Perceptions of Scientific Authorship Revisited: Country Differences and the Impact of Perceived Publication Pressure

Research integrity in Instructions for Authors in Japanese medical journals using ICMJE Recommendations: A descriptive literature study

BACKGROUND

The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) has published Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals. These provide a global standard for writing and editing medical articles, including research integrity. However, no study has examined the research integrity-related content of Japanese medical journals' Instructions for Authors. We therefore compared research integrity content in ICMJE member journals with those in the English- and Japanese-language journals of the Japanese Association of Medical Sciences (JAMS).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a descriptive literature study. We obtained Instructions for Authors from English- and Japanese-language journals listed on the JAMS website and the ICMJE member journals listed on the ICMJE website as of September 1, 2021. We compared the presence of 20 topics (19 in the ICMJE Recommendations plus compliance with ICMJE) in the Instructions for Authors, and analyzed the content of the conflict of interest disclosure.

RESULTS

We evaluated 12 ICMJE member journals, and 82 English-language and 99 Japanese-language subcommittee journals. The median number of topics covered was 10.5 for ICMJE member journals, 10 for English-language journals, and three for Japanese-language journals. Compliance with ICMJE was mentioned by 10 (83%) ICMJE member journals, 75 (91%) English-language journals, and 29 (29%) Japanese-language journals. The ICMJE Conflicts of Interest Disclosure Form was requested by seven (64%) ICMJE member journals, 15 (18%) English-language journals, and one (1%) Japanese-language journal.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the topics in the JAMS English-language journals resembled those in the ICMJE member journals, the median value of ICMJE-related topic inclusion was approximately one-third lower in JAMS Japanese-language journals than in ICMJE member journals. It is hoped that Japanese-language journals whose conflict of interest disclosure policies differ from ICMJE standards will adopt international standards to deter misconduct and ensure publication quality.

Authorship of Publications Supported by NCI-Funded Grants Involving Low- and Middle-Income Countries

Importance

Scientific publication is an important tool for knowledge dissemination and career advancement, but authors affiliated with institutions in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) are historically underrepresented on publications.

Objective

To assess the country income level distribution of author affiliations for publications resulting from National Cancer Institute (NCI)-supported extramural grants between 2015 and 2019, with international collaborating institutions exclusively in 1 or more LMICs.

Design and Setting

This cross-sectional study assessed authorship on publications resulting from NCI-funded grants between October 1, 2015, and September 30, 2019. Grants with collaborators in LMICs were identified in the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Query/View/Report and linked to publications using Dimensions for NIH, published between 2011 and 2020. Statistical analysis was performed from May 2021 to July 2022.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Author institutional affiliation was used to classify author country and related income level as defined by the World Bank. Relative citation ratio and Altmetric data from Dimensions for NIH were used to compare citation impact measures using the Wilcoxon rank sum test.

Results

In this cross-sectional study, 159 grants were awarded to US institutions with collaborators in LMICs, and 5 grants were awarded directly to foreign institutions. These 164 grants resulted in 2428 publications, of which 1242 (51%) did not include any authors affiliated with an institution in an LMIC. In addition, 1884 (78%) and 2009 (83%) publications had a first or last author, respectively, affiliated with a high-income country (HIC). Publications with HIC-affiliated last authors also demonstrated greater citation impact compared with publications with LMIC-affiliated last authors as measured by relative citation ratios and Altmetric Attention Scores; publications with HIC-affiliated first authors also had higher Altmetric Attention Scores.

Conclusions and Relevance

This cross-sectional study suggests that LMIC-affiliated authors were underrepresented on publications resulting from NCI-funded grants involving LMICs. It is critical to promote equitable scientific participation by LMIC institutions in cancer research, including through current and planned programs led by the NCI.

Evolution and characterization of health sciences paper retractions in Brazil and Portugal

The retraction of health sciences publications is a growing concern. To understand the patterns in a particular country-context and design specific measures to address the problem, it is important to describe and characterize retractions. We aimed to assess the evolution of health science retractions in Brazil and Portugal and to describe their features. We conducted a cross-sectional study including all health sciences retracted articles with at least one author affiliated to a Portuguese or Brazilian institution identified through Retraction Watch database. A total of 182 retracted articles were identified. The number of retractions increased over time, but the proportion related to the whole of publications remained stable. A total of 50.0% and 60.8% of the Portuguese and Brazilian retracted articles, respectively, were published in first and second quartile journals. Scientific misconduct accounted for 60.1% and 55.9% of retractions in Brazil and Portugal. In both countries, the most frequent cause of misconduct was plagiarism. The time from publication to retraction decreases as the journal quartile increases. The retraction of health sciences articles did not decrease over time in Brazil and Portugal. There is a need to develop strategies aimed at preventing, monitoring and managing scientific misconduct according to the country context.

Job stress and university faculty members' life satisfaction: The mediating role of emotional burnout

As one of the leading work-related health problems arising from increasingly fierce competition, work-related stress has become a significant predictor of the reduced wellbeing of university faculty members, especially for non-tenured junior faculty members. In light of this and based on a survey, this research seeks to examine how and why work-related stress impacts the life satisfaction level of university junior faculty members. The results indicate that the three subdivisions of university faculty members' work-related stress, namely, research stress, teaching stress, and administrative stress, are all negatively related to their life satisfaction level. In addition, emotional burnout has been confirmed to function as the psychological mechanism for the aforementioned main effects. The research contributes to the literature mainly by offering a new insight in which the three subdivisions of work-related stress are regarded as independent variables affecting the life satisfaction level of university junior faculty members.

Under pressure: The extent and distribution of perceived pressure among scientists in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland

While it has been stressed repeatedly that academics nowadays have come to face extensive pressure, the extent and distribution of pressure to publish and to secure third-party funding has not been systematically investigated on a large scale. Based on the Zurich Survey of Academics, a representative large-scale web survey among academics working at universities in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland (DACH region), which measures perceived pressure using six-point Likert scales, this article examines the extent and distribution of pressure to publish and to attract external funding. Specifically, we examine differences in perceived pressure across countries, disciplines, types of higher education institutions, sociodemographic characteristics (academic status, age, gender, relationship status, number of children), and working conditions (non-tenured/tenured, time available for research). It is shown that researchers in the DACH region feel a high level of pressure, with the pressure to publish being slightly greater than the pressure to attract external funding. The results also suggest that perceived pressure is not evenly distributed among countries and groups of academics. Specifically, the results suggest that (1) more secure and permanent (tenured) positions should be created and (2) the high-performance culture should be addressed in at least some disciplines if excessive pressure is to be alleviated. The findings also suggest that further investments should be made (3) to promote equal career opportunities for women and men and (4) to ensure that scientists have sufficient time for their research and are not too occupied with other responsibilities, such as teaching or administrative duties.