Recognition,reward and responsibility: Why the authorship of scientific papers matters

Author lists should inform readers about who did a piece of research. If authorship attribution is incorrect, the wrong people may take the credit or the blame. Correct authorship of medical papers is also important because the research and publication process relies on trust. If scientists or clinicians are prepared to lie about who was involved with a research project why should we believe their findings? Groups of journal editors, notably the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, have tried to establish criteria for authorship but these are not universally accepted. Despite the lack of agreement, authorship of journal articles continues to be the basis for academic appointments and is used to measure the research output of departments and therefore determine future funding. Some journals have started to use contributor lists, indicating the role of each individual, in place of, or in addition to, traditional lists of authors. However, problems about the threshold of involvement that merits authorship, and the order of listing remain unresolved. Journal editors are usually unable to adjudicate on authorship disputes since detailed, local knowledge is required. Institutions might therefore play a greater role in setting and enforcing authorship policies. Disputes could be reduced if authorship criteria were agreed, in writing, among all contributors at the start of a research project.     

南京军区南京总医院2004年度科技论文排名的思考和建议

为加强医院学术论文管理，促进科技创新和高质量学术论文产出，作者结合国家科技部2005年度“中国科技论文统计分析新闻发布会”的公布结果，对南京军区南京总医院2004年度科学引文索引（SCI）、MEDLINE、国内统计源期刊收录论文、国内论文被引用次数在全国医疗机构中的排名情况以及医院SCI、MEDLINE、国内统计源期刊收录论文产生的学科分布进行分析，认为要保持医院学术论文在全国同类医院领先，必须完善创新体系构建、规范制度化管理和加强论文产出的环节管理。     

国内外期刊评价检索体系的选刊原则与评价标准

本文对国内外较为知名的期刊评价与检索体系选刊原则及其评价标准做系统综述,为科研工作者了解相关体系提供信息,同时也为期刊进入相关的评价与检索体系提供准则.     

Scientific production and impact of nuclear medicine in Europe: how do we publish?

We performed a bibliometric search covering a 1-year period to evaluate the number and the scientific weight of nuclear medicine papers published from European as compared with other countries. The scientific impact of our discipline was evaluated according to the impact factor of each publication, and we also aimed to identify those countries and topics that are making the principal contributions to the development of our discipline. To this end, a search on MEDLINE (PubMed) was run to find all peer-reviewed articles published between April 2002 and May 2003, using isotope definitions as search terms. A total of 3,292 publications were identified. Of these, 650 were of no nuclear medicine interest, 229 were reviews and 82 had no country specified. In absolute numbers, Europe leads research in nuclear medicine (939 papers, 38.9%) followed by the USA (608 papers, 25.2%). Among European countries, Germany is the nation that is currently making the greatest contribution to the scientific production of nuclear medicine in Europe. Articles concerning the use of nuclear medicine in oncology account for more than one-quarter of all published nuclear medicine papers.     

国内外期刊评价检索体系的选刊原则与评价标准

本文对国内外较为知名的期刊评价与检索体系选刊原则及其评价标准做系统综述,为科研工作者了解相关体系提供信息,同时也为期刊进入相关的评价与检索体系提供准则.     

2011年和2008年版《中文核心期刊要目总览》收录医药卫生类核心期刊的对比分析

统计、分析和讨论了2011年与2008年版《中文核心期刊要目总览》中医药卫生类核心期刊的构成比和增减情况。     

Authorship: From credit to accountability. Reflections from the Editors’ Network

The Editors’ Network of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) provides a dynamic forum for editorial discussions and endorses the recommendations of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) to improve the scientific quality of biomedical journals. Authorship confers credit and important academic rewards. Recently, however, the ICMJE emphasized that authorship also requires responsibility and accountability. These issues are now covered by the new (fourth) criterion for authorship. Authors should agree to be accountable and ensure that questions regarding the accuracy and integrity of the entire work will be appropriately addressed. This review discusses the implications of this paradigm shift on authorship requirements with the aim of increasing awareness on good scientific and editorial practices.     

Community researchers conducting health disparities research: Ethical and other insights from fieldwork journaling

Lay persons who are trained to conduct research in their own communities form an essential part of many research projects. However, the effects of conducting research in their own communities have not been adequately explored. This paper examines the experiences, perceptions, and challenges faced by a group of community researchers during their involvement in a research project that examined if, and how, the relationships between mothers and their adolescent daughters could be harnessed to develop a daughter-initiated cervical cancer intervention. Seven community researchers interviewed 157 mother-daughter pairs in Cape Town, South Africa. We examine the use of journaling as a tool to document the experiences of community researchers, and we consider how journaling may help the community-based researcher grapple with the research process, and, more broadly, what such journal content illustrates with respect to the nature and challenges of community-engaged health research. An analysis of the content of the journals provides a strong indication of how personal and intimate the research process can be for community researchers by virtue of the background that they bring into the process as well as the additional weight of the research process itself. The complexities of navigating dual and somewhat oppositional roles - the role of impartial scientist or researcher and the role of invested community person - has been both underestimated and insufficiently researched.     

“中国科技期刊卓越行动计划”资助期刊特征分析

【目的】 对“中国科技期刊卓越行动计划”资助期刊的特征进行分析,可以了解这些具有较高国际影响力的国内科技期刊的特点,为其他有潜力的科技期刊发展提供参考。【方法】 利用文献调研、网站调研、统计分析等方法对入选科技期刊的主办及主管单位、学科类别、国内外学术影响力等方面进行系统剖析,同时通过SCI收录情况与JCR分区指标对顶层的领军期刊和重点期刊进行重点分析。【结果】 领军期刊和重点期刊项目重点支持英文期刊;以域选刊,重点关注优先建设领域;所有期刊均被SCI收录,主要引证指标表现优秀。梯队期刊兼顾中、英文期刊;资助数量最多,覆盖学科领域较广;整体国际学术影响力不高,但其中的中文期刊具有较高的国内影响力。高起点新刊项目主要支持英文期刊,关注优先建设领域。【结论】 “中国科技期刊卓越行动计划”资助期刊在国际影响力、主要引证指标、出版体系等方面呈现出尖兵引领、梯次跟进的态势,同层次期刊可以逐步探索良性的竞争与合作模式,冲击更优、更强的国际一流期刊;未受到资助的期刊可参照相应的指标不断追跑,从而促进我国科技期刊体系的持续健康发展。     

“中国科技期刊卓越行动计划”领军期刊与对标期刊的指标特征分析与发展建议

【目的】 通过比较2019年获得“中国科技期刊卓越行动计划”领军期刊项目资助的期刊(以下简称“领军期刊”)与其对标期刊,探索我国科技期刊缩小与世界顶级期刊差距的对策,为我国一流科技期刊建设提供参考和借鉴。【方法】 利用Web of Science (WoS) 数据库和期刊官网,检索并总结领军期刊与其对标期刊的各项指标数据,分析领军期刊最近5年来的发展情况。【结果】 22种领军期刊的主要指标数据明显上升。2020年领军期刊共发表Article 和Review文章4025篇,比2019年的2630篇增长53.0%,2020年刊均载文量为183篇,比2019年的120篇增长53.0%;领军期刊总被引频次由2019年的99767 次大幅增长至2020年的153610次,增幅达54.0%;2020年领军期刊的平均被引半衰期为3.73年,而对标期刊的平均被引半衰期为9.35年。2020年,16种领军期刊跻身JCR学科排名前10%,10种领军期刊跻身JCR学科排名前5%。【结论】 领军期刊应构建良性的期刊发展生态、动态调整期刊的发展目标、紧扣国家战略和重大需求布局期刊发展方向、重视人才发展与储备、构建自主可控的国际传播平台与渠道,以完成引领行业发展的使命任务,实现可持续发展,从而带动我国期刊行业的整体发展与进步。