A Comprehensive Analysis of Authorship in Radiology Journals

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.

A "global village": promoting research and careers in the pediatric radiology community through diversity

There is a severe shortage of pediatric radiologists in the USA and across the globe due to multiple factors. These severe shortages, along with increased clinical demand, growing research costs and limited funding sources place pediatric radiologists, particularly those in academic departments, under increasing time pressure, affecting their ability to maintain research productivity. In this paper, we model a new concept that should help boost the research efforts within the pediatric radiology community, while diversifying the academic workforce through the involvement of international medical graduates (IMGs). We describe the mutual advantages this concept could have on academic pediatric radiology departments and IMGs alike, as well as pose some of the unique challenges that could impact this concept and effective strategies to ensure success.

Bibliometrics as a promising tool for solving publication ethics issues

Publication ethics principles became one of the main aspects of conducting scientific research and presenting its results. Publication ethics challenges cover a wide range of problems of varying importance that involve all participants of publication processes: authors, academic authorities, peer-reviewers, editorial board members, publishers, and funders. All stakeholders put efforts to make modern science and publication processes ethical. This goal is achieved first of all through detailed criteria of publication ethics and extensive author guidelines, as well as by increasing the level of awareness of these criteria in educational programs aimed at prophylactics of research misconduct. However, there is a need for technical facilities for detecting different cases of violation of ethical principles, and bibliometric methods are one of the most promising approaches. The paper summarizes the authors' recent studies on bibliometric perspectives for detecting plagiarism, inappropriate authorship, and official misconduct among editorial board members.

Geographic Trends in Publications and Submissions in Radiology Journals: Decade Report (2010 - 2020)

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVE

The Radiology Research Alliance (RRA) of the Association of University Radiologists (AUR) organized a task force to quantify geographic changes in submissions to and publications within radiology journals over time.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Twenty journals were selected: 7 US-based general, 4 European-based general, and 9 subspecialty radiology journals. Journals were solicited for submissions and publications based on country of origin from 2010 -2020. Regression models assessed changes over time across countries, and by continent, with an emphasis on the US and China, for each journal category.

RESULTS

There were 104,679 publications and 92,446 submissions from 149 countries. Overall, there were significant increases in numbers of publications from Asia (R² = 0.66, p <0.01), and specifically, China (R² = 0.87, p <0.01). For US journals, there were increased numbers of publications from Asia (R² = 0.72, p <0.01) and China (R² = 0.98, p <0.01), but decreased numbers from North America (R² = 0.41, p = 0.03). For European journals, there were increased numbers of publications from Asia (R² = 0.79, p <0.01), North America (R² = 0.75, p <0.01), and China (R² = 0.82, p <0.01). For subspecialty journals, there were increased numbers of publications from North America (R² = 0.38, p = 0.04) and China (R² = 0.73, p <0.01). There was an acute COVID spike in submissions during 2020, with a continuous increase most notable in China (R² = 0.96, p <0.01).

CONCLUSION

In the last decade, the numbers of submissions to and publications within general and subspecialty US and European radiology journals have generally increased around the world, with the largest growth in Asia and in particular China.

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.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on publication dynamics and non-COVID-19 research production

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic has severely affected health systems and medical research worldwide but its impact on the global publication dynamics and non-COVID-19 research has not been measured. We hypothesized that the COVID-19 pandemic may have impacted the scientific production of non-COVID-19 research.

METHODS

We conducted a comprehensive meta-research on studies (original articles, research letters and case reports) published between 01/01/2019 and 01/01/2021 in 10 high-impact medical and infectious disease journals (New England Journal of Medicine, Lancet, Journal of the American Medical Association, Nature Medicine, British Medical Journal, Annals of Internal Medicine, Lancet Global Health, Lancet Public Health, Lancet Infectious Disease and Clinical Infectious Disease). For each publication, we recorded publication date, publication type, number of authors, whether the publication was related to COVID-19, whether the publication was based on a case series, and the number of patients included in the study if the publication was based on a case report or a case series. We estimated the publication dynamics with a locally estimated scatterplot smoothing method. A Natural Language Processing algorithm was designed to calculate the number of authors for each publication. We simulated the number of non-COVID-19 studies that could have been published during the pandemic by extrapolating the publication dynamics of 2019 to 2020, and comparing the expected number to the observed number of studies.

RESULTS

Among the 22,525 studies assessed, 6319 met the inclusion criteria, of which 1022 (16.2%) were related to COVID-19 research. A dramatic increase in the number of publications in general journals was observed from February to April 2020 from a weekly median number of publications of 4.0 (IQR: 2.8-5.5) to 19.5 (IQR: 15.8-24.8) (p < 0.001), followed afterwards by a pattern of stability with a weekly median number of publications of 10.0 (IQR: 6.0-14.0) until December 2020 (p = 0.045 in comparison with April). Two prototypical editorial strategies were found: 1) journals that maintained the volume of non-COVID-19 publications while integrating COVID-19 research and thus increased their overall scientific production, and 2) journals that decreased the volume of non-COVID-19 publications while integrating COVID-19 publications. We estimated using simulation models that the COVID pandemic was associated with a 18% decrease in the production of non-COVID-19 research. We also found a significant change of the publication type in COVID-19 research as compared with non-COVID-19 research illustrated by a decrease in the number of original articles, (47.9% in COVID-19 publications vs 71.3% in non-COVID-19 publications, p < 0.001). Last, COVID-19 publications showed a higher number of authors, especially for case reports with a median of 9.0 authors (IQR: 6.0-13.0) in COVID-19 publications, compared to a median of 4.0 authors (IQR: 3.0-6.0) in non-COVID-19 publications (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

In this meta-research gathering publications from high-impact medical journals, we have shown that the dramatic rise in COVID-19 publications was accompanied by a substantial decrease of non-COVID-19 research. META-RESEARCH REGISTRATION: https://osf.io/9vtzp/ .

Knowledge syntheses in medical education: Meta-research examining author gender, geographic location, and institutional affiliation

Introduction

Authors of knowledge syntheses make many subjective decisions during their review process. Those decisions, which are guided in part by author characteristics, can impact the conduct and conclusions of knowledge syntheses, which assimilate much of the evidence base in medical education. To better understand the evidence base, this study describes the characteristics of knowledge synthesis authors, focusing on gender, geography, and institution.

Methods

In 2020, the authors conducted meta-research to examine authors of 963 knowledge syntheses published between 1999 and 2019 in 14 core medical education journals.

Results

The authors identified 4,110 manuscript authors across all authorship positions. On average there were 4.3 authors per knowledge synthesis (SD = 2.51, Median = 4, Range = 1–22); 79 knowledge syntheses (8%) were single-author publications. Over time, the average number of authors per synthesis increased (M = 1.80 in 1999; M = 5.34 in 2019). Knowledge syntheses were authored by slightly more females (n = 2047; 50.5%) than males (n = 2005; 49.5%) across all author positions. Authors listed affiliations in 58 countries, and 58 knowledge syntheses (6%) included authors from low- or middle-income countries. Authors from the United States (n = 366; 38%), Canada (n = 233; 24%), and the United Kingdom (n = 180; 19%) published the most knowledge syntheses. Authors listed affiliation at 617 unique institutions, and first authors represented 362 unique institutions with greatest representation from University of Toronto (n = 55, 6%). Across all authorship positions, the large majority of knowledge syntheses (n = 753; 78%) included authors from institutions ranked in the top 200 globally.

Conclusion

Knowledge synthesis author teams have grown over the past 20 years, and while there is near gender parity across all author positions, authorship has been dominated by North American researchers located at highly ranked institutions. This suggests a potential overrepresentation of certain authors with particular characteristics, which may impact the conduct and conclusions of medical education knowledge syntheses.

No room for ambiguity: The concepts of appropriate and inappropriate authorship in scientific publications

Authorship is the currency of an academic career. Scientific publications have significant academic and financial implications. Several standard authorship guidelines exist, and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) is the most popular amongst them. There are increasing concerns about the ethics of publications with the rise of inappropriate authorship. The most important reason appears to be a lack of knowledge and awareness of the authorship guidelines and what actions constitute unethical behaviors. There is a need to incorporate standard guidelines in medical curricula and conduct structured training and education programs for researchers across the board. The current perspective describes the significant concepts of appropriate and inappropriate authorship, and the possible measures being formulated to shape the future of authorship.

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.

Scientific Collaboration across Time and Space: Bibliometric Analysis of the American Journal of Neuroradiology, 1980-2018

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Scientific collaboration is traditionally acknowledged through coauthorship. Studies on this topic are few in the neuroimaging literature. This study is a bibliometric analysis of the American Journal of Neuroradiology (AJNR) between 1980 and 2018, with the primary aim of evaluating changes in article collaboration.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Full bibliographic records from 1980 to 2018 were retrieved. Yearly metrics calculated included the number of articles published, the average number of authors, and the average number of affiliations per article. The levels of evidence of 160 random articles were determined. Geographic characteristics of author affiliations were analyzed. Changes across time were evaluated using linear regression, while Spearman rank-order correlation was used to determine relationships between level of evidence and time, number of authors, and number of affiliations.

RESULTS

There was a steady linear growth in the number of articles (R ² = 0.70, P < 1e-10) from 1980 to 2018. There were clear linear increases in the average number of authors (R ² = 0.91, P < 1e-15) and affiliations (R ² = 0.90, P < 1e-15) per article. There was a significant correlation between level of evidence and time period (Spearman ρ = -0.42, P < 1e-7), indicating that articles trended toward better methodologic quality or strength of results over time. A significant correlation existed between the level of evidence and the number of authors (Spearman ρ = -0.39, P < 1e-6). There were linear increases in the average number of different geographic locales of authors per article by country/region (R ² = 0.80, P < 1e-13), state/province (R ² = 0.88, P < 1e-15), and locality/city/town (R ² = 0.86, P < 1e-15).

CONCLUSIONS

From 1980 to 2018, as the quantity of articles published in the AJNR increased, their level of evidence improved, while an increasing number of authors with different affiliations and from different geographic locales collaborated on these articles.

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.

Resolving authorship disputes by mediation and arbitration

BACKGROUND

Disputes over authorship are increasing. This paper examines the options that researchers have in resolving authorship disputes. Discussions about authorship disputes often address how to prevent disputes but rarely address how to resolve them. Both individuals and larger research communities are harmed by the limited options for dispute resolution.

MAIN BODY

When authorship disputes arise after publication, most existing guidelines recommend that the authors work out the disputes between themselves. But this is unlikely to occur, because there are often large power differentials between team members, and institutions (e.g., universities, funding agencies) are unlikely to have authority over all team members. Other collaborative disciplines that deal with issues of collaborative creator credit could provide models for scientific authorship. Arbitration or mediation could provide solutions to authorship disputes where few presently exist. Because authors recognize journals' authority to make decisions about manuscripts submitted to the journal, journals are well placed to facilitate alternative dispute resolution processes.

CONCLUSION

Rather than viewing authorship disputes as rare events that must be handled on a case by case basis, researchers and journals should view the potential for disputes as predictable, preventable, and soluble. Independent bodies that can offer alternative dispute resolution services to scientific collaborators and/or journals could quickly help research communities, particularly their most vulnerable members.

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.

Effects of research complexity and competition on the incidence and growth of coauthorship in biomedicine

BACKGROUND

Investigations into the factors behind coauthorship growth in biomedical research have mostly focused on specific disciplines or journals, and have rarely controlled for factors in combination or considered changes in their effects over time. Observers often attribute the growth to the increasing complexity or competition (or both) of research practices, but few attempts have been made to parse the contributions of these two likely causes.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to assess the effects of complexity and competition on the incidence and growth of coauthorship, using a sample of the biomedical literature spanning multiple journals and disciplines.

METHODS

Article-level bibliographic data from PubMed were combined with publicly available bibliometric data from Web of Science and SCImago over the years 1999-2007. We selected four predictors of coauthorship were selected, two (study type, topical scope of the study) associated with complexity and two (financial support for the project, popularity of the publishing journal) associated with competition. A negative binomial regression model was used to estimate the effects of each predictor on coauthorship incidence and growth. A second, mixed-effect model included the journal as a random effect.

RESULTS

Coauthorship increased at about one author per article per decade. Clinical trials, supported research, and research of broader scope produced articles with more authors, while review articles credited fewer; and more popular journals published higher-authorship articles. Incidence and growth rates varied widely across journals and were themselves uncorrelated. Most effects remained statistically discernible after controlling for the publishing journal. The effects of complexity-associated factors held constant or diminished over time, while competition-related effects strengthened. These trends were similar in size but not discernible from subject-specific subdata.

CONCLUSIONS

Coauthorship incidence rates are multifactorial and vary with factors associated with both complexity and competition. Coauthorship growth is likewise multifactorial and increasingly associated with research competition.

Spanish Society of Vascular and Interventional Radiology (SERVEI) Bibliometric Study (2010-2015): What, How, and Where do Spanish Interventional Radiologists Publish?

PURPOSE

We analyzed the scientific production of members of the Spanish Society of Vascular and Interventional Radiology (SERVEI) from 2010 to 2015.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed the indexed scientific productivity of all SERVEI members for the last 6 years as measured by bibliometric indexes. Different databases were used (e.g., PubMed, Scopus, Web of Knowledge) to retrieve the total number of publications, number of citations, and h-index. Every article was assigned the impact factor of its publication year and its corresponding quartile according to Journal Citation Reports. The relationships between all of these parameters and the Spanish region, the gender and age of the interventional radiologists (IRs), and their connection to the university environment were also studied.

RESULTS

A total of 519 scientific articles from 247 SERVEI members working in 118 Spanish hospitals were included, an average of 0.3 articles per interventionist/year. Most of the manuscripts were published in impact journals (52.2%) and placed in the lowest quartile (Q4). Navarre, Aragon, and Catalonia were the regions with the highest publication rate during the period studied (1.7, 0.92, and 0.6 publications per interventionist/year, respectively). Only 57 articles (12.6%) were published in 11 of the 125 journals under the category of Radiology, Nuclear Medicine, and Medical Imaging according to JCR.

CONCLUSIONS

The scientific production of the Spanish IRs in the last 6 years is difficult to interpret. However, more than 50% of IRs published one article in the last 6 years. Finally, it would be advisable to repeat this study over a period of time in order to compare.

Is advanced neuroimaging for neuroradiologists? A systematic review of the scientific literature of the last decade

INTRODUCTION

To evaluate if advanced neuroimaging research is mainly conducted by imaging specialists, we investigated the number of first authorships by radiologists and non-radiologist scientists in articles published in the field of advanced neuroimaging in the past 10 years.

METHODS

Articles in the field of advanced neuroimaging identified in this retrospective bibliometric analysis were divided in four groups, depending on the imaging technique used. For all included studies, educational background of the first authors was recorded (based on available online curriculum vitae) and classified in subgroups, depending on their specialty. Finally, journal impact factors were recorded and comparatively assessed among subgroups as a metric of research quality.

RESULTS

A total number of 3831 articles were included in the study. Radiologists accounted as first authors for only 12.8 % of these publications, while 56.9 % of first authors were researchers without a medical degree. Mean impact factor (IF) of journals with non-MD researchers as first authors was significantly higher than the MD subgroup (p < 10^-20), while mean IF of journals with radiologists as first authors was significantly lower than articles authored by other MD specialists (p < 10^-11).

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of the studies in the field of advanced neuroimaging in the last decade is conducted by professional figures other than radiologists, who account for less than the 13 % of the publications. Furthermore, the mean IF value of radiologists-authored articles was the lowest among all subgroups. These results, taken together, should question the radiology community about its future role in the development of advanced neuroimaging.