Ghost and guest authors: you can't always trust who you read

Who are the most highly cited forensic scientists in the United States?

The most highly cited forensic practitioners in the United States were identified using a publicly available citation database that used six different citation metrics to calculate each person's composite citation score. The publication and citation data were gleaned from Elsevier's SCOPUS database, which contained information about ~7 million scientist each of whom had at least five entries in the database. Each individual was categorized into 22 scientific fields and 176 subfields, one of which was legal and forensic medicine (LFM). The database contained citation records for 13,388 individuals having LFM as their primary research discipline and 282 of these (2%) were classified as being highly cited. Another 99 individuals in the database had LFM as their secondary discipline, making a total of 381 highly cited forensic practitioners from 35 different countries. The career-long publication records of each individual were compared using their composite citation scores. Of the 381 highly cited scientists, 93 (24%) had an address somewhere in the United States. The various branches of forensics they specialized in were anthropology, criminalistics, DNA/genetics, odontology, pathology, statistics/epidemiology, and toxicology. The two most highly cited scientists, according to their composite citation score, were both specialists in DNA/genetics. Bibliometric methods are widely used for evaluating research performance in academia and a similar approach might be useful in jurisprudence, such as when an expert witness is instructed to testify in court and explain the meaning of scientific evidence.

Mastering the scientific peer review process: tips for young authors from a young senior editor

Are you a student at a higher institution or an early-career researcher who is striving to understand and master the peer review process so to increase the odds of getting a paper published in the Journal of Forestry Research or another reputable, peer-reviewed, scientific journal? In this paper, a young, senior editor provides a handbook of the peer review process based on his decadal experience in scientific publishing. He covers major information you need to know during the entire process, from selecting journals to completing the proofing of your accepted paper. He introduces key points for consideration, such as avoidance of predatory journals, dubious research practices and ethics, interaction with peers, reviewers, and editors, and the pursuit of aretê. Finally, he points out some common statistical errors and misconceptions, such as P hacking and incorrect effect size inference. He hopes that this paper will enhance your understanding and knowledge of the peer-review process.

Exclusion of Expert Contributors From Authorship Limits the Quality of Scientific Articles

Veterinary pathologists are key contributors to multidisciplinary biomedical research. However, they are occasionally excluded from authorship in published articles despite their substantial intellectual and data contributions. To better understand the potential origins and implications of this practice, we identified and analyzed 29 scientific publications where the contributing pathologist was excluded as an author. The amount of pathologist-generated data contributions were similar to the calculated average contributions for authors, suggesting that the amount of data contributed by the pathologist was not a valid factor for their exclusion from authorship. We then studied publications with pathologist-generated contributions to compare the effects of inclusion or exclusion of the pathologist as an author. Exclusion of the pathologist from authorship was associated with significantly lower markers of rigor and reproducibility compared to articles in which the pathologist was included as author. Although this study did not find justification for the exclusion of pathologists from authorship, potential consequences of their exclusion on data quality were readily detectable.

Publication ethics: Role and responsibility of authors

Publication of scientific paper is critical for modern science evolution, and professional advancement. However, it comes with many responsibilities. An author must be aware of good publication practices. While refraining from scientific misconduct or research frauds, authors should adhere to Good Publication Practices (GPP). Publications which draw conclusions from manipulated or fabricated data could prove detrimental to society and health care research. Good science can blossom only when research is conducted and documented with complete honesty and ethics. Unfortunately, publish or perish attitude has led to unethical practices in scientific research and publications. There is need to identify, acknowledge, and generate awareness among junior researchers or postgraduate students to curb scientific misconduct and adopt GPP. This article discusses various unethical publication practices in research. Also, the role and responsibilities of authors have been discussed with the purpose of maintaining the credibility and objectivity of publication.

Accommodating an Uninvited Guest: Perspectives of Researchers in Switzerland on 'Honorary' Authorship

The aim of this paper is to analyze the attitudes and reactions of researchers towards an authorship claim made by a researcher in a position of authority who has not made any scientific contribution to a manuscript or helped to write it. This paper draws on semi-structured interviews conducted with 33 researchers at three seniority levels working in biomedicine and the life sciences in Switzerland. This manuscript focuses on the analysis of participants' responses when presented with a vignette describing an authorship assignment dilemma within a research group. The analysis indicates that researchers use a variety of explanations and arguments to justify inclusion of what guidelines would describe as honorary or guest authorship. Fuzzy parameters such as "substantial contribution" lead to varied interpretation and consequently convenient application of authorship guidelines in practice. Factors such as the culture of the research group, the values and practice shaped by the research leaders, the hierarchy and relative (perceived) positions of power within research institutions, and the importance given to publications as the currency for academic success and growth tend to have a strong influence on authorship practice. Unjustified authorship assignment practices can be reduced to some extent by creating empowering research cultures where each researcher irrespective of his/her career stage feels empowered to confidently raise concerns without fearing adverse impact on their professional lives. However, individual researchers and research institutions currently have limited influence on established methods for evaluating academic success, which is primarily based on the number of high impact publications.

Over-optimization of academic publishing metrics: observing Goodhart's Law in action

BACKGROUND

The academic publishing world is changing significantly, with ever-growing numbers of publications each year and shifting publishing patterns. However, the metrics used to measure academic success, such as the number of publications, citation number, and impact factor, have not changed for decades. Moreover, recent studies indicate that these metrics have become targets and follow Goodhart's Law, according to which, "when a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure."

RESULTS

In this study, we analyzed >120 million papers to examine how the academic publishing world has evolved over the last century, with a deeper look into the specific field of biology. Our study shows that the validity of citation-based measures is being compromised and their usefulness is lessening. In particular, the number of publications has ceased to be a good metric as a result of longer author lists, shorter papers, and surging publication numbers. Citation-based metrics, such citation number and h-index, are likewise affected by the flood of papers, self-citations, and lengthy reference lists. Measures such as a journal's impact factor have also ceased to be good metrics due to the soaring numbers of papers that are published in top journals, particularly from the same pool of authors. Moreover, by analyzing properties of >2,600 research fields, we observed that citation-based metrics are not beneficial for comparing researchers in different fields, or even in the same department.

CONCLUSIONS

Academic publishing has changed considerably; now we need to reconsider how we measure success.