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.

Science should save all, not just some.

Discussions around global equity and justice in science typically emphasize the lack of diversity in the editorial boards of scientific journals, inequities in authorship, "parachute research," dominance of the English language, or scientific awards garnered predominantly by Global North scientists. These inequities are pervasive and must be redressed. But there is a bigger problem. The legacy of colonialism in scientific research includes an intellectual property system that favors Global North countries and the big corporations they support. This unfairness shows up in who gets access to the fruits of science and raises the question of who science is designed to serve or save.

Scientific misconduct responsibility attribution: An empirical study on byline position and team identity in Chinese medical papers.

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.

Top 100 most-cited papers on diabetes mellitus in Dentistry: a bibliometric study.

This study assessed the features of the 100 most-cited papers on diabetes mellitus (DM) in dentistry using bibliometric measures. A search of the most cited papers on DM using journals included in the category "Dentistry, Oral Surgery and Medicine" in the Web of Science database up to January 2023 was performed. The complete bibliographic records of the selected papers were exported in plain text or Research Information Systems (RIS) file format. The following bibliometric indicators were collected: title, year, authors, number of citations, mean number of citations, institution, country, continent, study design, journal, impact factor, and keywords. Graphical bibliometric networks were created using the VOSviewer software. The number of citations for the 100 most-cited papers in DM research ranged from 111 to 566. Six papers each had more than 400 citations. Most were observational studies (n = 50) from the United States (USA) (n = 23) and were published in the Journal of Periodontology (30%; n=30). Robert Genco was the most cited author and contributed the most to the top 100 articles (3,653 citations; n = 13). The VOSviewer map of co-authorship showed the existence of clusters in research collaboration. The most prolific institutions were the Universities of Buffalo and Michigan (n = 6 each). "Diabetes mellitus" was the most frequent keyword, with 31 occurrences. In conclusion, the most cited studies that investigated the relationship between dentistry and DM were in periodontology. Observational studies, primarily from the USA, have been the most cited thus far.

Ethical clearance paper as a bottleneck.

The significance of the ethical review process in human-based research undertakings cannot be overemphasized as it is necessary to uphold ethical standards and protect participants. However, the review process per se can act as a bottleneck, potentially hindering research progress and leading to academic dishonesty. The present work explores the benefits and challenges of ethical review, emphasizing issues like intellectual theft, forced authorship, and the stifling of independent researchers. Proposed solutions include leveraging previously approved designs, empowering experienced professors for clearance, establishing panels of researchers, creating voluntary ethical approval offices, utilizing private consultancy offices, and establishing a transnational ethical clearance authority. In conclusion, this work stresses the importance of finding mechanisms to streamline the ethical review process while maintaining ethical standards to foster integrity in research and combat academic dishonesty.

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.

A review of authorship in herpes simplex virus type-2 (HSV-2) research conducted in low-income and middle-income countries between 2000 and 2020.

INTRODUCTION: Equitable inclusion of low-income and middle-income country (LMIC) researchers and women in research authorship is a priority. A review of progress in addressing WHO-identified priorities provided an opportunity to examine the geographical and gender distribution of authorship in herpes simplex virus type-2 (HSV-2) research. METHODS: Publications addressing five areas prioritised in a WHO workshop and published between 2000 and 2020 were identified. Data on author country, gender, authorship position and research funding source were collected by manuscript review and internet searches and analysed using IBM SPSS V.26. RESULTS: Of, 297 eligible papers identified, (n=294) had multiple authors. Of these, 241 (82%) included at least one LMIC author and 143 (49%) and 122 (41%) had LMIC first and last authors, respectively. LMICs funded studies were more than twice as likely to include an LMIC first or last author as high-income country-funded studies (relative risk 2.36, 95% CI 1.93 to 2.89). Respectively, 129 (46%) and 106 (36%) studies had female first and last authors. LMIC first and last authorship varied widely by HSV-2 research area and increased over time to 65% and 59% by 2015-2020. CONCLUSION: Despite location of the research itself in LMIC settings, over the 20-year period, LMIC researchers held only a minority of first and last authorship positions. While LMIC representation in these positions improved over time, important inequities remain in key research areas and for women. Addressing current and historical power disparities in global health research, research infrastructure and how it is funded may be key addressing to addressing these issues.

Ethical requirements of instructions for authors of complementary and alternative medicine journals: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Medical research in complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) has increased recently, raising ethical concerns about the moral status of CAM. Medical academic journals are responsible for conducting ethical review (ER) of manuscripts to protect the interests of human subjects and to make ethical results available before deciding to publish. However, there has been no systematic analysis of the ER in CAM journals. This study is aim to evaluate the current status of ethical requirements and compliance in CAM journals. METHODS: This is a cross-sectional study. We reviewed instructions for authors (IFAs) of CAM journals included in the Journal Citation Reports (2021) ( https://jcr.clarivate.com ) for general information and requirements for ER. We also browsed the manuscripts regarding randomized controlled trials published by CAM journals in Q1 and Q2 section from January to June, 2023, to check the actual situation of ethical requirement. Descriptive statistics and Fisher's exact test were used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: 27 journals and 68 manuscripts were ultimately included. 92.6% (25/27) IFAs included keywords of ER, indicating the presence of ethical considerations. However, no specific ER was required for CAM (n = 0). We categorized journals by Geographic origin, JCR section, Year of electronic JCR, Types of studies, % of OA Gold to explore the factors that could influence CAM journals to have certain ethical review policies. The results showed there was no statistical significance in certain ethical review policy in any classification of journals (p > 0.05). All RCT manuscripts included in the study generally met the requirements of the published journals for ethical review. CONCLUSIONS: All IFAs discussed ER, but the content was scattered, unfocused, and there were no specific ER requirements regarding CAM. Although the manuscripts basically met the requirements of the journal, it was not possible to get closer to the process of ER in the manuscript. To ensure full implementation of these policies in the future, CAM journals should require authors to provide more details, or to form a list of items necessary for CAM ethical review.

Analyzing collaboration and impact: A bibliometric review of four highly published authors' research profiles on collaborative maps.

The concept of impact beam plots (IBPs) has been introduced in academia as a means to profile individual researchers. Despite its potential, there has been a lack of comprehensive analysis that evaluates the research profiles of highly published authors through the lens of collaborative maps. This study introduces a novel approach, the rating scale for research profiles (RSRP), to create collaborative maps for prolific authors. The initial hypothesis posited that each of the research profiles would attain a grade A, necessitating empirical verification. This research employed collaborative maps to analyze the publication patterns of authors using the Web of Science database, focusing on co-authorship patterns and the impact of their scholarly work. The study relied on various bibliometric indicators, such as publication count, citation metrics, h-index, and co-authorship networks, to provide a detailed assessment of the contributions made by each author in their field. Additionally, authors' IBPs were generated and assessed alongside collaborative maps, using a grading scale ranging from A (excellent) to F (lacking any articles as first or corresponding author). The analysis confirmed that all 4 research profiles achieved a grade A, with their centroids located in the third quadrant, indicating a high level of scholarly impact. The h-indexes for the authors were found to be 38, 51, 53, and 59, respectively. Notably, Dr Tseng from Taiwan showed a distinct pattern, with a significant number of solo-authored publications in the second quadrant, in contrast to the other 3 authors who demonstrated a greater emphasis on collaboration, as evidenced by their positioning in the first quadrant. The study successfully demonstrates that RSRP and IBPs can be effectively used to analyze and profile the research output of highly published authors through collaborative maps. The research confirms the initial hypothesis that all 4 profiles would achieve a grade A, indicating an excellent level of scholarly impact and a strong presence in their respective fields. The utility of collaborative maps can be applied to bibliometric indicators in assessing the contributions and impact of scholars in the academic community.

Plagiarism and Authorship Credit.

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.

Research integrity in Instructions for Authors in Japanese medical journals using ICMJE Recommendations: A descriptive literature study.

BACKGROUND: The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) has published Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals. These provide a global standard for writing and editing medical articles, including research integrity. However, no study has examined the research integrity-related content of Japanese medical journals' Instructions for Authors. We therefore compared research integrity content in ICMJE member journals with those in the English- and Japanese-language journals of the Japanese Association of Medical Sciences (JAMS). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a descriptive literature study. We obtained Instructions for Authors from English- and Japanese-language journals listed on the JAMS website and the ICMJE member journals listed on the ICMJE website as of September 1, 2021. We compared the presence of 20 topics (19 in the ICMJE Recommendations plus compliance with ICMJE) in the Instructions for Authors, and analyzed the content of the conflict of interest disclosure. RESULTS: We evaluated 12 ICMJE member journals, and 82 English-language and 99 Japanese-language subcommittee journals. The median number of topics covered was 10.5 for ICMJE member journals, 10 for English-language journals, and three for Japanese-language journals. Compliance with ICMJE was mentioned by 10 (83%) ICMJE member journals, 75 (91%) English-language journals, and 29 (29%) Japanese-language journals. The ICMJE Conflicts of Interest Disclosure Form was requested by seven (64%) ICMJE member journals, 15 (18%) English-language journals, and one (1%) Japanese-language journal. CONCLUSIONS: Although the topics in the JAMS English-language journals resembled those in the ICMJE member journals, the median value of ICMJE-related topic inclusion was approximately one-third lower in JAMS Japanese-language journals than in ICMJE member journals. It is hoped that Japanese-language journals whose conflict of interest disclosure policies differ from ICMJE standards will adopt international standards to deter misconduct and ensure publication quality.

Analysis of Pediatric Clinical Practice Guideline Authors by Gender, Race, and Ethnicity.

Background and Objectives: Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) have significantly influenced medical practice worldwide. Nevertheless, the authorship of CPGs produced by several medical societies has not been representative of the field and population they address, as women and individuals from racial and ethnic minority groups have been underrepresented as authors. We hypothesized that women and individuals from minoritized racial and ethnic groups would also be underrepresented as authors of CPGs produced by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP). Methods: In this cross-sectional study, the gender, race, and ethnic composition of authors and subcommittee participants of AAP-produced CPGs published from January 2010 through May 2023 were analyzed and compared to the 2010 and 2021 U.S. population and 2010 and 2022 U.S. medical school pediatric faculty. Results: Women (39.7%, 127/320 of all positions, and 42.5%, 85/200 of named author positions) and women physicians (35.2%, 101/287 of all positions, and 36.4%, 64/176 of named author positions) were significantly underrepresented-while men and men physicians were significantly overrepresented-from their respective composition in the U.S. Census and pediatric faculty. Women and women physicians from all racial and ethnic groups and men and men physicians from minority racial and ethnic groups were significantly underrepresented-from their respective composition in the U.S. Census and pediatric faculty. No Black man was identified as an author. Conclusions: Medical societies that produce CPGs should be cognizant of these inequities and ensure appropriate authorship diversity.