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 We investigated 2056 withdrawn or rejected submissions to Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's Archives of Pharmacology (NSAP), 952 of which were subsequently published in other journals.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.)

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]

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]

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.)

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.)

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.)

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]

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.

Aim: Contribution to the authorship, including that for case reports, should be appropriately evaluated. I have noticed a scarcity of case reports with clinic doctors listed as coauthors, prompting this investigation. I sought to offer suggestions on the possible reasons for this trend., Methods: I checked case reports published in the Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Research, the Journal of Medical Case Reports, and the BMJ Case Reports. I identified case reports listing a clinic doctor as a coauthor. I consulted eight professors at Jichi Medical University to ascertain whether case reports from their departments included clinic doctors as coauthors and, if not, the reasons., Results: Among 65 case reports from Japanese institutes published in the Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Research, only one paper lists a clinic doctor as a coauthor. Of 100 and 50 papers published in the Journal of Medical Case Reports and BMJ Case Reports, respectively, none listed a clinic doctor as a coauthor. Six out of eight professors admitted to never considering the idea of including clinic doctors as coauthors., Conclusions: The scarcity of case reports with clinic doctors as coauthors extends beyond Japanese obstetrics and gynecology, encompassing various specialties worldwide. Center doctors do not think of the idea that a clinic doctor should be a coauthor. A clinic doctor who transferred the patient should be considered as a candidate coauthor depending on his/her scientific contribution. Such an approach could foster an environment encouraging doctors to contribute to academic writing, regardless of their workplace., (© 2024 Japan Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology.)

The International Journal of Market Research (IJMR) is celebrating its sixty-fifth anniversary. Over the past decade, the journal has experienced significant growth in readership, impact factor, citations, and submissions. While the majority of accepted papers come from the United States, United Kingdom, Australia, and Germany, the journal aims to bridge the gap between academia and practice in the field of market research. In order to enhance its relevance and accessibility, IJMR will transition to an online-only format, adopt an interdisciplinary focus, provide guidelines for more user-friendly article formats, and publish a list of research priorities based on the perspectives of leading practitioners. [Extracted from the article]

The article focuses on the reasons behind the rejection of papers submitted to the Journal of Mental Health, highlighting the increasing number of submissions and the rigorous review process. Topics include the importance of meeting submission criteria, considerations during the scientific evaluation process, and specific guidelines for different types of studies, such as prioritizing international importance and avoiding redundant research on topics like COVID-19.

An editorial is presented discussing the crucial role of practitioner papers in health marketing, emphasizing the need for collaboration between academics and practitioners. Topics include the unique value of practitioner papers, barriers and enablers to publishing, and guidance for both practitioners and editors to facilitate successful publication.

An introduction is presented in which the editor discusses various articles on topics including ENT specialist training in the United Kingdom, providing valuable insights for aspiring ENT surgeons regarding portfolio building, competitiveness of the process, and strategies for success.

Having an academic paper published in a journal is an important stage for sharing the findings with colleagues. However, getting sufficient citations from the article is another stage for the academicians, which is more important than publishing the paper. In this presentation, we aimed to provide comprehensive guidelines for increasing citations of academic articles, focusing on critical aspects of paper presentation and dissemination. This presentation covers essential factors like using a concise, informative title, including authors' names without typological mistakes, writing a clear and precise abstract containing quantitative data followed by relevant and sufficient keywords, and ensuring significant, novel findings are well-presented. We emphasized the importance of high-quality tables, figures, up-to-date references, and effective networking and collaborations. Adhering to these principles enhances academic papers' visibility, readability, and impact, significantly increasing the likelihood of high citation rates. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the rise of "team science" in academia, where research and academic publications are increasingly collaborative efforts. This trend has led to a significant increase in the number of multi-authored papers, with some papers having thousands of authors. However, this raises questions about the ethics of authorship and the transparency of individual contributions. The article highlights the need for clear standards and communication practices regarding authorship roles and contributions. While other disciplines have developed various methods for communicating author contributions, the journal Information Polity invites authors to be more explicit about their co-authors' inputs without imposing a single system. This promotes research ethics and transparency in the field. [Extracted from the article]

Literary reading is under transformation. Digital devices supplement traditional paper books with e-books and audiobooks, and at the same time, ubiquitous digital connection challenges focused reading. Based on a qualitative interview study with adult leisure readers, this article explores how affordances offered by digital technologies influence reading habits. Informants demonstrate how e-books and audiobooks enhance reading experiences, as digital affordances influence the how and the when of literary consumption. Three prominent findings are stated. (1) Readers adapt reading mode to the situation, and experienced readers have developed strategies to maximise the ultimate combination of title, format and reading conditions. (2) Digital reading favours lighter texts. This dimension is more substantial for audiobooks, relating to the wide choice of combining audiobooks with other activities. (3) Being devoted readers motivates people to develop strategies to ensure further reading. These strategies effectively make readers practically and temporally disconnect to immerse in literature. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Publication science is the scholarly study of various aspects of the academic publishing process. Its applications to COVID-19 literature have been limited. Here, we describe COVID-19 submissions to, and resulting articles published by, the journal Public Health Reports (PHR), an important resource for US public health practice. Methods: We reviewed PHR 's COVID-19 submissions and articles published between March 27, 2020, and March 27, 2023. We coded each article for article type, author affiliation, the categories listed in PHR 's call for COVID-19 papers, and the public health emergency preparedness and response capabilities from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Results: During the study period, PHR received 1545 COVID-19 submissions and published 190 of those articles in a collection, COVID-19 Response. The COVID-19 Response collection included 102 research articles, 29 case study/practice articles, and 24 commentaries. The corresponding author of more than half (52.1%; n = 99) of the articles was affiliated with academia. By the categories listed in PHR 's call for COVID-19 papers, 51 articles addressed health disparities, 38 addressed public health surveillance, and 34 addressed COVID-19 vaccination. By the CDC public health emergency preparedness and response capabilities, 87 articles addressed public health surveillance and epidemiologic investigation, 38 addressed community preparedness, and 32 addressed community recovery. The percentage of articles focused on policy/law was higher early in the pandemic (2020-2021) than later (2022-2023) (9.5% vs <3.0%). During the latter period, articles largely focused on vaccination (12.8%) and contact tracing (10.6%). Conclusions: Articles published in PHR 's COVID-19 Response collection covered a broad range of topics and were authored by contributors from diverse organizations. Our characterization of the COVID-19 output of a representative US public health practice journal can help academic publishing better address informational needs of public health responders. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper investigates the complex interplay between generative artificial intelligence (AI) and human intellect in academic writing and publishing. It examines the 'organic versus synthetic' paradox, emphasizing the implications of using generative AI tools in educational and academic integrity contexts. The paper critiques the prevalent 'publish or perish' culture in academia, highlighting the need for systemic reevaluation due to generative AI's emerging role in academic writing and reporting. It delves into the legal and ethical challenges of authorship and ownership, especially in relation to copyright laws and AI-generated content. The paper discusses generative AI's diverse roles and advocates for transparent reporting to uphold academic integrity. Additionally, it calls for a broader examination of generative AI tools and stresses the need for new mechanisms to identify generative AI use and ensure adherence to academic integrity and ethics. The implications of generative AI are also explored, suggesting the need for innovative AI-inclusive strategies in academia. The paper concludes by emphasizing the significance of generative AI in various information-processing domains, highlighting the urgency to adapt and transform academic practices in an era of rapid generative AI-driven change. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article offers a look into the continuing evolution of the journal. Several undergoing changes to the journal to improve reader experience include shift in how information is distributed to include multiple formats, blending of online and print publications, update editorial guidelines and expectations for how papers are to be submitted, and reduced time to complete reviews of papers submitted.

Some researchers publish a new paper every five days, on average. Data trackers suspect not all their manuscripts were produced through honest labour. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Ascribing authorship of scientific publications to artificial intelligence is a complex and controversial issue. However, it is a challenging and uncertain problem that, given the growing development of artificial intelligence-based technologies that go beyond the performance of purely technical tasks and even contribute to the development of aspects such as the incorporation of scientific research information published in languages other than English, also contributing to potential insights in research, is becoming unavoidable when considering scientific publishing. This paper aims to add to this discussion by arguing that, although this is a challenging and even controversial position, it is inevitable and even ethically desirable to accept artificial intelligence, if it subsidizes sufficiently, as a (co-)author of any scientific publication. It is a matter of starting to think about how this attribution can be controlled and achieved with increasing respect for the ethics of scientific publication. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Croatian & Comparative Public Administration is the property of Institut za Javnu Upravu 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.)

Companies face increasing pressure to protect themselves and their customers from security threats. Security by design is a proactive approach that builds security into all aspects of a system from the ground up, rather than adding it on as an afterthought. By taking security into account at every stage of development, organizations can create systems that are more resistant to attacks and better able to recover from them if they do occur. One of the most relevant practices is threat modelling, i.e. the process of identifying and analysing the security threat to an information system, application, or network. These processes require security experts with high skills to anticipate possible issues: therefore, it is a costly task and requires a lot of time. To face these problems, many different automated threat modelling methodologies are emerging. This paper first carries out a systematic literature review (SLR) aimed at both having an overview of the automated threat modelling techniques used in literature and enumerating all the tools that implement these techniques. Then, an analysis was carried out considering four open-source tools and a comparison with our threat modelling approach using a simple, but significant case study: an e-commerce site developed on top of WordPress. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article explores the concept and importance of population health metrics, emphasizing the need for multidimensional and integrative measures to assess community health outcomes comprehensively. Topics discussed include the evolution and definitions of population health, the challenges of measuring health disparities and outcomes globally, and the role of innovative methodologies in improving population health assessment and equity.

The first half of 2023 was dominated by a public discussion of the nature and implications of generative artificial intelligence (genAI) models that are poised to become the most significant cross-cultural global disruptor since the invention of the World-Wide Web. It can be predicted that genAI will affect how cultural heritage is being managed and practiced, primarily by providing analysis and decision-making tools, but also by genAI generated texts and images, in particular reconstructions of objects and sites. The more speculative interpretations of contexts and alternative interpretations generated by genAI models may constitute manifestations of cultural heritage in their own right. But do these constitute human cultural heritage, or are they AI cultural heritage? This paper is a deliberation of the realities and future(s) of cultural heritage in a genAI and post-genAI world. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Given the rapid and significant increase in email data, it is crucial for both individuals and organisations to prioritise the implementation of strong cybersecurity measures to combat attacks such as phishing emails. While continuous research has been made to find the most efficient approach to combating phishing emails, cybercriminals on the other hand continue to be determined, and their techniques become more and more sophisticated. In this paper, we present a novel approach for email classification using a Siamese deep learning network in order to verify authorship. We used the writing style and behavioural characteristics of the authors in this approach to identify the true source of emails and classify them as phishing, legitimate, harassment, or suspicious. This model was evaluated on the SeFACED dataset, where it received an accuracy of 90,12%, showcasing its efficacy in classifying emails, which enhanced email security and contributed to a safer online environment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Scripta is the property of Scripta 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.)

Copyright of Inteligencia Artificial: Revista Iberoamericana de Inteligencia Artificial is the property of Sociedad Iberoamericana de Inteligencia Artificial (IBERAMIA) 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.)

This article traces the development of Creative Nursing from its origin in 1981 as a newsletter about Primary Nursing to its current position as a quarterly international, interdisciplinary, peer-reviewed, indexed, themed journal that continues to nurture novice authors, welcome international submissions, review articles that other journals won't consider, and address subjects that many journals avoid. Future directions include content in multiple languages, new author guidelines that invite submissions of research methods papers, moving beyond statistical significance based on p-value thresholds, asking authors to make explicit the implications for knowledge translation in their papers, and thinking creatively about how artificial intelligence can be leveraged for research, education, and practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]