Impact of JAT publications 1981-2003: the most prolific authors and the most highly cited articles.
(65/310)
The Journal of Analytical Toxicology (JAT) recently celebrated its 25th anniversary as an international periodical devoted to publishing scholarly articles in the field of analytical and forensic toxicology. Over the years many important papers spanning the entire field of chemical toxicology have appeared in JAT. One way to assess the usefulness of these papers is by looking at the number of times they subsequently become cited in the reference lists of papers published in other peer-reviewed journals including JAT itself (self-citations). The Thomson Institute for Scientific Information (ISI), headquartered in Philadelphia, PA, has produced a citation database containing all JAT articles published between 1981 through 2003 (N = 2254). This database was used to gather information about the most prolific authors of articles appearing in JAT, the most highly cited articles, the inter-relationships between co-authors, and the countries where the work originated. The person listed most frequently as an author was E.J. Cone, who authored or co-authored 69 papers that attracted a total of 1432 citations, giving a citation impact of 20.76. However, the most highly cited article in JAT was a solo-author work from 1981 by M.E. Jolley describing a fluorescence polarization immunoassay for the analysis of therapeutic drugs in plasma, which was cited 184 times. Working and writing in teams can boost the output of scientific articles as exemplified by the Institut de Medecine Legale in Strasbourg with P. Kintz as the driving force. Kintz and his associates produced the most collaborative work published in JAT. Citation analysis is being increasingly used to evaluate the importance of scientific articles and the journals where these works are published (e.g., impact factors). This article has identified JAT's scientific elite as evidenced by the most prolific authors and the most highly cited papers. (+info)
The White Bull effect: abusive coauthorship and publication parasitism.
(66/310)
Junior researchers can be abused and bullied by unscrupulous senior collaborators. This article describes the profile of a type of serial abuser, the White Bull, who uses his academic seniority to distort authorship credit and who disguises his parasitism with carefully premeditated deception. Further research into the personality traits of such perpetrators is warranted. (+info)
Authorship ignorance: views of researchers in French clinical settings.
(67/310)
OBJECTIVES: To assess the knowledge and behaviour of researchers regarding criteria for authorship, and the practices of ghost and gift authorship. DESIGN: Semidirective interviews of senior clinical researchers. SETTING: University hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty-nine main investigators of clinical research programmes. MAIN MEASUREMENTS: Awareness and use of International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) criteria for authorship, and perceptions about ghost and gift authorship. RESULTS: A total of 48 protocols submitted by 42 principal investigators between 1994 and 1996 were identified. Thirty-nine investigators were contacted; 37 (one of whom delegated a co-author) were interviewed between May 2002 and March 2003. Two co-authors of two principal investigators were also interviewed. In all, 42 studies were represented. The interviews lasted for 40-90 minutes and were conducted with openness and respect for confidentiality. The choice of names of co-authors did not follow the ICMJE recommendations. Half of the respondents stated they were aware of criteria for authorship and knew of ICMJE, but most of them did not cite any of the ICMJE criteria among those they applied in deciding authorship. Most of them disagreed with the obligation to meet the three criteria justifying co-authorship because they found these too rigid and inapplicable. Gift authorship was a common practice; 59% of the respondents had been a recipient of gift authorship. Twenty-five (64%) were aware of ghost authorship and the majority considered it questionable and blameworthy. CONCLUSIONS: The ICMJE criteria were ignored by clinicians at a university hospital. Ghost and gift authorship were frequent among them. There is a need for French guidelines for authorship to be prepared and implemented. (+info)
What makes the best medical ethics journal? A North American perspective.
(68/310)
BACKGROUND: There currently exist no data on the factors that contribute to determining why medical ethicists choose to review for and submit articles to medical ethics journals. OBJECTIVE: To establish which factors contribute to medical ethicists reviewing articles for or submitting them to medical ethics journals by consulting those who are active in this capacity. METHODS: Medical ethicists were surveyed to determine their incentives and disincentives for reviewing articles for or submitting them to medical ethics journals. Survey participants were chosen based on a review of the academic and research record of medical ethicists working in North America in higher education institutions. RESULTS: The most frequent incentives to reviewing journal articles were: an opportunity to contribute to the field/profession, the good reputation of the journal, the high impact factor of the journal, and to keep up to date on current research. The most frequent disincentives to reviewing journal articles were: time constraints due to academic commitments, the poor reputation of the journal, and time constraints caused by other editorial commitments (for example, reviewing for other journals/publishers). The most important incentives to submitting journal articles were: the good reputation of the journal, the quality of scholarship previously published in the journal, the impact factor of the journal, and a fast turn-around from acceptance to publication. The most important disincentives to submitting journal articles were: the poor reputation of the journal, the poor quality of work previously published in the journal, and a slow turn-around from acceptance to publication. CONCLUSION: A series of factors that medical ethics journals should strive to employ to encourage reviewing and submission of articles are recommended. (+info)
Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy: optional open access and not-for-profit.
(69/310)
All JAC articles are currently freely accessible 12 months after publication, a form of deferred open access. From 2006, JAC will offer the option of author-pays open access, so that individual articles can be made open access immediately upon publication. In addition, JAC will allow the deposition by authors of post-prints of the accepted version of their article as encouraged by granting bodies such as the US National Institutes of Health (NIH), and others. We are adopting such policies to support our authors who must comply with the requirements of their funding bodies and institutions, however, we do not believe that deposition of the post-print form of the article is the most useful step for the progression of research, as we shall note in this article. These changes will enable JAC to deliver the potential for expanded access to articles at a rate determined by the desire among the author community to do so, but without compromising the long-term viability of JAC and the services we offer. (+info)
Tobacco document research reporting.
(70/310)
OBJECTIVE: To understand the use of internal tobacco industry documents in the peer reviewed health literature. DESIGN: Interpretive analysis of published research. SAMPLE: 173 papers indexed in Medline between 1995 and 2004 that cited tobacco industry documents. ANALYSIS: Information about year published, journal and author, and a set of codes relating to methods reporting, were managed in N*Vivo. This coding formed the basis of an interpretation of tobacco document research reporting. RESULTS: Two types of papers were identified. The first used tobacco documents as the primary data source (A-papers). The second was dedicated to another purpose but cited a small number of documents (B-papers). In B-papers documents were used either to provide a specific example or to support an expansive contention. A-papers contained information about purpose, sources, searching, analysis, and limitations that differed by author and journal and over time. A-papers had no clear methodological context, but used words from three major traditions--interpretive research, positivist research, and history--to describe analysis. INTERPRETATION: A descriptive mainstream form of tobacco document reporting is proposed, initially typical but decreasing, and a continuum of positioning of the researcher, from conduit to constructor. Reporting practices, particularly from experienced researchers, appeared to evolve towards researcher as constructor, with later papers showing more complex purposes, diverse sources, and detail of searching and analysis. Tobacco document research could learn from existing research traditions: a model for planning and evaluating tobacco document research is presented. (+info)
Authorship: an ethical dilemma of science.
(71/310)
CONTEXT AND OBJECTIVE: The scientific and technological progress that has taken place since the 1960s has brought an ever-growing volume of scientific research, and inflation in co-authorship. Over this period, it has been observed that an increasing number of publications have listed authors or co-authors whose participation in the published research was minimal or even nonexistent. The objective of this work was to analyze reports in the literature regarding misconduct in authorship: its types, chief causes, consequences and ethical guidelines; and to outline proposals for greater ethical commitment in scientific publication. DESIGN AND SETTING: Narrative review undertaken at Faculdade de Medicina de Itajuba, Minas Gerais, Brazil. METHODS: Analysis of publications about authorship using the Medline, Lilacs and SciELO databases. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Frequent types of misconduct were gift authorship and divided and redundant publications. The chief causes of these practices seem to be the pressure exerted by academia and the desire for social and professional development. Such factors have brought an increase in unethical behavior. This bias in science continues despite the criteria defined by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, the Vancouver group. RECOMMENDATIONS: Various actions are proposed for educational institutions, research development agencies, regulatory agencies and professional associations. The aim is to establish an evaluation policy that gives primacy to the quality of publications and sets ethical principles for scientific research. (+info)
From presentation to publication: the natural history of orthopaedic abstracts in the United Kingdom.
(72/310)
BACKGROUND: Up to 63% of the chapters in major orthopaedic textbooks use the results from abstracts that have been presented at international orthopaedic meetings. METHODS: Orthopaedic abstracts were reviewed that were presented at the 1997 and 1998 meetings of the British Orthopaedic Association and other specialist orthopaedic meetings. The number of abstracts that had gone on to a full text publication was assessed and changes in study design or outcome were determined. RESULTS: Of the 415 abstracts 137 (33.0%) went on to full text publication. Abstracts presented at the British Orthopaedic Association were significantly more likely to go on to full text publication than abstracts from the other meetings studied. The mean time to publication was 15.6 months. Sample sizes in unpublished studies were smaller (mean 129.8 subjects compared with a mean of 191.4 subjects for published studies). Of full text papers, 19.0% differed regarding study design from the abstract presented at the initial meeting and 10.9% had published different results. Randomised controlled trials had the highest rate of later full text publication (53.6%) followed by observational studies (32.8%), basic science studies (31.4%), and case reports (6.7%). CONCLUSIONS: In comparison with a study from North America, similar numbers of abstracts presented at meetings finally became published as full text articles, the abstracts had fewer authors, more often included randomised controlled trials and follow up data, and had fewer changes to the results. It is questionable whether the inclusion of such results from abstracts presented at international meetings by major orthopaedic textbooks should be undertaken before full text publication. (+info)