and preserving the genuine essence of scientific discourse. The evolving dynamics further highlight an overlooked aspect: the inadequate recognition of human reviewers in the academic community. With the increasing volume of scientific literature, tangible metrics and incentives for reviewers are proposed as essential to ensure a balanced academic environment. AI's incorporation in scientific publishing is promising yet comes with significant ethical and operational challenges. The role of human reviewers is accentuated, ensuring authenticity in an AI-influenced environment. As the scientific community treads the path of AI integration, a balanced symbiosis between AI's efficiency and human discernment is pivotal. Emphasizing human expertise, while exploit artificial intelligence responsibly, will determine the trajectory of an ethically sound and efficient AI-augmented future in scientific publishing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Identifying the factors that influence the citation of articles helps authors improve the impact and reach of their research. Analysis of publications in the Journal of Fish Biology between 2008 and 2021 revealed that variables such as the number of keywords, abstract length, number of authors, and page length were associated with higher impact papers. These trends applied to both review and regular papers. These findings suggest that papers that are more informative, have higher numbers of authors, and have more keywords are more likely to be cited. Adoption of some simple "best‐practice" behaviors can improve the likelihood that a paper is cited. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Manuscript writing support services using AI technology have become increasingly available in recent years. In keeping with this trend, we need to sort out issues related to authorship in academic writing. Authorship is attached to the contribution of researchers who report innovative research, the originality of which forms the core of their identity. The most important originality is demonstrated in the discussion of study findings. In the discussion section of this paper, we argue that if a researcher uses AI-based manuscript writing support to draft the discussion section, this does not necessarily diminish the researcher’s originality. Rather, AI support may allow the researcher to perform creative work in a more refined fashion. Presumably, selecting which AI support to use or evaluating and properly adjusting AI would still remain an important aspect of research for researchers. It is thus reasonable to view a researcher as a cooperative existence realized through a network of cooperative work that includes the use of AI. Discussions on this topic will be scientifically and socially important as AI technology advances in the future.

Literature being an expression of an author, its commodification historically has assigned a value to it primarily in terms of authorship credit. Arguably reproducing published content without attributing the requisite source, termed as plagiarism is ethically discrediting to this premise. However, simply weighing its proportion based on digitally assigned semantic similarity may not be completely justifiable in the present-day digital atmosphere. It should be noted that while technology can facilitate plagiarism detection, digitization by way of providing greater access to published content is also the facilitator of plagiarism. While the scientific community is often severe in its approach toward the act of plagiarism, there is still a lack of clarity around the code of conduct of the same as there are several grey areas related to such a misconduct on which the law remains silent. By revisiting the historical evolution of the credit of authorship and the copyright law this piece presents an analytical vista pertaining to plagiarism in a different light. By identifying the gaps in the present-day handling of these age-old concepts, one may find that there is an unmet need to revisit the legal aspects of handling cases of plagiarism taking into consideration the digital environment., (Copyright © 2024 Copyright: © 2024 Indian Journal of Public Health.)

A recent editorial in Plant Cell Reports reaffirms what has been known for years, namely, that it follows the four ICMJE clauses of authorship. That editorial even provides a "perfect" model contribution statement. In this letter, I argue that in reality and in practice, authorship delimitations are not that clear-cut, nor are all contributions equal or equally weighted. More importantly, I opine that no matter how eloquently an author contribution statement is written, editors have no way to verify the veracity of those claims. In essence, absent authorship contribution verification, the ICMJE guidelines are practically useless. The responsibility for verification, even to determine authorship associated with papermills or the "ghost" contribution of text by AI like ChatGPT, lies entirely with editors and publishers. Although an unpopular meme, there is need for academic publishing to return to a state of no blind trust., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)

This essay studies the cultural consequences that the spread of paper money had in late nineteenth-century Brazil. First, I examine how these tensions are called into question through the analysis of a political scandal that took place in Rio de Janeiro, in 1900, concerning a two thousand reales banknote. Second, I offer a close reading of Machado de Assis' "Anedota pecuniária", a short-story included in Histórias sem data (1884). My goal is to interrogate the relation between paper money and the economy of credit work, and the narrative devices of literary fiction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Journal of Medical Imaging & Radiation Sciences is the property of Elsevier B.V. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Background: Large language models (LLM) have unknown implications for medical research. This study assessed whether LLM-generated abstracts are distinguishable from human-written abstracts and to compare their perceived quality., Methods: The LLM ChatGPT was used to generate 20 arthroplasty abstracts (AI-generated) based on full-text manuscripts, which were compared to originally published abstracts (human-written). Six blinded orthopaedic surgeons rated abstracts on overall quality, communication, and confidence in the authorship source. Authorship-confidence scores were compared to a test value representing complete inability to discern authorship., Results: Modestly increased confidence in human authorship was observed for human-written abstracts compared with AI-generated abstracts (p = 0.028), though AI-generated abstract authorship-confidence scores were statistically consistent with inability to discern authorship (p = 0.999). Overall abstract quality was higher for human-written abstracts (p = 0.019)., Conclusions: AI-generated abstracts' absolute authorship-confidence ratings demonstrated difficulty in discerning authorship but did not achieve the perceived quality of human-written abstracts. Caution is warranted in implementing LLMs into scientific writing., (© 2024 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

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

Following the onset of COVID-19, research production in economics and finance (measured by the posting of working papers) increased by 29 |$\%$|⁠. Production increases were widespread across geographies, job titles, departments, and ages with larger increases in top departments and for people under the age of 35. Men and women both experienced production increases with the exception of women between the age of 35 and 49, who experienced no production gains despite large increases for men in the same age group. COVID-19 increased reliance on past coauthorship networks, with larger production gains for authors that are more central to the network. Authors have furnished an Internet Appendix , which is available on the Oxford University Press Web site next to the link to the final published paper online. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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

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

Background: The increase in authors per scientific article in many different medical and scientific disciplines has raised concerns over ethical authorship. Trends in authorship in dermatopathology are unknown., Methods: Cross-sectional study of a random sample of 200 articles from the Journal of Cutaneous Pathology (1981-2020)., Results: The number of authors per article increased by an estimated 96% between 1981 and 2020 (2.7-5.3), while the relative citation ratio decreased by an estimated 56% during the same period (1.19-0.52). Higher author counts were not associated with higher relative citation ratios (p = 0.2349) or analytic study designs (p = 0.2987). Higher relative citation ratios were associated with analytic study designs (p = 0.0374)., Conclusions: There has been significant growth in authorship credit at the journal without a corresponding increase in research impact or study rigor. Remedial measures to stem authorship inflation and promote more impactful studies may be necessary., (© 2024 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

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

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

Lecture Notes in Computer Science (LNCS) is a globally recognised publication outlet for the field of Computer Science, including in South Africa. In this study, spanning from 1973 to 2022, we investigated the research participation of South African based authors in LNCS. The publication output and citation impact of these authors were compared to the global Computer Science and LNCS output. The authorship patterns and collaborative behaviour of South African LNCS papers were explored, and a keyword or topic analysis also conducted. Of the total of 518 662 LNCS papers published globally between 1973 and 2022, South African based researchers contributed 1150 papers (0.22%). The LNCS papers from South Africa exhibit a strong collaborative publication culture, with 1043 (91%) co-authored and 107 (9%) singleauthored works. Local LNCS researchers prefer institutional collaboration (43%), followed by international (37%) and national collaboration (11%). Europe emerged as the most significant collaboration partner for LNCS researchers in South Africa. Of the 1150 papers, 836 (73%) had received citations, while 314 (27%) had not. On average, papers published by South African based authors received 6.05 citations, compared to the global LNCS average of 9.49 citations per paper. A keyword analysis revealed that the majority of papers by South African authors focus on artificial intelligence. The results indicate that, although LNCS serves as a reputable dissemination platform for Computer Science research output both globally and locally, South African authors should consider publishing more journal articles to build and improve their researcher profiles. Significance: * The study shows that LNCS is the most frequent publication outlet for Computer Science researchers, globally and in South Africa. * The study offers insight into the publication output, authorship patterns, collaborative behaviour and citation impact of South African based Computer Science researchers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]