Patient engagement in designing and publishing research in prostate cancer: a scoping review.

Patients with cancer have the unique ability of being able to offer valuable insights into how cancer therapeutics may impact the overall patient experience and improve clinical outcomes. Patient engagement could therefore contribute to tailoring treatment strategies and research design according to patient needs. This study evaluated patient engagement in prostate cancer research by identifying patient input in the prostate cancer literature. We performed a keyword cluster analysis of articles from multiple databases and congresses in which patients provided input on disease management or were involved in study design, manuscript authorship or presentation of results (patient voice). In total, 112 studies were included. Patients were involved in the design of 11 studies and were credited as authors in four studies. This review suggests a lack of meaningful patient involvement in prostate cancer research and publications.

Patients with cancer have first-hand knowledge of what does and does not work for their care. Therefore, their voice is valuable to help improve treatment and guide research. Our goal was to find prostate cancer articles with patient input. We searched databases using keywords related to patient voice. We looked for articles involving patients in designing, writing or presenting the study. Only four out of the 112 articles we identified were published in journals focused on involving patients. Eleven articles involved patients in designing the study. Four articles involved patients in writing the published work. Overall, we did not find many articles where patients had a meaningful role in the study. Prostate cancer treatment and research will likely benefit from more patient input.

Enhancing Research Integrity and Publication Ethics: An Analysis of the Latest International Committee of Medical Journal Editors Recommendations.

In the ever-evolving landscape of biomedical research and publishing, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors recommendations serve as a critical framework for maintaining ethical standards. By providing a framework that adapts to technological advancements, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors recommendations actively shape responsible and transparent practices, ensuring the integrity of scientific inquiry and fostering global collaboration in the ever-evolving landscape of medical publishing. This editorial delves into key aspects of the latest changes in the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors recommendations, focusing on authorship, conflict of interest disclosure, data sharing and reproducibility, medical publishing and carbon emissions, the use of artificial intelligence, and the challenges posed by predatory journals within the realm of open access. It emphasizes the importance of new recommendations, which represent a beacon of ethical guidance in the ever-evolving domain of biomedical research and publishing.

A 10-year analysis of the racial distribution of authors in plastic surgery research and the impact of minority mentorship.

BACKGROUND: This study evaluates the racial distribution in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery (PRS) publication authorship and illustrates the impact underrepresented in medicine (URiM) mentorship has on increasing diverse trainee contributions to the PRS peer-reviewed literature. METHODS: Articles published in the seven highest-impact PRS peer-reviewed journals within the last 10 years (2012-2022) were reviewed and analyzed for first and senior authors' race and ethnicity, publication year, and citation count. RESULTS: A total of 23,549 publications were identified of which 8250 were from the US-based institutions. A random sampling of 778 publications (∼10 â€‹%) were scrutinized for first and senior author race and ethnicity. Across all journals, 64.5 â€‹% of senior authors were White, 29.9 â€‹% Asian, 4.6 â€‹% Hispanic, and 1.0 â€‹% Black. First authors were 59.5 â€‹% White, 32.8 â€‹% Asian, 5.2 â€‹% Hispanic, and 2.6 â€‹% Black (p=<0.0001). The presence of a URiM senior author increased the likelihood of a URiM first author 7-fold (p=<0.0001); 95 â€‹% CI [3.5-14.0]). There was no statistically significant difference in the total citation count relative to author race or ethnicity. The Aesthetic Surgery Journal had the greatest proportion of White senior authors (73.6 â€‹%), while Microsurgery had the highest percentage of URiM senior authors (8.7 â€‹%). CONCLUSIONS: URiM authorship of PRS publications is limited and mentorship is essential to improve underrepresented perspectives in the PRS peer-reviewed literature.

Trends in authorship in the Journal of Cutaneous Pathology, 1981-2020.

BACKGROUND: The increase in authors per scientific article in many different medical and scientific disciplines has raised concerns over ethical authorship. Trends in authorship in dermatopathology are unknown. METHODS: Cross-sectional study of a random sample of 200 articles from the Journal of Cutaneous Pathology (1981-2020). RESULTS: The number of authors per article increased by an estimated 96% between 1981 and 2020 (2.7-5.3), while the relative citation ratio decreased by an estimated 56% during the same period (1.19-0.52). Higher author counts were not associated with higher relative citation ratios (p = 0.2349) or analytic study designs (p = 0.2987). Higher relative citation ratios were associated with analytic study designs (p = 0.0374). CONCLUSIONS: There has been significant growth in authorship credit at the journal without a corresponding increase in research impact or study rigor. Remedial measures to stem authorship inflation and promote more impactful studies may be necessary.

Gender Differences in Physical Activity and Health-Related Authorships Between 1950 and 2019.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to investigate gender differences in authorship in physical activity and health research. METHODS: A bibliometric study including 23,399 articles from 105 countries was conducted to estimate the participation of female researchers in physical activity publications from 1950 to 2019. The frequency of female researchers was analyzed and classified by first and last authors and the overall percentage of female authors by region and country. RESULTS: The proportion of female first authors increased from <10% in the 50s and 80s to 55% in the last decade. On the other hand, the proportion of last authors increased from 8.7% to 41.1% in the same period. Most publications with female researchers were from the United States, Canada, Australia, Brazil, the Netherlands, Spain, England, Germany, Sweden, and China. Nine of these countries had over 50% of the articles published by female first authors. However, in all 10 countries, <50% of the articles were published by female last authors. CONCLUSIONS: The proportion of female researchers increased over time. However, regional differences exist and should be addressed in gender equity policies. There is a gap in the participation of female researchers as last authors. By actively addressing the gender gap in research, the global society can harness the full potential of all talented individuals, regardless of gender, leading to more inclusive and impactful scientific advancements.

Perspectives on the role of industry in informatics research and authorship.

OBJECTIVES: Advances in informatics research come from academic, nonprofit, and for-profit industry organizations, and from academic-industry partnerships. While scientific studies of commercial products may offer critical lessons for the field, manuscripts authored by industry scientists are sometimes categorically rejected. We review historical context, community perceptions, and guidelines on informatics authorship. PROCESS: We convened an expert panel at the American Medical Informatics Association 2022 Annual Symposium to explore the role of industry in informatics research and authorship with community input. The panel summarized session themes and prepared recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: Authorship for informatics research, regardless of affiliation, should be determined by International Committee of Medical Journal Editors uniform requirements for authorship. All authors meeting criteria should be included, and categorical rejection based on author affiliation is unethical. Informatics research should be evaluated based on its scientific rigor; all sources of bias and conflicts of interest should be addressed through disclosure and, when possible, methodological mitigation.

A clinic doctor transferring a patient as a coauthor of a case report: A preliminary study.

AIM: Contribution to the authorship, including that for case reports, should be appropriately evaluated. I have noticed a scarcity of case reports with clinic doctors listed as coauthors, prompting this investigation. I sought to offer suggestions on the possible reasons for this trend. METHODS: I checked case reports published in the Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Research, the Journal of Medical Case Reports, and the BMJ Case Reports. I identified case reports listing a clinic doctor as a coauthor. I consulted eight professors at Jichi Medical University to ascertain whether case reports from their departments included clinic doctors as coauthors and, if not, the reasons. RESULTS: Among 65 case reports from Japanese institutes published in the Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Research, only one paper lists a clinic doctor as a coauthor. Of 100 and 50 papers published in the Journal of Medical Case Reports and BMJ Case Reports, respectively, none listed a clinic doctor as a coauthor. Six out of eight professors admitted to never considering the idea of including clinic doctors as coauthors. CONCLUSIONS: The scarcity of case reports with clinic doctors as coauthors extends beyond Japanese obstetrics and gynecology, encompassing various specialties worldwide. Center doctors do not think of the idea that a clinic doctor should be a coauthor. A clinic doctor who transferred the patient should be considered as a candidate coauthor depending on his/her scientific contribution. Such an approach could foster an environment encouraging doctors to contribute to academic writing, regardless of their workplace.

Ten Ways to Improve Getting a Scientific Manuscript Accepted.

BACKGROUND: Scientific publication is the cornerstone to academic and private practice advancement in patient management and outcomes. Writing a manuscript requires a certain discipline and skill set that can be achieved with diligence and hard work. METHODS: Anecdotal and review. RESULTS: Several factors must be considered in scientific writing and journal manuscript submission and acceptance. Choosing where to submit the manuscript; understanding the instructions to authors; disclosing ethically; formatting correctly; never plagiarizing; supplying high quality appropriate images; creating meaningful tables; curating a pertinent but thorough bibliography; having valid, supported conclusions; and respecting timelines. CONCLUSION: A discussion of relevant components in manuscript writing and journal submission to improve your chances of acceptance.

Mega-authorship implications: How many scientists can fit into one cell?

The past 20 years has seen a significant increase in articles with 500 or more authors. This increase has presented problems in terms of determining true authorship versus other types of contribution, issues with database metadata and data output, and publication length. Using items with 500+ authors deemed as mega-author titles, a total of 5,533 mega-author items were identified using InCites. Metadata about the items was then gathered from Web of Science and Scopus. Close examination of these items found that the vast majority of these covered physics topics, with medicine a far distant second place and only minor representation from other science fields. This mega-authorship saw significant events that appear to correspond to similar events in the Large Hadron Collider's timeline, indicating that the projects for the collider are driving this heavy output. Some solutions are offered for the problems resulting from this phenomenon, partially driven by recommendations from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors.

Group authorship, an excellent opportunity laced with ethical, legal and technical challenges.

Group authorship (also known as corporate authorship, team authorship, consortium authorship) refers to attribution practices that use the name of a collective (be it team, group, project, corporation, or consortium) in the authorship byline. Data shows that group authorships are on the rise but thus far, in scholarly discussions about authorship, they have not gained much specific attention. Group authorship can minimize tensions within the group about authorship order and the criteria used for inclusion/exclusion of individual authors. However, current use of group authorships has drawbacks, such as ethical challenges associated with the attribution of credit and responsibilities, legal challenges regarding how copyrights are handled, and technical challenges related to the lack of persistent identifiers (PIDs), such as ORCID, for groups. We offer two recommendations: 1) Journals should develop and share context-specific and unambiguous guidelines for group authorship, for which they can use the four baseline requirements offered in this paper; 2) Using persistent identifiers for groups and consistent reporting of members' contributions should be facilitated through devising PIDs for groups and linking these to the ORCIDs of their individual contributors and the Digital Object Identifier (DOI) of the published item.