How many orthopedic surgeons does it take to write a research article? 50 years of authorship proliferation in and internationalization of the orthopedic surgery literature

Mega-authorship implications: How many scientists can fit into one cell?

The past 20 years has seen a significant increase in articles with 500 or more authors. This increase has presented problems in terms of determining true authorship versus other types of contribution, issues with database metadata and data output, and publication length. Using items with 500+ authors deemed as mega-author titles, a total of 5,533 mega-author items were identified using InCites. Metadata about the items was then gathered from Web of Science and Scopus. Close examination of these items found that the vast majority of these covered physics topics, with medicine a far distant second place and only minor representation from other science fields. This mega-authorship saw significant events that appear to correspond to similar events in the Large Hadron Collider's timeline, indicating that the projects for the collider are driving this heavy output. Some solutions are offered for the problems resulting from this phenomenon, partially driven by recommendations from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors.

The Influence of Geographic Region on Hip and Knee Arthroplasty Literature From 1988 to 2018

Total joint arthroplasty constitutes a major focus of publications within orthopaedics. Because research expands and investigators from around the world contribute, it is important to understand the dynamics of publication.

Twenty Five-Year Publication Trends in Foot and Ankle Literature: Improved Methodological Quality and Internationality With Time

Background:

Methodological quality and author internationality are increasing in orthopaedic surgery. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the methodological quality and author geography trends from 1994 to 2019 in high-quality foot and ankle journals.

Methods:

Analyses of 1,242 foot and ankle publications in Foot and Ankle International, American Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, and American Journal of Sports Medicine were done for 1994, 1999, 2004, 2009, 2014, and 2019. Articles were classified according to study type, level of evidence (LOE), and author's country of publication.

Results:

The most common clinical study was therapeutic (65.4). Significant increases were noted in the proportion of therapeutic (P < 0.01) and prognostic (P < 0.01) articles. The average LOE increased from 3.96 ± 1.01 to 3.19 ± 0.97 (P < 0.01). The proportion of Level I (P = 0.29) and level IV articles (P = 0.21) remained constant, level II (P < 0.01) and level III (P < 0.01) articles increased, and level V (P < 0.01) articles decreased. United States authorship decreased from 78.1% in 1994 to 44.8% in 2009, then remained constant through 2019 (P < 0.01).

Conclusion:

This study demonstrated an improvement in LOE of foot and ankle publications across a 25-year period in three high-quality orthopaedic journals. Increasing internationality was also observed.

Trends and Characteristics of Spine Research From 2006 to 2015: A Review of Spine Articles in a High Impact General Orthopedic Journal

STUDY DESIGN

Literature review.

OBJECTIVE

To determine characteristics and trends in published spine research over a recent decade in a high impact, general orthopedic surgery journal.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Recent trends in published spine research in a high-impact orthopedic surgery journal are unknown. Such knowledge could guide future research in the field.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature review of clinical and basic science spine articles published in The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery from 2006 to 2015 was conducted. Articles were assessed for: title, year of publication, authorship, academic degrees of the authors, number of citations, institution of origin, and spine topic. Clinical articles were evaluated for: sex and race/ethnicity of the human subjects, level of evidence, and inclusion of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Basic science articles were evaluated for: type of study (animal, cadaver, cell-based), sex of the animals, cadavers or cells studied (male, female, or male and female), and presence of sex-based reporting (defined as reporting of results by sex).

RESULTS

A total of 203 spine articles were evaluated from the 10-year study period. At least 35 validated or nonvalidated patient-reported outcome measures were utilized in clinical spine research. The most commonly reported PROMs were the Oswestry Disability Index (24.4%), Short Form-36 Health Survey (23.7%), and Visual Analog Scale for Pain (19.3%). The average level of evidence improved from 3.25 in 2006 to 2.60 in 2015. Only 13.2% of clinical spine articles reported the race/ethnicity of the subjects.

CONCLUSION

A consensus regarding validated PROMs in spine research would be valuable. From 2006 to 2015, the level of evidence of spine articles in The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery improved. Accurate and complete reporting of patient demographics is an area for improvement in spine research in light of studies demonstrating sex and race/ethnicity-related differences in clinical outcome after spine surgery.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

5.

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.

How Many Orthopaedic Surgeons Does It Take to Write a Manuscript? A Vignette-Based Discussion of Authorship in Orthopaedic Surgery

The issue of appropriate authorship designation continues to be a topic of importance because authorship of scholarly work plays an important role in the academic community. It is a recognition of an individual's scholarly work and a factor in academic promotion. The Orthopaedic Trauma Association (OTA) sponsored a minisymposium in 2014 to encourage discussion of the issues that arise in authorship decisions. A residency program director/department chair, a journal editor, a clinical trials coordinator, and a promotions committee member provided viewpoints. In the pages that follow, vignettes are presented along with discussion points to encourage conversation on this topic. Authorship criteria are clearly defined. Authorship based simply on seniority or contribution of cases to clinical trials is inappropriate. Discussion of authorship criteria prior to the initiation of clinical research investigations is a standard that must be met. The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) guidelines provide a framework for this discussion and should be reviewed by all authors prior to publication. Modifications to published authorship guidelines may be necessary to address some of the scenarios identified here that are not adequately addressed by the existing guidelines.

Authorship Considerations: What Qualifies?

Publications indicate academic achievement. Unjustified authorship is a violation of scientific integrity. However, many different authorship guidelines have been purposed. Subjective assessments of contributions may differ substantially when made by individual authors. Complex research structures including multicenter multidisciplinary studies further cloud the definition of authorship. New quantitative measurement of research contributions may help guide who deserves to be recognized as an author. Agreement of authorship and order of listing should be discussed at the beginning of any project likely to result in a publication.

Writers Blocked: On the Wrongs of Research Co-authorship and Some Possible Strategies for Improvement

The various problems associated with co-authorship of research articles have attracted much attention in recent years. We believe that this (hopefully) growing awareness is a very welcome development. However, we will argue that the particular and increasing importance of authorship and the harmful implications of current practices of research authorship for junior researchers have not been emphasised enough. We will use the case of our own research area (bioethics) to illustrate some of the pitfalls of current publishing practices-in particular, the impact on the evaluation of one's work in the area of employment or funding. Even where there are explicit guidelines, they are often disregarded. This disregard, which is often exemplified through the inflation of co-authorship in some research areas, may seem benign to some of us; but it is not. Attribution of co-authorship for reasons other than merit in relation to the publication misrepresents the work towards that publication, and generates unfair competition. We make a case for increasing awareness, for transparency and for more explicit guidelines and regulation of research co-authorship within and across research areas. We examine some of the most sensitive areas of concern and their implications for researchers, particularly junior ones, and we suggest several strategies for future action.

Ethics of using language editing services in an era of digital communication and heavily multi-authored papers

Scientists of many countries in which English is not the primary language routinely use a variety of manuscript preparation, correction or editing services, a practice that is openly endorsed by many journals and scientific institutions. These services vary tremendously in their scope; at one end there is simple proof-reading, and at the other extreme there is in-depth and extensive peer-reviewing, proposal preparation, statistical analyses, re-writing and co-writing. In this paper, the various types of service are reviewed, along with authorship guidelines, and the question is raised of whether the high-end services surpass most guidelines' criteria for authorship. Three other factors are considered. First, the ease of collaboration possible in the internet era allows multiple iterations between the author(s) and the "editing service", so essentially, papers can be co-written. Second, "editing services" often offer subject-specific experts who comment not only on the language, but interpret and improve scientific content. Third, the trend towards heavily multi-authored papers implies that the threshold necessary to earn authorship is declining. The inevitable conclusion is that at some point the contributions by "editing services" should be deemed sufficient to warrant authorship. Trying to enforce any guidelines would likely be futile, but nevertheless, it might be time to revisit the ethics of using some of the high-end "editing services". In an increasingly international job market, awareness of this problem might prove increasingly important in authorship disputes, the allocation of research grants, and hiring decisions.

Publication trends in knee surgery: a review of the last 16 years

The trends in the publication of articles regarding knee arthroplasty and soft tissue surgery were analysed with regard to geographical authorship, institutional funding and number of authors. Over 7500 articles from relevant journals with the highest impact factors according to the Thomson Reuters Journal Citation Report (2010) were evaluated from 1995 to 2010. The rate of publication increased by 16.9 per year for arthroplasty articles and by 13.9 per year for soft tissue surgery articles. The relative supremacy of the USA has declined over the 16 years, its share dropping from 72.2% to 39.2% for arthroplasty articles and from 61.7% to 36.6% for soft tissue surgery articles. The UK, Japan, South Korea and smaller countries in Asia and South America have become increasingly prolific.

Authorship issues

Authorship is a highly sought attribute, as it is associated with recognition for creativity. In addition, it is associated with multiple benefits such as peer recognition, better evaluation and financial gains. These possibilities spur scientists to author articles, but some take recourse to unethical practice of honorary authorships. Another unethical practice is that of ghostwriting. It is a phenomenon wherein individuals who write the articles are not named as authors and are not even acknowledged to be associated with the manuscript. Reputed and renowned scientists, who have not participated in the conduct of the study or in the manuscript preparation, are enrolled by the industry to allow their names to be mentioned as authors. This phenomenon is harmful not only because it suppresses the contribution of ghost-authors but also because the guest “authors” bestow underserved credibility upon an “industry-written” paper. The readers have no way of knowing the bias that may have crept in. The journal editors, institution, and government agencies need to come together to ensure that these malpractices are curbed by employing various measures such as creating awareness amongst authors, academicians, and administrators; enunciating and implementing policies to dissuade unethical behavior, protecting whistle-blowers, and providing punishments to those indulging in malpractices. All of us should remember that if unchecked, these deviant behaviors have the potential to compromise the credibility of scientific research and scientific publications.

Multi-investigator collaboration in orthopaedic surgery research compared to other medical fields

An increasing emphasis has been placed across health care on evidence-based medicine with higher level studies, such as randomized trials and prospective cohort studies. Historically, clinical research in orthopaedic surgery has been dominated by studies with low patient numbers from a limited number of surgeons. The purpose of this study was to test our hypothesis that orthopaedics has fewer multi-center collaborative studies as compared to other medical disciplines. We chose three leading journals from general medicine, a leading journal from the surgical subspecialties of obstetrics and gynecology, ophthalmology and otolaryngology, and three leading journals from orthopaedic surgery based on highest impact factor. We compared the percentage of collaborative studies and the number of contributing institutions and authors in original research manuscripts published in 2009 between general medical, surgical subspecialty and orthopaedic surgery journals. A significantly higher percentage of manuscripts resulted from multicenter collaborative efforts in the general medical literature (p < 0.000001) and the other surgical subspecialty literature (p < 0.000001) compared to the orthopaedic surgery literature. Manuscripts published in the general medical journals came from more institutions (p < 0.0001) and had significantly more authors (p < 0.000001) than those published in the orthopaedic surgery journals. There is an opportunity to stimulate greater multicenter collaborative research, which correlates with increased patient numbers, a higher level of evidence and more generalizable findings, in the orthopaedic surgery community. These efforts can be supported through increased funding, surgeon participation, and appropriate expansion of authorship for multicenter studies in orthopaedic journals.

Bridge over troubled waters: connecting doctors and engineers

While doctor-engineer collaborations are imperative for the advancement of medical technology to improve patient care, these partnerships are often fraught with poorly understood barriers, including differences in knowledge base, conflicts over authorship and difficulty in applying deterministic solutions to biological data. As there is scarce literature on the dynamics of doctor-engineer collaborations, this essay discusses these hurdles and proposes practical ways to overcome, or at least attenuate them.

Determining authorship in multicenter trials: a systematic review

The practical and ethical issues in determining authorship in multicenter trials raise significant and unique challenges. This systematic review examines methods of assigning authorship in multicenter clinical trials. A literature search (October 2009) was conducted to identify articles with the terms 'authorship' and 'clinical trial,' 'multicenter' or 'multicentre.' Abstracts were reviewed for potential relevance and the complete manuscript was obtained where indicated. Additional articles were identified by a review of the reference list from sourced articles. Methods for determining authorship were reviewed in terms of practicality, fairness and the time course for decision-making. Eight methods for determining authorship were identified: four used a scoring system, two articles contained guidelines with reference to scoring systems and two articles outlined general guidelines. All methods attempted to provide a fair and practical approach and appeared to achieve this to varying degrees. No one method was applicable across all multicenter trials. The authors propose a guide for determining authorship based on the methods identified and the number of collaborators and anticipated publications. For smaller collaborative groups (e.g. <10 persons), byline inclusion of all authors based on relative contributions is recommended. For larger collaborations (e.g. ≥ 10 persons), authorship guidelines should be explicit from the outset of the trial with consideration of relevant scoring systems.

Criteria for authorship in bioethics

Multiple authorship is becoming increasingly common in bioethics research. There are well-established criteria for authorship in empirical bioethics research but not for conceptual research. It is important to develop criteria for authorship in conceptual publications to prevent undeserved authorship and uphold standards of fairness and accountability. This article explores the issue of multiple authorship in bioethics and develops criteria for determining who should be an author on a conceptual publication in bioethics. Authorship in conceptual research should be based on contributing substantially to: (1) identifying a topic, problem, or issue to study; (2) reviewing and interpreting the relevant literature; (3) formulating, analyzing, and evaluating arguments that support one or more theses; (4) responding to objections and counterarguments; and (5) drafting the manuscript. Authors of conceptual publications should participate substantially in at least two of areas (1)-(5) and also approve the final version. [corrected].