MRET: Modified Recursive Elimination Technique for ranking author assessment parameters.

In scientific research, assessing the impact and influence of authors is crucial for evaluating their scholarly contributions. Whereas in literature, multitudinous parameters have been developed to quantify the productivity and significance of researchers, including the publication count, citation count, well-known h index and its extensions and variations. However, with a plethora of available assessment metrics, it is vital to identify and prioritize the most effective metrics. To address the complexity of this task, we employ a powerful deep learning technique known as the Multi-Layer Perceptron (MLP) classifier for the classification and the ranking purposes. By leveraging the MLP's capacity to discern patterns within datasets, we assign importance scores to each parameter using the proposed modified recursive elimination technique. Based on the importance scores, we ranked these parameters. Furthermore, in this study, we put forth a comprehensive statistical analysis of the top-ranked author assessment parameters, encompassing a vast array of 64 distinct metrics. This analysis gives us treasured insights in between these parameters, shedding light on the potential correlations and dependencies that may affect assessment outcomes. In the statistical analysis, we combined these parameters by using seven well-known statistical methods, such as arithmetic means, harmonic means, geometric means etc. After combining the parameters, we sorted the list of each pair of parameters and analyzed the top 10, 50, and 100 records. During this analysis, we counted the occurrence of the award winners. For experimental proposes, data collection was done from the field of Mathematics. This dataset consists of 525 individuals who are yet to receive their awards along with 525 individuals who have been recognized as potential award winners by certain well known and prestigious scientific societies belonging to the fields' of mathematics in the last three decades. The results of this study revealed that, in ranking of the author assessment parameters, the normalized h index achieved the highest importance score as compared to the remaining sixty-three parameters. Furthermore, the statistical analysis results revealed that the Trigonometric Mean (TM) outperformed the other six statistical models. Moreover, based on the analysis of the parameters, specifically the M Quotient and FG index, it is evident that combining these parameters with any other parameter using various statistical models consistently produces excellent results in terms of the percentage score for returning awardees.

Trends in Gender Authorship of Abstract Presentations at Plastic Surgery the Meeting: A Decade Long Analysis.

ABSTRACT: Current literature fails to examine gender differences of authors presenting abstracts at national plastic surgery meetings. This study aims to assess the ratio of female to male abstract presentations at Plastic Surgery The Meeting (PSTM).The gender of all abstract presenters from PSTM between 2010 and 2020 was recorded. The primary outcome variable was authorship (first, second, or last). Trends in gender authorship were assessed via Cochran-Armitage trend tests. Chi-square was utilized to evaluate the association between author gender and presentation type and author gender and subspecialty.Between 2010 and 2020, 3653 abstracts were presented (oral = 3035, 83.1%; poster = 618, 16.9%) with 19,328 (5175 females, 26.8%) authors. Of these, 34.5%, 32.0%, and 18.6% of first, second, and last authors were female, respectively. The total proportion of female authors increased from 153 (20.4%) in 2010 to 1065 (33.1%) by 2020. The proportion of female first, second, and last authors increased from 21.8% to 44.8%, 24.0% to 45.3%, and 14.3% to 22.1%, respectively, and demonstrated a positive linear trend ( P < 0.001 ). The proportion of female first authors in aesthetics (23.9%) was lower than that for breast (41.8%), cranio/maxillofacial/head & neck (38.5%), practice management (43.3%), and research/technology (39.4%) ( P < 0.001 ).Our study demonstrates a significant increase in female representation as first, second, and last authors in abstract presentations at PSTM within the last decade, although the absolute prevalence remains low.

Role of Authors in the Medical Manuscripts.

Null.

Geographic Mapping of Gender Disparities in Authorship of Cardiovascular Literature.

BACKGROUND: Women in cardiology experience considerable gender disparities in publications, which hinders their career advancements to higher faculty and senior leadership positions. However, the extent of these disparities across different types of cardiovascular literature is not well understood. OBJECTIVES: We investigated gender differences in authorship across various cardiovascular publications over a decade and examined geographic variations in the representation of women authors. METHODS: All papers published from January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2019, in 4 major cardiovascular journals (Journal of the American College of Cardiology, European Heart Journal, Journal of the American Medical Association Cardiology, and Nature Reviews Cardiology) were reviewed. RESULTS: Of the 18,535 papers with 111,562 authors, 20.6% of the authors were women, and 47.7% of the papers had no women authors. Over 10 years, the proportion of women authors remained low (20.7% in 2010 to 21.4% in 2019), with the lowest proportion in editorial papers (14.8%) and the highest in research papers (21.8%). More women as first (34.6%) and last (47.6%) authors were affiliated with institutions in the United States compared with other countries. The proportion of women middle-order authors was higher on papers with women as first authors (29.4% vs 20.5%) or last authors (30.6% vs 21.3%), compared with papers with men as first or last authors, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Over the past decade, the proportion of women authors across all article types in major cardiovascular journals remained low. A call to action is needed to promote women in cardiology and provide them with equitable opportunities.

Gender disparity between first and senior authors on liver cancer research in the top journals of Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

BACKGROUND: Gender disparity is pervasive in academic medicine. This study aimed to assess the disparity between men and women with regard to first and senior author positions in primary studies on liver cancer over the last two decades. METHODS: We conducted a review of articles published in high-impact factor journals of the field of Gastroenterology and Hepatology in 2005, 2010, 2015 and 2020. First and senior authors of all ages were considered as the study population. The authors' genders were determined using the online artificial intelligence tool genderize.io (https://genderize.io/). The disparity between men and women authors was assessed using the linear-by-linear association test. RESULTS: 665 original articles from 10 journals were reviewed. The point prevalence of first women authors was 25.0% compared with 75.0% for men. The point prevalence of senior women authors was 16.3% compared with 83.7% for men. From 2000 to 2020, the proportion of first women authors increased 14.4% to 26.8% compared with 85.6%-73.2% for men (P = 0.009), and the proportion of senior women authors increased from 7.4% to 19.5%, compared with 92.6%-80.5% for men (P = 0.035). The factor independently associated with a reduced representation of women among first authors was the region of author. The factor independently associated with a reduced representation of women among senior authors was the impact factor of journals. CONCLUSION: The findings indicated a remarkable increase in the proportion of women, both first and senior authors, over the past two decades in the field of liver cancers. However, the representation of women authors in this area is far less than that of men.

Authorship characteristics of hematology and oncology education chapters: A comprehensive analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Achieving diversity and equity in healthcare, especially within academic and clinical spheres, poses significant challenges. This study aims to evaluate gender representation, geographical diversity among authors, and disclosure of conflicts of interest (COIs) in educational materials published by the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and the American Society of Hematology (ASH). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a comprehensive cross-sectional analysis covering all volumes of ASCO and ASH educational chapters from 2012 to 2022 and 2000 to 2022, respectively. Author data were extracted from the official websites of ASCO and ASH educational books, focusing on names, affiliations, countries of practice, COIs, and publication titles/subjects. RESULTS: Analysis of 2796 articles revealed significant trends in gender representation. Women comprised 44 % of first authors and 38 % of last authors in ASCO educational books, and 39 % of first authors and 39% of last authors in ASH educational books. Notably, there was a marked increase in female first and last authors over time across both ASCO and ASH publications (p < 0.001). Geographical diversity showed disparities, with the majority of authors affiliated with US institutions (72 % of first and last authors). International authors were less represented, with Canada, the UK, and Italy prominent among articles featuring international women authors. A substantial portion of analyzed articles disclosed COIs, mainly research funding, honoraria, and travel expenses. DISCUSSION: Our findings suggest a notable rise in female authorship, potentially reflecting efforts by ASH and ASCO to promote diversity. International authorship remained stable, while COIs were prevalent, primarily involving research funding. Addressing the need for greater international engagement and improving COI reporting quality are crucial to promote inclusivity and transparency in academic publications.

Gender equity in The Journal of the American Dental Association: A review of the past 2 plus decades.

BACKGROUND: Considering evidence of closing the gender gap in dental scholarship, this study assessed women's participation as authors, reviewers, and members of the editorial board for The Journal of the American Dental Association (JADA) from 2000 through 2022. METHODS: The study authors downloaded author names from PubMed and retrieved names of reviewers and editorial board members from JADA's pages. The authors used Gender-API software to determine gender on the basis of first names. They used logistic regression to test for trends. RESULTS: From January 2000 through December 2022, there were 2,935 full-length articles, 2,775 reviewers, 4 editors in chief, and 85 editorial board members. The percentage of women authors increased by 1.2% annually (95% CI, 1.03% to 1.33%), reaching 47% in 2022. First authorship increased by 2.1% annually (95% CI, 1.84% to 2.39%) and has been at more than 50% since 2016. In articles with multiple authors, there was a modest increase; second authorship increased 0.7% annually (95% CI, 0.36% to 1.09%) and last authorship by 0.7% (95% CI, 0.03% to 1.00%). Women reviewers increased 0.8% annually (95% CI, 0.68% to 0.97%), but the percentage of women on the editorial board did not increase significantly and was 41% in 2022. CONCLUSIONS: It was anticipated that 50% of JADA authors would be women by 2024. However, women are still underrepresented on the editorial board. A comprehensive effort is needed to foster role models, provide mentorship opportunities for women, and support women's professional advancement in dental research and publications. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: Gender-based disparities affect women in dental education and clinical practice. Serving as an editorial board member, reviewer, or author can affect academic promotion and the type of scientific investigation being conducted and indirectly affects women's health outcomes.

What predicts citation counts and translational impact in headache research? A machine learning analysis.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to develop the first machine learning models to predict citation counts and the translational impact, defined as inclusion in guidelines or policy documents, of headache research, and assess which factors are most predictive. METHODS: Bibliometric data and the titles, abstracts, and keywords from 8600 publications in three headache-oriented journals from their inception to 31 December 2017 were used. A series of machine learning models were implemented to predict three classes of 5-year citation count intervals (0-5, 6-14 and, >14 citations); and the translational impact of a publication. Models were evaluated out-of-sample with area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUC). RESULTS: The top performing gradient boosting model predicted correct citation count class with an out-of-sample AUC of 0.81. Bibliometric data such as page count, number of references, first and last author citation counts and h-index were among the most important predictors. Prediction of translational impact worked optimally when including both bibliometric data and information from the title, abstract and keywords, reaching an out-of-sample AUC of 0.71 for the top performing random forest model. CONCLUSION: Citation counts are best predicted by bibliometric data, while models incorporating both bibliometric data and publication content identifies the translational impact of headache research.

Equity and representation in cardiology research: A comprehensive analysis of authorship from low and low-middle income countries in cardiology journals.

Cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of mortality, disproportionately affecting low-income and low-middle-income countries (LICs/LMICs). Despite this, cardiology research commonly comes from affluent regions. This study assessed the authorship trends from LICs/LMICs in cardiology journals listed in PubMed from 2000 to 2022. The World Bank list was used to classify countries. The total number of articles published in the 138 cardiology journals was 529,359. The percentage of articles that included at least one author affiliated with LICs/LMICs institutions was 0.11 % and 2.23 %, respectively. Over the last decade, there has been an increase in the author's representation from LICs/LMICs; however, it is uneven, with some countries experiencing more significant increases (Zambia, Yemen, and Uganda for LICs, and India, Iran, and Lebanon for LMICs). Our findings highlight the inequity of research publication and invite our community to reflect on the need to develop strategies to improve representation from LICs/LMICs.

Bibliometric analysis: A few suggestions.

In an era marked by the exponential growth of scientific production, bibliometric analysis (BA) has emerged as indispensable tool for understanding the dynamics of research fields. In this review, we tried to provide a few tips which can be incorporated in BA. For instance; (a) solely presenting the number of publications per year is not an ideal approach. There is need to provide (at least) per-year citations and the total h-index of all publications, which may offer more nuanced and informative perspective on research productivity and influence. (b) traditionally, a researcher's performance has been assessed primarily through the number of publications and the h-index. While these metrics offer valuable insights into scholarly output and citation impact, this review aims to broaden the perspective on researcher evaluation by exploring a diverse array of alternative performance indicators. (c) co-word occurrence analysis has been a cornerstone for identifying thematic relationships among publications. We presented a few simple concepts i.e. keywords dynamic, and trends alongside traditional co-word analysis. The normal procedure of BA involves, data collection, publication trends, authorship and collaboration, citation analysis, keyword analysis, geographical and institutional trends, journal analysis, research impact, and visualization. We tried to provide some theoretical foundation, which may help the readers understand the context and principles behind the analysis.

Dental research related to COVID-19 in Brazil: research presented at the 38th SBPqO Meeting.

The aim of this study was to identify and describe the characteristics of coronavirus (COVID-19)-disease related dental research in Brazil presented at the 38th Annual Meeting of the Brazilian Division of the International Association for Dental Research (SBPqO). A search was carried out in the proceedings of the meeting to retrieve all abstracts. Those containing the term "COVID-19" in titles, abstracts, or keywords, and/or those of which the scope approached a COVID-19-related topic were included. The variables extracted from abstracts were: presenter category, field of study, design, data collection method, population, affiliation, and authors' gender. Descriptive and inferential statistics were used, with a significance level of α = 0.05. The search retrieved 185 abstracts, 5 did not meet study eligibility criteria and were excluded. COVID-19-related research was presented by either aspiring/associate members (67.8%) or beginner members (32.2%). Data collection methods were predominantly digitally mediated (65%), followed by secondary data use (25%), and in-person data collection (7.2%). Irrespective of the role of authorship, there were a ratio of two female authors to each male. Among the last authors, the ratio was three females to each male. Female lead authors more frequently came from the Southeast region (71.8%; p = 0.470). There was an association between presenter category and study design (p = 0.012), clinical and epidemiological studies were more concentrated among experienced presenters. In conclusion, female dental researchers affiliated to southeastern institutions approached the topic of pandemic more frequently than male colleagues. The use of digital technology for data collection may have long-lasting impacts on the teaching and publication of dental research.

Analysis of science journalism reveals gender and regional disparities in coverage.

Science journalism is a critical way for the public to learn about and benefit from scientific findings. Such journalism shapes the public's view of the current state of science and legitimizes experts. Journalists can only cite and quote a limited number of sources, who they may discover in their research, including recommendations by other scientists. Biases in either process may influence who is identified and ultimately included as a source. To examine potential biases in science journalism, we analyzed 22,001 non-research articles published by Nature and compared these with Nature-published research articles with respect to predicted gender and name origin. We extracted cited authors' names and those of quoted speakers. While citations and quotations within a piece do not reflect the entire information-gathering process, they can provide insight into the demographics of visible sources. We then predicted gender and name origin of the cited authors and speakers. We compared articles with a comparator set made up of first and last authors within primary research articles in Nature and a subset of Springer Nature articles in the same time period. In our analysis, we found a skew toward quoting men in Nature science journalism. However, quotation is trending toward equal representation at a faster rate than authorship rates in academic publishing. Gender disparity in Nature quotes was dependent on the article type. We found a significant over-representation of names with predicted Celtic/English origin and under-representation of names with a predicted East Asian origin in both in extracted quotes and journal citations but dampened in citations.