A quantitative analysis of publication trends in Iranian medical ethics and a comparison with EMRO countries.

BACKGROUND: Evaluating publication trends in a research area helps assess organised scientific efforts in the particular academic field. This study aims to evaluate and compare trends in medical ethics publications in the Eastern Mediterranean Region (EMRO) countries. METHODS: A scoping review was conducted to identify publication trends of Iranian and EMRO medical ethicists. Databases were searched, including Web of Sciences, Scopus, and PubMed for English language articles, which were published by countries in the World Health Organization EMRO regions. Iranian articles were searched in Persian and English language databases. The search strategy for the bioethics filter created by the Kennedy Institute of Ethics. Duplicate entries, tertiary publications and grey literature were excluded. All retrieved articles were categorised into ten main groups. Citavi software® was used for categorising and extracting articles' information. RESULTS: A total of 1835 English and Persian articles were obtained. Most (1211, 66%) Iranian publications in medical ethics were in Persian, and the rest (624, 34%) were in English. Most (306, 64.42%) of the published English articles in the EMRO region were authored by Iranian scholars, followed by those from Saudi Arabia (52, 10.95%), Oman (40, 8.42%), Pakistan (28, 5.89%), Lebanon (13, 2.74%), and Egypt (12, 2.53%). CONCLUSION: The results of this study show that the trend of publication of EMRO countries, especially Iranian publications, is insufficient to respond to national demands in medical ethics. A concept map has been presented to determine research needs in medical ethics. Focusing on national and regional research potentials could synergistically affect medical ethics progress in the EMRO region.

Emerging global trends and development in forensic toxicology: A review.

This study conducts a comprehensive analysis of forensic toxicology research trends, publication patterns, author's contributions, and collaboration. Utilizing the Scopus database, we scrutinized 3259 articles across 348 journals spanning from 1975 to 2023. Analysis employed diverse software tools such as VOSviewer, RStudio, MS Excel, and MS Access to dissect various publication aspects. We observed a notable surge in publications post-2007, indicating heightened research interest. Leading contributors included the United States, Germany, and Italy, with Logan B.K. emerging as the most prolific author. Forensic Science International stood out as the primary journal, publishing 888 articles and accruing significant citations. Keyword co-occurrences such as "forensic toxicology," "forensic science," and "toxicology" underscored core thematic areas in the field. Moreover, extensive research collaboration, especially among Western nations in Europe, was evident. This study underscores the imperative for enhanced collaboration between developing and developed nations to foster further advancements in forensic science. Strengthened partnerships can catalyze innovation, facilitate knowledge dissemination, and address emerging challenges, thereby propelling the field of forensic toxicology toward new frontiers of discovery and application.

Cardiology researchers' practices and perceived barriers to open science: an international survey.

OBJECTIVE: Open science is a movement and set of practices to conduct research more transparently. Implementing open science will significantly improve public access and supports equity. It also has the potential to foster innovation and reduce duplication through data and materials sharing. Here, we survey an international group of researchers publishing in cardiovascular journals regarding their perceptions and practices related to open science. METHODS: We identified the top 100 'Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine' subject category journals from the SCImago journal ranking platform. This is a publicly available portal that draws from Scopus. We then extracted the corresponding author's name and email from all articles published in these journals between 1 March 2021 and 1 March 2022. Participants were sent a purpose-built survey about open science. The survey contained primarily multiple choice and scale-based questions for which we report count data and percentages. For the few text-based responses we conducted thematic content analysis. RESULTS: 198 participants responded to our survey. Participants had a mean response of 6.8 (N=197, SD=1.8) on a 9-point scale with endpoints, not at all familiar (1) and extremely familiar (9), when indicating how familiar they were with open science. When asked about where they obtained open science training, most participants indicated this was done on the job self-initiated while conducting research (n=103, 52%), or that they had no formal training with respect to open science (n=72, 36%). More than half of the participants indicated they would benefit from practical support from their institution on how to perform open science practices (N=106, 54%). A diversity of barriers to each of the open science practices presented to participants were acknowledged. Participants indicated that funding was the most essential incentive to adopt open science. CONCLUSIONS: It is clear that policy alone will not lead to the effective implementation of open science. This survey serves as a baseline for the cardiovascular research community's open science performance and perception and can be used to inform future interventions and monitoring.

World trends in publication for maxillofacial and dental trauma in the elderly.

Aging may increase the risk of maxillofacial and dentoalveolar trauma (MDT). This review assessed global trends in scientific publications on MDT in the elderly. Six databases were searched. Studies about MDT in the elderly (≥60 years old) were included in two text mining stages (S1 and S2). In S1, all studies with elderly subjects were included, while in S2 only studies in which the elderly were assessed in a separate set of data or in a subanalysis by age groups were included. In S1, relevant data were mined using VantagePoint™ software. In S2, data were descriptively analyzed. There were 2265 studies at S1 and 110 at S2. The publication dates spanned from 1963 to 2023. In S1, the most cited keywords and terms were aged (n = 1872), male (n = 1839), female (n = 1777), "mandible fracture" (n = 460), "orbit fracture" (n = 362), and "maxilla fracture" (n = 118). Thirty authors published 10 or more articles with visible collaboration networks. There was a progressive increase in publications, especially in Europe (n = 150). In S2, most studies were case reports/case series (n = 62). The primary etiology was accidental falls (n = 84), the most affected region was the middle third of the face (n = 65), and dental trauma was rarely reported (n = 15). Cone Beam computed tomography was the most used diagnostic tool (n = 67). Of the 81 articles that addressed therapy, 52 opted for surgical treatment. Although there has been an increase in the number of articles on MDT over the years, studies with the elderly population as a specific study group are still needed. Accidental falls were the most reported etiology, while the middle third of the face and the mandible were the anatomic region and bone most affected, respectively. The high number of case reports indicates the need for improvement in the available scientific evidence about MDT in the elderly.

Ranking the community psychology research output of institutions and authors: A new system of evaluating the field.

There have been multiple efforts to evaluate the contributions of the field of Community Psychology, and one of the more popular methods has involved gathering citations and articles published in Community Psychology journals. In recent years, several sites have gathered citation analysis and article publication rates so that it is now relatively easy to summarize settings and scholar rankings. In the current study, articles published in the two major journals of the field of Community Psychology over the past five decades were evaluated for these publications and citations. Findings indicated that several of the settings with highest publication and citation rates have not developed Community Psychology graduate programs, thus indicating that many publishing authors are in settings without formal graduate programs in Community Psychology. The benefits and limitations of this method of ranking programs and individuals are reviewed.

"Dear Doctor, greetings of the day!": A 1-year observational study of presumed predatory journal invitations.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed at investigating the predatory publishing phenomenon in orthodontics by analyzing the content of unsolicited e-mail invitations received within 12 months. METHODS: All electronic invitations for manuscript submission, review and editorial membership received between 1 October 2021 and 30 September 2022 were collected from an orthodontist's inbox. The following data were recorded for each e-mail: date, journal title and origin, requested contribution, e-mail language, relevance to the researcher's discipline, journal characteristics (claimed metrics, editorial services, article types accepted, and publication fees), journal/publisher contact information and online presence. Journal/Publisher legitimacy and publishing standards were evaluated by listing in the Beall's list of potential predatory journals and publishers, the Predatory Reports of Cabell's Scholarly Analytics, and the Directory of Open Access Journals. RESULTS: A total of 875 e-mail invitations deriving from 256 journals were retrieved within the observation period, with most of them soliciting article submissions. More than 76% of the solicitations originated from journals and publishers included in the blocklists used in the study. Salient features of predatory journals like flattering language, abundant grammatical errors, unclear publication charges and wide variety of article types and topics accepted for publication were confirmed for the examined journals/publishers. CONCLUSIONS: Nearly 8 out of 10 unsolicited e-mail invitations sent to orthodontists for scholarly contribution may be related to journals suspicious for publishing malpractices and suboptimal standards. Excessive flattering language, grammatical errors, broad range of submissions, and incomplete journal contact information were commonly encountered findings. Researchers in orthodontics should be alert to the unethical policies of illegitimate journals and their harmful consequences on the scientific literature.