Trends in Authorship Characteristics in The American Journal of Sports Medicine, 1994 to 2014

Time-based changes in authorship trend in research-intensive universities in Malaysia

Considering the fact that publications serve as an important criterion to evaluate the scientific accomplishments of an individual within respective fields in academia, there has been an increasing trend to publish scientific articles whereby multiple authors are defined as primary, co-, or corresponding authors according to the roles performed. This article analyzes the authorship pattern in 4,561 papers (including 60 single-authored papers) from 1990 till 2020 of 94 academics who hold a position as professors and are affiliated with the Faculty of Medicine at three different research universities in Malaysia. Only 708 papers (15.5% of 4,561 papers) were authored by less than three authors. In 3,080 papers (67.5% of 4,561 papers), those academics appeared as coauthors. Using different years as cutoff periods, it was observed that the appearance as coauthor in the papers had steeply risen around the years: 2006, 2007, 2008 and onwards. The increased number of authors in the multi-author papers and the appearance of the selected academics as coauthors reflect the extent of boosting of collaborative research in that period which corresponds to the adoption of the "publish or perish policy" by the Ministry of Higher Education in Malaysia.

Trends in authorship in the Journal of Cutaneous Pathology, 1981-2020

BACKGROUND

The increase in authors per scientific article in many different medical and scientific disciplines has raised concerns over ethical authorship. Trends in authorship in dermatopathology are unknown.

METHODS

Cross-sectional study of a random sample of 200 articles from the Journal of Cutaneous Pathology (1981-2020).

RESULTS

The number of authors per article increased by an estimated 96% between 1981 and 2020 (2.7-5.3), while the relative citation ratio decreased by an estimated 56% during the same period (1.19-0.52). Higher author counts were not associated with higher relative citation ratios (p = 0.2349) or analytic study designs (p = 0.2987). Higher relative citation ratios were associated with analytic study designs (p = 0.0374).

CONCLUSIONS

There has been significant growth in authorship credit at the journal without a corresponding increase in research impact or study rigor. Remedial measures to stem authorship inflation and promote more impactful studies may be necessary.

The catch-22 of promotion: Is becoming department chair of surgery a threat to the triple threat?

BACKGROUND

Despite the "fourth threat" of administrative demands, department chairs of surgery are expected to continue being a "triple threat": productive in research, outstanding in teaching, and exemplary in practice. Increased demands despite limited time are the catch-22 of promotion. This study investigated the influence of becoming department chair on scholarly vigor.

METHODS

The surgeons listed in the Society of Surgical Chairs Membership Directory website (n = 118) were included in this study. Three measures were compared during the pre- and post-promotion phases: (1) research productivity (annual publications); (2) authorship position in publications (first-authorship, co-authorship, and senior-authorship); and (3) scholarly impact (m-index and National Institute of Health funding).

RESULTS

The median [interquartile range] number of publications per year increased post-promotion versus pre-promotion (7.64 [3.81-14.15] vs 4.12 [2.08-7.03], P < .0005). The median [interquartile range] number of first-authorship publications per year decreased (0.50 [0.00-1.00] vs 0.64 [0.32-1.22], P < .05), whereas the median [interquartile range] number of co-authorship (4.23 [1.98-9.70] vs 2.02 [1.02-3.95], P < .0005) and senior-authorship (1.87 [0.99-4.03] vs 1.00 [0.36-2.24], P < .0005) publications per year increased post-promotion. The mean ± standard deviation m-index increased post-promotion (1.67 ± 1.19 vs 1.23 ± 0.83, P < .01). The mean ± standard deviation annual National Institute of Health grant funding amount of 48% (n = 57) of the department chairs increased post-promotion ($365,000 ± $899,000 vs $98,000 ± $143,000 pre-promotion, P < .05).

CONCLUSION

The fourth threat of administrative demands is not a threat to the triple threat. This study showed the department chairs' continued scholarly vigor after promotion, providing insight into their tenacity, resilience, and dedication.

Diversity in Plastic Surgery Authorship: A 14-Year Analysis of 2688 Articles Published in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery

BACKGROUND

Publication in peer-reviewed journals is a duty and privilege. It is essential to the advancement of evidence-based medicine and often used as a proxy for academic achievement, contributing to decisions around promotion in academia. Within plastic surgery, authors have historically been male surgeons affiliated with academic institutions, lacking representation of women, private practice, medical students, and international collaboration. This study analyzes differences in authors' gender, practice affiliation, degree of education, and international collaboration in articles published in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, which was chosen as the representative journal given its high impact factor (3.946) and consistent ranking as the number one journal in plastic surgery worldwide.

METHODS

A list of Breast, Cosmetic, and Hand/Peripheral Nerve articles published between 2006 and 2019 was compiled from the online archive of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery. Demographic author characteristics were recorded, and statistical analyses were performed to identify trends over time.

RESULTS

A total of 2688 articles were analyzed. The proportion of articles written by female authors in the Breast category, authors in private practice with academic affiliation in the Cosmetic section, and U.S. collaboration with other countries increased over time (p = 0.038, p = 0.029, p < 0.001, respectively). First authors with bachelor's, master's, and doctorate degrees have also been contributing increasingly.

CONCLUSIONS

This analysis revealed increasing demographic heterogeneity of authors in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery over time, with increasing contributions from women, surgeons in private practice with academic affiliation, medical students, and international collaborations. The Journal is capturing contributions from an increasingly diverse authorship, consistent with the changing demographics of plastic surgeons.

Significant increase in quantity and quality of knee arthroplasty related research in KSSTA over the past 15 years

PURPOSE

This study aimed to evaluate both publication and authorship characteristics in Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy journal (KSSTA) regarding knee arthroplasty over the past 15 years.

METHODS

PubMed was searched for articles published in KSSTA between January 1, 2006, and December 31st, 2020, utilising the search term 'knee arthroplasty'. 1288 articles met the inclusion criteria. The articles were evaluated using the following criteria: type of article, type of study, main topic and special topic, use of patient-reported outcome scores, number of references and citations, level of evidence (LOE), number of authors, gender of the first author and continent of origin. Three time intervals were compared: 2006-2010, 2011-2015 and 2016-2020.

RESULTS

Between 2016 and 2020, publications peaked at 670 articles (52%) compared with 465 (36%) published between 2011 and 2016 and 153 articles (12%) between 2006 and 2010. While percentage of reviews (2006-2010: 0% vs. 2011-2015: 5% vs. 2016-2020: 5%) and meta-analyses (1% vs. 6% vs. 5%) increased, fewer case reports were published (13% vs. 3% vs. 1%) (p < 0.001). Interest in navigation and computer-assisted surgery decreased, whereas interest in perioperative management, robotic and individualized surgery increased over time (p < 0.001). There was an increasing number of references [26 (2-73) vs. 30 (2-158) vs. 31 (1-143), p < 0.001] while number of citations decreased [30 (0-188) vs. 22 (0-264) vs. 6 (0-106), p < 0.001]. LOE showed no significant changes (p = 0.439). The number of authors increased between each time interval (p < 0.001), while the percentage of female authors was comparable between first and last interval (p = 0.252). Europe published significantly fewer articles over time (56% vs. 47% vs. 52%), whereas the number of articles from Asia increased (35% vs. 45% vs. 37%, p = 0.005).

CONCLUSION

Increasing interest in the field of knee arthroplasty-related surgery arose within the last 15 years in KSSTA. The investigated topics showed a significant trend towards the latest techniques at each time interval. With rising number of authors, the part of female first authors also increased-but not significantly. Furthermore, publishing characteristics showed an increasing number of publications from Asia and a slightly decreasing number in Europe.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV.

Internationalisation of general practice journals: a bibliometric analysis of the Science Citation Index database

Research plays a crucial role in the development of primary health care. Researchers in other specialities have studied the internationalisation of their journals, but no such study has been conducted for general practice. The aim of this study was to analyse the volume of publication and internationalisation of general practice journals indexed in the Science Citation Index (SCI) database in 2019. Of the total 1573 articles and reviews in 19 journals indexed under the subject category of 'primary health care' in the SCI database, 86.4% (n = 1359) were published in four English-speaking countries (32.8% in seven US journals, 34.8% in five UK journals, 12.5% in two Australian journals and 6.4% in one Canadian journal) and 40.6% (n = 639) were authored or coauthored by authors from a country other than that in which the journal was published. There was a significant (P < 0.05) relationship between the country of publication and the degree of internationalisation of the journal. The degree of internationalisation of general practice journals varied from 94.2% for family practice to 2.0% for primary care. There are wide disparities in internationalisation among different countries and general practice journals. There is much room for improvement in the internationalisation of general practice journals in the SCI database.

A comprehensive analysis of authorship trends in Skeletal Radiology since inception from 1976 to 2020

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study is to explore authorship trends within the musculoskeletal radiology subspecialty-focused journal, Skeletal Radiology, from inception to 2020.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Skeletal Radiology articles published in 1976, 1986, 1996, 2006, 2016, and 2020 were reviewed. For each article, the number of authors, the number of distinct institutions, the names of first and last authors, the country of the first author, the article length, and the number of article references were recorded.

RESULTS

A total of 885 articles passed the exclusion criteria to be included in the study. Since inception, there has been a significant increase in the number of SR articles published (P = 0.02), the mean number of authors per article (P < 0.01), the mean number of references per article (P < 0.01), the mean number of distinct institutions per article (P = 0.02), and the mean number of pages per article (P < 0.01). The proportion of female first and last authors significantly increased (P = 0.02, P = 0.02). There was a significant increase in the proportion of articles published from Asia (P = 0.04). However, no significant changes in the proportion of articles published from other regions were observed.

CONCLUSION

Similar to authorship trends in other medical journals, Skeletal Radiology demonstrated upward trends in authorship count, distinct institutional count, and article length. A rise in first and last female authorship was observed. Finally, an increase in the proportion of authors from Asia was observed while no significant changes in the proportion of authors from other regions were demonstrated.

Authorship trends in the Egyptian orthopedic journal (from 2012 to 2020), as an example of a specialized Egyptian medical journals

Background

Authorship trends in medical journals were studied in many disciplines, mostly in western countries' journals. We aimed at studying the authorship trends in the Egyptian Orthopaedic Journal as an example of a specialized Egyptian medical journal.

Results

A total of 397 articles were eligible for analysis. The mean number of authors per article was 2 ± 1 (range from 1 to 6), 161 (40.6%) articles were single authorship. The degree of the first author was reported in 305 (76.6%), the first author carried an M.D. degree in 302 (99%) articles, and in three (1%), the first author carried a master’s degree. No authors with a bachelor's degree were reported. Forty-two institutions contributed to the publications, 14 (33.3%) international and 28 (66.7%) Egyptian national institutions. In 368 (92.7%) articles, all the authors were from the same institution, and 29 (7.3%) articles were published as a cooperation between different institutions with a mean 1.1 ± 0.3 institution per article. International contribution to the journal was found in 21 (5.3%) articles. The orthopedic department from Cairo university was the most contributing department to the journal publications.

Conclusions

The old trend of single authorship prevails in the journal publications with a notable deficiency in young researchers’ contribution to the journal and low incidence of international contribution and poor national institution cooperation.

Authorship Proliferation of Research Articles in Top 10 Orthopaedic Journals: A 70-Year Analysis

Scholarly impact has been used to measure faculty productivity and academic contribution throughout academia. Traditionally, the number of articles authored has been the primary metric for scholarly impact regarding academic promotion and reputation. We hypothesize that over time, the nature of authorship has evolved to include more authors per research article throughout the history of orthopaedic literature.

Predictors of Above Average 6-Year Citation Rates in Leading Spine-Specific Medical Journals

STUDY DESIGN

Cross-sectional.

OBJECTIVE

To identify predictors of manuscripts achieving 6-year citation rates higher than the mean in spine-specific literature.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

An article's citation rate demonstrates its contribution to academia and its quality. Predictors of citation rates have not yet been studied in spine-specific medical literature.

METHODS

Three leading spine-specific journals were identified by a weighted scoring system comparing various journal metrics. Research articles published in 2014 were evaluated from the following journals: Spine, European Spine Journal, and Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine. Article features analyzed included journal of origin, number of words in article title, author count, degree of first author, conflicts of interest, quantity of contributing academic institutions, country of origin, study topic, study design, level of evidence, sample size, reference count, and citation rate. Multivariate logistic regression was used to determine predictors of above average citation rate at 6 years following publication.

RESULTS

The final analysis included 1091 articles. Spine had a significantly higher citation rate than European Spine Journal (P = 0.0008); however, no significant differences were observed between Spine and Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine. Regression analysis demonstrated that studies originating in North America (OR:1.44, 95% CI:1.01-2.01, P = 0.04), those with 6 ≥ authors (OR:1.72, 95% CI:1.29-2.30, P < 0.001), sample size >100 (P < 0.001), prospective case series (OR: 2.67, 95% CI: 1.24-5.76), and retrospective case series (OR: 1.99, 95% CI: 1.07-3.73) were independent predictors of achieving above average 6-year citation rates.

CONCLUSION

Spine, European Spine Journal, and Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine had the highest 6-year citation rates of the top 10 orthopedic spine journals, with Spine being significantly higher than European Spine Journal. Studies originating in North America, those with six or more authors, sample sizes > 100, and those that are retrospective or prospective case series are independent predictors of greater citation rates at 6 years in orthopedic spine-specific medical literature.Level of Evidence: 4.

Medical Student Mentorship in Orthopaedic Surgery

Mentorship is a key aspect of medical education, but the availability and quality of mentorship varies considerably between institutions. The lack of standardization results in information asymmetry and creates notable inequities. This disparity is particularly important for students interested in pursuing competitive specialties, such as orthopaedic surgery. The purpose of this study was to (1) demonstrate the importance of mentorship in orthopaedics, (2) provide a framework for orthopaedic surgeon mentors, and (3) guide medical students interested in activating and expanding their networks.

Bibliometric Analysis of the English Musculoskeletal Literature over the Last 30 Years

Publication and authorship are important in academia for career advancement, obtaining grants, and improved patient care. There has been a recent interest in bibliometric changes over time, especially regarding the gender gap. The purpose of this study was to explore bibliometric changes in the musculoskeletal literature. Bibliometric variables (number of authors, institutions, countries, pages, references, corresponding author position, author gender, geographic region of origin, and editorial board makeup) were analyzed for 5 basic science and 12 clinically oriented musculoskeletal journals from 1985 through 2016. Statistical analyses comprised bivariate analyses, multifactorial ANOVAs, and logistic regression analyses. A p < 0.005 was considered significant. Nearly, all variables increased over time. Asia had the highest number of authors and corresponding author positions, Australia/New Zealand the highest number of institutions and references, North America the highest number of pages, and Europe the highest number of countries. Those with a female first author had more authors, institutions, countries, references, and pages. Likewise, those with a female corresponding author had more authors, institutions, countries, references, and pages. Single-authored manuscripts decreased over time. The percentage of female first authors rose from 10.8% in 1985-1987 to 23.7% in 2015-2016. There were more female 1^st authors in the basic science journals compared to the clinical journals (33.2% vs. 12.7%). Single-authored manuscripts were more likely to be written by males (5.1 vs. 2.4%) and decreased over time. The many differences by geographic region of origin likely reflect different socio/cultural attitudes regarding academia and research, as well as the gender composition of the disciplines by geographic region. Overall, there has been an increase in the number of female 1^st and corresponding authors, editorial board members, and chief editors, indicating a slow but progressive narrowing of the gender gap.

Comparing the gender diversity and affiliation trends of the authors for two orthopaedics journals from the Arab world

OBJECTIVES

Authorship trends, female authors' contributions, and the collaboration among institutions have been a concern in the medical field. This study primarily aims to report and compare the number of authors per article and the prevalence of female authors by comparing two orthopaedics journals from the Arab world. The secondary objective of this study is to evaluate the characteristics of the authors' affiliations and the pattern in institutions' collaborations and contributions to the published articles.

METHODS

This cross-sectional study reviewed all articles (until July 2020) published in the Archives of the Egyptian Orthopaedic Journal (EOJ) (the official journal of the Egyptian Orthopaedic Association) and the Journal of Musculoskeletal Surgery and Research (JMSR) (the official journal of the Saudi Orthopaedic Association).

RESULTS

We evaluated 383 and 122 articles from the EOJ and JMSR, respectively. The average number of authors per article was significantly higher for JMSR (4.3 ± 1.7) than EOJ (2.0 ± 1.0); p = 0.000. There was a significantly larger number of contributions by female authors in JMSR (75, 14.2%) than EOJ (2, 0.3%); p = 0.000. The average number of institutions per article was significantly larger for JMSR (2.1 ± 1.2) than EOJ (1.1 ± 0.3); p = 0.000. For the JMSR, the incidence of national institutions' cooperation (27.9%) and international institutions' contributions (53.3%) were significantly higher than their counterparts for the EOJ-6% and 4.7%, respectively; p = 0.000.

CONCLUSION

The JMSR showed superiority regarding the number of authors per article and the prevalence of female authors. The incidence of national institutions' cooperation and international contributions were higher in the JMSR compared with the EOJ.

Publication Characteristics of Foot and Ankle Trauma Publications: A Review of Articles From 1997 to 2017

Background

The purpose of this study is to evaluate and compare publishing characteristics in foot and ankle trauma articles published in two subspecialty journals and two general orthopedic journals.

Methods

All trauma articles related to foot and ankle surgery published from five different time intervals over a 20-year period were collected and the following was analyzed: authorship, level of evidence, type of study, citations, and geographic region.

Results

Foot and Ankle International (FAI) had the highest percentage of last and corresponding authors that were fellowship-trained in foot and ankle. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery American and British volumes (JBJS(A) and JBJS(B), respectively) and the Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma (JOT) articles had a higher percentage of last and corresponding authors that were fellowship-trained in trauma.

Conclusion

Foot and ankle-trained authors are currently under-represented in foot and ankle trauma literature. As the field of foot and ankle continues to grow, it is important that the experts in the field are well represented in the literature.

Contribution based author categorization to calculate author performance index

Despite the widely used author contribution criteria, unethical authorship practices such as guest, ghost, and honorary authorship remain largely unsolved. We have identified six major reasons by analyzing 78 published papers addressing unethical authorship practice. Those are lack of: (i) awareness about and (ii) compliance with authorship criteria, (iii) universal definition and scope for determining authorship, (iv) common mechanisms for positioning an author in the list, (v) quantitative measures of intellectual contribution; and (vi) pressure to publish. As a  measure to control unethical practice, we have evaluated the possibility to adopt an author categorization scheme - proposed according to the common understanding of how first-, co-, principal-, or corresponding- author is perceived. Based on an online opinion survey, the scheme was supported by ~80% of the respondents (n=370). The impact of the proposed categorization was then evaluated using a novel mathematical tool to measure "Author Performance Index (API)" that can be higher for those who might have authored more papers as primary and/or principal authors than those as coauthors. Hence, if adopted, the proposed author categorization scheme together with the API would provide a better way to evaluate the credit of an individual as a primary and principal author.

The Impact of Hospital/University Affiliation on Research Productivity Among US-Based Authors in the Fields of Trauma, Surgical Critical Care, Acute Care, and Emergency General Surgery

BACKGROUND

Research productivity is critical to academic surgery and essential for advancing surgical knowledge and evidence-based practice. We aim to determine if surgeon affiliation with top US universities/hospitals (TOPS) is associated with increased research productivity measured by numbers of peer-reviewed publications in PubMed (PMIDs).

METHODS

A bibliometric analysis was performed for PMIDs. Affiliated authors who published in trauma surgery (TS), surgical critical care (SCC), acute care surgery (ACS), and emergency general surgery (EGS) were evaluated for publications between 2015 and 2019, and lifetime productivity. Our analysis included 3443 authors from 443 different institutions. Our main outcome was PMIDs of first author (FA) and senior author (SA) in each field (2015-2019) and total lifetime publications.

RESULTS

Significant differences exist between PMIDs from TOPS vs non-TOPS in FA-TS (1.34 vs 1.23, P = .001), SA-TS (1.71 vs 1.46, P < .001), total SA-PMIDs (44.10 vs 26.61, P < .001), and SA-lifetime PMIDs (90.55 vs 59.03, P < .001). There were no significant differences in PMIDs for FA or SA-SCC, FA or SA-ACS, FA or SA-EGS, FA-total PMIDs 2015-2019, or FA-lifetime PMIDs (P > .05 for all).

CONCLUSION

There were significantly higher TS PMIDs among FAs and SAs affiliated with top US institutions in 2015-2019, along with higher total PMIDs (2015-2019) and lifetime PMIDs. These findings are of significance to future graduate medical applicants and academic surgeons who need to make decisions about training and future career opportunities.

Ten Years of Sports Health: Authorship Characteristics and Levels of Evidence

CONTEXT

Sports Health: A Multidisciplinary Approach, now 10 years into production, has been ranked a top-25 journal in sport sciences and has tripled its impact throughout its existence.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate authorship trends and levels of evidence (LOE) of articles published in Sports Health from 2009 to 2018. The secondary aim was to analyze funding sources and internationalization throughout the journal's tenure.

DATA SOURCES

All clinical studies published in Sports Health between the years 2009 and 2018 were examined.

STUDY SELECTION

All publications from the provided years were electronically reviewed by 2 reviewers and evaluated for inclusion criteria. Editorials, society news, memorials, letters to the editor, and corrigenda were excluded.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level 5.

DATA EXTRACTION

Articles were examined for number of authors, presence of female authorship, funding, country of origin, international collaboration, academic degree or certification of first and senior authors, and LOE. Clinical articles were assigned LOE based on guidelines from the University of Oxford's Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine.

RESULTS

A total of 654 articles were examined. The percentage of high-LOE studies increased throughout the study period. The percentage of publications with female authors also increased throughout the study period. The mean number of authors per article increased from 3.2 to 4.6 over the 10-year period (P < 0.05). The percentage of publications with international collaboration stayed consistent, while the number of countries per year increased during the study period. Overall, institutions from 23 countries have published in Sports Health since its inception to the time of this study.

CONCLUSION

Female authorship in Sports Health surpasses industry standards, and the percentage of high-LOE studies remains remarkably high. Sports Health has stayed true to its multidisciplinary scope, as evidenced by the authors' varying degrees and numerous countries that publish in the journal.

The Proportion of Abstracts Presented at the 2010 American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons Annual Meeting Ultimately Published

As attendees of orthopedic meetings consider how to integrate presented information into their practice, it is helpful to consider the quality of the data presented. One surrogate metric is the proportion of and changes to presented abstracts that become journal publications. With this study, using the 2010 American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) Annual Meeting abstracts, the authors sought to answer the following questions: Did the publications following abstract presentations differ in terms of the conclusions, study subjects, or coauthors? What proportion of abstracts was published? What are the most common subtopics and journals, and what is the most common author country? Keywords and authors from the 2010 AAOS Annual Meeting proceedings program (698 podium and 548 poster abstracts) were searched in PubMed, Embase, and Google Scholar. If a publication resulted, differences in the conclusion, number of study subjects, and authorship between the abstract and the journal publication were tabulated. The proportion of abstracts published, specialty subtopics, authorship country, and journals of publication were collected. At journal publication, 1.7% of podium and 1.7% of poster conclusions changed. Mean number of authors for podium and poster increased significantly (P<.001), and 30% of podium and 44% of poster had a change in the number of study subjects. The overall journal publication percentage was 61% (68% podium and 53% poster). The majority of the authors were from the United States. The most common journal was The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery. It is important to evaluate the usefulness and clinical applicability of meetings, especially the final disposition of conference abstracts, from various angles to ensure that they are as worthwhile and educational as possible. [Orthopedics. 2020;xx(x):xx-xx.].

Authorship growth in contemporary medical literature

OBJECTIVES

The aims of this study were to investigate authorship trends among publications in high-impact, peer-reviewed specialty journals published within the last decade and to assess how publication practices differ among medical specialties.

METHODS

The National Institutes of Health's Portfolio Analysis platform, iCite, was queried for PubMed-indexed case reports, review articles, and original research articles published between 2005 and 2017 in 69 high-impact, clinical journals encompassing 23 medical specialties. Overall, 121,397 peer-reviewed publications were evaluated-of which, 45.1% were original research, 28.7% were review articles, and 26.3% were case reports. Multivariable regression was used to evaluate the magnitude of association of publication year on the number of authors per article by specialty and article type.

RESULTS

Original research articles have the greatest increase in authorship (0.23 more authors per article per year), as compared with review articles (0.18 authors per article per year) and case reports (0.01 authors per article per year). Twenty-two of the 23 specialties evaluated had increase in authorship in high-impact specialty journals. Specialty growth rates ranged from 0.42 authors/year (Neurology), Psychiatry (0.35 authors/year), General Surgery (0.29 authors/year), Urology (0.27 authors/year), and Pathology (0.27 authors/year). Specialties with a greater percentage of graduates entering academics had more authors per article; surgical specialties and length of residency were not found to be predictive factors.

CONCLUSION

There has been substantial growth in the authorship bylines of contemporary medical literature, much of which cannot be explained by increased complexity or collaboration alone.

Bibliometric and authorship trends over a 30 year publication history in two representative US sports medicine journals

Bibliometric studies are important to understand changes and improvement opportunities in academia. This study compared bibliometric trends for two major sports medicine/arthroscopy journals, the American Journal of Sports Medicine® (AJSM®) and Arthroscopy® over the past 30 years. Trends over time and comparisons between both journals were noted for common bibliometric variables (number of authors, references, pages, citations, and corresponding author position) as well as author gender and continental origin. Appropriate statistical analyses were performed. A p < 0.001 was considered statistically significant. One representative year per decade was used. There were 814 manuscripts from AJSM® and 650 from Arthroscopy®. For AJSM® the number of manuscripts steadily increased from 86 in 1986 to 350 in 2016; for Arthroscopy® the number of manuscripts increased from 73 in 1985/1986, to 267 in 2006, but then dropped to 229 in 2016. There were significant increases in all bibliometric variables, except for the number of citations which decreased in Arthroscopy®. There were significant differences in manuscript region of origin by journal (p = 0.000002). Arthroscopy® had a greater percentage of manuscripts from Asia than AJSM® (19.3% vs 11.5%) while AJSM® had a greater percentage from North America (70.3% vs 59.2%); both journals had similar percentages from Europe (18.2% for AJSM® and 21.6% for Arthroscopy®). For AJSM® the average percentage of female first authors was 13.3%, increasing from 4.7% in 1986 to 19.3% in 2016; the average percentage of female corresponding authors was 7.3%. For Arthroscopy®, the average percentage of female first authors was 8.1%, increasing from 2.8% in 1985/1986 to 15.7% in 2016 (p = 0.00007). In conclusion, AJSM® and Arthroscopy® showed an increase in most variables analyzed. Although Arthroscopy® is climbing at a higher rate than AJSM® for female authors, AJSM® has an overall greater percentage of female authors.

Reporting of academic degrees in high-impact medical journals

Academic degrees following author names are often included in medical research papers. However, it remains unclear how many journals choose to include academic degrees and whether this is more common in certain types of journals. We examined the 100 highest impact medical journals and found that only 24 medical journals reported academic degrees. Moreover, this was substantially more common in journals based in North America compared with Europe. Further research is required to explore the implications of listing academic degrees on the readers' attitude towards research quality.

Female-Authored Articles Are More Likely to Include Methods-Trained Authors

Objective

Studies with authors trained in research methods are of higher quality than those without. We examined inclusion of authors with master's or doctoral degrees incorporating advanced research methods training on original research articles in high-impact journals, investigating differences between journals and by first-author sex.

Methods

Using all original research articles from 1 issue of The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), Annals of Internal Medicine (Annals), and JAMA-Internal Medicine/Archives of Internal Medicine (Archives) every alternate month, February 1994 to October 2016, we assessed the prevalence of articles listing authors with master's/doctoral research degrees and its adjusted associations with time of publication, journal, and first-author sex via multivariable logistic regression models (accounting for number of authors, study type, specialty/topic, and continent and for interactions between journal and time of publication, study type, and continent).

Results

Of 3009 articles examined, 84.4% (n=2539) had authors listing research degrees. After adjustment, the prevalence of such articles increased from 1994 to 2016 (P<.001), but patterns differed among journals. Annals and NEJM increased to approximately100% by 2016; JAMA and Archives peaked around 2010 to 2011, then declined. Articles with female first authors were more likely to list authors with research degrees (adjusted odds ratio=1.66; 95% CI, 1.29-2.13; P<.001).

Conclusion

The prevalence of original research articles listing authors trained in research methods in high-impact journals increased significantly but is now declining at some journals, with potential effects on quality. The greater prevalence among female first-authored articles suggests possible sex differences in structuring/crediting research teams or subconscious sex bias during review.

Predictors of 5-Year Citation Rate in the Orthopaedic Sports Medicine Literature

BACKGROUND

The citation rate of a research published article is an indicator of its quality and impact and contributes to the journal's impact factor. Within the orthopaedic sports medicine literature, predictors of citation rates have not been previously described.

PURPOSE

To identify characteristics of published articles that predict 5-year citation rates of studies in the orthopaedic sports medicine literature.

STUDY DESIGN

Cross-sectional study.

METHODS

Research articles published in The American Journal of Sports Medicine (AJSM), Arthroscopy: The Journal of Arthroscopic and Related Surgery, and Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy (KSSTA) from 2012 were analyzed. Extracted characteristics of published articles included journal, author number, origin of study, first author degree, subject of study, study type, sample size, number of references and institutions, conflicts of interest, level of evidence, and 5-year citation rates. Multivariate logistic regression was used to determine predictors of greater than the mean number of citations at 5 years.

RESULTS

A total of 825 published articles ( AJSM, n = 313; Arthroscopy, n = 173; KSSTA, n = 339) were included in the final analysis. The mean number of 5-year citations was 23.2 (95% CI, 21.6-24.9; range, 1.0-260.0). AJSM had a significantly greater citation rate (32.4) than Arthroscopy (21.7) and KSSTA (15.2) ( P < .001 for both). Arthroscopy had a greater citation rate than KSSTA ( P = .008). Independent predictors of greater than the mean number of citations at 5 years were published articles in AJSM (odds ratio [OR], 5.17; 95% CI, 2.81-9.52; P < .0001), published articles of North American origin (OR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.25-2.58; P = .002), and published articles regarding the hip (OR, 2.68; 95% CI, 1.08-6.67; P = .035).

CONCLUSION

Published articles in AJSM, those from North America, and those examining the hip were independent predictors of greater citation rates at 5 years.

Integrity of Authorship and Peer Review Practices: Challenges and Opportunities for Improvement

Integrity of authorship and peer review practices are important considerations for ethical publishing. Criteria for authorship, as delineated in the guidelines by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), have undergone evolution over the decades, and now require fulfillment of four criteria, including the need to be able to take responsibility for all aspects of the manuscript in question. Although such updated authorship criteria were published nearly five years ago, still, many major medical and specialist journals have yet to revise their author instructions to conform to this. Inappropriate authorship practices may include gift, guest or ghost authorship. Existing literature suggests that such practices are still widely prevalent, especially in non-English speaking countries. Another emerging problem is that of peer review fraud, mostly by authors, but also rarely by handling editors. There is literature to suggest that a proportion of such fake peer review may be driven by the support of some unscrupulous external editing agencies. Such inappropriate practices with authorship malpractices or disagreement, or peer review fraud, have resulted in more than 600 retractions each, as identified on the retractions database of Retractionwatch.com. There is a need to generate greater awareness, especially in authors from non-English speaking regions of the world, about inappropriate authorship and unethical practices in peer review. Also, support of any external editing agency should be clearly disclosed by authors at the time of submission of a manuscript.

Trends in Authorship Demographics for Manuscripts Published in The American Journal of Cardiology

The demographics of authors in manuscript publications have been investigated in many specialties but not yet cardiology. We explored the authorship trends in The American Journal of Cardiology, a fundamental journal in this field, to uncover the historical demographic patterns in the field. Manuscripts published in 1958 (the first year of publication), 1966, 1976, 1986, 1996, 2006, and 2016 were analyzed. Parameters used were gender of first and last authors, number of authors per article, the authors' qualifications and country of corresponding authors. A total of 4,329 articles were analyzed. We hypothesized an increase in authors per article, variety of authors' degrees, countries contributing to authorship, and an increase in female authorship over time. We found that the mean number of authors per article increased from 1.8 in 1958 to 8.6 in 2016. Qualification varieties of first and last authors also increased, particularly first and last authors holding degrees in MD/PhD and first authors holding masters degrees. Female first and last authorship showed an increase. In 1958, female first authors comprised of 3.0% of all the publications compared with 23% in 2016. Similarly, female last authors accounted for 5.2% of all publications in 1958 compared with 20% in 2016. There was also an increase in articles originating from Europe and Asia. In conclusion, there has been a significant increase in authors per article, variety of author degrees, and contribution from international authors. Despite the relative lack of increase in female cardiologists compared to physicians in other specialties in the United States, female authors in The American Journal of Cardiology have increased significantly over this 58-year time period, surpassing the 13% overall female representation within this specialty.

Does the medical literature remain inadequately described despite having reporting guidelines for 21 years? - A systematic review of reviews: an update

PURPOSE

Reporting guidelines (eg, Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials [CONSORT] statement) are intended to improve reporting standards and enhance the transparency and reproducibility of research findings. Despite accessibility of such guidelines, researchers are not required to adhere to them. Our goal was to determine the current status of reporting quality in the medical literature and examine whether adherence of reporting guidelines has improved since the inception of reporting guidelines.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Eight reporting guidelines, such as CONSORT, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA), STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE), Quality of Reporting of Meta-analysis (QUOROM), STAndards for Reporting of Diagnostic accuracy (STARD), Animal Research: Reporting In Vivo Experiments (ARRIVE), Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS), and Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) were examined. Our inclusion criteria included reviews published between January 1996 to September 2016 which investigated the adherence to reporting guidelines in the literature that addressed clinical trials, systematic reviews, observational studies, meta-analysis, diagnostic accuracy, economic evaluations, and preclinical animal studies that were in English. All reviews were found on Web of Science, Excerpta Medical Database (EMBASE), MEDLINE, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL).

RESULTS

Among the general searching of 26,819 studies by using the designed searching method, 124 studies were included post screening. We found that 87.9% of the included studies reported suboptimal adherence to reporting guidelines. Factors associated with poor adherence included non-pharmacological interventions, year of publication, and trials concluding with significant results. Improved adherence was associated with better study designs such as allocation concealment, random sequence, large sample sizes, adequately powered studies, multiple authorships, and being published in journals endorsing guidelines.

CONCLUSION

We conclude that the level of adherence to reporting guidelines remains suboptimal. Endorsement of reporting guidelines by journals is important and recommended.

Authorship Trends in Spine Publications From 2000 to 2015

STUDY DESIGN

Literature review.

OBJECTIVE

To examine changes in authorship characteristics for Spine publications from the year 2000 to 2015.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Scientific publications are considered an indication of academic achievement for physicians. Recently, authorship trends have been investigated; however, limited information is available on this topic within spine-specific literature.

METHODS

Original research articles published in Spine in the years 2000, 2005, 2010, and 2015 were evaluated. Authorship characteristics were collected for each article, including the number of authors and institutions per publication, first and last authors' sex, publication origin, and highest degree held by the first and last author. Trends over time were analyzed using numeric and visual descriptive analyses including percentages, means, standard deviations, and graphs.

RESULTS

An average of 506 articles per year was published in Spine during the years 2000, 2005, 2010, and 2015. The number of articles written by 10 or more authors increased during this time (0.9%-14.4%). There was a substantial increase in the number of multiple institutional affiliations (33.6%-68.7%) and articles originating from outside North America (47.6%-55.7%) from 2000 to 2015. The percentage of first authors with bachelor's degrees was higher in 2015 (6.6%) as compared to 2000 (1.4%), and more last authors were identified as MD/PhDs in 2015 (19.2%) than in 2000 (10.0%). Similar female representation was noted for first and last authorship for all years evaluated.

CONCLUSION

The results of this study demonstrate increases in authors per article published in Spine from 2000 to 2015. In addition, first authors were more likely to hold bachelor's degrees over time. This may be attributed to increasing competition in spine-related fields, necessitating earlier research exposure to aid in academic achievement. Interestingly, the percentage of female authorship has not changed significantly over time, in contrast with much of the previous literature.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

2.

Responsibility for scientific misconduct in collaborative papers

This paper concerns the responsibility of co-authors in cases of scientific misconduct. Arguments in research integrity guidelines and in the bioethics literature concerning authorship responsibilities are discussed. It is argued that it is unreasonable to claim that for every case where a research paper is found to be fraudulent, each author is morally responsible for all aspects of that paper, or that one particular author has such a responsibility. It is further argued that it is more constructive to specify what task responsibilities come with different roles in a project and describe what kinds of situations or events call for some kind of action, and what the appropriate actions might be.

Adult Reconstruction Studies Presented at AAOS and AAHKS 2011-2015 Annual Meetings. Is There a Difference in Future Publication?

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to compare adult reconstruction abstracts presented at the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) and the American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons (AAHKS) annual meetings.

METHODS

A total of 1355 podium and 1731 poster presentations from the adult reconstruction sections of the AAOS and AAHKS meetings from 2011 to 2015 were reviewed for publication in peer-reviewed literature. Authors who were added or removed from the original abstract and the final manuscript were recorded. The corresponding journals were assigned the most recent impact factor. The publication rates for each annual meeting, the mean changes in authorship and journal's impact factors were compared.

RESULTS

There were 2129 abstracts presented at AAOS and 957 abstracts presented at AAHKS. The overall publication rate was different between AAOS and AAHKS (56% vs 60%, P = .030). Compared with AAOS, there were more AAHKS abstracts published in 2011 (57% vs 77%, P = .0008) and 2012 (57% vs 76%, P = .0001); however, there were no significant differences in 2013, 2014, or 2015. The mean overall change in authors was lower for AAOS compared with AAHKS abstracts (0.78 vs 1.06, P < .0001). The mean journal's impact factors for AAOS and AAHKS publications were also similar (2.86 vs 2.85, P = .874).

CONCLUSION

AAOS and AAHKS abstracts presented in the adult reconstruction subspecialty had a similar overall rate of publication, change in authorship, and impact factor. It would be beneficial if further studies subdivided these into basic and clinical science and review articles.

A bibliometric analysis assessing temporal changes in publication and authorship characteristics in The Knee from 1996 to 2016

BACKGROUND

Evidence-based practice is a foundation to clinical excellence. However there remains little evidence on the characteristics of authors who contribute to the evidence-base and whether these have changed over time. The purpose of this study was to explore these characteristics by undertaking a bibliometric analysis to explore publication and authorship characteristics in a leading sub-speciality orthopaedic journal (The Knee) over a 20-year period.

METHODS

All articles published in The Knee in 1996, 2006 and 2016 were identified. For each article, data collected included: highest academic award; profession; gender; continent of first and last author; total number of authors; the level of evidence; and funding source. We analysed temporal changes in these variables using appropriate statistical models.

RESULTS

A total of 413 papers were analysed. Between 1996 to 2016 there has been a significant increase in the overall number of authors, the number of paper submitted from Asia, the proportion of Level 1 or 2 tiered evidence, the proportion of people with Bachelor or Master-level degrees as their highest level of educational award and the proportion of non-medically qualified authors (P<0.001). From 2006 to 2016 there was a significant increase in the proportion of articles whose first author was female (P=0.03), but no significant change in the number of females as last author (P=0.43).

CONCLUSION

The findings indicate that there have been changes in publication and authorship characteristics in this sub-speciality orthopaedic journal during the past 20years. This provides encouraging indication of greater diversification and internationalisation of orthopaedic research.

Level of evidence and authorship trends of clinical studies in knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy, 1995-2015

PURPOSE

There is increasing emphasis on publication quality and internationalization of author groups in orthopaedic literature. The purpose of this review was to evaluate the type of studies and the level of evidence (LOE) published in knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy (KSSTA) from 1995 to 2015. The secondary aim was to analyze trends in authorship characteristics in KSSTA.

METHODS

Two reviewers reviewed the table of contents of KSSTA and identified original papers from 1995, 2000, 2005, 2010, and 2015. The reviewers graded LOE from Levels I to IV using guidelines from the University of Oxford's Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. For each article, the total number of authors and country of author group were also analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 880 papers were analyzed. The proportions in LOE have stayed consistent throughout the study period (n.s.). There has been a significant increase in the number of published articles and the number of Level I and II studies (P < 0.01). Therapeutic articles were the most common type. The mean number of authors per KSSTA article significantly increased from 3.9 to 5.7 over the 20-year period (P < 0.01). The number of represented countries increased yearly and academic institutions from 40 different nationalities published articles in the Journal. Of the examined years, the percent of articles with international collaboration was 17.6%.

CONCLUSION

The proportion of LOE I and II articles published in KSSTA remains consistently high. Therapeutic studies are the most frequently published articles. There is an increase in international groups publishing in KSSTA.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV.

Authorship Trends in 30 Years of the Journal of Arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

While various studies have investigated trends in characteristics of authors in other medical literature, no study has examined these characteristics in the field of arthroplasty.

METHODS

A database was created of all articles published in The Journal of Arthroplasty in 1986, 1990, 1995, 2000, 2005, 2010, and 2015. Degree(s) of authors, number of authors, number of references, and region of institution were recorded.

RESULTS

A total of 1343 original articles were assessed over the study period. There was a significant increase in the number of authors per publication from 3.45 in 1986 to 4.98 in 2015 (P < .001) and number of references per article from 17.36 to 29.76 (P < .001). There was a significant increase in proportion of first authors with a bachelor's degree (P = .001), MD/PhD (P < .001), and MD/MBA (P = .016), with a significant decrease in first authors with an MD degree only (P < .001). There was a significant increase in number of last authors with an MD/PhD (P = .001) and MD/MBA (P = .003). There has been a significant growth in papers from outside North America (P = .007), with a decrease in articles from the UK/Ireland (P = .003) and an increase in contributions from the Far East (P < .001).

CONCLUSION

Trends of authorship characteristics in the arthroplasty literature largely mirror those seen in other medical literature including increased number of authors per article over time, changes in author qualifications, and increased contributions from international author groups.

Progression of Authorship of Scientific Articles in The Journal of Hand Surgery, 1985-2015

PURPOSE

For scientists, authorship is academic currency. Authorship characteristics have been studied in a subset of the surgical and medical literature, but trends in the specialty of hand surgery have not yet been investigated. Specifically, a longitudinal analysis of number, educational training, sex, and geographical origin of authors has not been conducted. We explored the progression of authorship of scientific articles in a leading hand surgery journal.

METHODS

We recorded number of authors, number of references, degrees, and sex of the first and senior authors as well as geographical origin of the corresponding author in The Journal of Hand Surgery in 1985, 1995, 2005, and 2015. All original work was analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 892 articles were reviewed. The mean number of authors per article increased significantly from 2.6 in 1985 to 3.9 in 2015 and the number of references increased significantly from 13.7 in 1985 to 22.6 in 2015. There was a significant increase in the proportion of first authors with an MD/PhD, PhD, master's or bachelor's degree since 1985. During that same time period, a decrease in the proportion of first authors who held solely an MD was seen. There was a significant increase in proportion of the number of last authors with an MD/PhD, PhD or Master's degree in that same time period. There has been significant growth in publications originating from the "Far East" and "Other" regions, with 4.2% and 5.0% of publications, respectively, in 1985 having increased to 10.3% and 7.4% of publications, respectively, in 2015. Female first authorship significantly increased over the study period from 7.9% in 1985 to 22.1% of publications in 2015.

CONCLUSIONS

There has been a significant increase in number of authors per article in The Journal of Hand Surgery. Similar to other studies, we noted shifts in the degrees most commonly held by authors, an increase in references per article, and a greater representation of international authors in the hand surgery. In addition, the proportion of manuscripts written by female authors has increased in the past 30 years, with the largest increase occurring between 2005 and 2015.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

This manuscript strives to provide further insight into the changing characteristics of authors contributing to the hand surgery literature. With increased pressure to publish in academia, it is important to understand how publishing author characteristics have evolved over time. In addition, the published literature of a field could be considered one repository of the insights and advancements of the field. One would hope that the authors contributing to that literature are a deep and wide reflection of the people working in that field. Analyzing authorship is one way to assess the breadth and depth of contributions from the profession.