A Review of Authorship Inflation and Multicenter Collaboration Trends in Orthopedic, Medical, and Surgical Journals Over the Last 60 Years.

Over the past six decades, authorship numbers in academic publications have increased significantly, a phenomenon known as authorship inflation. This study aims to analyze comparative authorship trends and the influence of multicenter collaborations across major orthopedic, medical, and surgical journals. We reviewed metadata from The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), Annals of Surgery (AS), and The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (JBJS) from January 1, 1960, to December 31, 2019. The number of authors per publication, the prevalence of multicenter studies, and their correlation were analyzed. Data was visualized using heat maps and box plots, and trends were statistically tested using the Jonckheere-Terpstra, Mann-Kendall, and generalized linear mixed models (GLMMs). A total of 73,062 articles were analyzed, with 1,190 articles identified as originating from multicenter studies. The number of multicenter trials was found to have increased significantly over time (p < 0.001), plateauing in NEJM but continuing to rise in JBJS and AS. There was a significant increase in authorship numbers per publication over time, across all journals (p < 0.0001). There was a significant statistical correlation (p < 0.0001) as indicated by the coefficient of determination (r2), for the association between the proportion of publications with >10 authors and the proportion of multicenter publications across all three journals. Authorship inflation in academic publishing may be attributable to the rise in multicenter collaborations. The rate of increase in authorship was more pronounced in medical and surgical journals compared to orthopedic journals, reflecting differing trends across specialties. These findings highlight the evolving nature of research collaboration and authorship practices in academic publishing.

Robotic surgery: bibliometric analysis, continental distribution, and co-words analysis from 2001 to 2023.

The project aimed to conduct an up-to-date and comprehensive bibliometric analysis of robotic surgery to provide a detailed and holistic understanding of the field. Three strategies were employed in the data analysis i.e. search terms were explored in (A) the title, abstract, and keywords and (B) only in the title of the documents. In 3rd part we analyzed the top 100 most cited papers. Vosviewer and R Studio were utilized for detailed bibliometric and network analyses. Strategy one identified 38,469 publications, and strategy two identified 6451 publications from 2001 to 2023. The top authors, universities, countries, sponsors, and sources based on the number of publications were identified for both strategies. The top 100 most cited papers were analyzed, providing the annual number of publications and various citation metrics. Top authors (by number of publications, total citations, h-index, g-index, and m-index), universities, and countries within these highly cited papers, along with their co-authorship networks and dynamics, were examined. Co-words analysis of the top 100 most cited papers revealed the primary focus of these documents across 25 categories. This comprehensive bibliometric analysis of robotic surgery highlighted significant contributions and collaborations in the field, emphasizing the importance of global and collaborative efforts in advancing robotic surgery research.

Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Academic Productivity in Oncology: A Journal-, Conference- and Author-Level Analysis.

This study assessed the impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on academic productivity in oncology, measured by conference abstracts, journal publications and individual authorship trends, using a reference time frame of 2018 to 2022. To assess overall academic productivity, data was obtained on the number of abstracts and articles submitted and published from a selection of oncology conferences and journals. To assess individual authorship patterns, 200 articles were randomly selected from 2018, and for the first or last authors, publications were tracked over subsequent years. Factors assessed included gender, continent, specialty, MD vs. non-MD and career status (early vs. late). The number of submitted and published conference abstracts trended downward over time between 2018 and 2022 (p=0.11 and p=0.16 respectively). Journal submissions increased to a peak in 2020 and then declined thereafter, but this did not translate into changes in the number of papers published. For the author-level analysis, factors significantly predictive of increasing publication rates in multivariable analysis were late career status (vs. early), clinician status (vs. non-clinician), surgery or public health/epidemiology specialty, and author located in Asia. Further research is needed to help ameliorate the impact of these disparities.

Exploring the Landscape of Social Epidemiological Research: A Scoping Review of AJE Publications.

As social epidemiology is a growing interdisciplinary field with a broad scope, this scoping review investigated its current landscape based on articles published in the American Journal of Epidemiology. Among 1,194 extracted records between 2013 and 2022 submitted under the "social" category, we identified 178 accepted articles that had a social factor as a primary exposure. We categorized social exposures into nine major domains, and health outcomes into eight domains. Study design, population, and authorship were also analyzed. Our findings indicate that social epi studies reflect a range of social exposures, including socioeconomic position (37%), neighborhood and built environment (20%), race, racism, and discrimination (16%), and policy and social welfare (12%). The most frequently studied health outcomes were non-communicable diseases and chronic conditions (42%), mental health (14%), and maternal and child health outcomes (11%). Most studies had quantitative observational designs and focused on high-income countries, particularly the U.S. contexts. Most authors appeared only once, suggesting a range of voices as contributors. Findings suggest that, to enhance knowledge, social epi could benefit from a greater representation of social factors beyond tangible resources, a broader range of health outcomes, study designs and populations, and low- and middle-income countries.

Gender Gap in Cardiothoracic Surgery Randomized Controlled Trial and posthoc analysis of Randomized Controlled Trial Authorship from 2014 to 2020.

OBJECTIVES: To estimate gender disparities among first and last authorships in cardiothoracic randomized controlled trials(RCTs) and association of gender with publications in high impact journals. METHODS: PubMed/MEDLINE database was searched from January 1st , 2014-December 31st , 2020 using R statistical software via "easyPubMed" package to retrieve pertinent data. The "gender" package was utilized to determine gender using the United States Social Security Administration Baby Name Data. The percentage of women first and last authors were computed along with determining the uniqueness of the names. The association of gender and publication in high impact peer-reviewed journals was delineated. Jonckheere'e trend was computed. RESULTS: The database search retrieved total of 4820 RCTs. Of which, gender was encoded for first author of 3247 [67%] RCTs, among which 911[28%] studies had women as first authors with a similar trend across seven years [P value 0.23]. Gender was encoded for last author of 3204 [66%] RCTs, of which 622 [19%] studies had women as last authors with a similar trend across seven years [P value 0.45]. A total of 627 studies were published in high impact factor journals, among which 79[16%] studies had women first authors and 67[13%] studies had women last authors. CONCLUSIONS: There is an obvious gender disparity of first and last authors in cardiothoracic surgery related RCTs with a similar trend across seven years. However, the post-hoc analysis did demonstrate a positive trend with increase in the number of female first authors demonstrating progress.

Evolution of documents related to the influence of physical activity and functional capacity throughout the aging process: a bibliometric review.

Physical inactivity can lead to frailty and negative health outcomes in middle-aged to older adults. Sedentary individuals have double the risk of death compared to those who engage in high levels of physical activity (PA). The advantages of practicing PA in older age are significant, with regular, moderate-intensity activity (150 min per week)being consistently linked with a decreased risk of chronic disease, cognitive decline, and mortality. Therefore, the study aimed to carry out a bibliometric review related to the terms "Physical activity," "Functional capacity" and "Aging" including all the documents published in the Web of Science Core Collection until 31st December 2023. The sample was made up of 231 studies related to the topic. The results reported that the first document was published in 1994. However, there was no continuity in the publication of the documents till 1998, which was the first year with at least one document published. Considering 1998 as the first year, it is observed an exponential growth of 77.4%, between the oldest (1997-2008) and contemporaneous studies (2008-2023), in which "Geriatric Gerontology" was the Web of Science category with the highest number of documents (n = 59). The journal "Experimental Gerontology" was associated with the largest number of published documents (n = 7), being indexed in Quartil 2. The years 2009 had the highest number of citations (n = 1811), with a total of 7 documents published and 2018 with the higher number of documents (n = 25). These results reported the importance of PA in elderly people, and how it influences the risk of falls, improving the balance and the functional capacity. Thus, it is important to carry out programmes to promote physical activity to this population and reduce the risk of falls and the presence of diseases.

Mind the gap: Gender disparities in authorship in the Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Sciences.

INTRODUCTION: Research studies tracking gender and academic publication productivity in healthcare find gender disparities in research activity, publication, and authorship. Article authorship is one of the important metrics to track when seeking to understand gender inequality in academic career advancement. Research on gender disparities in publication productivity in the field of Medical Radiation Science (MRS) is very limited thus this study analyses and explains potential gender differences in article authorship and acceptance for publication in the Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Sciences (JMIRS) for a 5-year period (2017-2021). METHODS: Gender was inferred based on the author's first name or title (e.g., Mr, Mrs or Ms). For those who left the title blank or reported as 'Dr' or 'Prof,' a series of steps were taken to identify their gender. Where gender was impossible to ascribe, these authors were excluded. Descriptive and inferential statistics are reported for the study population. Descriptive and inferential statistics are used. Percentages of females are reported, and males constitute the other portion. Chi-square, slope analysis and z-tests were used to test hypotheses. RESULTS: Results show that female authorship overall and in all categories of authorship placement (i.e., first, last and corresponding) increased over the timeframe reviewed. The percentage gain in the increase was higher than that for male authorship. However, male authorship started from a higher baseline in 2017 and has also increased year on year and overall, as well as in each placement category examined. More female authors were in the MRS sub-specialism Radiation Therapy (RT) than in the other MRS sub-specialisms. Analysis of the acceptance rate of articles with female authors shows a weak downward trend, and this may be related to higher submission and acceptance rates of articles by male authors during the same period. CONCLUSION: Male authors are overrepresented in all categories, which raises questions about the persistence of gender disparities in JMIRS authorship and article acceptance. Positive trends in female authorship indicate progress, yet there is the persistence of the significant under-representation of women in the Medical Radiation Sciences workforce in academic publishing. Recruiting more males to address the gender imbalance in the profession should not be at the expense of females' career progression.

Tips and tricks for writing a manuscript to publish in a biomedical journal. / Consejos para escribir un manuscrito y publicarlo en una revista biomédica.

Science barely exists until it is published. It is only then that the information surpasses the limits of the author and can be shared by the scientific community. Although scientific articles must follow a rigidly defined structure, there is still room to tell a fascinating story, one that clearly conveys the science and is, at the same time, enjoyable for the reader. To do this, we must use the attributes that characterize good scientific style, with simple, clear, precise, direct, rigorous, and consistent language. Authorship implies authenticity and authority, and considering a researcher as an author entails rights and responsibilities. Scientific writing is not easy, it requires patience and practice; learning to write well is a lifelong task. With the philosophy that most of the qualities required to proficiently write a scientific article depend on attitude, and can be learned and improved upon, in this manuscript we will share with the reader a series of recommendations (based on our own experiences, both positive and negative), which we consider important for writing and successfully publishing. We will focus on the so-called «original¼ articles (as opposed to review articles, although many of the recommendations presented are applicable to both). Our main purpose is to encourage researchers to take the necessary step and face the challenge of becoming authors of their own scientific articles and successfully publishing their research.

Gender inequalities in oral medicine and pathology research: Temporal trends of two decades.

OBJECTIVES: To analyze gender inequities and trends in the authorship of articles published in high-impact factor journals of the field of Oral Medicine and Pathology. METHODS: The gender and country of first and last authors were retrieved from original articles published between 2000 and 2022. Poisson regression models and classification and regression tree (CART) analysis were performed. RESULTS: A total of 6595 studies were analyzed for first authorship, and 6627 for last authorship. Only 39.2% (CI 95% 38.0-40.3) of the first authors and 24.1% (CI 95% 23.1-25.1) of the last authors were females. Females consistently faced underrepresentation throughout the 23-year evaluation. The only region where female first authors are not a minority is Latin America. Having a female as the last author increased the prevalence of females in the first author position by 42% (PR = 1.42, CI 95% [1.30-1.54]). The most important discriminant variable by CART was the first author region. CONCLUSION: Although a slight decrease in underrepresentation was noted over the period, after 2020, the gender gap tended to widen for both first and last authors. It is crucial to implement measures aimed at attracting, retaining, and advancing women in the field of science, while also actively monitoring advancements toward achieving gender equity.

Integrity at stake: confronting "publish or perish" in the developing world and emerging economies.

The scientific community faces significant ethical challenges due to the "publish or perish" culture, particularly in developing and emerging economies. This paper explores the widespread unethical practices in scientific publishing, including the sale of authorships, the proliferation of "paper mills," and the misuse of artificial intelligence to produce fraudulent research. These practices undermine the integrity of scientific research, skew publication metrics, and distort academic rankings. This study examines various instances of academic fraud, emphasizing the impact on low-income countries, with specific cases from Latin America. Recommendations include stricter verification of authorship, disciplinary measures for scientific fraud, and policies promoting transparency and accountability in research. Addressing these challenges is crucial for maintaining the integrity and credibility of scientific endeavors globally.

Coercion Authorship: Ubiquitous and Preventable.

Coercion authorship (CA), typically enforced by principal investigators, has detrimental effects on graduate students, young researchers, and the entire scientific endeavor. Although CA is ubiquitous, its occurrence and major determinants have been mainly explored among graduate students and junior scientists in Sweden, Norway, and Denmark where the ratio of CA ranged from 13 to 40%. In addition to lacking comparable figures, developing countries usually lack institutional plans for promoting integrity and effective deterrents against CA and other malpractices. Hence, universities and research centers therein must publish their authorship policies and implement specific strategies to instruct graduate students, junior scientists, and experienced researchers on integrity, publishing ethics, and responsible authorship. Finally, I remark that the primary responsibility of principal researchers to promote fair authorship practices and discourage unfair ones is even greater when it comes to CA due to the asymmetrical power relationship between senior authors and novice scientists.

Twenty-Five Years of Progress-Lessons Learned From JMIR Publications to Address Gender Parity in Digital Health Authorships: Bibliometric Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Digital health research plays a vital role in advancing equitable health care. The diversity of research teams is thereby instrumental in capturing societal challenges, increasing productivity, and reducing bias in algorithms. Despite its importance, the gender distribution within digital health authorship remains largely unexplored. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to investigate the gender distribution among first and last authors in digital health research, thereby identifying predicting factors of female authorship. METHODS: This bibliometric analysis examined the gender distribution across 59,980 publications from 1999 to 2023, spanning 42 digital health journals indexed in the Web of Science. To identify strategies ensuring equality in research, a detailed comparison of gender representation in JMIR journals was conducted within the field, as well as against a matched sample. Two-tailed Welch 2-sample t tests, Wilcoxon rank sum tests, and chi-square tests were used to assess differences. In addition, odds ratios were calculated to identify predictors of female authorship. RESULTS: The analysis revealed that 37% of first authors and 30% of last authors in digital health were female. JMIR journals demonstrated a higher representation, with 49% of first authors and 38% of last authors being female, yielding odds ratios of 1.96 (95% CI 1.90-2.03; P<.001) and 1.78 (95% CI 1.71-1.84; P<.001), respectively. Since 2008, JMIR journals have consistently featured a greater proportion of female first authors than male counterparts. Other factors that predicted female authorship included having female authors in other relevant positions and gender discordance, given the higher rate of male last authors in the field. CONCLUSIONS: There was an evident shift toward gender parity across publications in digital health, particularly from the publisher JMIR Publications. The specialized focus of its sister journals, equitable editorial policies, and transparency in the review process might contribute to these achievements. Further research is imperative to establish causality, enabling the replication of these successful strategies across other scientific fields to bridge the gender gap in digital health effectively.

Is AI my co-author? The ethics of using artificial intelligence in scientific publishing.

The recent emergence of Large Language Models (LLMs) and other forms of Artificial Intelligence (AI) has led people to wonder whether they could act as an author on a scientific paper. This paper argues that AI systems should not be included on the author by-line. We agree with current commentators that LLMs are incapable of taking responsibility for their work and thus do not meet current authorship guidelines. We identify other problems with responsibility and authorship. In addition, the problems go deeper as AI tools also do not write in a meaningful sense nor do they have persistent identities. From a broader publication ethics perspective, adopting AI authorship would have detrimental effects on an already overly competitive and stressed publishing ecosystem. Deterrence is possible as backward-looking tools will likely be able to identify past AI usage. Finally, we question the value of using AI to produce more research simply for publication's sake.