Search

Introduction: While authorship plays a powerful role in the academy, research indicates many authors engage in questionable practices like honorary authorship. This suggests that authorship may be a contested space where individuals must exercise agency-a dynamic and emergent process, embedded in context-to negotiate potentially conflicting norms among published criteria, disciplines and informal practices. This study explores how authors narrate their own and others' agency in making authorship decisions., Method: We conducted a mixed-methods analysis of 24 first authors' accounts of authorship decisions on a recent multi-author paper. Authors included 14 females and 10 males in health professions education (HPE) from U.S. and Canadian institutions (10 assistant, 6 associate and 8 full professors). Analysis took place in three phases: (1) linguistic analysis of grammatical structures shown to be associated with agency (coding for main clause subjects and verb types); (2) narrative analysis to create a 'moral' and 'title' for each account; and (3) dialectic integration of (1) and (2)., Results: Descriptive statistics suggested that female participants used we subjects and material verbs (of doing) more than men and that full professors used relational verbs (of being and having) more than assistant and associate. Three broad types of agency were narrated: distributed (n = 15 participants), focusing on how resources and work were spread across team members; individual (n = 6), focusing on the first author's action; and collaborative (n = 3), focusing on group actions. These three types of agency contained four subtypes, e.g. supported, contested, task-based and negotiated., Discussion: This study highlights the complex and emergent nature of agency narrated by authors when making authorship decisions. Published criteria offer us starting point-the stated rules of the authorship game; this paper offers us a next step-the enacted and narrated approach to the game., (© 2021 Association for the Study of Medical Education and John Wiley & Sons Ltd. This article has been contributed to by US Government employees and their work is in the public domain in the USA.)

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]

Background: Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) is commonly defined as a transitional subclinical state between normal aging and dementia. A growing body of research indicates that health behaviors may play a protective role against cognitive decline and could potentially slow down the progression from MCI to dementia. The aim of this study is to conduct a bibliometric analysis of literature focusing on health behaviors and MCI to summarize the factors and evidence regarding the influence of health behaviors on MCI. Methods: The study performed a bibliometric analysis by retrieving publications from the Science Citation Index and Social Sciences Citation Index subdatabases within the Web of Science Core Collection. Utilizing VOSviewer and CiteSpace software, a total of 2,843 eligible articles underwent co-citation, cokeywords, and clustering analyses. This methodology aimed to investigate the current status, trends, major research questions, and potential future directions within the research domain. Results: The bibliometric analysis indicates that research on healthy behaviors in individuals with MCI originated in 2002 and experienced rapid growth in 2014, reflecting the increasing global interest in this area. The United States emerged as the primary contributor, accounting for more than one-third of the total scientific output with 982 articles. Journals that published the most articles on MCI-related health behaviors included "Journal of Alzheimer's Disease," "Neurobiology of Aging," "Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience," and other geriatricsrelated journals. High-impact papers identified by VOSviewer predominantly cover concepts related to MCI, such as diagnostic criteria, assessment, and multifactorial interventions. Co-occurrence keyword analysis highlights five research hotspots in health behavior associated with MCI: exercise, diet, risk factors and preventive measures for dementia, cognitive decline-related biomarkers, and clinical trials. Conclusion: This study provides a comprehensive review of literature on health behavior in individuals with MCI, emphasizing influential documents and journals. It outlines research trends and key focal points, offering valuable insights for researchers to comprehend significant contributions and steer future studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To identify trends in female authorship in the Canadian Association of Radiologists Journal (CARJ) from 2010 to 2019., Methods: We retrieved papers published in the CARJ over a 10-year period, and retrospectively reviewed 602 articles. All articles except editorials and advertisements were included. We categorized the names of the first and last position authors as female or male and excluded articles that had at least one author of which gender was not known. We compared the trends in the first and last position authors of the articles from 2010 to 2019. For statistical analysis, logistic regression was performed with reported odds ratios (ORs), and a P value of <.05 was defined as statistically significant., Results: Five hundred thirteen articles met inclusion criteria. Among them, 23 articles with a single author were classified as having only a first author. 39.8% (204/513) of first authors were female and 26.9% (132/490) of last authors were female. There has been an overall temporal increase in the odds of both the first and last author being female in CARJ publications (OR: 1.11, P = .034). Similarly, the odds a CARJ publication's first author being female increased over time (OR: 1.07, P = .033). Female last author did not predict female first author (OR: 1.48, P = .056). There was no association identified between female last author and year of publication (OR: 1.04, P = .225)., Conclusion: There has been an overall increase in engagement of female authorship in CARJ.

Aim: We aim to promote discussion about an Indigenous Cultural Identity of Research Authors Standard (ICIRAS) for academic journal publications. Context: This is based on a gap in research publishing practice where Indigenous peoples' identity is not systematically and rigorously flagged in rural health research publications. There are widespread reforms, in different research areas, to counter the reputation of scientific research as a vehicle of racism and discrimination against the world's Indigenous peoples. Reflecting on these broader movements, the editorial teams of three rural health journals—the Australian Journal of Rural Health, the Canadian Journal of Rural Medicine, and Rural and Remote Health—recognised that Indigenous peoples' identity could be embedded in authorship details. Approach: An environmental scan (through a cultural safety lens where Indigenous cultural authority is respected, valued, and empowered) of literature was undertaken to detect the signs of inclusion of Indigenous peoples in research. This revealed many ways in which editorial boards of Journals could systematically improve their process so that there is 'nothing about Indigenous people, without Indigenous people' in rural health research publications. Conclusion: Improving the health and wellbeing of Indigenous peoples worldwide requires high quality research evidence. The philosophy of cultural safety supports the purposeful positioning of Indigenous peoples within the kaleidoscope of cultural knowledges as identified contributors and authors of research evidence. The ICIRAS is a call‐to‐action for research journals and institutions to rigorously improve publication governance that signals "Editing with IndigenUs and for IndigenUs". [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the article, the editor discusses their process of screening articles they published in the "Canadian Journal of Rural Medicine" (CJRM), including the key roles played by reviewers and scientific editors.