Authorship Trends Over the Past 30-Years in the Annals of Biomedical Engineering

Aguilar, Izath Nizeet; Ganesh, Venkateswaran; Mannfeld, Rachel; Gorden, Riley; Hatch, Jennifer M.; Lunsford, Shatoria; Whipple, Elizabeth C.; Loder, Randall T.; Kacena, Melissa A.

doi:10.1007/s10439-019-02222-3

Cited by 10 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 43 publications

(52 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The mean number of authors for articles in medical journals increased by 23% between 1995 and 2005 [14], and similar trends have been observed in terms of the number of authors on research articles in the health science literature more broadly [15,16]. Although trends for gender of authors (including the gender of authors in specific authorship positions) has been investigated in the biomedical and epidemiological literature [17][18][19], little is known about the training experience of research teams publishing in top-tier clinical and epidemiological journals-either now or historically. Furthermore, to our knowledge, no study has examined how factors such as journal type, publication year, gender of the corresponding author, or recency of the corresponding author's training relate to the disciplinary training of research teams.…”

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 53%

Academic training of authors publishing in high-impact epidemiology and clinical journals

Sullivan

Murray²,

Corlin³

2022

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background To inform training program development and curricular initiatives, quantitative descriptions of the disciplinary training of research teams publishing in top-tier clinical and epidemiological journals are needed. Our objective was to assess whether interdisciplinary academic training and teamwork of authors publishing original research in 15 top-tier journals varied by year of publication (2000/2010/2020), type of journal (epidemiological/general clinical/specialty clinical), corresponding author gender, and time since the corresponding author completed formal training relative to the article publication date (<5/≥5 years). Methods and findings We invited corresponding authors of original research articles to participate in an online survey (n = 103; response rate = 8.3% of 1240 invited authors). In bivariate analyses, year of publication, type of journal, gender, and recency of training were not significantly associated with interdisciplinary team composition, whether a co-author with epidemiological or biostatistical training was involved in any research stage (design/analysis/interpretation/reporting), or with participants’ confidence in their own or their co-authors epidemiological or biostatistical expertise (p > 0.05 for each comparison). Exceptions were participants with more recent epidemiological training all had co-author(s) with epidemiological training contribute to study design and interpretation, and participants who published in 2020 were more likely to report being extremely confident in their epidemiological abilities. Conclusions This study was the first to quantify interdisciplinary training among research teams publishing in epidemiological and clinical journals. Our quantitative results show research published in top-tier journals generally represents interdisciplinary teamwork and that interdisciplinary training may provide publication type options. Our qualitative results show researchers view interdisciplinary training favorably.

show abstract

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 53%

Academic training of authors publishing in high-impact epidemiology and clinical journals

Sullivan

Murray²,

Corlin³

2022

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The mean number of authors per article shows a significant upward trend, from 3.83 in 2008 to 6.33, eleven years later. This finding, observed largely in Medicine (17) and in Dentistry (18,19), could be explained by the need to increase academic productivity for personal promotion within the institutional ranks, but it also suggests a greater complexity or sophistication in research projects, and more collaborative efforts (20). The truth is that this growing tendency has originated debate, and has led the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors to establish well-defined and stricter criteria for authorship and contributorship (21), definitions which should be accepted as guidelines by the editorial teams of the journals.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 74%

Bibliometric analysis and evaluation of the journal Medicina Oral Patología Oral y Cirugía Bucal (2008-2018)

Valderrama¹,

Valderrama²,

Baca³

2020

Med Oral

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: In 2008 the journal Medicina Oral Patología Oral y Cirugía Bucal was included in Journal Citation Reports. To appraise its evolution and current status, this study carried out a bibliometric analysis and evaluation of the journal for the period 2008-2018. Material and Methods: From the Web of Science, Journal Citation Reports we obtained the indicators Journal Impact Factor (JIF), 5-year JIF, JIF without self-cites, Eigenfactor score and Article Influence score (2010-2017); and from the Core Collection database the following variables: number and article types, institutions and countries of origin of the authors (2008-2018), and the variable cited and citing journal data in 2017. Twelve articles/ year (n=132) were randomly selected to gather: the time between submittal and acceptance of an article, number of authors/article, representation of each section, gender of first author, and funding. Results: The journal occupied the third quartile of the JCR from 2010 to 2017, when it moved up to the second quartile. From 2008 to 2018 it published a total of 1,518 documents, 90% articles and 9.5% reviews. Sixty countries were represented, 48.68% of the documents coming from Spain, and overall 1,293 institutions were involved. Between submittal and acceptance of articles, the average time was 134.42 days, without differences between years. The mean of authors/article was 5.15, increasing over time. The sections most represented were Oral Medicine and Pathology, and Oral Surgery. There were no differences regarding the gender of the first author, and in general the authors did not provide information about funding received. Conclusions: The bibliometric results indicate a steadily improving position of this journal, along with a tendency to reduce self-citation. The time between reception of an article and its acceptance was very stable, the number of authors per article showed an increase, and there was a nearly equal representation of males and females as the first author.

show abstract

“…The mean number of authors for articles in medical journals increased by 23% between 1995 and 2005 [14], and similar trends have been observed in terms of the number of authors on research articles in the health science literature more broadly [15,16]. Although trends for gender of authors (including the gender of authors in speci c authorship positions) has been investigated in the biomedical and epidemiological literature [17][18][19], little is known about the training experience of research teams publishing in top-tier clinical and epidemiological journals -either now or historically. Furthermore, to our knowledge, no study has examined how factors such as journal type, publication year, gender of the corresponding author, or recency of the corresponding author's training relate to the disciplinary training of research teams.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 70%

“…Similarly, medical schools and funding organizations support innovative interdisciplinary training programs for clinician-scholars to learn research methods [2, 5-13].Complementing these trends in training, the academic literature has also seen an increase in team science and increased attention to authorship practices.The mean number of authors for articles in medical journals increased by 23% between 1995 and 2005 [14], and similar trends have been observed in terms of the number of authors on research articles in the health science literature more broadly [15,16]. Although trends for gender of authors (including the gender of authors in speci c authorship positions) has been investigated in the biomedical and epidemiological literature [17][18][19], little is known about the training experience of research teams publishing in top-tier clinical and epidemiological journals -either now or historically. Furthermore, to our knowledge, no study has examined how factors such as journal type, publication year, gender of the corresponding author, or recency of the corresponding author's training relate to the disciplinary training of research teams.To address these gaps in the literature, we administered a survey to quantify how formal interdisciplinary training and teamwork varied by year of publication, type of journal, gender, and time since training.…”

mentioning

confidence: 70%

Academic training of authors publishing in high-impact epidemiology and clinical journals

Sullivan¹,

Murray²,

Corlin³

2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: To match medical education requirements to the professional goals of clinician-scholars, quantitative descriptions of the disciplinary training of research teams publishing in top-tier clinical and epidemiological journals are needed. The objective was to assess whether academic training and teamwork of authors publishing original research in top-tier journals varied by year of publication (2000/2010/2020), type of journal (epidemiological/general clinical/specialty clinical), gender of the corresponding author, and time since the corresponding author completed formal training relative to the article publication date (<5/≥5 years).Methods: The authors invited the corresponding author of 1240 original research articles published in three volumes of 15 top-tier journals to participate in an online survey. Participants reported demographic information and academic training history, co-authors’ training history, and confidence in their own and their co-authors’ ability to apply epidemiological and biostatistical concepts. Using linear regression, logistic regression, and chi-squared tests, the authors examined bivariate trends in training history and confidence by publication type, publication year, gender, and time between training and publication.Results: The response rate was 8.3% (n=103). Year of publication, type of journal, gender, and recency of training were not significantly associated with interdisciplinary team composition, whether a co-author with epidemiological or biostatistical training was involved in any research stage (design/analysis/interpretation/reporting), or with participants’ confidence in their own or their co-authors epidemiological or biostatistical expertise (p>0.05 for each bivariate comparison). Exceptions were: (1) participants with more recent epidemiological training all had co-author(s) with epidemiological training who contributed to the design and interpretation of the research; and (2) participants who published in 2020 were more likely to report being extremely confident in their epidemiological abilities. Conclusions: This study was the first to quantify interdisciplinary training among research teams publishing in epidemiological and clinical journals. Researchers viewed training that prepares clinician-scholars for collaboration with epidemiologists and biostatisticians favorably.

show abstract

Authorship Trends Over the Past 30-Years in the Annals of Biomedical Engineering

Cited by 10 publications

References 43 publications

Academic training of authors publishing in high-impact epidemiology and clinical journals

Academic training of authors publishing in high-impact epidemiology and clinical journals

Bibliometric analysis and evaluation of the journal Medicina Oral Patología Oral y Cirugía Bucal (2008-2018)

Academic training of authors publishing in high-impact epidemiology and clinical journals

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About