Non-White scientists appear on fewer editorial boards, spend more time under review, and receive fewer citations.

Disparities continue to pose major challenges in various aspects of science. One such aspect is editorial board composition, which has been shown to exhibit racial and geographical disparities. However, the literature on this subject lacks longitudinal studies quantifying the degree to which the racial composition of editors reflects that of scientists. Other aspects that may exhibit racial disparities include the time spent between the submission and acceptance of a manuscript and the number of citations a paper receives relative to textually similar papers, but these have not been studied to date. To fill this gap, we compile a dataset of 1,000,000 papers published between 2001 and 2020 by six publishers, while identifying the handling editor of each paper. Using this dataset, we show that most countries in Asia, Africa, and South America (where the majority of the population is ethnically non-White) have fewer editors than would be expected based on their share of authorship. Focusing on US-based scientists reveals Black as the most underrepresented race. In terms of acceptance delay, we find, again, that papers from Asia, Africa, and South America spend more time compared to other papers published in the same journal and the same year. Regression analysis of US-based papers reveals that Black authors suffer from the greatest delay. Finally, by analyzing citation rates of US-based papers, we find that Black and Hispanic scientists receive significantly fewer citations compared to White ones doing similar research. Taken together, these findings highlight significant challenges facing non-White scientists.

Classification and citation analysis of the 100 top-cited articles on nurse resilience using chord diagrams: A bibliometric analysis.

BACKGROUND: Studies of most-cited articles have been frequently conducted on various topics and in various medical fields. To date, no study has examined the characteristics of articles associated with theme classifications and research achievements of article entities related to nursing resilience. This study aims to graphically depict the characteristics of the 100 top-cited articles addressing nurse resilience (T100NurseR), diagram the relationship between articles and author collaborations according to themes extracted from article keywords, and examine whether article keywords are correlated with article citations. METHODS: T100NurseR publications were retrieved from the Web of Science (WoS) core collection on October 13, 2022. Themes associated with articles were explored using coword analysis in WoS keywords plus. The document category, journal ranking based on impact factor, authorship, and L-index and Y-index were used to analyze the dominant entities. To report the themes of T100NurseR and their research achievements in comparison to article entities and verify the hypothesis that keyword mean citation can be used to predict article citations, 5 visualizations were applied, including network diagrams, chord diagrams, dot plots, Kano diagrams, and radar plots. RESULTS: Citations per article averaged 61.96 (range, 25-514). There were 5 themes identified in T100NurseR, including Parses theory, nurse resilience, conflict management, nursing identity, and emotional intelligence. For countries, institutes, departments, and authors in comparison of category, journal impact factor, authorship, and L-index scores, Australia (129.80), the University of Western Sydney (23.12), Nursing (87.17), and Kim Foster (23.76) are the dominant entities. The weighted number of citations according to Keywords Plus in WoS is significantly correlated with article citations (Pearson R = 0.94; P = .001). CONCLUSION: We present diagrams to guide evidence-based clinical decision-making in nurse resilience based on the characteristics of the T100NurseR articles. Article citations can be predicted using weighted keywords. Future bibliographical studies may apply the 5 visualizations to relevant studies, not being solely restricted to T100NurseR.

Transparency in conducting and reporting research: A survey of authors, reviewers, and editors across scholarly disciplines.

Calls have been made for improving transparency in conducting and reporting research, improving work climates, and preventing detrimental research practices. To assess attitudes and practices regarding these topics, we sent a survey to authors, reviewers, and editors. We received 3,659 (4.9%) responses out of 74,749 delivered emails. We found no significant differences between authors', reviewers', and editors' attitudes towards transparency in conducting and reporting research, or towards their perceptions of work climates. Undeserved authorship was perceived by all groups as the most prevalent detrimental research practice, while fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, and not citing prior relevant research, were seen as more prevalent by editors than authors or reviewers. Overall, 20% of respondents admitted sacrificing the quality of their publications for quantity, and 14% reported that funders interfered in their study design or reporting. While survey respondents came from 126 different countries, due to the survey's overall low response rate our results might not necessarily be generalizable. Nevertheless, results indicate that greater involvement of all stakeholders is needed to align actual practices with current recommendations.

Evaluation of Low- and Middle-Income Country Authorship in the Global Orthopaedic Literature.

INTRODUCTION: Extensive research collaborations exist between high-income countries and low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), although prior work has raised concerns regarding equitable representation among LMIC authors. The goal of this bibliometric analysis was to characterize LMIC authorship among indexed orthopaedic journals and identify factors contributing to disparities in representation. METHODS: We identified all articles appearing in orthopaedic journals indexed in MEDLINE and Journal Citation Reports with a focus on LMICs or cohorts between 2009 and 2018. All articles describing research conducted in LMICs or research focused on applications to cohorts in LMIC(s) were included. Author affiliation, article characteristics, and impact factor were assessed for 1,573 articles. Logistic regression models created to identify predictors of LMIC authorship. RESULTS: We identified few studies published in indexed journals focused exclusively on LICs. Funded studies were less likely to have LMIC last authors. Compared with articles published in lower impact factor journals, those in journals with a higher impact factor were less likely to have a LMIC first or last author. The greater the number of countries represented per study, the less likely it had a LMIC first or last author. CONCLUSION: Our study highlights persistent disparities in authorship from LMICs in indexed orthopaedic journals.

Easy-to-Read: Evolution and Perspectives-A Bibliometric Analysis of Research, 1978-2021.

The purpose of this paper is to observe the use of the Easy-to-Read term in the international scientific literature. Therefore, a bibliometric analysis was carried out using the Web of Science database, focusing on the period between 1978 and 2021. From this, 1065 records that met the search criteria were further identified. After applying the PRISMA model, the final analysis was performed on a corpus of 102 documents, comprising an analysis of the keywords and expressions where the term was found, an authorship analysis, a citation analysis, as well as a co-occurrence analysis. The publications were grouped based on the research area, with the field of Computer Science standing out with most of the occurrences (25), followed by Education & Educational Research (14 occurrences) and Linguistics (9 occurrences). The results suggest that interest in this field of research is limited, as the maximum number of publications related to this topic was 16 in 2020 and 14 in 2021. The study is important as it sheds light on the current state of the topic and seeks to identify future trends in this field.

Bibliometric analysis of authorship patterns in publications from a research group at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, 2016-2020.

BACKGROUND: Authors from low and middle-income country (LMIC) institutions are under-represented in publications of research based in LMICs. This case study of publications from authors within the Medical Research Council International Statistics and Epidemiology Group (MRC-ISEG), a global health research group affiliated to the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine in the UK, aims to describe patterns in authorship and factors associated with under-representation. METHODS: Papers were included if they were published between January 2016 and December 2020 inclusive, included an author from the MRC-ISEG and described work conducted in a LMIC. Authors' affiliations were classified using World Bank country income classifications into LMIC affiliations only, high-income country (HIC) affiliations only and mixed LMIC/HIC affiliations. Multinomial logistic regression analysis was used to assess associations of author affiliation category with authorship position, and whether patterns varied by journal impact factor quartile and multiple versus single-country studies. RESULTS: A total of 882 papers, including 10 570 authors describing research conducted in 61 LMICs, were included. Compared with authors of HIC-only affiliation, those with LMIC-only affiliation were less likely to be in first authorship position (relative risk ratio (RRR)=0.51, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.60) and mixed HIC/LMIC affiliation authors were more likely (RRR=2.80, 95% CI 2.35 to 3.34). Compared with authors of HIC-only affiliation, those with LMIC-only affiliation were less likely to be in last authorship position (RRR=0.20, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.24) and those with mixed HIC/LMIC affiliations were more likely (RRR=1.95, 95% CI 1.65 to 2.30). The proportion of senior authors with LMIC-only affiliation was lowest for the highest impact journals, and in multicountry versus single-country studies. CONCLUSION: Alongside increasing research capacity within LMICs, HIC institutions should ensure that LMIC-affiliated researchers are properly represented in global research. Academics working in global health should be judged on their involvement in representative collaborative research rather than individual achievements in authorship position.

Contributions of Women to Cardiovascular Science Over Two Decades: Authorship, Leadership, and Mentorship.

Background Women remain underrepresented in cardiology. We aimed to assess gender trends in research authorship, authorship in leading roles, mentorship, and research team diversity. Methods and Results We identified "cardiac and cardiovascular systems" journals from 2002 to 2020 using Journal Citation Reports 2019 (Web of Science, Clarivate Analytics). Gender authorship, mentorship, research team diversity, and trends were assessed. Associations between author gender and impact factor, journal region, and cardiology subspecialties were analyzed. Analysis of 396 549 research papers from 122 journals showed the percentage of women authors increased from 16.6% to 24.6% (ß=0.38 [95% CI, 0.29-0.46]; P<0.001), whereas the proportion of women first (ß=-0.03 [95% CI, -0.06 to 0.004]; P=0.09) or last authors (ß=-0.017 [95% CI, -0.04 to 0.006]; P=0.15) was unchanged. Compared with men last authors, women last authors were more likely to mentor women first authors and lead more diverse research teams (both P<0.001). Journal impact factor was related to percentage of women authors overall (Spearman's correlation coefficient RS=0.208 [95% CI, 0.02-0.38]; P=0.03) but not first or last women authors (both P>0.5). Women comprised 18.4%-25.7% of authors in cardiology subspecialties. Journal region and author gender were unrelated (all P>0.4). Conclusions Women's inclusion as authors of cardiology papers increased slightly over the past 2 decades, yet the proportions of women in first and last authorship roles were unchanged. Women are increasingly likely to mentor women first authors and lead diverse research teams. Women last authors are essential to increasing diversity of future independent investigators and inclusive research teams, both of which are associated with innovation and excellence in science.

Integrity in cardiovascular imaging research.

OBJECTIVE: To gain more insight in scientific integrity in the field of cardiovascular imaging research by conducting a survey among all corresponding authors who published in cardiovascular imaging journals. METHODS: Corresponding authors who published in one of eight major cardiovascular imaging journals in 2021 were requested to complete a questionnaire about scientific integrity in the field of cardiovascular imaging. RESULTS: Responses from 160 corresponding authors were received. The majority of respondents had a medical doctor degree (81.1%), held an academic position (93.8%, of which 44.0% as full professor), and had >10 years of research experience (72.5%). Overall confidence in the integrity of published scientific work in cardiovascular imaging was high, with a median score of 8 out of 10 (IQR 2). 5 respondents (3.1%) declared having committed scientific fraud in the past 5 years and 38 respondents (23.8%) declared having witnessed or suspected scientific fraud by anyone from their department in the past 5 years. 85.6% of respondents think that publication bias is present. 50% of respondents declared that any of their publications in the past 5 years had a co-author who actually did not deserve this co-authorship. CONCLUSION: Experts in the field report that several forms of scientific fraud, publication bias, and honorary authorship are present in cardiovascular imaging research. Despite these reports of academic dishonesty, overall confidence in the integrity of cardiovascular imaging research is deemed high.

Publishing particulars: Part 1. The big picture.

In Part 1 of this Perspective on Publishing Particulars, I share my thoughts on several key issues related to publishing in academic biomedical research for early-career stage investigators. Among the topics discussed are the importance of publishing peer-reviewed manuscripts, considerations associated with different types of publications, how frequently you should publish, how to select a scientific journal for your manuscript, and navigating authorship questions, including who should be an author, authorship order, and who should write a manuscript. The goal of this first part of the Perspective is to lay a "foundation" of basic knowledge on the publication process from which to discuss more specific aspects of manuscript development in Parts 2 and 3.

Gender Disparity in Earliest Phase of Academic Surgical Training: An Area for Intervention.

BACKGROUND: To overcome persistent gender disparities in academic surgery, it is critical to examine the earliest phase of surgical training. This national study sought to assess whether gender disparities also existed among surgical interns, as a proxy for medical school research experience in both quantity and quality. STUDY DESIGN: Using the 2021 to 2022 public information of 1,493 US-graduated categorical general surgery interns, a bibliometric evaluation was conducted to assess medical school research experience. Multivariable linear regressions with response log-transformed were performed to evaluate the impact of intern gender on (1) total number of peer-reviewed publications, (2) total impact factor (TIF), and (3) adjusted TIF based on authorship placement (aTIF). Back-transformed estimates were presented. RESULTS: Of these interns, 52.3% were female. Significant differences were observed in TIF (male 6.4 vs female 5.3, p = 0.029), aTIF (male 10.8 vs female 8.7, p = 0.035), gender concordance with senior authors (male 79.9% vs female 34.1%, p < 0.001), Hirsch index (male 21.0 vs female 18.0, p = 0.026), and the geographic region of their medical schools (p = 0.036). Multivariable linear regressions revealed that female interns were associated with lower TIF (0.858, p = 0.033) and aTIF (0.851, p = 0.044). Due to a significant gender-by-region interaction, adjusted pairwise comparisons showed that male interns in the Northeast had approximately 70% higher TIF (1.708, p = 0.003) and aTIF (1.697, p = 0.013) than female interns in the South. CONCLUSIONS: Gender disparities existed in the quality of research experience in the earliest phase of surgical training. These timely results call for additional interventions by the stakeholders of graduate medical education.

Gender Inequalities in Publications about COVID-19 in Spain: Authorship and Sex-Disaggregated Data.

Gender inequalities in biomedical literature have been widely reported in authorship as well as the scarcity of results that are stratified by sex in the studies. We conducted a bibliometric review of articles on COVID-19 published in the main Spanish medical journals between April 2020 and May 2021. The purpose of this study was to analyse differences in authorship order and composition by sex and their evolution over time, as well as the frequency of sex-disaggregated empirical results and its relationship with the author sex in articles on COVID-19 in the main Spanish biomedical journals. We identified 914 articles and 4921 authors, 57.5% men and 42.5% women. Women accounted for 36.7% of first authors and for 33.7% of last authors. Monthly variation in authorship over the course of the pandemic indicates that women were always less likely to publish as first authors. Only 1.0% of the articles broke down empirical results by sex. Disaggregation of results by sex was significantly more frequent when women were first authors and when women were the majority in the authorship. It is important to make gender inequalities visible in scientific dissemination and to promote gender-sensitive research, which can help to reduce gender bias in clinical studies as well as to design public policies for post-pandemic recovery that are more gender-equitable.

Authors, Reviewers and Nonfinancial Conflict of Interest: Can We Manage This Bond?

Manuscript reviewers and the accuracy of the review process are fundamental to the quality of a scientific journal and authors place tremendous confidence in peer reviewers' impartiality [...].

Trends in otolaryngology publications: a 9-year bibliometric analysis of articles published in Journal of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery.

BACKGROUND: The advancement of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery (OHNS) as a specialty relies on excellence in research. The Journal of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery is an open access, peer-reviewed journal publishing on all aspects and subspecialities of OHNS. It is the official journal of the Canadian Society of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery. This study aims to analyze bibliometric trends in authorships and institutional contributions within the Journal of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery over a 9-year period. METHODS: All research articles published online in the journal were analyzed from 2013 to the end of 2021. The professional designation of all authors was recorded along with the article type, article category, institutional affiliations and international collaborations. Cochran-Armitage trend tests were used to assess the change in proportion over time between years and groups. RESULTS: Of the 603 articles, 20 were excluded as they represented correspondence or corrections, or author identity could not be determined. 583 articles with 3409 total authors were included. Number of first authors with a Doctor of Medicine (MD) degree decreased from 90.2 to 85.3% (P = 0.165). Sub-group analysis of non-MD first authors demonstrated a significant increase in medical students as first authors from 1.6 to 11.8% (P = 0.008). Senior author degree demonstrated a significant increase in MD degree from 96.7 to 98.5% (P = 0.002). Analysis of article categories demonstrated a significant decrease in education and head and neck surgery related articles from 8.2 to 2.9% (P = 0.032) and 44.3 to 29.4% (P = 0.028) respectively. Pediatric otolaryngology articles increased significantly from 0 to 5.9% (P < 0.0001). Systematic and scoping reviews significantly increased, from 3.3 to 10.3% (P = 0.015) and original research significantly decreased from 83.6 to 82.4% (P < 0.0001). There was a significant decrease in Canadian/international collaborations from 14.3 to 4.7% (P = 0.037). There was a significant increase in international first and senior authors, from 23.0 to 36.8% (P = 0.008) and 19.7 to 38.2% (P = 0.002) respectively. CONCLUSION: The landscape of the journal is evolving with increased representation of non-MDs and international authors along with content that reflects higher level of scientific evidence. Future studies should characterize trends in other Otolaryngology journals to understand the research trajectory within the field.