Authorship in biomedical research: A sweet fruit of inspiration or a bitter fruit of trade

Gender differences in citation sentiment: A case study in life sciences and biomedicine

In this study, we investigated whether female and male authors in the field of life sciences and biomedicine differed in their tendency for citation and citation sentiment. The data comprised two sets, cited set and citing set. Cited set comprised 17,237 articles whereas citing set comprised 115,935 articles. The cited set which is from the area Life Sciences & Biomedicine and published during 2012–2016 was retrieved from the Web of Science Medline. The citing set and its citation contexts were retrieved using the Colil database. The analysis was done using a combination of homophily analysis, regression analysis and a chi-square test. The covariates in the regression analyses were features related to authors, journal, institution, country and abstract readability. The homophily analysis showed a significant tendency for female (8%) and male (14%) authorship teams to cite papers by the same gender composition teams. In addition, the results of regression analysis (Model 1) and pairwise comparisons showed that male-authored papers received a significant higher positive sentiment compared with female-authored papers. The results of regression analysis (Model 2) showed a small significant positive association between gender similarity of cited and citing authorship teams and the sentiment score. However, further analysis using the chi-square test showed a significant lower tendency for women to use positive terms when citing the research findings of papers with the same gender composition. Men, in contrast, used significantly more positive terms when citing papers with the same gender composition. Finally, lay summary for a cited paper, country similarity and the venue of cited publication when it was a mega journal had a positive significant association with the sentiment score received.

Public health ethics and the COVID-19 pandemic

Health is a human right anchored in values as a basic necessity of life. It promotes the well-being of persons, communities, economic prosperity, and national development. The coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic caught the world unaware and unprepared. It presented a huge challenge to the health and economic systems of every country. Across the spectrum of human endeavor and liberty, several ethical questions have been raised with regard to its management, particularly the public health control measures. Decisions for pandemic control measures are made under difficult circumstances driven by urgency and panic, with uncertainties and complexities for public goods over individual rights. Global solidarity in controlling the pandemic is being tested. National governments have the responsibility to protect public health on the grounds of common good. Political considerations should not be the basis for decision-making against the best available epidemiological data from pandemic disease dynamics. Hence, the need to adhere to the values of honesty, trust, human dignity, solidarity, reciprocity, accountability, transparency, and justice are major considerations. A literature search was conducted for the publications from academic databases and websites of health-relevant organizations. I discuss the ethical questions and challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic in the context of public health control measures using the standard ethical principles of respect for autonomy, beneficence, nonmaleficence, and social (distributive) justice. It is observed that, at the country level, the World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines are used to control the pandemic. As WHO through the COVAX strategy distributes the vaccines to less developed countries, a lot still needs to be done to address the complex bottlenecks of allocation and distribution. There is a need to ensure acceptable and transparent system that promotes cooperation, equitable access, and fair distribution of vaccines on a global scale.

Authorship Weightage Algorithm for Academic Publications: A New Calculation and ACES Webserver for Determining Expertise

Despite the public availability, finding experts in any field when relying on academic publications can be challenging, especially with the use of jargons. Even after overcoming these issues, the discernment of expertise by authorship positions is often also absent in the many publication-based search platforms. Given that it is common in many academic fields for the research group lead or lab head to take the position of the last author, some of the existing authorship scoring systems that assign a decreasing weightage from the first author would not reflect the last author correctly. To address these problems, we incorporated natural language processing (Common Crawl using fastText) to retrieve related keywords when using jargons as well as a modified authorship positional scoring that allows the assignment of greater weightage to the last author. The resulting output is a ranked scoring system of researchers upon every search that we implemented as a webserver for internal use called the APD lab Capability & Expertise Search (ACES).

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.

Authorship Patterns in Cancer Genomics Publications Across Africa

PURPOSE

Authorship is a proxy indicator of research capacity. Understanding the research capacity is imperative for developing population-specific cancer control strategies. This is particularly apropos for African nations, where mortality from cancer is projected to surpass that from infectious disease and the populations are critically under-represented in cancer and genomics studies. Here, we present an analysis and discussion of the patterns of authorship in Africa as they pertain to cancer genomics research across African countries.

METHODS

PubMed metadata of relevant cancer genomics peer-reviewed publications on African populations, published between January 1, 1990, and December 31, 2019, were retrieved and analyzed for patterns of authorship affiliation using R packages, RISmed, and Pubmed.mineR.

RESULTS

The data showed that only 0.016% (n = 375) of cancer publications globally were on cancer genomics of African people. More than 50% of the first and last authors of these publications originated from the North African countries of Tunisia, Morocco, Egypt, and Algeria. South Africa (13.6% and 12.7%) and Nigeria (2.2% and 1.9%) were the Sub-Saharan African countries most represented by first and last authorship positions, respectively. The United States contributed 12.6% of first and last authored papers, and nearly 50% of all African countries had no contributing author for the publications we reviewed.

CONCLUSION

This study highlights and brings awareness to the paucity of cancer genomics research on African populations and by African authors and identifies a need for concerted efforts to encourage and enable more research in Africa, needed for achieving global equity in cancer outcomes.

Could early tweet counts predict later citation counts? A gender study in Life Sciences and Biomedicine (2014-2016)

In this study, it was investigated whether early tweets counts could differentially benefit female and male (first, last) authors in terms of the later citation counts received. The data for this study comprised 47,961 articles in the research area of Life Sciences & Biomedicine from 2014-2016, retrieved from Web of Science's Medline. For each article, the number of received citations per year was downloaded from WOS, while the number of received tweets per year was obtained from PlumX. Using the hurdle regression model, I compared the number of received citations by female and male (first, last) authored papers and then I investigated whether early tweet counts could predict the later citation counts received by female and male (first, last) authored papers. In the regression models, I controlled for several important factors that were investigated in previous research in relation to citation counts, gender or Altmetrics. These included journal impact (SNIP), number of authors, open access, research funding, topic of an article, international collaboration, lay summary, F1000 Score and mega journal. The findings showed that the percentage of papers with male authors in first or last authorship positions was higher than that for female authors. However, female first and last-authored papers had a small but significant citation advantage of 4.7% and 5.5% compared to male-authored papers. The findings also showed that irrespective of whether the factors were included in regression models or not, early tweet counts had a weak positive and significant association with the later citations counts (3.3%) and the probability of a paper being cited (21.1%). Regarding gender, the findings showed that when all variables were controlled, female (first, last) authored papers had a small citation advantage of 3.7% and 4.2% in comparison to the male authored papers for the same number of tweets.