Search

Background and Aims: Highly cited papers (HCPs) can influence both research and clinical practice. They help to identify core literature and important advances in a field. This study aimed to assess the current status and prospects of South Asia COVID-19 research from the HCPs using bibliometric indicators. Methodology: COVID-19 literature from South Asia published between December 2019 and 29 November 2023 in the Scopus database was analysed. The top HCPs, having more than 200 citations, were evaluated. Information about citation counts, authors and organisations and their affiliations, year of publication, source journal, geographical origin, subject, article type, funding details, etc. were retrieved and analysed. Data and visualisation analysis was undertaken using Microsoft Excel and other bibliometric software. Results: The 298 South Asia HCPs were published from 2020 to 2023 and were cited 200–3,596 times, with a mean average of 413.9 citations per paper (CPP). Around 24.5% and 51.3% of HCPs received external funding support and were involved in international collaboration, respectively. The most productive organisations were the Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, and the Indian Institute of Technology, New Delhi, while the most impactful organisations were Bai Jerbai Wadia Hospital for Children, Mumbai, and Kokilaben Dhirubhai Ambani Hospital & Medical Research Institute, Mumbai. The most productive journals were Diabetes and Metabolic Syndrome: Clinical Research & Reviews. Conclusions: This study has identified core and significant authors, organisations, journals, subject fields and significant keywords, collaborators and funding agencies involved in South Asia's COVID-19 research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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.

A scientist reviewing a study spotted figures that looked identical to his own, leading to a frustrating campaign to prevent its publication. [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]

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]

The article provides a guide on writing original research papers, emphasizing the importance of adhering to international guidelines and journal-specific instructions for successful publication. It also discusses the preparation of research papers from early study phases, the use of guidelines such as CONSORT and STROBE for different research types, and the need for clear, concise scientific language.

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

EXCLUSIVE: Poor-quality studies are polluting the literature — a group will study the businesses that produce them to stem the flow of bogus research. [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.)

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]

Responsible conduct of research and ethical publishing practices are debatable issues in the higher education literature. The literature suggests that 'authorship disputes' are associated with multi-author paper publication and linked to ethical publishing practices. A few research studies argue authorship matters of a multi-author paper publication, but do not explain how to arrange author list meaningfully in a multi-author paper. How is a principal author of a multi-author paper to be decided? The literature also does not clarify whether language editor(s) could claim authorship for a research paper publication? The paper adopts qualitative methodology that subsumes descriptive, evaluative, and interpretative approaches to answer these questions. While answering these questions, the paper critically examines 'authorship disputes' and 'types of authorship' relating to research paper publication practices. At the end, the paper proposes a framework that would help to resolve authorship disputes over multi-author paper publication. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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]

To more reasonably allocate a paper's credit, this article argues that both a paper's authors and references contribute to a given paper. Accordingly, we quantitatively represent the proportion of contributions from each author and reference to a paper. A paper's credit can be allocated among its authors and references based on their contributions. All papers carry innate credit because of publication. If cited, they also carry external credit from the citing papers. The proportion of a paper's credit allocated to references can be regarded as a credit output and serves as an input for these references. In this scenario, only the credit assigned to a paper's authors remains as the paper's deserved credit. The credit of papers can be transferred in a direction opposite that of knowledge diffusion. Via this method, the estimate of an individual reference's contribution incorporates content‐based citation analysis, a promising method to differentiate different citations. A paper's deserved credit represents the contribution of the paper's authors to the scientific community via the new knowledge they provide in the paper. Therefore, it is rational to evaluate papers according to their deserved credit, not the credit they carry. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and aim: Despite the increasing share of educated women over time, women still play a lesser role in academic and leadership status, receiving honorary awards and academic advancement. Since compiling academic articles is considered as one of the most significant factors of success in academic careers; therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate gender cooperation pattern among the authors of articles in Journals of Geography and Urban Planning, Geography and Development, and Natural Environment Hazards until 2019. Materials and methods: In the present applied and descriptive study, the statistical population included all indexed articles and information of authors in the Journals of Geography in Sistan and Baluchestan University. For this purpose, some factors such as the number of articles published in quarterly journals, number of authors, number of female authors as well as gender of first authors and corresponding authors were analyzed using independent t-test in SPSS and Excel. Findings: In reviewing the articles, 37.5% of the articles were written by three authors, indicating the authors' tendency to collaborate in this field. Moreover, the main hypotheses of the study stating no difference in the gender of the first and corresponding authors were rejected. The findings indicated that women had a small share in the status of writing articles in these quarterly journals and women attended as the first and corresponding authors only in 15.5% and 14.4% of the articles. Conclusion: Although women's participation in the articles published in the quarterly journals has increased during the recent years, their absence still remains in the main status of the articles and they have a very small share in the main status of authors of the articles (first author and corresponding 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]

This article explores the impact of the Nobel Prize in Literature on the acquisition policies of literary archives. Focusing on laureates and the twenty-first-century fate of their manuscripts, it argues that the international reach of the prize is mirrored by a contemporary archival landscape that is at once global and unequal. Although many archives concentrate on collecting material from the linguistic and cultural context of which they themselves form part, the past two decades have also seen the emergence of a competitive international market for the papers of authors whose writings are marked – through high-profile distinctions such as the Nobel Prize – as belonging to the world literary canon. Illustrating its larger argument with the help of three case studies (Harold Pinter, J.M. Coetzee, Gabriel García Márquez), the article suggests that archivization consecrates laureates' papers as global heritage at the same time that it reinforces the logic of literary nativism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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.

Objective: This quali‐quantitative study analysed the 100 most‐cited papers in core dental public health (DPH) journals focusing on understanding international knowledge production. Methods: The DPH journals were selected from titles and scopes at Web of Science Core Collection database up to March 2020. Further comparisons were performed at Scopus and Google Scholar databases. Some bibliometric parameters were extracted as follows: title, number of citations, citation density (number of citations per year), first author's country, year of publication, study design and subject. VOSviewer software was used to create graphical bibliometric maps. Results: Papers were ranked by the total number of citations, which ranged from 104 to 1,019, and six papers were cited more than 400 times. Papers were published from 1974 to 2013, mainly in Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology. Most frequent study designs were cross‐sectional (30%) and nonsystematic review (25%). Most papers were from Europe (54%) and North America (31%). First authors were predominantly from the United Kingdom (17%), United States of America (17%) and Canada (14%). VOSviewer map of co‐authorship demonstrated the existence of clusters in the research collaboration. Although epidemiology was the most frequent subject (84%), health services research presented eight times higher citation density. Conclusions: Top 100 most‐cited papers in core DPH journals were predominantly observational studies from Anglo‐Saxon countries. Top 100 most‐cited papers in core DPH journals tend to be cross‐sectional studies carried out in the United States with highest citation in health services research. Locker D, Petersen PE and Sheiham A are a landmark for DPH field. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Recently, papers with multiple corresponding authors (co-correspondence) are frequently noticed in scientific journals. This is a trend that parallels a significant increase in research collaboration, but its rapidity raises concern about whether the legitimacy and value of the corresponding authorship are changing or even damaged. This study investigated how extensive and sound the trend of co-correspondence in science and engineering is. The increasing trend of co-correspondence papers was confirmed by examining SCOPUS index (www.scopus.com) for the papers published by scholars of the USA, Japan, South Korea, and China in 2008-09 and 2018-2019. The number of co-correspondence papers indeed increased in all four countries. However, the numbers varied significantly among the countries, markedly higher in South Korea and China cases, which also showed far higher numbers of the papers with a co-corresponding author who is the only member from his group. To dig into reality, South Korean scholars were surveyed with questionnaires regarding the trend of co-correspondence. Over 64% of respondents answered that they had participated in papers where multiple corresponding authors are listed, and 22% of them thought that the co-corresponding author did not play his due role and the co-corresponding authorship was exchanged between friends or given as a courtesy for various reasons. Although corresponding authorship allocation is majorly a concern for journal editors, a trend of inappropriate practices or misuse of co-corresponding authorship calls for local and global academic community awareness. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the navigating manuscript rejection. Topics include the study demonstrating how common manuscript rejection is among faculty of all academic ranks in hopes to normalize rejection and open conversations about rejection in mentorship; approach, innovations related to the study design, and reason for the rejection of the study to quantify on the fate of manuscripts.

Arguably ChatGPT jeopardizes the integrity and validity of the academic publications instead of ethically facilitating them. ChatGPT can apparently fulfill a portion of one of the four authorship criteria set by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), i.e., "drafting." However, the authorship criteria by ICMJE must all be collectively met, not singly or partially. Many published manuscripts or preprints have credited ChatGPT by including it in the author byline, and the academic publishing enterprise seems to be unguided on how to handle such manuscripts. Interestingly, PLoS Digital Health removed ChatGPT off a paper which had ChatGPT listed initially in the author byline of the preprint version. Revised publishing policies are, thus, promptly required to guide a consistent stance regarding ChatGPT or similar artificial content generators. Publishing policies must accord among publishers, preprint servers (https://asapbio.org/preprint-servers), universities, and research institutions worldwide and across different disciplines. Ideally, considering any declaration of the contribution of ChatGPT to writing any scientific article should be recognized as publishing misconduct immediately and be retracted. Meanwhile, all parties involved in the scientific reporting and publishing must be educated about how ChatGPT fails to meet the essential authorship criteria, so that no author must submit a manuscript with ChatGPT contributing as a "co-author." Meanwhile, using ChatGPT for writing laboratory reports or short summaries of experiments may be acceptable, but not for academic publishing or formal scientific reporting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Problems regarding the order of authorship of scientific papers have become more frequent and more abusive. These problems may have heightened due to the ever increasing pressure to "publish or perish" in the academic world, given that the publication of scientific articles has become the benchmark of success in a field with few job opportunities. This article reviews the abuses in the authorship of scientific papers. Different examples are given of the most common problems and recommendations are provided for authors and journal editors.Problemas relacionados a determinação de autoria de trabalhos científicos são freqüentes. Estes problemas vêm se agravando em decorrência da supervalorização do número de publicações no mundo acadêmico, uma vez que, a publicação de artigos científicos tornou-se uma referência de sucesso em um campo com poucas oportunidades de trabalho. Este artigo revê os abusos na autoria de artigos científicos. Diferentes exemplos são citados dos problemas mais comuns e recomendações básicas são feitas para autores e editores.

This article reports the findings of a diachronic study of acknowledgement practices in 300 randomly collected research papers published during three different periods (1998, 2004 and 2012) in the most prestigious American and European astrophysics journals written in English. In order to investigate the influence of these practices on authorship patterns, we analyzed the distribution over time of a series of quantitative variables (number, length and types of acknowledgements, mean number of words/number of acknowledgements per research paper and mean number of acknowledgements/number of authors per research paper, number of named and unnamed acknowledgees, number of identified and anonymous referees, and number of emotionally charged-words). Comparisons between periods were carried out and Student’s t-tests were applied to the quantitative results. Our main findings show that acknowledgements are very common in astrophysics since they are present in 96% of the whole corpus. Financial, mainly public, and instrumental supports are the most frequently acknowledged categories. The number and length of acknowledgements and the mean number of words/number of acknowledgements per research paper grow over time. Financial, instrumental and conceptual assistance, unnamed individuals and anonymous referees increase over time, whereas moral, editorial and unclassified supports, named individuals and identified referees, and emotionally-charged words decline. If we focus on each journal publication context, we can observe that the research papers published in the American journals include more and longer acknowledgements, with a higher mean number of acknowledgements per author, more financial and instrumental supports, and a lower percentage of emotionally-charged words, whereas the European journals contain more conceptual and editorial supports. All these data can be understood in the frame of growing scientific professionalism, while a detailed cross-journal analysis may occasionally suggest honorary/guest/gift authorship.

Humanities and social sciences studies in Korea have remarkably low rates of co-authorship between professors and students. We chose a bibliometrics-based approach to characterize changes in the ratio of joint authorship between professors and students. Articles classified in the humanities and social sciences sectors that were published in journals registered in the Korean Citation Index during 2 phases over a 10-year period—2004 to 2006 (phase 1) and 2011 to 2013 (phase 2)—were used as the main source for the analysis. The study results can be summarized as follows: first, the overall number of co-authored articles drastically increased from phase 1 to phase 2; the percentage of co-authorship articles increased from 34.8% to 47.7%, and the percentage of co-authorship between students and professors rose from 9.9% to 20.7%. This trend was particularly noticeable in the social sciences, such as accounting, social welfare, and economics/business administration. Second, papers written by scholars from Seoul National University, Yonsei University, and Korea University were often published in high-impact factor journals. Among those articles, the rate of professor-student co-authorship increased by 21.6% for 7 years. Third, the increase in professor-student co-authored articles published in high- impact factor journals was even sharper. These findings indicate that perceptions of professor-student co-authorship have changed in the humanities and social sciences. In the near future, positive perceptions toward joint research and joint authorship between professors and students are expected to become more widespread.

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Moreover, Willis was not the critic of Locke's views in the I Reasonableness of Christianity i as expressed in I The Occasional Paper: Number I i , and the "Post-Script" to I The Occasional Paper: Number V i . The stylometric evidence from the Delta analysis conflicts with the clear indications that the author of I The Occasional Paper: Number I i also wrote the "Post-Script" to I The Occasional Paper: Number V i . I The Occasional Paper i was a series of anonymous pamphlets covering a diverse range of topics, published in quarto by Matthew Wotton and running for ten numbers from 1697 to 1698.[1] The I Paper i was intended to provide a moderate Anglican perspective through a regular publication rather than one-off pamphlets.[2] It is remembered primarily for its criticisms of Locke, Toland, and its contribution to the Collier controversy.[3] It has always been attributed to Richard Willis ( I bap i . 1664, d. 1734), successively bishop of Gloucester (1715-21), Salisbury (1721-3) and Winchester (1723-34). We were unable to source any published texts for the ascribed author of I The Occasional Paper: Number X i , Mr Hodges, "fellow of Wadham College", and no ascription was provided for I The Occasional Paper: Number VII i ; hence, it was not possible to provide com- parison texts for these two I Occasional Papers i . [Extracted from the article]

Background: Being cited is increasingly important for the careers of nurses and other professions involved in health care research as well as for funders and journals. There is an increasing awareness that the act of citing may lack objectivity and produce bias. Citation bias is the tendency to cite positive over negative or null results, which is most pronounced where there are multiple articles to choose from. Biased citations may lead to the perception that an intervention is effective when it is not, and it may lead to overesti mation of effect sizes in systematic reviews. The aim was to explore motivations and reflections on the choices of sources when nurses and other health care professionals are writing manuscripts and to explore the underlying factors impacting the choices of sources and their opinions of citation bias in health science. Findings: We conducted six one-hour focus group interviews with 24 nurses, physicians and other health care researchers from a mix of clinical specialties. Data was analyzed using systematic text condensation. We conducted member check with the analysis as participants were asked to comment on preliminary findings. We found four themes: Researcher's integrity, Operating in a minefield, The cycle of supervision and Hands on working with references. Researchers reflected that they had received little instruction on how to work with references initially. They wished to cite appropriately but were predominately driven by the overarching aim of getting published. Factors influencing the selection of references could be placed in five different topics of quality assessment: impact factor, design, accessibility, geography and language. Being peer-reviewed or indexed in well-known databases was not presumed to guarantee quality and some researchers were also critical towards open access publications. Citing was used strategically to boost the career of oneself or others and specifically to enhance the authority of the paper. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the introduction of Special Sections in the periodical, inviting Guest Editors to submit proposals for thematic issues. Topics discussed include the process for proposal submission and evaluation; the importance of global relevance and high-quality content; and the journal's recent achievement of reaching Q1 ranking.

The use of respondent quotes to headline qualitative research papers is a popular literary device found in many academic journals. This practice has increased over the last four decades and now appears normalised within qualitative research writing. This article provides a critical analysis of this trend in academic writing and concomitant publishing. Content and framework analyses of 40 papers employing this literary device to summarise the respective studies identified (i) a lack of methodological rigor, (ii) incomplete analysis, (iii) an overall mis-representation of the wider qualitative dataset, and (iv) possible investigator bias associated with using respondent quotes as titles of qualitative research papers. This article questions the credibility of purposely selecting a single experience that reduces the wider collective experience into one deterministic statement. This article contends that such practice is antithetical to the principles of qualitative research. Recommendations are provided to better monitor this practice throughout the academy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Apart from her familiar fiction and memory writing, Colette wrote hundreds of short pieces for the periodical press. Some of these are theatre and music criticism; many are chroniques. This article selects several of these in which Colette reflects on this very fluid genre. Firstly, she receives advice from a child about writing without an assigned topic. This is a parodic poetics. Secondly, she tells us where she finds her topics: it is in the streets, not in the "factory" that makes the paper. Yet, in an evident paradox, her vehicle for this lesson is a story about crackpots who do not respect this boundary. Thirdly, in another paradox, she wanders in the streets, writing while taking time off from writing. This last chronique foreshadows the work of Ross Chambers on Loiterature. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Objective To determine journal publication rates of scientific papers presented orally at the European Congress of Radiology (ECR) 2010, with comparison of country data to ECR 2000. Methods All oral presentations from ECR 2010 were evaluated for publication between 2010 and 2014 using the MEDLINE database. Countries, collaborations, subspecialties, modalities and study design were ranked by publication percentage. Chi-square tests were used to compare publication percentages for each category of variables. Hazard ratios (HR) were calculated for each country relative to the host nation, Austria. ECR 2010 country statistics were compared with analogous data from ECR 2000. Results In total, 360/840 abstracts were subsequently published (43 %). The author’s country of origin (p = 0.02), subspecialty (p = 0.02) and study design (p = 0.001) were significantly associated with subsequent publication. Switzerland, the Netherlands, France and Germany were among the top six countries by publication percentage in 2000 and 2010. In 2010, Switzerland had the highest publication rate (62 %) and HR in comparison to Austria (HR 2.62 [1.31–5.25], p = 0.01). Three Asian nations increased relative publication rates over the 10-year period. Conclusion Several European nations consistently convert relatively high percentages of oral abstracts at ECR into publications, and the influence of Asian countries is increasing. Main Messages • Certain European nations consistently publish high percentages of orally presented abstracts at ECR. • The influence of several Asian countries on ECR is increasing. • Country, subspecialty and study design are significantly associated with journal publication. • Authors collaborating internationally have the highest publication rates and mean impact factors. • Among all modalities, PET-CT, MRI and CT have the highest publication percentages.

This is the first question one should consider before submitting a paper to an international journal. The answer is simple: If researchers or practitioners from another country can learn something from your paper that can influence a practice or a research they are involved in, then your paper is relevant for an international audience. There are many elements that can influence in this cross-border transferability. One could think that having a big "n", or performing complex statistical calculations, or using complicated study designs makes the paper more attractive to colleagues from other countries. These elements can help, but they are not sufficient. On the other hand, one could think that a study performed in a small hospital in a given country will never be of interest for these foreign colleagues. That is not necessarily correct. Let's burst some myths. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

When writing a research paper, the author has to select information to include in the paper to support various arguments. The information has to be organized and synthesized into a coherent whole through relationships and information structures. There is hardly any research on the information structure of research papers, and how information structure supports rhetorical and argument structures. Thus, this study is focused on information organization in the Abstract and Introduction sections of sociology research papers, analyzing the information structure of research objective, question, hypothesis, and result statements. The study is limited to research papers reporting research that investigated cause–effect relations between two concepts. Two semantic frames were developed to specify the types of information associated with cause–effect and comparison relations, and used as coding schemes to annotate the text for different information types. Six link patterns between the two frames were identified—showing how comparisons are used to support the claim that the cause‐effect relation is valid. This study demonstrated how semantic frames can be incorporated in discourse analysis to identify deep structures underlying the argument structure. The results carry implications for the knowledge representation of academic research in knowledge graphs, for semantic relation extraction, and teaching of academic writing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This essay reconsiders literary engagements with the figure of the newsboy in terms of their own ambivalences, critiques, and calls for social reform. Taking Horatio Alger's dime novels as a primary case study, this piece explores Alger's sense that the growth of literary business relied too heavily on the exploitation of poverty conditions produced by and disseminated through the medium of popular print. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]