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.     

Current and potential cyber attacks on medical journals; guidelines for improving security

At the moment, scholarly publishing is faced with much academic misconduct and threats such as predatory journals, hijacked journals, phishing, and other scams. In response, we have been discussing this misconduct and trying to increase the awareness of researchers, but it seems that there is a lack of research that presents guidelines for editors to help them protect themselves against these threats. It seems that information security is missing in some parts of scholarly publishing that particularly involves medical journals. In this paper, we explain different types of cyber-attacks that especially threaten editors and academic journals. We then explain the details involved in each type of attack. Finally, we present general guidelines for detection and prevention of the attacks. In some cases, we use small experiments to show that our claim is true. Finally, we conclude the paper with a prioritization of these attacks.     

Data sharing: A new editorial initiative of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Implications for the editors’ network

The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) provides recommendations to improve the editorial standards and scientific quality of biomedical journals. These recommendations range from uniform technical requirements to more complex and elusive editorial issues including ethical aspects of the scientific process. Recently, registration of clinical trials, conflicts of interest disclosure, and new criteria for authorship -emphasizing the importance of responsibility and accountability-, have been proposed. Last year, a new editorial initiative to foster sharing of clinical trial data was launched. This review discusses this novel initiative with the aim of increasing awareness among readers, investigators, authors and editors belonging to the Editors’ Network of the European Society of Cardiology.     

Lotka's law and the pattern of scientific productivity in the dental science literature

Statistical regularities can be observed in many natural and social phenomena. From empirical data on the authorship of scientific papers, Lotka deduced an inverse-square law: the number of authors publishing n papers is 1/n2 of those publishing one paper. The general type for the relation (1/n(c)) has a wide range of applicability to a variety of phenomena. This study examined, by means of bibliometric tools, whether Lotka's law could be applied to the literature of dental science. Data came from 20 leading dental science journals, as reported in Journal Citation Reports. The search was performed with a programme developed using Visual Basic for Applications, which counted the number of authors and analysed their contributions to the literature. Authorship for all contributions, as reported in Medline, was compiled for each of these 20 journals for the last 25 years, 1971 through 1995. The total number of authors was 43,796, responsible for 124,556 authorships. The journals published in countries other than the USA exhibited higher degrees of author concentration. The dental science literature conformed very well to Lotka's model with c = 1.95.     

Hepatitis B: global scientific development from a critical point of view

Hepatitis B is the tenth leading cause of death worldwide. Countries with high endemicity, such as China and Taiwan show high scientific productivity in this field and dominate the top ten list of the most productive authors worldwide, providing four of them. This is remarkable, as the USA and Europe usually maintain leading positions, not only regarding country‐specific scientific productivity, but also top ten ranking of most productive and most cited authors in other important medical sectors. So far, a scientometric analysis of the topic ‘hepatitis B’ has not been generated despite an increased need for it in times of modified evaluation criteria for academic personnel and a subsequent tendency to co‐authorship and author self‐citation. In this study, scientometric methods and large‐scale data analysis were used to evaluate quality and quantity of scientific research dealing with the topic ‘hepatitis B’ and to contribute to distinguish relevant research output. Data were gained from Pubmed and ISI‐Web. In the time span of 1971–2011, 49 166 items were published by 250 countries, of which the USA have been the most productive supplier with 28% of all publications, followed in considerable distance by Germany, China, the United Kingdom, Japan, France, Italy and Taiwan, respectively. The USA have established their position as centre of international cooperation. Their cooperation with China proves to be the most productive one. The most prolific journals in the field of hepatitis b were ‘Hepatology’, the ‘Journal of Hepatology’ and the ‘Journal of Medical Virology’. h‐index, citation rate and impact factor, commonly used for assessment of scientific quality, were determined and discussed critically with regard to distortion by bias of self‐citation and co‐authorship.     

Writing a narrative biomedical review: considerations for authors, peer reviewers, and editors

Review articles comprehensively covering a specific topic are crucial for successful research and academic projects. Most editors consider review articles for special and regular issues of journals. Writing a review requires deep knowledge and understanding of a field. The aim of this review is to analyze the main steps in writing a narrative biomedical review and to consider points that may increase the chances of success. We performed a comprehensive search through MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, and Web of Science using the following keywords: review of the literature, narrative review, title, abstract, authorship, ethics, peer review, research methods, medical writing, scientific writing, and writing standards. Opinions expressed in the review are also based on personal experience as authors, peer reviewers, and editors.     

An interview with Dan L. Longo, Section Editor of the Malignant hematological diseases section

This Editorial marks the launch of BMC Hematology, formerly known as BMC Blood Disorders, within the BMC series of journals published by BioMed Central. The scope of BMC Hematology encompasses basic, experimental and clinical research related to hematology. In this Editorial we will discuss the rationale behind this relaunch and how, as an open access journal providing unrestricted and free access to scientific and scholarly work, BMC Hematology will help disseminate research in the hematology field in a freely-accessible manner.     

Irresponsible authorship and wasteful publication

Fraud is a dramatic offense in scientific publishing but other offenses are more frequent and probably far more damaging. The most frequent lesser offenses are irresponsible authorship and wasteful publication. The authorship problems include listing of "authors" who made little or no contribution to the work reported and omitting of persons who made major contributions. Wasteful publication includes dividing the results in a single study into two or more papers ("salami science"); republishing the same material in successive papers (which need not have identical format and content); and blending data from one study with additional data to extract yet another paper that could not make its way on the second set of data alone ("meat extenders"). Wasteful publication may be the most frequent of these offenses and is probably the most damaging because of its economic implications for publishers, readers, libraries, and indexes.     

Authorship and other credits

Coauthorship of articles and case reports in medical journals is causing serious academic problems. Many persons who are listed as authors do not contribute as authors but rather as clinical investigators, statisticians, or program directors. In effect, a dishonest practice has developed that allows contributors to medical research to receive the honorific title of author when this title is not deserved. To help stop this practice, we urge a shift from the concept of authorship to a more general concept of receiving credit. Persons who contribute to articles as authors should be so credited, but those who contribute as clinical investigators, for example, should receive credit as clinical investigators, not authors. Instead, clinical investigators should receive credit by having their names listed alongside the authors' and by being permitted to list their nonauthorial contributions in their curricula vitae.     

Citation analysis for measuring the value of scientific publications: quality assessment tool or comedy of errors?

The basic concepts of citation analysis and Journal impact factors are discussed in the light of quality assessment of scientific publications, individual scientists and research units. The major controversies concerning this topic are addressed: technical limitations, database selectivity, time and discipline-related biases, language and publication type biases, multiple authorship merits and citing motivations. Both positive and negative aspects are put into perspective. The authors conclude that citation analysis, even when based on Journal impact factors, can be a worthwhile criterion for evaluating publication records of individual scientists or research units, as long as some of the problems discussed are sufficiently taken into account. However, this conclusion in no way implies that citation analysis may be considered as the one and only evaluation criterion.     

Citation classics in acute pancreatitis

Background/ObjectivesThe number of times an article is cited in scientific journals reflects its impact on a specific biomedical field or specialty and reflects the impact of the authors' creativity. Our purpose was to characterize the most frequently cited articles about acute pancreatitis.MethodsWe utilized the 2010 edition of Journal Citation Reports and Social Sciences Citation Index database to determine the most frequently cited articles published after 1956. The 100 most frequently cited articles were selected. Articles were evaluated for several characteristics including number of citations, publication time, country of origin, institution, journal, publication type of article and authorship.ResultsThe most frequently cited article received 1281 citations and the least frequently cited article received 163 citations, with a mean of 266.65 citations per article. These citation classics were published in 31 high-impact journals, led by Gastroenterology. Of the 100 articles, 56 were clinical observational studies, 20 concerned basic science and 15 were review articles. The articles originated from 16 countries, with the United States contributing 47 articles; 56 institutions produced these 100 top-cited articles, led by University of Ulm (9 publications) and New York University (9 publications); 23 persons authored 3 or more of the top-cited articles led by Imrie (10 publications).Conclusion“Citation classics” about acute pancreatitis are detected in both experimental and clinical research field, which provide a historical perspective on the scientific progress and allow for recognition of important advances in this specialty.     

Top 100 cited Articles in Charcot Neuroarthropathy

Background and aimsAn article's scientific impact has often been measured by the number of citations it receives, and a citation analysis can help determine impactful works in medical specialties. The objective of this study is to describe the metrics and levels of evidence of articles in Charcot neuroarthropathy.MethodsThis study reviewed the top 100 most cited articles available when searching for articles in electronic database using the keywords “Charcot neuroarthropathy.” Each article was examined for the number of citations, publication type, journal specialty, authorship, country of origin, year of publication, level of evidence, and total sample size.ResultsThe number of citations ranged from 20 to 490. The 100 most cited articles were published in 48 journals, spanning from general to more specific subspecialty journals. 19% of articles were published by the Journal of Foot and Ankle Surgery. The most common level of evidence was V (42 out of 100 articles), and most articles were literature reviews (n = 42) and case series (n = 27). The median sample size in experimental studies was 29. Out of 100 articles, only 5 were randomized controlled trials.ConclusionsThe median year of most cited publications, 2008, suggests a need for newer studies reviewing Charcot neuroarthropathy. The paucity of articles with an evidence level of 1 or 2 along with small median sample size suggests a lack of scientifically rigorous studies reviewing Charcot neuropathy. Identification of most cited papers about Charcot neuroarthropathy gives clinicians insight into the general scientific review of the disorder.Level of clinical evidenceN/A     

A web-based research tool for functional genomics of the microcirculation: the leukocyte adhesion cascade

OBJECTIVE: Currently, microvascular data are almost exclusively deposited in scholarly journals. With the increasing availability of molecular data and the construction of genomic databases, a need arises to organize physiological data in a more accessible format. The microcirculation is a functional system that spans all organ systems and shares certain characteristics of organization with metabolic pathways, which have successfully been organized around genomic information for several prokaryotes. Here, we present a web-based research and teaching tool (http:@hsc.Virginia.EDU/medicine/basic-sci/biomed/l ey/) that covers a small aspect of microcirculatory physiology, the leukocyte adhesion cascade. METHODS: Currently, the site is organized in a flat-text mode with hypertext links to GenBank, Medline, and online journals where available. RESULTS: The web-based research and education tool is useful for graduate student education, and as a research resource for genetic researchers interested in gene function and for physiologists and biomedical engineers interested in the molecular basis of the leukocyte adhesion cascade. Our effort is intended to be a beginning toward a distributed database for the microcirculation (microcirculation physiome. see http://www.bme.jhu.edu/news/microphys). CONCLUSIONS: We invite all microvascular researchers to provide annotations and comments to make the research and teaching tool more useful to the scientific community.     

Article and journal impact factor in various scientific fields

BackgroundWe tried to provide the scientific community with data to answer the following simple question: What proportion of publications in the various scientific fields is published in journals with impact factor above the median and mean values of the distribution of journal impact factor?MethodsWe analyzed and compared the distribution of the impact factor data reduced to the unit of science publication, the article. We calculated the proportion of articles published in journals with impact factor above the journal mean impact factor, journal median impact factor, and article mean impact.ResultsFor all categories examined, at the article level, the mean impact factor was higher than the median (by 13.7% to 500% for the various scientific categories). The mean impact factor of journals was considerably lower than the mean impact factor of articles (by 0.3 to 6.4 units). The proportion of articles that were published in journals with impact factor above the journals’ median impact factor was well above 50% in 17 of 19 scientific fields examined (all except mathematics and computer science).SignificanceOur analysis shows that in most scientific fields examined, it is quite easier to publish an article in the top 50% of journals (based on impact factor calculations) than it is for the article to be included in the top 50% of published articles (based on the assumption made regarding the article’ impact factor).     

Evaluation of the scientific activity through bibliometric indices

The scope of bibliometric studies is the treatment and quantitative analysis of scientific publications. They belong to the so-called "social studies of science", and science policy constitutes one of its main applied fields. These studies efficiently complement the opinions and judgements of experts, thus providing objective and useful tools for evaluating the results of scientific activity. Nevertheless, given the impact that these evaluations have on the assignment of funding for research and even on the professional career of investigators, it becomes essential to know in detail the characteristics of bibliometric indicators and the limitations of their use. The Science Citation Index database is one of the most employed. In the case of biomedical research it is useful to analyze the most internationally visible scientific production, since it satisfactorily covers biomedical journals; however, clinical research with local interest published in Spanish journals is not included in that database. Widely employed bibliometric indicators are those measuring scientific activity through the number of publications, those based on the citations received by published studies and, in between them, the impact of journals. The impact factor is an indicator very used in bibliometric studies; though occasionally a high impact factor is assumed to reflect high quality, this indicator specifically measures visibility and diffusion of the works published by these journals rather than their scientific quality.     

Benjamin Franklin and medicine

Benjamin Franklin, called Dr. Franklin after receiving an honorary degree in 1759 for his contributions to understanding electricity, was not formally trained as a physician. Nevertheless, he had numerous interests in medicine, including experimentation, shrewd observations about health and disease in himself and others, civic activities, and inventions of medical devices. These achievements show his capacity for detailed, perceptive insights; his fastidiousness in recording his observations; and his thoughtful analyses of scientific phenomena and human conduct. In medicine, perhaps uniquely in his life, his major interests intersected: scientific pursuits, civic activities, amused scrutiny of human behavior, and the desire to improve the lot of his fellow man.