No abstract available

Journals have been publishing the results of scientific investigations since the founding of Philosophical Transactions in 1665. Since then we have witnessed a massive expansion in the number of journals to the point that there are now approximately 28,000 active, peer reviewed journals collectively publishing more than 1.8 million articles per year. Before the mid-1990s, these journals were only available on paper but by the end of the 20th century, most journals had moved to online platforms. Online publication has also served as the impetus for the move to 'open-access' to the information contained in journals. The fact that a publication is 'on-line' and 'open-access' does not negate the responsibility of the author and the publisher to publish in an ethical way. [1] The document produced by the IFCC Ethics Task Force (TF-E) on publication ethics states that 'Ethics in Science at its broadest level encompasses research ethics, medical ethics, publication ethics, conflicts of interest, ethical responsibilities as educator, plus many other areas.' Thus publication ethics is a continuum from the first step of research design through to the information being read by the reader. In general terms 'publication ethics' includes the ethical behaviour of the authors in writing and submitting a scientific manuscript to a publisher for the purpose of publication, thus any discussion of publication ethics must include the role of the authors, referees, publisher and reader and the issues of authorship (and the use of 'ghosts'), plagiarism, duplicate publication (including in different languages), image manipulation (particularly in the era of digitisation), and conflict of interest [2]. To aid the authors, and others involved in the process of publication, a number of resources are now available particularly those from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) [3] and the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME) [4]. More recently the issue of 'publisher ethics' has also been raised, particularly with the sudden increase of what could be termed 'predatory' publishers utilising the open access model to publish low quality articles, which often do not adhere to the guidelines mentioned above, utilising an author-pays model of open-access publishing for their own profit [5].

The number of predatory journals is increasing in the scholarly communication realm. These journals use questionable business practices, minimal or no peer review, or limited editorial oversight and, thus, publish articles below a minimally accepted standard of quality. These publications have the potential to alter the results of knowledge syntheses. The objective of this study was to determine the degree to which articles published by a major predatory publisher in the health and biomedical sciences are cited in systematic reviews.

Cohort studies collect, generate and distribute data over long periods of time - often over the lifecourse of their participants. It is common for these studies to host a list of publications (which can number many thousands) on their website to demonstrate the impact of the study and facilitate the search of existing research to which the study data has contributed. The ability to search and explore these publication lists varies greatly between studies. We believe a lack of rich search and exploration functionality of study publications is a barrier to entry for new or prospective users of a study's data, since it may be difficult to find and evaluate previous work in a given area. These lists of publications are also typically manually curated, resulting in a lack of rich metadata to analyse, making bibliometric analysis difficult. We present here a software pipeline that aggregates metadata from a variety of third-party providers to power a web based search and exploration tool for lists of publications. Alongside core publication metadata (i.e. author lists, keywords etc.), we include geocoding of first authors and citation counts in our pipeline. This allows a characterisation of a study as a whole based on common locations of authors, frequency of keywords, citation profile etc. This enriched publications metadata can be useful for generating study impact metrics and web-based graphics for public dissemination. In addition, the pipeline produces a research data set for bibliometric analysis or social studies of science. We use a previously published list of publications from a cohort study as an exemplar input data set to show the output and utility of the pipeline here.

No abstract available

Authorship should be based on the contribution provided by each author who has made a significant scientific contribution to a study. Credit of authorship has important academic, social and financial implications and is bound by guidelines, which aid in preserving transparency during writing and publication of research material so as to prevent violation of ethics.

The automatic analysis of scientific literature can support authors in writing their manuscripts.

Neuroscience and molecular biology have been generating large datasets over the past years that are reshaping how research is being conducted. In their wake, open data sharing has been singled out as a major challenge for the future of research. We conducted a comparative study of citations of data publications in both fields, showing that the average publication tagged with a data-related term by the NCBI MeSH (Medical Subject Headings) curators achieves a significantly larger citation impact than the average in either field. We introduce a new metric, the data article citation index (DAC-index), to identify the most prolific authors among those data-related publications. The study is fully reproducible from an executable Rmd (R Markdown) script together with all the citation datasets. We hope these results can encourage authors to more openly publish their data.

Breast cancer has a rich history of research over the past 75 years. Many studies have had disruptive influences on the field itself. Our study employs a new, validated measurement to determine the most disruptive publications within the field of breast cancer.

Open access (OA) is based on a set of principles and a range of practices through which fruits of research are distributed online, free of cost, or other access barriers. According to the 2001 definition, OA publications are without barriers to copy or reuse with free access to readers. Some studies have reported higher rates of citation for OA publications. In this study, we analyzed the citation rates of OA and traditional nonOA (with or without free access) publications for authors publishing in the subspecialty of cytopathology during 2010-2015.

A large body of literature exists on analysis of citation and reviews of application of efficiency frontier. However, the reviews that assessed the determinants of citation counts did not focus on frontier applications. We contribute to the literature by identifying the drivers of citations of frontier application publications on Ghana. We employed two-part mixture modelling with inverse hyperbolic sine (IHS) transformation of the second part, which was found to be more appropriate than single equation IHS transformation modelling, for our data. Use of stochastic frontier analysis or data envelopment analysis did not drive citations counts. However, quality of journals in which frontier application studies were published and accessibility of the journals to readers, drive citation counts. Authors, institutions and funders of studies on frontier applications may consider these over collaborations, in seeking growth in citation counts.

Data visualization blends art and science to convey stories from data via graphical representations. Considering different problems, applications, requirements, and design goals, it is challenging to combine these two components at their full force. While the art component involves creating visually appealing and easily interpreted graphics for users, the science component requires accurate representations of a large amount of input data. With a lack of the science component, visualization cannot serve its role of creating correct representations of the actual data, thus leading to wrong perception, interpretation, and decision. It might be even worse if incorrect visual representations were intentionally produced to deceive the viewers. To address common pitfalls in graphical representations, this paper focuses on identifying and understanding the root causes of misinformation in graphical representations. We reviewed the misleading data visualization examples in the scientific publications collected from indexing databases and then projected them onto the fundamental units of visual communication such as color, shape, size, and spatial orientation. Moreover, a text mining technique was applied to extract practical insights from common visualization pitfalls. Cochran's Q test and McNemar's test were conducted to examine if there is any difference in the proportions of common errors among color, shape, size, and spatial orientation. The findings showed that the pie chart is the most misused graphical representation, and size is the most critical issue. It was also observed that there were statistically significant differences in the proportion of errors among color, shape, size, and spatial orientation.

No abstract available

No abstract available

Since September 2005, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) has required that randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are prospectively registered in a publicly accessible database. After registration, a trial registration number (TRN) is assigned to each RCT, which should make it easier to identify future publications and cross-check published results with associated registry entries, as long as the unique identification number is reported in the article.

Our group has developed a useful shared software framework for performing, versioning, sharing and viewing Web annotations of a number of kinds, using an open representation model.

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic many clinical studies have been initiated leading to the need for efficient ways to track and analyze study results. We expanded our previous project that tracked registered COVID-19 clinical studies to also track result articles generated from these studies. We conducted searches of ClinicalTrials.gov and PubMed to identify articles linked to COVID-19 studies, and developed criteria based on the trial phase, intervention, location, and record recency to develop a prioritized list of result publications. We found 760 articles linked to 419 interventional trials (15.7% of all 2 669 COVID-19 interventional trials as of 15 August 2021), with 418 identified via abstract-link in PubMed and 342 via registry-link in ClinicalTrials.gov. Of the 419 trials publishing at least one article, 123 (29.4%) have multiple linked publications. We used an attention score to develop a prioritized list of all publications linked to COVID-19 trials and identified 58 publications that are result articles from late phase (Phase 3) trials with at least one US site and multiple study record updates. For COVID-19 vaccine trials, we found 69 linked result articles for 40 trials (13.9% of 290 total COVID-19 vaccine trials). Our method allows for the efficient identification of important COVID-19 articles that report results of registered clinical trials and are connected via a structured article-trial link.

The prevalence of eating disorders in the non-Western world appears to be increasing and much research into the cross-cultural aspects of eating disorders is needed. This bibliometric study analyses the profile of cross-cultural studies into eating disorders published from 1970 through to 2011.

Authorship is a proxy indicator of research capacity. Understanding the research capacity is imperative for developing population-specific cancer control strategies. This is particularly apropos for African nations, where mortality from cancer is projected to surpass that from infectious disease and the populations are critically under-represented in cancer and genomics studies. Here, we present an analysis and discussion of the patterns of authorship in Africa as they pertain to cancer genomics research across African countries.

Female authors are underrepresented in cardiology journals, although prior work suggested improvement in reducing disparities over time. Early in the recent COVID-19 pandemic, female authorship continued to lag that of their male counterparts despite a surge in publications. The cumulative impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on authorship gender disparities remains unclear. We aimed to characterize gender disparities in COVID-19-related cardiology publications across the duration of the ongoing pandemic.