A comprehensive analysis of authorship trends in Skeletal Radiology since inception from 1976 to 2020

Hsu, Alexander L.; Konner, Marcus; Muttreja, Ashima; Lee, Cheng‐Han; Chien, Jason L; Irish, Robert D.

doi:10.1007/s00256-021-03810-y

Cited by 3 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The data was obtained in May 2021. For the 720 correction notices, we extracted data including the year of published correction, country/region of the first author (Dubey et al, 2016; Hsu et al, 2021), and document type of corrected paper.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Characteristics of correction practice and its citation in library and information science journals

Yang¹,

Diao²,

Zou³

et al. 2022

Journal of Librarianship and Information Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The correction practice of scientific publications is usually used to correct publication errors by issuing correction notices, and it is less explored compared to retraction practice. The aim of this study is to present an overview of correction practice and to explore the citation situation of correction notices in library and information science (LIS) journals, using 720 correction notices in the Web of Science from 2001–2020. Through bibliometrics and content analysis, we found the correcting rate of LIS was relatively low. The main types of corrected errors occurred in authorship, figure or table, references, etc. Most corrected errors were trivial or minor. The citation situation of correction notices was more complex than expected and could be classified into five types. It was relatively rare to cite both the corrected paper and correction notice in a standardized manner. The remaining four types of citation were unreasonable, which could influence citation practice and reduce the citations of corrected papers. We concluded that the appearance of the correction notice had affected the citation of the corrected papers to some extent, and researchers and databases needed to pay attention to this problem. We also provided some suggestions for improving correction practice.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Characteristics of correction practice and its citation in library and information science journals

Yang¹,

Diao²,

Zou³

et al. 2022

Journal of Librarianship and Information Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

How many authors are (too) many? A retrospective, descriptive analysis of authorship in biomedical publications

Jakab,

Kittl,

Kiesslich

2024

Scientometrics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Publishing in academic journals is primary to disseminate research findings, with authorship reflecting a scientist’s contribution, yielding academic recognition, and carrying significant financial implications. Author numbers per article have consistently risen in recent decades, as demonstrated in various journals and fields. This study is a comprehensive analysis of authorship trends in biomedical papers from the NCBI PubMed database between 2000 and 2020, utilizing the Entrez Direct (EDirect) E-utilities to retrieve bibliometric data from a dataset of 17,015,001 articles. For all publication types, the mean author number per publication significantly increased over the last two decades from 3.99 to 6.25 (+ 57%, p < 0.0001) following a linear trend (r2 = 0.99) with an average relative increase of 2.28% per year. This increase was highest for clinical trials (+ 5.67 authors per publication, + 97%), the smallest for case reports (+ 1.01 authors, + 24%). The proportion of single/solo authorships dropped by a factor of about 3 from 17.03% in 2000 to 5.69% in 2020. The percentage of eleven or more authors per publication increased ~ sevenfold, ~ 11-fold and ~ 12-fold for reviews, editorials, and systematic reviews, respectively. Confirming prior findings, this study highlights the escalating authorship in biomedical publications. Given potential unethical practices, preserving authorship as a trustable indicator of scientific performance is critical. Understanding and curbing questionable authorship practices and inflation are imperative, as discussed through relevant literature to tackle this issue.

show abstract

Assessing the gender gap in musculoskeletal radiology authorship across three continents: are really the “ladies first”?

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A comprehensive analysis of authorship trends in Skeletal Radiology since inception from 1976 to 2020

Cited by 3 publications

References 27 publications

Characteristics of correction practice and its citation in library and information science journals

Characteristics of correction practice and its citation in library and information science journals

How many authors are (too) many? A retrospective, descriptive analysis of authorship in biomedical publications

Assessing the gender gap in musculoskeletal radiology authorship across three continents: are really the “ladies first”?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About