Bibliometric analysis of research published in Tropical Medicine and International Health 1996-2003.
(57/310)
We examine the bibliometric profile of Tropical Medicine and International Health using the subjects of the articles published and the geographical distribution of the authors. The most common subject areas of papers published during 1996-2003 are highlighted, and the most cited papers indicated. (+info)
Who gets acknowledged: measuring scientific contributions through automatic acknowledgment indexing.
(58/310)
Acknowledgements in research publications, like citations, indicate influential contributions to scientific work. However, acknowledgements are different from citations; whereas citations are formal expressions of debt, acknowledgements are arguably more personal, singular, or private expressions of appreciation and contribution. Furthermore, many sources of research funding expect researchers to acknowledge any support that contributed to the published work. Just as citation indexing proved to be an important tool for evaluating research contributions, we argue that acknowledgements can be considered as a metric parallel to citations in the academic audit process. We have developed automated methods for acknowledgment extraction and analysis and show that combining acknowledgment analysis with citation indexing yields a measurable impact of the efficacy of various individuals as well as government, corporate, and university sponsors of scientific work. (+info)
Perceptions of open access publishing: interviews with journal authors.
(59/310)
OBJECTIVE: To explore authors' attitudes towards open access publishing and author charges, their perceptions of journals that charge authors, and whether they would be willing to submit to these journals. DESIGN: Semistructured telephone interviews. PARTICIPANTS: 28 randomly selected international authors who submitted to the BMJ in 2003. RESULTS: Authors were more aware of the concepts of open access publishing and author pays models than previously reported. Almost all authors supported the concept of open access, but few had submitted to an open access journal, other than the BMJ. Reasons for not submitting included lack of awareness of which journals publish with open access, and journal quality taking a higher priority in decision making than the availability of open access. Authors disliked the idea of author charges without institutional support and were concerned about implications for authors from developing countries and those without research funding. However, many said they would probably continue to submit to journals they perceived as being of high quality even if they charged authors. CONCLUSIONS: Authors consider perceived journal quality as more important than open access when deciding where to submit papers. New journals with open access may need to do more to reassure authors of the quality of their journals. (+info)
Ethics and scientific publication.
(60/310)
This article summarizes the major categories of ethical violations encountered during submission, review, and publication of scientific articles. We discuss data fabrication and falsification, plagiarism, redundant and duplicate publication, conflict of interest, authorship, animal and human welfare, and reviewer responsibility. In each section, pertinent historical background and citation of relevant regulations and statutes are provided. Furthermore, a specific case(s) derived from actual situations is(are) presented. These cases were chosen to highlight the complexities that investigators and journals must face when dealing with ethical issues. A series of discussion questions follow each case. It is our hope that by increasing education and awareness of ethical matters relevant to scientific investigation and publication, deviations from appropriate conduct will be reduced. (+info)
Manuscript Architect: a Web application for scientific writing in virtual interdisciplinary groups.
(61/310)
BACKGROUND: Although scientific writing plays a central role in the communication of clinical research findings and consumes a significant amount of time from clinical researchers, few Web applications have been designed to systematically improve the writing process. This application had as its main objective the separation of the multiple tasks associated with scientific writing into smaller components. It was also aimed at providing a mechanism where sections of the manuscript (text blocks) could be assigned to different specialists. Manuscript Architect was built using Java language in conjunction with the classic lifecycle development method. The interface was designed for simplicity and economy of movements. Manuscripts are divided into multiple text blocks that can be assigned to different co-authors by the first author. Each text block contains notes to guide co-authors regarding the central focus of each text block, previous examples, and an additional field for translation when the initial text is written in a language different from the one used by the target journal. Usability was evaluated using formal usability tests and field observations. RESULTS: The application presented excellent usability and integration with the regular writing habits of experienced researchers. Workshops were developed to train novice researchers, presenting an accelerated learning curve. The application has been used in over 20 different scientific articles and grant proposals. CONCLUSION: The current version of Manuscript Architect has proven to be very useful in the writing of multiple scientific texts, suggesting that virtual writing by interdisciplinary groups is an effective manner of scientific writing when interdisciplinary work is required. (+info)
The corporate coauthor.
(62/310)
Drug marketing techniques include the sponsorship of articles signed by academic physicians or researchers and submitted to peer-reviewed medical journals. Some of these articles are authored or coauthored by ghostwriters who work for pharmaceutical companies or medical education companies hired by pharmaceutical companies. Conflicts of interest may be difficult to detect in the subset of articles and presentations sponsored by pharmaceutical companies that never mention the targeted drug, but focus on stimulating the perceived need for the targeted drug or highlighting problems with competing drugs. The current voluntary standards for declaring conflicts of interest to readers of medical journals and audiences at medical conferences are inadequate. A public database that contains conflicts of interest of physicians and researchers would be useful. (+info)
Authorship outlets of academic health sciences librarians.
(63/310)
Journal articles are the most common publication format for U.S. academic health sciences librarians. This is consistent with the findings of other researchers. Of the total publications in this study, 68% were in journals. Watson found that 69% of the academic librarians' publications were published in some type of journal [8]. Similarly, Yerkey and Glogowski found that 67% of the publications in their study were journal articles, although their population consisted of all types of authors of library/information science materials [9]. Both the present study and Watson found that monographs were the second most common publication outlet. Watson found that 16% of the total publications were monographs; the current study identified 14.8% of the total publications as monographs [10]. Although Watson's findings are similar to the newer results, it is important to note that Watson's study was conducted in a different manner and included book reviews, which were not counted in the present study. The health sciences librarians in the present study published more than two thirds of their articles in library/information science journals and 27% in health sciences journals. Similarly, in Yerkey and Glogowski's study, the second-largest number of library/information science articles appeared in medical and health sciences journals [11]. Fang also found that 22.57% of the journal articles on health sciences librarianship or by health sciences librarians were in medical journals [12. This seems to demonstrate the desire of health sciences librarians to communicate with the health professionals. Yerkey and Glogowski that library and information science is an interdisciplinary field, "borrowing and supplying information to and from other disciplines"[13]. (+info)
How international are leading general paediatric journals?
(64/310)
The composition of the editorial boards of leading general paediatric journals was assessed. The board members' country of current affiliation was classified according to the Human Development Index. The results showed that only a very small number of the board members are based in the developing world. (+info)