Authors' awareness of concepts in the authorship.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Joob B
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6329360 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Apr-Jun
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Authors' awareness of concepts in the authorship.
Joob Beuy B Wiwanitkit Viroj V
Journal of oral biology and craniofacial research 20190106 2
Similar Datasets
Project description:ObjectivesTo investigate authors' awareness and use of authorship guidelines, and to assess their perceptions of the fairness of authorship decisions.DesignA cross-sectional online survey.Setting and participantsCorresponding authors of research papers submitted in 2014 to 18 BMJ journals.Results3859/12 646 (31%) researchers responded. They worked in 93 countries and varied in research experience. Of these, 1326 (34%) reported their institution had an authorship policy providing criteria for authorship; 2871 (74%) were 'very familiar' with the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors' authorship criteria and 3358 (87%) reported that guidelines were beneficial when preparing manuscripts. Furthermore, 2609 (68%) reported that their use was 'sometimes' or 'frequently' encouraged in their research setting. However, 2859 respondents (74%) reported that they had been involved in a study at least once where someone was added as an author who had not contributed substantially (honorary authorship), and 1305 (34%) where someone was not listed as an author but had contributed substantially (ghost authorship). Only 740 (19%) reported that they had never experienced either honorary or ghost authorship; 1115 (29%) reported that they had experienced both at least once. There was no clear pattern in experience of authorship misappropriation by continent. For their last coauthored article, 2187 (57%) reported that explicit authorship criteria had been used to determine eligibility, and 3088 (80%) felt that the decision made was fair. When institutions frequently encouraged use of authorship guidelines, authorship eligibility was more likely to be discussed early (817 of 1410, 58%) and perceived as fairer (1273 of 1410, 90%) compared with infrequent encouragement (974 of 2449, 40%, and 1891 of 2449, 74%).ConclusionsDespite a high level of awareness of authorship guidelines and criteria, these are not so widely used; more explicit encouragement of their use by institutions may result in more favourable use of guidelines by authors.
| S-EPMC7507845 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveThe extent to which biomedical authors have received training in publication ethics, and their attitudes and opinions about the ethical aspects of specific behaviours, have been understudied. We sought to characterise the knowledge and attitudes of biomedical authors about common issues in publication ethics.DesignCross-sectional online survey.Setting and participantsCorresponding authors of research submissions to 20 journals.Main outcome measuresPerceived level of unethical behaviour (rated 0 to 10) presented in five vignettes containing key variables that were experimentally manipulated on entry to the survey and perceived level of knowledge of seven ethical topics related to publishing (prior publication, author omission, self-plagiarism, honorary authorship, conflicts of interest, image manipulation and plagiarism).Results4043/10 582 (38%) researchers responded. Respondents worked in 100 countries and reported varying levels of publishing experience. 67% (n=2700) had received some publication ethics training from a mentor, 41% (n=1677) a partial course, 28% (n=1130) a full course and 55% (n=2206) an online course; only a small proportion rated training received as excellent. There was a full range (0 to 10 points) in ratings of the extent of unethical behaviour within each vignette, illustrating a broad range of opinion about the ethical acceptability of the behaviours evaluated, but these opinions were little altered by the context in which it occurred. Participants reported substantial variability in their perceived knowledge of seven publication ethics topics; one-third perceived their knowledge to be less than 'some knowledge' for the sum of the seven ethical topics and only 9% perceived 'substantial knowledge' of all topics.ConclusionsWe found a large degree of variability in espoused training and perceived knowledge, and variability in views about how ethical or unethical scenarios were. Ethical standards need to be better articulated and taught to improve consistency of training across institutions and countries.
| S-EPMC6254423 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND: Assessment of authorship contribution is often based on unreliable questionnaires. OBJECTIVE: To assess if the use of different formats for the disclosure of authorship contributions influences authors' compliance with the criteria of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). DESIGN: Randomized study. PARTICIPANTS AND MEASUREMENTS: Eight hundred sixty-five authors of 181 manuscripts submitted to the Croatian Medical Journal from January to July 2005 were randomly allocated into 2 groups: 456 authors (94 manuscripts) received an ordinal rating form to rate their contributions to the submitted manuscript in 12 categories on a scale from 0 (none) to 4 (full), whereas 409 authors (87 manuscripts) received a binary rating form to tick the categories in which they made a contribution. RESULTS: The ordinal rating form identified twice as many authors (87.9%) as meeting the ICMJE criteria than the binary rating form (39.2%, P < .001). The group answering the ordinal rating form also had 5 times more manuscripts (71.6%) with all authors meeting the ICMJE criteria than the binary rating form group (15.5%, P < .001). The fraction of authors who reported contributions on each item on the binary rating form was similar to the fraction of authors who reported at least moderate participation to the same items on the ordinal rating form except "Final approval of the article." CONCLUSIONS: Ordinal scales for reporting authors' contributions to manuscripts were more sensitive than tick boxes for assessing the appropriateness of authorship. The exception is "Final approval of the article," which should be considered a dichotomous variable and may not be appropriate for the ICMJE definition of authorship.
| S-EPMC2518038 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundMany previous papers have investigated most-cited articles or most productive authors in academics, but few have studied most-cited authors. Two challenges are faced in doing so, one of which is that some different authors will have the same name in the bibliometric data, and the second is that coauthors' contributions are different in the article byline. No study has dealt with the matter of duplicate names in bibliometric data. Although betweenness centrality (BC) is one of the most popular degrees of density in social network analysis (SNA), few have applied the BC algorithm to interpret a network's characteristics. A quantitative scheme must be used for calculating weighted author credits and then applying the metrics in comparison.ObjectiveThis study aimed to apply the BC algorithm to examine possible identical names in a network and report the most-cited authors for a journal related to international mobile health (mHealth) research.MethodsWe obtained 676 abstracts from Medline based on the keywords "JMIR mHealth and uHealth" (Journal) on June 30, 2018. The author names, countries/areas, and author-defined keywords were recorded. The BCs were then calculated for the following: (1) the most-cited authors displayed on Google Maps; (2) the geographical distribution of countries/areas for the first author; and (3) the keywords dispersed by BC and related to article topics in comparison on citation indices. Pajek software was used to yield the BC for each entity (or node). Bibliometric indices, including h-, g-, and x-indexes, the mean of core articles on g(Ag)=sum (citations on g-core/publications on g-core), and author impact factor (AIF), were applied.ResultsWe found that the most-cited author was Sherif M Badawy (from the United States), who had published six articles on JMIR mHealth and uHealth with high bibliometric indices (h=3; AIF=8.47; x=4.68; Ag=5.26). We also found that the two countries with the highest BC were the United States and the United Kingdom and that the two keyword clusters of mHealth and telemedicine earned the highest indices in comparison to other counterparts. All visual representations were successfully displayed on Google Maps.ConclusionsThe most cited authors were selected using the authorship-weighted scheme (AWS), and the keywords of mHealth and telemedicine were more highly cited than other counterparts. The results on Google Maps are novel and unique as knowledge concept maps for understanding the feature of a journal. The research approaches used in this study (ie, BC and AWS) can be applied to other bibliometric analyses in the future.
| S-EPMC7319608 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Title: Gene Expression in Ara-C Resistance in AML A microarray study of altered gene expression in acute myeloid leukemia cell lines Keywords: cell type comparison Keywords: Expression profiling by array
2005-09-01 | GSE2788 | GEO
Project description:BackgroundAccess to, and awareness of, appropriate authorship criteria is an important right for patient partners. Our objective was to measure medical journal Editors-in-Chief' perceptions of including patients as (co-)authors on research publications and to measure their views on the application of the ICMJE (International Committee of Medical Journals Editors) authorship criteria to patient partners.MethodsWe conducted a cross-sectional survey co-developed with a patient partner. Editors-in-Chief of English-language medical journals were identified via a random sample of journals obtained from the Scopus source list. The key outcome measures were whether Editors-in-Chief believed: 1) patient partners should be (co-)authors and; 2) whether they felt the ICMJE criteria for authorship required modification for use with patient partners. We also measured Editors-in-Chief description of how their journal's operations incorporate patient partner perspectives.ResultsOne hundred twelve Editors-in-Chief responded to our survey (18.7% response rate; 66.69% male). Participants were able to skip any questions they did not want to answer, so there is missing data for some items. 69.2% (N = 74) of Editors-in-Chief indicated it was acceptable for patient partners to be authors or co-authors on published biomedical research articles, with the remaining 30.8% (N = 33) indicating this would not be appropriate. When asked specifically about the ICMJE authorship criteria, and whether this should be revised to be more inclusive of patient partners, 35.8% (N = 39) indicated it should be revised, 35.8% (N = 39) indicated it should not be revised, and 28.4% (N = 31) were unsure about a revision. 74.1% (N = 80) of Editors-in-Chief did not think patients should be required to have an academic affiliation to published while 16.7% (N = 18) and 9.3% (N = 10) indicated they should or were unsure. 3.6% (N = 4) of Editors-in-Chief indicated their journal had a policy that specifies how patients or patient partners should be considered as authors.ConclusionsOur findings highlight gaps that may act as barriers to patient partner participation in research. A key implication is the need for education and for consensus building within the biomedical community to establish processes that will facilitate equitable patient partners inclusion.
| S-EPMC8201727 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Neuroscience is an integrative discipline for which students must achieve broad-based proficiency in many of the sciences. We are motivated by the premise that student pursuit of proficiency in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) can be supported by awareness of the application of knowledge and tools from the various disciplines for solving complex problems. We refer to this awareness as "interdisciplinary awareness." Faculty from biology, chemistry, mathematics/computer science, physics, and psychology departments contributed to a novel integrative introductory neuroscience course with no pre-requisites. STEM concepts were taught in "flipped" class modules throughout the semester: Students viewed brief videos and completed accompanying homework assignments independently. In subsequent class meetings, students applied the STEM concepts to understand nervous system structure and function through engaged learning activities. The integrative introduction to neuroscience course was compared to two other courses to test the hypothesis that it would lead to greater gains in interdisciplinary awareness than courses that overlap in content but were not designed for this specific goal. Data on interdisciplinary awareness were collected using previously published tools at the beginning and end of each course, enabling within-subject analyses. Students in the integrative course significantly increased their identification of scientific terms as relevant to neuroscience in a term-discipline relevance survey and increased their use of terms related to levels of analysis (e.g., molecular, cellular, systems) in response to an open-ended prompt. These gains were seen over time within the integrative introduction to neuroscience course as well as relative to the other two courses.
| S-EPMC5777831 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionScientific collaboration is an important mechanism that enables the integration of the least developed countries into research activities. In the present study, we use the order of author signatures and addresses for correspondence in scientific publications as variables to analyze the interactions between countries of very high (VHHD), high (HHD), medium (MHD), and low human development (LHD).MethodologyWe identified all documents published between 2011 and 2015 in journals included in the Science Citation Index-Expanded categories' of Tropical Medicine, Infectious Diseases, Parasitology, and Pediatrics. We then classified the countries participating in the publications according to their Human Development Index (HDI), analyzing the international collaboration; positioning and influence of some countries over others in cooperative networks; their leadership; and the impact of the work based on the HDI and the type of collaboration.ResultsWe observed a high degree of international collaboration in all the areas analyzed, in the case of both LHD and MHD countries. We identified numerous cooperative links between VHHD countries and MHD/LHD countries, reflecting the fact that cooperative links are an important mechanism for integrating research activities into the latter. The countries with large emerging economies, such as Brazil and China stand out due to the dominance they exert in the collaborations established with the United States, the UK, and other European countries. The analysis of the leadership role of the countries, measured by the frequency of lead authorships, shows limited participation by MHD/LHD countries. This reduced participation among less developed countries is further accentuated by their limited presence in the addresses for correspondence. We observed significant statistical differences in the degree of citation according to the HDI of the participating countries.ConclusionsThe order of signatures and the address for correspondence in scientific publications are bibliographic characteristics that facilitate a precise, in-depth analysis of cooperative practices and their associations with concepts like dominance or leadership. This is useful to monitor the existing balance in research participation in health research publications.
| S-EPMC5549749 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Most scientific research is performed by teams, and for a long time, observers have inferred individual team members' contributions by interpreting author order on published articles. In response to increasing concerns about this approach, journals are adopting policies that require the disclosure of individual authors' contributions. However, it is not clear whether and how these disclosures improve upon the conventional approach. Moreover, there is little evidence on how contribution statements are written and how they are used by readers. We begin to address these questions in two studies. Guided by a conceptual model, Study 1 examines the relationship between author order and contribution statements on more than 12,000 articles to understand what information is provided by each. This analysis quantifies the risk of error when inferring contributions from author order and shows how this risk increases with team size and for certain types of authors. At the same time, the analysis suggests that some components of the value of contributions are reflected in author order but not in currently used contribution statements. Complementing the bibliometric analysis, Study 2 analyzes survey data from more than 6000 corresponding authors to examine how contribution statements are written and used. This analysis highlights important differences between fields and between senior versus junior scientists, as well as strongly diverging views about the benefits and limitations of contribution statements. On the basis of both studies, we highlight important avenues for future research and consider implications for a broad range of stakeholders.
| S-EPMC5687853 | biostudies-literature