Whose shoulders is health research standing on? Determining the key actors and contents of the prevailing biomedical research agenda.

BACKGROUND: Conflicts of interest in biomedical research can influence research results and drive research agendas away from public health priorities. Previous agenda-setting studies share two shortfalls: they only account for direct connections between academic institutions and firms, as well as potential bias based on researchers' personal beliefs. This paper's goal is to determine the key actors and contents of the prevailing health and biomedical sciences (HBMS) research agenda, overcoming these shortfalls. METHODS: We performed a bibliometric and lexical analysis of 95,415 scientific articles published between 1999 and 2018 in the highest impact factor journals within HBMS, using the Web of Science database and the CorText platform. HBMS's prevailing knowledge network of institutions was proxied with network maps where nodes represent affiliations and edges the most frequent co-authorships. The content of the prevailing HBMS research agenda was depicted through network maps of prevalent multi-terms found in titles, keywords, and abstracts. RESULTS: The HBMS research agendas of large private firms and leading academic institutions are intertwined. The prevailing HBMS agenda is mostly based on molecular biology (40% of the most frequent multi-terms), with an inclination towards cancer and cardiovascular research (15 and 8% of the most frequent multi-terms, respectively). Studies on pathogens and biological vectors related to recent epidemics are marginal (1% of the most frequent multi-terms). Content of the prevailing HBMS research agenda prioritizes research on pharmacological intervention over research on socio-environmental factors influencing disease onset or progression and overlooks, among others, the study of infectious diseases. CONCLUSIONS: Pharmaceutical corporations contribute to set HBMS's prevailing research agenda, which is mainly focused on a few diseases and research topics. A more balanced research agenda, together with epistemological approaches that consider socio-environmental factors associated with disease spreading, could contribute to being better prepared to prevent and treat more diverse pathologies and to improve overall health outcomes.

Highly prolific authors in medical science: from charisma to opportunism.

In medical science, publication record is considered to be a fundamental criterion to evaluate the cost-effectiveness and the reputation of institutions and individual scientists. In current academia, thousands of scientists demonstrate a hyperprolific academic behavior that is the resultant of multiple individual characteristics that can vary from extraordinary ability and teamwork to unjustified and unethical co-authorship. Editors, reviewers and readers should have high expectations from these authors in terms of research quality and ethos.

Cómo determinar en forma transparente y justa las autorías de un trabajo de investigación / How to determine in a transparent and fair way the authors of a research paper abstract

Para que una persona sea merecedora de la autoría de una investigación debe haber realizado alguna contribución académica sustancial para que esta pudiera llevarse a cabo y, además, ser capaz de dar cuenta públicamente de la integridad de sus procesos y sus resultados. Este artículo resume: 1) la matriz propuesta por L. W. Roberts para contribuir a definir las autorías durante las etapas iniciales de la investigación, 2) los criterios de autoría del Comité Internacional de Editores de Revistas Médicas para definir quiénes merecen dichos créditos y quiénes no, 3) la taxonomía de 14 roles propuesta por la Declaración CRediT para transparentar las tareas realizadas por cada una de las personas proclamadas autoras de una investigación biomédica y 4) las principales conductas que degradan la transparencia de las autorías. (AU)

For a person to deserve an investigation authorship he/she must have made some substantial academic contribution so that that research could be carried out and, in addition, must be able to publicly account for the integrity of their processes and their results. This article summarizes: 1) the matrix proposed by Roberts to help defining authorship during the initial stages of the investigation; 2) authorship criteria of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors to define who deserves such credits and who does not; 3) the 14-role taxonomy proposed by the CRediT Declaration to transparent the tasks performed by each of the proclaimed authors of a biomedical research; 4) the main behaviors that degrade the transparency of authorships. (AU)

Variations in Courtesy Authorship Perceptions and Practices Among Modern Surgical Journals: The Generation Gap.

BACKGROUND: Academic journals have adopted strict authorship guidelines to eliminate the addition of authors who have not met criteria, also known as "courtesy authors." We sought to analyze current perceptions, practices, and academic rank-related variations in courtesy authorship use among modern surgical journals. METHODS: Authors who published original research articles in 2014-2015 in eight surgical journals were surveyed and categorized as junior (JF) or senior faculty (SF) by years in practice. Responses regarding courtesy authorship perceptions and practices were analyzed. Subanalyses were performed based on journal impact factor. RESULTS: A total of 455 authors responded (34% JF versus 66% SF). SF were older (52 versus 39 y) and more predominantly male (80% versus 61%) versus JF. JF more frequently added a courtesy author to the index publication versus SF (23% versus 13%, P = 0.02), but had similar historical rates of adding courtesy authors (58% versus 51%, P = not significant) or being added as a courtesy author (29% versus 37%, P = not significant). JF felt courtesy authorship was more common in their practice and felt more pressure by superiors to add courtesy authors. Perceptions regarding the practice of courtesy authorship differed significantly, with 70% of JF feeling courtesy authorship use has not declined versus 45% of SF (P < 0.05). Both JF and SF cited courtesy authorship positives, including avoiding author conflicts (17% versus 33%, respectively) and increasing morale (25% versus 45%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Courtesy authorship use continues to be common among both JF and SF. However, perceptions about the benefits, harms, and pressures vary significantly by academic rank and with journal impact factor.

Scientific publications in cancer: in Latin America, strong scientific networks increase productivity (the TENJIN study).

OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study are to evaluate the relationship between authorship networking, socioeconomic factors, and scientific productivity across Latin America. METHODS: In a bibliometric analysis of cancer-related Latin-American publications, the relationship between authorship network indicators, sociodemographic factors, and number of peer-reviewed indexed publications per country was explored. A systematic review of the literature for cancer publications between 2000 and 2018 using the Scopus database limited to Latin-American authors was used for the construction of coauthorship and publication networks and their respective metrics. Sociodemographic variables including percentage of invested gross domestic product in research, population, and cancer incidence were also estimated. Multiple linear regression models were constructed to determine the relationship between productivity and the aforementioned variables. RESULTS: A total of 8,528 articles across nine countries were included. Brazil was the most productive nation with 41.8% of identified references followed by Mexico (16.6%) and Argentina (12.9%). Latin America experienced a 9% growth in number of publications across the studied time frame. After analyzing networking and sociodemographic variables, number of authors in a collaboration network and percentage of invested gross domestic product were associated with high productivity yielding a multiple regression model with an R2 value of 0.983. CONCLUSIONS: This study indicates that extensive authorship networking and a high investment in research strongly predict cancer-related productivity.

Lack of accountability in upholding authorship standards in prominent medical oncology clinical trials.

Authorship in biomedical publications is critical for establishing accountability and contribution toward clinical and scientific research. We examined the frequency of discordance in authorship between presentations of clinical trial data at annual meetings of the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the subsequent peer-reviewed publications. We found that more than 70% of subsequent publications had additional authors not originally present on the abstract despite there being no changes in trial accrual or trial design. This pervasive discordance in authorship demonstrates a lack of uniformity and accountability in authorship reporting standards.

Courtesy Authorship in Academic Surgery Publications.

Importance: Courtesy authorship is defined as including an individual who has not met authorship criteria as an author. Although most journals follow strict authorship criteria, the current incidence of courtesy authorship is unknown. Objective: To assess the practices related to courtesy authorship in surgical journals and academia. Design, Setting, and Participants: A survey was conducted from July 15 to October 27, 2017, of the first authors and senior authors of original articles, reviews, and clinical trials published between 2014 and 2015 in 8 surgical journals categorized as having a high or low impact factor. Main Outcomes and Measures: The prevalence of courtesy authorship overall and among subgroups of authors in high impact factor journals and low impact factor journals and among first authors and senior authors, as well as author opinions regarding courtesy authorship. Results: A total of 203 first authors and 254 senior authors responded (of 369 respondents who provided data on sex, 271 were men and 98 were women), with most being in academic programs (first authors, 116 of 168 [69.0%]; senior authors, 173 of 202 [85.6%]). A total of 17.2% of respondents (42 of 244) reported adding courtesy authors for the surveyed publications: 20.4% by first authors (32 of 157) and 11.5% by senior authors (10 of 87), but 53.7% (131 of 244) reported adding courtesy authorship on prior publications and 33.2% (81 of 244) had been added as a courtesy author in the past. Although 45 of 85 senior authors (52.9%) thought that courtesy authorship has decreased, 93 of 144 first authors (64.6%) thought that courtesy authorship has not changed or had increased (P = .03). There was no difference in the incidence of courtesy authorship for low vs high impact factor journals. Both first authors (29 of 149 [19.5%]) and senior authors (19 of 85 [22.4%]) reported pressures to add courtesy authorship, but external pressure was greater for low impact factor journals than for high impact factor journals (77 of 166 [46.4%] vs 60 of 167 [35.9%]; P = .04). More authors in low impact factor journals than in high impact factor journals thought that courtesy authorship was less harmful to academia (55 of 114 [48.2%] vs 34 of 117 [29.1%]). Overall, senior authors reported more positive outcomes with courtesy authorship (eg, improved morale and avoided author conflicts) than did first authors. Conclusions and Relevance: Courtesy authorship use is common by both first and senior authors in low impact factor journals and high impact factor journals. There are different perceptions, practices, and pressures to include courtesy authorship for first and senior authors. Understanding these issues will lead to better education to eliminate this practice.

Autoría de regalo: una aproximación a su frecuencia en una revista peruana / Gift authorship: An approach to its frequency in a Peruvian journal

Resumen Introducción. La autoría injustificada o 'autoría de regalo' es una práctica inadecuada que consiste en nombrar como autores a personas que no cumplen los criterios de autoría. Los informes de investigaciones científicas suelen ser publicados como artículos originales en revistas científicas y pueden presentar estas prácticas inadecuadas. Objetivos. Determinar la prevalencia de autoría de regalo en publicaciones de artículos originales. Materiales y métodos. Se trata de un estudio descriptivo en el cual se revisó la sección de contribuciones de autoría de todos los artículos publicados en una revista peruana desde enero de 2013 hasta marzo de 2017. Se consideró una autoría de regalo cuando un autor no cumplía con, al menos, uno de los criterios establecidos por el International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). Resultados. De los 209 artículos originales publicados, 11 fueron excluidos debido a que no reportaron las contribuciones de autoría. La prevalencia de autoría de regalo de los 198 artículos incluidos fue de 106 (53,5 %). Los criterios que menos cumplieron fueron la aprobación final del manuscrito (23,2 %), y su redacción y revisión crítica (16,8 %). Conclusiones. Es necesario que las instituciones educativas capaciten a los investigadores para que discriminen entre autoría y contribución. Además, es necesario que las revistas soliciten y corroboren las contribuciones reportadas.

Abstract Introduction: Unjustified authorship or "gift authorship" is an inadequate practice of authorship that consists of naming as authors people who do not meet the authorship criteria. Reports of scientific research are often published as original articles in scientific journals and may present these inappropriate practices. Objective: Determine the prevalence of gift authorship in original articles for publication. Materials and methods:. Descriptive study in which the authorship contributions section of all the articles published between 2013 and the first quarter of 2017 in a Peruvian magazine was reviewed. Gift authorship was considered when an author did not meet at least one of the criteria established by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). Results: Of the 209 original articles published, 11 were excluded because they did not report authorship contributions. The prevalence of gift authorship was 53.5% (106). The critreria least met were the final approval of the manuscript (23.2%) and the writing and critical review of this manuscript. (16.8%). Conclusions: It is necessary that educational institutions train researchers to distinguish between authorship and contribution. In addition, it is necessary that the journals request and corroborate the reported contributions.

National criteria for academic appointment in vascular surgery.

OBJECTIVE: Advancement in academic medicine is multifactorial. Our objectives were to characterize academic appointments in vascular surgery and to investigate what factors, particularly publications, influenced academic appointment. METHODS: Academic vascular surgeons at Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education vascular training programs or at primary sites of U.S. allopathic medical schools were included. Those with qualified titles, such as "adjunct" or a "clinical" prefix, were excluded. Sex, education, region, board certification, and affiliation details were recorded. Web of Science was queried for publication details and h-index. The h-index is a "personal impact factor" defined as "x" number of publications cited at least "x" number of times. After surgeons' information was deidentified, univariate and multivariable analyses were completed for academic appointment and appointment as division chief. RESULTS: There were 642 vascular surgeons who met criteria: 297 (46.3%) assistant professors, 150 (23.4%) associate professors, and 195 (30.4%) professors. There were 96 (15%) division chiefs and 10 (1.6%) chairs of surgery, and 83.2% were male. Surgeons worked in the Northeast (33.5%), Southern (32.6%), Central (20.1%), and Western (13.9%) United States. The mean (±standard deviation) number of publications was 13.7 ± 15.4 for assistant professors, 33.9 ± 28.8 for associate professors, and 86.8 ± 63.6 for professors (P < .001). Mean number of first or last author publications was 5.3 ± 6.4 for assistant professors, 12.2 ± 12.7 for associate professors, and 38.7 ± 35.3 for professors (P < .001). Mean h-index was 5.9 ± 5.4 for assistant professors, 12 ± 7.7 for associate professors, and 24.9 ± 12.6 for professors (P < .001). In multivariable analysis, vascular surgery board certification (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 6.08; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.15-32.2; P = .03), academic appointment at a public medical school (OR, 1.99; 95% CI, 1.18-3.37; P = .01), years since medical school graduation (OR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.09-1.18; P < .001, per year), and number of publications (OR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.03-1.06; P < .001, per publication) were independently associated with associate professor. Factors independently associated with professor were years since medical school graduation (OR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.12-1.24; P < .001, per year) and number of first or last author publications (OR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.02-1.09; P = .003, per publication). Appointment as division chief was independently associated with h-index (OR, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.01-1.08; P = .016, per point). CONCLUSIONS: Total number of publications was independently associated with associate professor, with number of first or last author publications particularly important for professor. The h-index was not independently associated with academic appointment, but it was for appointment as division chief. This study provides relevant data for promotional guidance in academic vascular surgery.

Cómo tener éxito al empezar a publicar en revistas médicas. Consideraciones para autores inexpertos, que podrían interesar también a los expertos / How can you succeed in having your manuscript published in a medical journal. Advices to inexpert authors that can also be useful to senior authors

Young authors may benefit by some advices on how to proceed when they decide to write a manuscript and submit it to a medical journal. They should start by selecting the journal considering the topic and nature of their study, how relevant the results seem and the interest it may have in editors and readers. A reasonable choice should consider new journals that publish good papers selected after external peer review. Then they should study and follow the Instructions to Authors of the chosen journal. A strong call is given to recognize and avoid "predatory journals". Specific statements refer to Instructions to Authors and language requirements by the journal, the need to follow "ICMJE Recommendations", the correct assignment of authorship, and a strict observance of ethical regulations in biomedical and clinical research. Special mention is given to provide a good abstract, in English, either descriptive or structured depending on the nature of their study. These advices may be useful as well as a reminder to older authors on how to improve their manuscripts before submitting them to a mainstream medical journal.

Author Disclosures in Plastic Surgery Journals Compared With Information Reported in the Open Payments Database: How Open Are We?

BACKGROUND: Relationships between companies in the biomedical industry and authors submitting scientific articles for publication has been an issue of some concern for many years. It has been frequently demonstrated that these financial relationships can influence the manner in which research findings are presented. The National Physician Payment Transparency Program, also known as the Open Payment Program or the Sunshine Act, was legislated to expose potential conflicts of interest (COIs). Likewise, most peer-reviewed journals require disclosure of any potential COIs. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this paper was to compare the information published in the Open Payment Database to authors' self-disclosed COIs in their published articles. METHODS: An analysis was performed by one of the authors (P.S.B.) of all articles published in Aesthetic Surgery Journal (ASJ) and Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery (PRS) from August 2013 through December 2016. Financial disclosures reported in these articles were compared with the physician payment information provided by the biomedical industry and published in the Open Payments Database in 2013 and 2018. RESULTS: A total of 1346 articles were included in the study, from which 320 authors and 899 total authorships were eligible for analysis. Out of 782 authorships with noted discrepancies, 96% were related to potential COIs found in the Open Payments database but not disclosed in the journal publication. CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest major discordance between authors' self-reported COIs in the plastic surgery literature and industry payments published in the Open Payments database.

A Pathway to Publishing an Oncology Nursing Book.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the process of book publishing, including authoring and revising book chapters, and provide resources on book publishing opportunities for oncology nurses. DATA SOURCES: Journal articles, book publishers' information for authors, online publishing resources, discussions with textbook editors, personal experience. CONCLUSION: Few published resources exist to guide nurses as they author and/or revise books and book chapters. In addition, book publishing presents unique considerations, such as authorship of subsequent editions, and new opportunities, such as self-publishing and electronic textbook formats. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE: Textbooks are enduring repositories of comprehensive information used by both students and clinicians. Oncology nurses have expert research and clinical expertise that can contribute to this body of published nursing knowledge and ultimately improve the care of people with cancer.

Interprofessional Collaboration: The Future of Publishing in Oncology.

OBJECTIVES: To explore avenues for establishing or expanding interprofessional (IP) collaboration, to provide guidance on authoring IP oncology publications, and to highlight platforms for IP publishing. DATA SOURCES: Journal articles, organizational guidelines, panel reports, and personal experience. CONCLUSION: As health care becomes an increasingly IP field, publications authored by IP groups will become more common, and additional platforms for IP publication will be created. IP publications may ultimately replace some of the traditional, single-profession-focused publications in print today. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE: Oncology care is ideally delivered by IP teams. In collaboration with this team, oncology nurses can identify topics suitable for publication, publish in IP journals, and tailor publications to be accessible and applicable to an IP audience.