Dataset Information

Who's Contributing Most to American Neuroscience Journals: American or Foreign Authors?

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE:With globalization, the contributions of authors from abroad to the American published literature has increased. We sought to determine the changes with time in the proportional contributions of American and non-American authors in the American neurosciences literature. We hypothesized the following: 1) During the past 21 years, manuscript contributions of American institutions have proportionally decreased in neuroradiology, more than in neurosurgery or neurology; 2) contributions of Asian institutions have affected neuroradiology more than neurosurgery and neurology; and 3) American articles garner more citations. MATERIALS AND METHODS:We reviewed the May issues of 2 of the highest impact American-based neurology, neurosurgery, and neuroradiology journals published from 1997 to 2017. We counted the number of articles published by nation based on the institution of origin. We looked at trends across time and compared neurology, neurosurgery, and neuroradiology journals. We also gathered data on the number of citations of each article by nationality. RESULTS:We reviewed 3025 articles. There was a significantly lower ratio of American to non-American authorship in neuroradiology versus neurology/neurosurgery journals (odds ratio = 0.70; 95% confidence interval, 0.60-0.82). There was a significantly decreasing trend in American authorship across the 21 years in neuroradiology. Of the countries outside the United States, Japan contributed most for neuroradiology and neurosurgery journals, and the UK, for neurology. American-authored articles were cited, on average, 1.25 times more frequently than non-American-authored articles. CONCLUSIONS:Non-American contributions have impacted neuroradiology more than other clinical neuroscience fields with Asian authorship showing the greatest impact. That impact is growing, and the causes are manifold. Nonetheless American-authored articles are cited more.

SUBMITTER: Charkhchi P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7410636 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Who's Contributing Most to American Neuroscience Journals: American or Foreign Authors?

Charkhchi P P Mirbolouk M M Jalilian R R Yousem D M DM

AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology 20180405 6

<h4>Background and purpose</h4>With globalization, the contributions of authors from abroad to the American published literature has increased. We sought to determine the changes with time in the proportional contributions of American and non-American authors in the American neurosciences literature. We hypothesized the following: 1) During the past 21 years, manuscript contributions of American institutions have proportionally decreased in neuroradiology, more than in neurosurgery or neurology; ...[more]

PMID: 29622559

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background: Recent reports in neuroscience, especially those concerning brain-injury and neuroimaging, have revealed low reproducibility of results within the field and urged for more replication studies. However, it is unclear if the neuroscience journals welcome or discourage the submission of reports on replication studies. Therefore, the current study assessed the explicit position of neuroscience journals on replications. Methods: A list of active neuroscience journals publishing in English was compiled from Scopus database. These journal websites were accessed to read their aims and scope and instructions to authors, and to assess if they: (1) explicitly stated that they accept replications; (2) did not state their position on replications; (3) implicitly discouraged replications by emphasizing on the novelty of the manuscripts; or (4) explicitly stated that they reject replications. For journals that explicitly stated they accept or reject replications, their subcategory within neuroscience and their 5-year impact factor were recorded. The distribution of neuroscience replication studies published was also recorded by searching and extracting data from Scopus. Results: Of the 465 journals reviewed, 28 (6.0%) explicitly stated that they accept replications, 394 (84.7%) did not state their position on replications, 40 (8.6%) implicitly discouraged replications by emphasizing on the novelty of the manuscripts, and 3 (0.6%) explicitly stated that they reject replications. For the 28 journals that explicitly welcomed replications, three (10.7%) stated their position in the aims and scope, whereas 25 (89.3%) stated in within the detailed instructions to authors. The five-year impact factor (2015) of these journals ranged from 1.655 to 10.799, and nine of them (32.1%) did not receive a 5-year or annual impact factor in 2015. There was no significant difference in the proportions of journals explicitly welcomed replications (journals with vs. without impact factors, or high vs. low impact factors). All sub-categories of neuroscience had at least a journal that welcomed replications. Discussion: The neuroscience journals that welcomed replications and published replications were reported. These pieces of information may provide descriptive information on the current journal practices regarding replication so the evidence-based recommendations to journal publishers can be made.

Project description:BackgroundRobust statistical designing, sound statistical analysis, and standardized presentation are important to enhance the quality and transparency of biomedical research. This systematic review was conducted to summarize the statistical reporting requirements introduced by biomedical research journals with an impact factor of 10 or above so that researchers are able to give statistical issues' serious considerations not only at the stage of data analysis but also at the stage of methodological design.MethodsDetailed statistical instructions for authors were downloaded from the homepage of each of the included journals or obtained from the editors directly via email. Then, we described the types and numbers of statistical guidelines introduced by different press groups. Items of statistical reporting guideline as well as particular requirements were summarized in frequency, which were grouped into design, method of analysis, and presentation, respectively. Finally, updated statistical guidelines and particular requirements for improvement were summed up.ResultsTotally, 21 of 23 press groups introduced at least one statistical guideline. More than half of press groups can update their statistical instruction for authors gradually relative to issues of new statistical reporting guidelines. In addition, 16 press groups, covering 44 journals, address particular statistical requirements. The most of the particular requirements focused on the performance of statistical analysis and transparency in statistical reporting, including "address issues relevant to research design, including participant flow diagram, eligibility criteria, and sample size estimation," and "statistical methods and the reasons."ConclusionsStatistical requirements for authors are becoming increasingly perfected. Statistical requirements for authors remind researchers that they should make sufficient consideration not only in regards to statistical methods during the research design, but also standardized statistical reporting, which would be beneficial in providing stronger evidence and making a greater critical appraisal of evidence more accessible.

Project description:BackgroundTo 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 findingsWe 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.ConclusionsThis 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.

Project description:ObjectiveA skewed percentage of industry payments goes to "key opinion leaders" (KOLs) whose prominence and influence has increased with time. Given that KOL is neither precisely defined nor quantifiable, we turned to the level of industry payments as a surrogate quantifiable metric and assessed the associations between industry payments to US rheumatologists and their authorships of publications in high-impact rheumatology journals.MethodsPayments to US rheumatologists during the 2015-2020 interval were obtained from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Open Payments database, and authorships were tallied for calendar year 2021 publications in the four rheumatology journals (Lancet Rheumatol, Nat Rev Rheumatol, Ann Rheum Dis, Arthritis Rheumatol) with the highest 2021 journal impact factors and journal citation indicators. Differences between groups were determined by chi-squared test, unpaired Student's t-test, one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), Mann-Whitney rank sum test, and Kruskal-Wallis one-way ANOVA on ranks. Correlations were calculated using Spearman rank order. A P value ≤0.05 was considered significant.ResultsThere were 278 individual US rheumatologists who received industry payments and served as authors of publications in the four high-impact rheumatology journals. Non-research-associated payments to these individuals strongly correlated with research-associated payments. Payments to male US rheumatologists were greater than those to their female counterparts, and payments strongly correlated with the number of publications among male authors but only weakly, and often not significantly, among female authors.ConclusionA substantial fraction of the authorships in calendar year 2021 publications in four high-impact rheumatology journals arose from a very small percentage of all US rheumatologists who had received industry payments during the 2015-2020 interval. Payments to male US rheumatologist-authors were strikingly different from those to female US rheumatologist-authors, and further investigation is needed to explain the glaring difference in payments.

Project description:BackgroundPredatory journals fail to fulfill the tenets of biomedical publication: peer review, circulation, and access in perpetuity. Despite increasing attention in the lay and scientific press, no studies have directly assessed the perceptions of the authors or editors involved.ObjectiveOur objective was to understand the motivation of authors in sending their work to potentially predatory journals. Moreover, we aimed to understand the perspective of journal editors at journals cited as potentially predatory.MethodsPotential online predatory journals were randomly selected among 350 publishers and their 2204 biomedical journals. Author and editor email information was valid for 2227 total potential participants. A survey for authors and editors was created in an iterative fashion and distributed. Surveys assessed attitudes and knowledge about predatory publishing. Narrative comments were invited.ResultsA total of 249 complete survey responses were analyzed. A total of 40% of editors (17/43) surveyed were not aware that they were listed as an editor for the particular journal in question. A total of 21.8% of authors (45/206) confirmed a lack of peer review. Whereas 77% (33/43) of all surveyed editors were at least somewhat familiar with predatory journals, only 33.0% of authors (68/206) were somewhat familiar with them (P<.001). Only 26.2% of authors (54/206) were aware of Beall's list of predatory journals versus 49% (21/43) of editors (P<.001). A total of 30.1% of authors (62/206) believed their publication was published in a predatory journal. After defining predatory publishing, 87.9% of authors (181/206) surveyed would not publish in the same journal in the future.ConclusionsAuthors publishing in suspected predatory journals are alarmingly uninformed in terms of predatory journal quality and practices. Editors' increased familiarity with predatory publishing did little to prevent their unwitting listing as editors. Some suspected predatory journals did provide services akin to open access publication. Education, research mentorship, and a realignment of research incentives may decrease the impact of predatory publishing.

Dataset Information

Who's Contributing Most to American Neuroscience Journals: American or Foreign Authors?

Publications

Who's Contributing Most to American Neuroscience Journals: American or Foreign Authors?

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets