ライフサイエンスコーパス: authorship

1 ersion of the Vancouver Group's criteria for authorship.

2 less than the 50% mark in all categories of authorship.

3 mic literature, but no increase in editorial authorship.

4 s associated with the perception of honorary authorship.

5 ny of the systematic reviews had overlapping authorship.

6 at gender disparities can occur in scholarly authorship.

7 l satisfaction are additional incentives for authorship.

8 some extent on published recognition through authorship.

9 with the probability of perceiving honorary authorship.

10 who did not follow journal requirements for authorship.

11 ruistic possibilities of wikis with explicit authorship.

12 ustry participation, and industry-affiliated authorship.

13 g systems are not optimally adapted to group authorship.

14 , and identification of methods of assigning authorship.

15 f reviews had evidence of honorary and ghost authorship.

16 d significant, was typically associated with authorship.

17 is stage received neither acknowledgment nor authorship.

18 umber of citations to each report by type of authorship.

19 shed reports identified, 126 (44%) had group authorship, 109 (38%) had modified group authorship (lis

20 number of citations, Hirsch H index [H]), co-authorship adjustment (Schreiber Hm index [Hm]), and aut

21 negatively correlated with indicators of co-authorship adjustment and of author order, while in othe

22 ions to 96.9% of reports with modified group authorship and 93.9% of citations to reports with named

23 ovided a unique opportunity to examine guest authorship and ghostwriting, practices that have been su

24 mple description, information on provenance, authorship and other metadata, and is flexible enough to

25 We compared first authorship and reported funding of original articles in

26 change, to reflect the realities of multiple authorship and to buttress accountability.

27 d not make sufficient contributions to merit authorship, and 165 (50.3%) stated that one or more coau

28 termining authorship, perception of honorary authorship, and demographic information.

29 ons of coauthors, the perception of honorary authorship, and demographic information.

30 texts by means of inquiries into the making, authorship, and functions of artworks.

31 ields face an increasing prevalence of multi-authorship, and this poses challenges in assessing citat

32 species epithet, rank, year of publication, authorship, annotations, etc.) to all elements of a name

33 urrent "rules" and conventions for assigning authorship are based on largely unwritten but widely-acc

34 hich reports of controlled trials with group authorship are indexed and citations counted in bibliogr

35 ests; 6) not participate in undisclosed paid authorship arrangements in industry-sponsored publicatio

36 ults, reduce duplicated efforts, and improve authorship attribution for questionnaire design.

37 pathways, curated by expert biologists with authorship attribution.

38 Change in number of queries related to authorship between 1991 to 1992 and 1996 to 1997.

39 and given the importance attributed to first authorship by grant reviewers and promotion and tenure c

40 publications, and (iii) the frequency of co-authorship by industry employees.

41 , showing a trend toward decreased editorial authorship by women during the past decade.

42 onsiderably in the last few decades, and the authorship characteristics of the dental literature as a

43 ed disrespectful of the work of others (gift authorship, citing sources without reading them, dividin

44 e used by veterinarians, and a third diverse-authorship community used by population biologists, math

45 If an article contained an authorship contribution from the first genealogy, its re

46 In contrast, if an article contained an authorship contribution from the second genealogy, it wa

47 ons included guidelines used for determining authorship, contributions of coauthors, the perception o

48 ittees, should consider challenging outmoded authorship conventions.

49 tional Committee of Medical Journal Editors' authorship criteria and common authorship issues, improv

50 w that it is in agreement with real world co-authorship data.

51 Details of publication, authorship, data-sharing, and intellectual property vary

52 Authorship disputes and abuses have increased in recent

53 Authorship disputes are increasingly frequent.

54 accepted blame for inserted errors, claiming authorship for the appearance of the screen.

55 It is not known whether articles with group authorship (ie, with a research group name listed as the

56 change in some journals from no joint first authorship in 1990 to co-first authorship of >30% of all

57 f instruments; and (e) setting the rules for authorship in advance.

58 Authorship in biomedical publication provides recognitio

59 Authorship in biomedical publications establishes accoun

60 termine the prevalence of honorary and ghost authorship in Cochrane reviews, how authorship is assign

61 There was no significant rise for last authorship in subspecialty journals.

62 ncreased first-author perception of honorary authorship included lower academic rank (adjusted odds r

63 itized data regarding networks of scientific authorship, institutions, and resources, we explore the

64 Authorship is a part of a scientific name and may also d

65 nd ghost authorship in Cochrane reviews, how authorship is assigned, and the ways in which authors an

66 Authorship is too important to be left to chance.

67 rnal Editors' authorship criteria and common authorship issues, improves clarity on appropriate autho

68 s; (f) existing translated versions; and (g) authorship issues.

69 ally update a likelihood model that includes authorship, journal and PubMed indexing information.

70 ced in the first and second positions of the authorship list.

71 oup authorship, 109 (38%) had modified group authorship (listing individual names plus the name of th

72 ifficult to identify or whether use of group authorship may lead to problems with citation.

73 High rates of authorship misrepresentation have been documented among

74 We analyzed the temporal co-authorship network structures of ENCODE and modENCODE co

75 o joint first authorship in 1990 to co-first authorship of >30% of all research publications in 2012.

76 We recommend that authorship of reports of the primary results of multicen

77 Authorship of scientific publications holds great import

78 mes of Exercise Training) trial to establish authorship of the manuscripts describing the baseline ch

79 icient, fair, and effective way to establish authorship on study-related manuscripts could diminish c

80 s of data and many go unrecognized by either authorship or acknowledgment.

81 nts to identify information related to guest authorship or ghostwriting.

82 Authorship order was assigned according to contribution

83 The criteria for authorship outlined by the Vancouver Group do not seem t

84 The rate of perceived honorary authorship (overall, 26.0%) was substantially more frequ

85 s steeper for first authorship than for last authorship (P<0.001).

86 ns addressed guidelines used for determining authorship, perception of honorary authorship, and demog

87 This is true across authorship position, year, and journal impact factor.

88 ssessed the proportion of women in different authorship positions (first, middle, and last).

89 In all 3 authorship positions (first, middle, or last), women's c

90 In all 3 authorship positions, the proportion of women was consis

91 cts oversight, data-sharing, publication and authorship practices, research organization and producti

92 d distinguishing strong collaborations in co-authorship social networks using connectivity informatio

93 ons should increase enforcement of published authorship standards and place more emphasis on manageri

94 orations (i) are the fastest growing type of authorship structure, (ii) produce the highest-impact pa

95 f authorship undermines the integrity of the authorship system, but accurate data on its prevalence a

96 clinical research, but was steeper for first authorship than for last authorship (P<0.001).

97 on by skilled typists and found illusions of authorship that provide evidence for two error-detection

98 domized trial design, and pre-eminent expert authorship, the association remained significant (18.6%

99 owledged authors and subsequently attributed authorship to academically affiliated investigators who

100 sponsor employees but often attributed first authorship to academically affiliated investigators who

101 Agency, the attribution of authorship to an action of our body, requires the intent

102 llows the contribution of different modes of authorship to be determined directly from the data and i

103 Misappropriation of authorship undermines the integrity of the authorship sy

104 y lower (P </= .0001) perception of honorary authorship was associated with adherence to ICMJE criter

105 Authorship was decided by the group of authors (31%) or

106 Perceived honorary authorship was lower with adherence to the ICMJE guideli

107 The perception of honorary authorship was significantly higher (P </= .0001) among

108 The percentage of honorary authorship was significantly higher (P = .019) among res

109 Perceived honorary authorship was substantially higher among respondents fr

110 ation, impact factor, and pre-eminent expert authorship were significant covariates, whereas randomiz

111 The system of authorship, while appropriate for articles with only 1 a

112 s in which two or more coauthors claim first authorship, with a change in some journals from no joint

113 Information related to authorship, year of publication, number of subjects, stu