ライフサイエンスコーパス: authorship

1 ruistic possibilities of wikis with explicit authorship.

2 ustry participation, and industry-affiliated authorship.

3 g systems are not optimally adapted to group authorship.

4 , and identification of methods of assigning authorship.

5 f reviews had evidence of honorary and ghost authorship.

6 d significant, was typically associated with authorship.

7 is stage received neither acknowledgment nor authorship.

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

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

10 ch is changing and so must our protocols for authorship.

11 had a broader scope and a more international authorship.

12 inking and creativity that define scientific authorship.

13 tly less likely than men to be credited with authorship.

14 s also had a higher representation of female authorship.

15 r authorship adequately address criteria for authorship.

16 ntific fraud, publication bias, and honorary authorship.

17 the concomitant art historical assessment on authorship.

18 actice, or medical organization according to authorship.

19 an would be expected based on their share of authorship.

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

21 mic literature, but no increase in editorial authorship.

22 s associated with the perception of honorary authorship.

23 ny of the systematic reviews had overlapping authorship.

24 tegorized by sex of first, last, and overall authorship.

25 at gender disparities can occur in scholarly authorship.

26 l satisfaction are additional incentives for authorship.

27 some extent on published recognition through authorship.

28 with the probability of perceiving honorary authorship.

29 who did not follow journal requirements for authorship.

30 D), we only included United States physician authorships.

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

32 44.2%-57.2%), and 37 (16.3%) indicated ghost authorship (11.5%-21.1%).

33 d to the increase in female first and senior authorships (13.8% and 16%), although the test for homog

34 st authorships (32.9%) and 185 of 814 senior authorships (23.9%).

35 hese authorships, including 116 of 365 first authorships (32.9%) and 185 of 814 senior authorships (2

36 ne hundred fifteen (50.7%) reported honorary authorship (44.2%-57.2%), and 37 (16.3%) indicated ghost

37 Of the 660 total authorships (486 unique authors), 413 authorships (63%)

38 total authorships (486 unique authors), 413 authorships (63%) reported none of their OPD-reported re

39 ated the presence of both ghost and honorary authorship (95% CI, 7.7%-16.1%).

40 We investigated gender differences in authorship across various cardiovascular publications ov

41 dical Journal Editors (ICMJE) guidelines for authorship adequately address criteria for authorship.

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

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

44 (level of inequality in the distribution of authorship among authors) as tools to identify journals

45 Co-authorship analysis, co-occurrence analysis, co-citation

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

47 nse of agency, i.e. the (conscious) sense of authorship and control over our actions.

48 ering laboratories, focusing specifically on authorship and data management.

49 Gender data collected on authorship and EB membership were compared.

50 Relationship between female authorship and editorial board membership was analyzed.

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

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

53 was prominent not only for funding, but also authorship and provision of analysts and was associated

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

55 Barriers to authorship and representation of women in HF guidelines

56 ersist in academic oncology, particularly in authorship and senior academic roles.

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

58 s with a moderate-level COI are recused from authorship and voting for clinically relevant topics but

59 Despite an increase in local authorships and funding sources over time, the majority

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

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

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

63 ans, publication working groups, determining authorship, and documentation.

64 The prevalence of female first, senior authorship, and editorial board members were examined in

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

66 ation of PPPs with later publications, first authorship, and journal publications with an IF score of

67 authors with and without ghost and honorary authorship, and risk factors for ghost and honorary auth

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

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

70 ntific fraud, publication bias, and honorary authorship appear to be nonnegligible practices in nucle

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

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

73 rarily and excluding authors who qualify for authorship are relatively common practices in ophthalmol

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

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

76 pathways, curated by expert biologists with authorship attribution.

77 reventive measures are needed to ensure fair authorship attributions.

78 Citizen scientists are often excluded from authorship because they cannot meet rigid journal criter

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

80 new tool to determine a painting's date and authorship but also allows for a better understanding of

81 emia, we examined temporal trends in women's authorship by conducting a large-scale bibliometric stud

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

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

84 There was a stronger increase in authorship by publication year for general medicine jour

85 This study evaluates the distribution of authorship by sex over the last 10 years among the top 2

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

87 e characterized by a trend towards increased authorship by women, with new author parity anticipated

88 5 to 2009 and 2015 to 2019, first and senior authorships by women increased (first: 33 of 133 [24.8%]

89 ors' gender; number (percentage) of women on authorship byline in "pre-pandemic" period and in "covid

90 to readability and accessibility among the 3 authorship categories.

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

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

93 nal survey, we examine gendered practices in authorship communication, disagreement, and fairness.

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

95 any authors believe the ICMJE guidelines for authorship comprehensively delineate fair authorship pra

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

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

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

99 ittees, should consider challenging outmoded authorship conventions.

100 nts raised additional concerns, mainly about authorship criteria and assignments, the generally poor

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

102 at issue (when they were not referred to any authorship criteria).

103 Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) authorship criteria, and 51% [95% CI 47-56] (15 surveys,

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

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

106 The rates of ghost and honorary authorship, demographic characteristics of the correspon

107 te that women were more likely to experience authorship disagreements and experience them more often.

108 0.22) points, and with no disclosure over AI authorship disclosure, with a mean difference of 0.09 (9

109 Authorship disputes and abuses have increased in recent

110 Authorship disputes are increasingly frequent.

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

112 ple articles, we defined a unit of analysis, authorship, for which each author of each article is a u

113 key characteristics of this activity in an 'authorship-for-sale' network with the aim to create a ro

114 This study evaluates trends in authorship gender representation over the past decade ac

115 d and the association between first and last authorship gender were assessed.

116 Data-use patterns were diverse by authorship, geographic extent, taxonomic group, and data

117 Overall, female first and senior authorships grew by 68.0% between 2005 to 2009 and 2015

118 nior authors, and the overall rise in female authorship has not kept up with the rise in female oncol

119 association between first and senior female authorship; however, the gender gap persists.

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

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

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

123 Authorship in biomedical publication provides recognitio

124 Authorship in biomedical publications establishes accoun

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

126 study investigates the proportion of female authorship in editorials published between 2005 to 2009

127 Significant differences in gender authorship in lung, intestine, pancreas, general, and is

128 Conclusion: Female first and last authorship in nuclear medicine journals increased substa

129 Although female authorship in oncology journals has increased over the p

130 This cross-sectional study found that female authorship in oncology research literature has increased

131 Women had lower odds of lead authorship in RCTs that were multicenter (odds ratio [OR

132 Women had lower odds of lead authorship in RCTs that were multicenter, were coordinat

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

134 esearch consistently indicates that honorary authorship in the health sciences is highly prevalent, h

135 nt surgeons and physicians, the gap in women authorship in transplantation persists.

136 ain insight into the current status of women authorship in transplantation.

137 year), women would achieve parity in senior authorship in ~20 to 25 years.

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

139 Women held 301 (25.5%) of these authorships, including 116 of 365 first authorships (32.

140 Female authorship increased from 28.2% (428 of 1,518 articles)

141 Female authorship increased in Europe for first authors (P = 0.

142 Women's first and last authorship increased over time among all journals.

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

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

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

146 Despite this, authorship is rife with injustice and malpractice, with

147 Authorship is the primary form of symbolic capital in sc

148 Authorship is too important to be left to chance.

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

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

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

152 Despite facilitating global authorship, legacies of colonial science remain.

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

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

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

156 We used publication and authorship metrics to assess how the capacity to become

157 High rates of authorship misrepresentation have been documented among

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

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

160 ors, we recently enabled the linking between authorship of all Pfam entries with the corresponding au

161 ry authorship of Beowulf and the Cynewulfian authorship of Andreas, shedding light on two longstandin

162 ds in the sex distribution of first and last authorship of articles published in nuclear medicine jou

163 itative evidence consistent with the unitary authorship of Beowulf and the Cynewulfian authorship of

164 Female first and last authorship of COVID-19-related articles was overrepresen

165 lidated database of author gender to analyze authorship of critical care articles indexed in PubMed b

166 bjectives: To evaluate gender differences in authorship of critical care literature.Methods: We used

167 tle is known regarding gender differences in authorship of critical care research.Objectives: To eval

168 o describe the distribution of gender across authorship of editorials published in 5 high-impact epid

169 Gender disparities in authorship of heart failure (HF) guideline citations and

170 ies continued but slow improvement in female authorship of high-impact surgical journals during the c

171 First and last authorship of high-ranking articles was not in favor of

172 Higher rates of female last authorship of high-ranking articles were observed in Eur

173 ved in Europe (P = .003) and of female first authorship of low-ranking publications in Asia in 2020 (

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

175 Authorship of scientific publications holds great import

176 Regarding the authorship of the articles published, although authors f

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

178 linded markers were tasked with guessing the authorship of the submissions on a four-point Likert sca

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

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

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

182 onding author increased the risk of honorary authorship (OR 11.75; 1.91-231.57; P = .03).

183 Authorship order was assigned according to contribution

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

185 d gender distribution and trends of American authorship over the past 10 y in high-impact solid organ

186 le type by journal type saw a rise in female authorship over the studied period.

187 Trend in female authorship over time while considering journal type, aut

188 oportions of female first, last, and overall authorship over time, and analyzed the correlation betwe

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

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

191 ors' genders were determined, and changes in authorship patterns over time were evaluated with linear

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

193 Although a disparity in authorship persists in the subspecialties of ophthalmolo

194 ely to be authors of clinical trials at each authorship position than authors at that respective posi

195 ip over time while considering journal type, authorship position, and article type.

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

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

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

199 Gender disparities in all prominent authorship positions and the proportion of women authors

200 Women attained some prominent authorship positions equally or more frequently than bef

201 errepresented as co-authors and in prominent authorship positions in covid-19 research, and this gend

202 ons of women in the first, last, and overall authorship positions over time; relationship to journal

203 The percentage of women in first and last authorship positions significantly increased from 23% to

204 d hm-index, citations to papers in different authorship positions, and a composite indicator.

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

206 Journal authorship practices have not sufficiently evolved to re

207 ation into the drivers of honorary and ghost authorship practices in ophthalmology, and the effective

208 ent by 222 (87.4%) respondents, and honorary authorship practices were experienced by 100 (39.4%) res

209 or authorship comprehensively delineate fair authorship practices, listing authors on scientific publ

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

211 research was conducted to estimate honorary authorship prevalence in health sciences.

212 nd Molecular Cancer, exhibited higher female authorship proportions, while Journal of Clinical Oncolo

213 Purpose To determine whether authorship rate in radiologic and general medical litera

214 Authorship rate increased between 1998 (median, six auth

215 Conclusion An increase in authorship rate was observed in the radiologic and gener

216 d equal representation at a faster rate than authorship rates in academic publishing.

217 he primary measurement was the proportion of authorships reporting none of their OPD-reported relatio

218 The proportion of authorships reporting none of their relationships did no

219 scent dyes they create, for free and without authorship requirements.

220 iscrimination, 14 (22%) on discrimination in authorship, research productivity, and research funding,

221 First authorship (rho = 0.71; 95% CI, 0.67-0.74; P < .001) had

222 ngest positive correlation followed by first authorship (rho = 0.77; 95% CI, 0.74-0.79; P < .001) and

223 Female first and last authorship rose for original articles (P = 0.02 and P =

224 Female authorship rose slightly over the last decade (average a

225 ny for studies with medical writers and that authorship should be properly acknowledged.

226 Female first authorship showed a significant upward trend (P < 0.01),

227 The proportion of women in senior authorship significantly increased from 2012 to 2021 (23

228 Female senior authorship significantly increased over the last decade.

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

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

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

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

233 Large, diverse authorship teams that examine an issue from many differe

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

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

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

237 entries into submission sets based on shared authorship, title similarity, submission dates, and the

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

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

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

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

242 gration also raises important concerns about authorship transparency, originality, and the homogeniza

243 there continues to be a paucity of inclusive authorship trends, with the majority of studies not incl

244 Misappropriation of authorship undermines the integrity of the authorship sy

245 t, whereas men were more likely to determine authorship unilaterally at the end.

246 A high-level COI results in recusal from authorship, voting, and all committee discussions.

247 Women's last authorship was associated with 1.69 higher odds of havin

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

249 Women's last authorship was associated with higher odds of having a w

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

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

252 ons, and information regarding second shared authorship was missing from the author contributions.

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

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

255 Perceived honorary authorship was substantially higher among respondents fr

256 For each authorship, we assessed the proportion of OPD-reported r

257 For each authorship, we defined self-reported relationships as th

258 Study design, population, and authorship were also analyzed.

259 hip, and risk factors for ghost and honorary authorship were evaluated.

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

261 The odds of female first authorships were 1.89 (95% CI = 1.65-2.17) times higher

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

263 Women were more likely to discuss authorship with coauthors at the beginning of the projec

264 Authorships with more dollars received during the report

265 They accurately identified the authorship, with 92.1% of the work categorized as 'Defin

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

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