Post-publication corrections of rheumatology articles: a comprehensive analysis.

This paper presents a bibliometric analysis of battery state estimation in electric vehicles. In this paper, a quick study is performed on the top global research contributors, funding agencies, and affiliate universities or institutes performing research on this topic while also finding the top keyword searches and top authors based on the most citations in the field of electric vehicles. Trend analysis is done by using the SCOPUS and Web of Science (WOS) databases (DB) from the period of 2000 to 2021. Battery state estimation plays a major role in the battery present state based on past experience. Battery available charge and health knowledge is a must for range estimation and helps us acknowledge if a battery is in useful condition or needs maintenance or replacement. A total of 136 documents in SCOPUS and 1311 documents in Web of Science were analyzed. Through this bibliometric analysis, we learn the top authors, country, publication journal, citation, funding agency, leading documents, research gap, and future trends in this research direction. The author Xiong Rui has the most publications, and he is working at the Beijing Institute of Technology, China. The most common institution is the Beijing Institute of Technology, and China is the most highly contributing country in this research. Most of the publications are conference types in SCOPUS DB and article types in WOS DB. The National Natural Science Foundation of China provides the most funding. The journal Energies has the most publications related to this field. The most cited works are by the authors M.A. Hannan and L.G. Lu in SCOPUS and WOS DB, respectively. A statistical analysis of the top ten countries’ productivity results is also discussed.

Ensuring access to published research is increasingly important for demonstrating research impact, supporting wide readership, creating interest in collaboration, and making way for funding opportunities. This article provides a bibliometric analysis of publications from 2007-2016 in the Web of Science (WOS) database to update understanding of recent international library science research as a means of discussing research impact and scientific collaboration. The methodology is a descriptive analysis of publications retrieved from the WOS database using keywords “library science” and WOS-generated subject descriptor “Information Science & Library Science.” Analysis focused on descriptive data related to our research questions including representation of countries, languages, and journals. The findings reveal that most publications are published by researchers with institutional affiliations in the United States and in English. Library and information science research continues to be strong in collaboration, but international and interdisciplinary collaborations are still low in this sample. The dataset reflects that co- and multi-authored publications have the highest WOS citation counts, reinforcing the value of scholarly collaboration. This research provides a baseline to chart future growth in Library Science research publications and collaborations.

This study was conducted to reveal the scientific productivity performance of the International Journal of Engineering and Geosciences (IJEG) in internationally published scientific research. For this purpose, a filtering process was applied in the Web of Science (WoS) database to identify the scientific components associated with the journal, resulting in the retrieval of 182 scientific articles published between 2016 and 2024. Relevant tables and a BibTex data file containing qualitative and quantitative indicators of these articles' scientific components were obtained. Tables and graphs were generated from the WoS database, and the BibTex data file was analyzed using the Bibliometrix R (RStudio) statistical software. Based on the findings, a performance analysis was conducted within the scope of bibliometric analysis to assess IJEG's scientific productivity performance. Key findings include: IJEG published the most articles in *2024* and the fewest in *2016*. Selcuk University was the most affiliated institution, while the fewest articles were associated with 81 universities (listed as U₄₃-U₁₂₃ in the relevant table).Turkey was the most frequently associated country, while the fewest articles were linked to 15 countries (listed as V₉-V₂₃ in the relevant table). Additionally:In terms of average citations per article, IJEG performed best in 2018 and weakest in 2024. Regarding annual average citation count, the highest performance was in 2023, while the lowest was in 2024. Notably:The article titled “Avcı C, 2023, Int J Eng Geosci” with the Doi 10.26833/ijeg.987605 received the highest number of global citations, demonstrating the journal's strongest scientific productivity performance. Regarding the journal's impact factor: In both 2023 and 2024, IJEG's JIF Quartile (Q) value was Q₂.The JIF/JCI impact factor was 3.1 in 2023 and 2.5 in 2024.The JIF percentile was 65.9 in 2023 and 53.1 in 2024. In both years, the journal's publication categories were "Engineering" and "Geological". This analysis highlights IJEG's evolving impact and productivity trends in the fields of engineering and geosciences.

On November 22-23, 2023, UNESCO will convene its 24th session of the General Assembly of States Parties in Paris. In light of this, to ensure the ongoing dynamism and adaptability of knowledge pursuits in the realm of world heritage, this paper conducts a quantitative analysis of world heritage documents within the Web of Science (WOS) database. Leveraging CiteSpace 6.1.R6 software, we visually examine 5,208 documents with the topic "World Heritage" retrieved from 1979 to 2023. The research outcomes reveal the following key insights: (1) The literature in the field of world heritage research demonstrates a steadily increasing trend, with notable explosive growth starting in 2009 and reaching its peak in 2019. (2) Examination of collaborations with prominent authors, affiliated institutions, and contributing countries highlights the absolute superiority of the United States and Australia in the world heritage domain, attributed to their rich heritage and robust academic systems. Despite China ranking second in document publications, there is a need for increased international collaboration. (3) The most influential keywords include "Community", "The Great Barrier Reef" and "Managing World Heritage". (4) Heritage tourism, encompassing satisfaction, motivation, loyalty, and place attachment, emerges as the largest keyword cluster in the field of world heritage. (5) Recent research trends and hotspots include "Risk", "Building", "Intention", "Support", and "Stone". The research results provide a more comprehensive and systematic overview perspective for the world heritage field, which fills the gap and promotes the knowledge pursuit in the world heritage field.

The ethical behavior of authors, editors, and journals is increasingly placed in the spotlight, by both the public and the research community. Disclosures and conflict of interest (COI) statements of publishing authors represent one important aspect. We aimed to unravel the current management of disclosures, COI, and funding statements in the subspecialty urogynecology. A bibliometric study was carried out. We included six journals that published urogynecology articles between January and December 2013. All original articles, reviews, and opinion articles were assessed for the presence of disclosure/COI and funding statements. Information given on the official disclosure form was compared with information given in the final article (International Urogynecology Journal). All journals investigated require disclosure and funding statements in their instructions to authors. Of the 434 articles included, almost all contained a disclosure statement (98-100 %). Funding statements were present in 41-100 % of articles, indicating a difference in journal type (50 % on average among urogynecology journals; 75 % on average among general gynecology journals). The main source of funding was "grants" (58 %), followed by "none" (16 %), "industry" (16 %), and lastly "hospital/university" (10 %). Disclosure statements in the article were identical to the official disclosure form in 80 % (IUJ). Disclosure/COI statements were included in almost all urogynecology articles investigated. Their content, however, is sometimes incomplete and should possibly be monitored more closely by journals and authors. Despite universal requirements of journals, the reporting of funding seems inconsistent. This issue in addition to the completeness of disclosures should be given more attention.

Information regarding potential conflict of interest (COI) and funding is essential for informed interpretation of research findings. The aim of the present cross-sectional investigation was to evaluate the reporting of COI and funding in articles published in orthodontic journals. Article titles contained within 14 orthodontic journals, selected from the Scopus orthodontic journal database, and published in 2023 were documented. Characteristics, including those related to COI and funding statements, of each article satisfying selection criteria were recorded. A total of 876 articles satisfied selection criteria. The median (interquartile range) number of authors per article was 5.0 (3.0, 6.0). Clinical studies (n = 253; 28.9%) were the most common article type published. Articles related to newer technologies and appliances were commonplace. Almost 90% (n = 784; 89.5%) of articles contained a COI statement. Twenty-five (2.9%) articles stated that there was a COI and provided details. Sixteen (1.8%) articles were determined to have a financial COI. A funding statement was made in 571(65.2%) articles. Of these, 257 (29.3%) declared that no funding was received, 179 (20.4%) were apparently from not-for-profit organisations and 17 (1.9%) from for-profit organisations. The source of funding in 114 (13.0%) articles was unclear. Fisher's Exact test indicated that details where details of COI are provided, the odds of the details of funding increases (odds ratio: 14.13: 95% CI 9.3, 21.3; P < 0.01). COI and funding information appears to be underreported in orthodontic journals. This may indicate a requirement for orthodontic journals to improve COI disclosure processes. The underreporting of COI and funding information in published orthodontic research deters objective interpretation of research findings by readers. The outcomes of the present investigation highlight this important issue. Recommendations are provided with the objective of improving the robustness and transparency of COI and funding reporting processes.

Mathematical models have become very influential, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic. Data and code sharing are indispensable for reproducing them, protocol registration may be useful sometimes, and declarations of conflicts of interest (COIs) and of funding are quintessential for transparency. Here, we evaluated these features in publications of infectious disease-related models and assessed whether there were differences before and during the COVID-19 pandemic and for COVID-19 models versus models for other diseases. We analysed all PubMed Central open access publications of infectious disease models published in 2019 and 2021 using previously validated text mining algorithms of transparency indicators. We evaluated 1338 articles: 216 from 2019 and 1122 from 2021 (of which 818 were on COVID-19); almost a six-fold increase in publications within the field. 511 (39.2%) were compartmental models, 337 (25.2%) were time series, 279 (20.9%) were spatiotemporal, 186 (13.9%) were agent-based and 25 (1.9%) contained multiple model types. 288 (21.5%) articles shared code, 332 (24.8%) shared data, 6 (0.4%) were registered, and 1197 (89.5%) and 1109 (82.9%) contained COI and funding statements, respectively. There was no major changes in transparency indicators between 2019 and 2021. COVID-19 articles were less likely to have funding statements and more likely to share code. Further validation was performed by manual assessment of 10% of the articles identified by text mining as fulfilling transparency indicators and of 10% of the articles lacking them. Correcting estimates for validation performance, 26.0% of papers shared code and 41.1% shared data. On manual assessment, 5/6 articles identified as registered had indeed been registered. Of articles containing COI and funding statements, 95.8% disclosed no conflict and 11.7% reported no funding. Transparency in infectious disease modelling is relatively low, especially for data and code sharing. This is concerning, considering the nature of this research and the heightened influence it has acquired.

Mathematical models have become very influential, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic. Data and code sharing are indispensable for reproducing them, protocol registration may be useful sometimes, and declarations of conflicts of interest (COIs) and of funding are quintessential for transparency. Here, we evaluated these features in publications of infectious disease-related models and assessed whether there were differences before and during the COVID-19 pandemic and for COVID-19 models versus models for other diseases. We analysed all PubMed Central open access publications of infectious disease models published in 2019 and 2021 using previously validated text mining algorithms of transparency indicators. We evaluated 1338 articles: 216 from 2019 and 1122 from 2021 (of which 818 were on COVID-19); almost a six-fold increase in publications within the field. 511 (39.2%) were compartmental models, 337 (25.2%) were time series, 279 (20.9%) were spatiotemporal, 186 (13.9%) were agent-based and 25 (1.9%) contained multiple model types. 288 (21.5%) articles shared code, 332 (24.8%) shared data, 6 (0.4%) were registered, and 1197 (89.5%) and 1109 (82.9%) contained COI and funding statements, respectively. There was no major changes in transparency indicators between 2019 and 2021. COVID-19 articles were less likely to have funding statements and more likely to share code. Further validation was performed by manual assessment of 10% of the articles identified by text mining as fulfilling transparency indicators and of 10% of the articles lacking them. Correcting estimates for validation performance, 26.0% of papers shared code and 41.1% shared data. On manual assessment, 5/6 articles identified as registered had indeed been registered. Of articles containing COI and funding statements, 95.8% disclosed no conflict and 11.7% reported no funding. Transparency in infectious disease modelling is relatively low, especially for data and code sharing. This is concerning, considering the nature of this research and the heightened influence it has acquired.

Strange attractors in the Web of Science database

Self-Reported Conflicts of Interests and Financial Disclosures in The Journal of Foot & Ankle Surgery: A Systematic Review

Conflict of interest in medical publishing exists when a participant’s private interests compete with his or her responsibilities to the scientific community, readers, and society. While conflict of interest is common, it reaches the level of concern when “a reasonable observer might wonder if the individual’s behavior or judgment was motivated by his or her competing interests”1. Having a competing interest does not, in itself, imply wrongdoing. But it can undermine the credibility of research results and damage public trust in medical journals. &#x0D; In recent years, the extent of conflict of interest in medical journal articles has been increasingly recognized. Medical journals and the popular media have published numerous examples of competing interests that seemed to have biased published reports 2,3,4. Organizations have expressed concern for the effects of conflicts of interest on research 5, publication 1,6,7 teaching8 and continuing medical and nursing education9.&#x0D; The World Association of Medical Editors (WAME) is one of the institutions engaged in this discussion. WAME was established in 1995 10, 11 to facilitate worldwide cooperation and communication among editors of peer-reviewed journals, improve editorial standards, and promote professionalism in medical editing 12. Membership in WAME is open to all editors of peer-reviewed biomedical journals worldwide; small journals in resource-poor countries are well represented. As of December 2009, WAME had 1595 individual members representing 965 journals in 92 countries. WAME has broad participation as there are no dues and WAME activities are largely carried out through the member list serve and the member password-protected website.&#x0D; In March 2009, WAME released an updated policy statement, “Conflict of Interest in Peer-Reviewed Medical Journals” 1. It details the issues WAME believes journals should address when establishing their own policies for conflict of interest. The editors of this journal thought that the issues were important enough to share with its readers. A summary of the statement is presented in the Table and the full statement 1 can be found on WAME’s website 12.&#x0D; How Does This Statement Differ From Earlier Conflict–of-Interest Statements?&#x0D; First, WAME expands the scope of competing interests. Other statements have been concerned almost exclusively with conflicts of interest related to financial ties to industry – companies that sell healthcare products. The assumption is that financial incentives are especially powerful and are not readily recognized without special efforts to make them apparent. WAME has extended the concept of financial conflict of interest to include the effects of clinical income. For example, physicians who earn their livelihood by reading mammograms or performing colonoscopies may be biased in favor of these technologies. WAME has also included non-financial conflicts of interest (or the appearance of one) related to scholarly commitment: “intellectual passion,” (the tendency to favor positions that one has already espoused or perhaps even established); personal relationships (the tendency to judge the works of friends/colleagues or competitors/foes differently because of the relationship); political or religious beliefs (the tendency to favor or reject positions because it affirms or challenges one’s political or religious beliefs); and institutional affiliations (the tendency to favor or reject results of research because of one’s institutional affiliations).&#x0D; Second, WAME did not prescribe a universal standard for when meaningful conflict of interest exists. Rather, it defined and recommended elements of conflict of interest policies and encouraged journals to establish their own standards. WAME left operational definitions and standards on the basic issues to member journals, recognizing that journals exist in very different contexts across the globe, standards for conflict of interest are evolving, and some journals already have well-established policies and standards. WAME does not presume to judge which conflicts require action and what the appropriate action may be, although its policy does offer factors to consider 1. Obviously, excessive concern for these and more comprehensive lists of possible competing interests could paralyze the peer review and publication process and is not feasible. Editors must make judgments as to the strength of the conflict, but to do so must have uncensored information. Similarly, readers need transparency about conflicts, and therefore editors should publish with every article all relevant author disclosures 1. &#x0D; Third, WAME confirms the seriousness of failure to disclose conflict of interest by indicating that editors have a responsibility for investigating, and if relevant acting, if competing interests surface after a manuscript is submitted or published. The intent is that allegations of failure to declare conflicts of interest must be taken seriously by journals.&#x0D; Finally, WAME has addressed in a single statement the conflicts of interests threatening all participants in the research and publication continuum, including authors, peer reviewers, and editors. Conflicts between editors and journal owners, which might affect both the accuracy of articles and the credibility of journals, have been addressed in another WAME policy statement 13.&#x0D; What Can Be Done About Conflict of Interest in Medical Journals?&#x0D; Conflicts of interest cannot be eliminated altogether but it can be managed so that it has the smallest possible effects on journal content and credibility. The backbone of managing conflicts of interest is full written disclosure; without it, nothing else is possible. Currently, authors may not reveal all of their competing interests and even if they do, journals too often do not publish them 14, so there is plenty of room for improvement. Even so, disclosure alone is an imperfect remedy; editors still must determine whether a conflict has sufficient potential to impair an individual’s objectivity such that the article should not be published. Even more work may be needed on reviewers’ and editors competing interests, given their critical role as gatekeepers for the medical literature.&#x0D; No statement will solve the conflict of interest problem, nor will it ever be solved altogether. As understanding of the problem and its management evolves, journals should be given latitude to establish their own standards, matching their policies to the best standards of their discipline and culture. WAME believes journals should make these policies readily accessible to everyone. All of us—editors, authors, reviewers, and readers--should be paying more attention to conflict of interest than we have been. We hope this statement serves that purpose.&#x0D; &#x0D; Acknowledgment&#x0D; The authors wish to warmly thank the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME) Officers for their helpful comments on an earlier version of this editorial. Many thanks to President Margaret Winker (USA); Past President Michael Callaham (USA); Vice-President John Overbeke (Netherlands); Treasurer Tom Lang (USA); and Secretary Farrokh Habibzadeh (Iran). &#x0D; The WAME Statement on Conflict of Interest in Peer-Reviewed Medical Journals was approved by the WAME Board in March 2009. Many thanks to the members of the WAME Ethics Committee and to the WAME Editorial Policy Committee for their insightful and helpful comments on an earlier version of the statement. Warm thanks to the WAME Board for their input and comments: Margaret Winker; Michael Callaham; John Overbeke; Tom Lang; Farrokh Habibzadeh; Adamson Muula (Malawi) and Rob Siebers (New Zealand).&#x0D; &#x0D; &#x0D; &#x0D; &#x0D; &#x0D; &#x0D; &#x0D; &#x0D; &#x0D; &#x0D; &#x0D; &#x0D; &#x0D; &#x0D; &#x0D;

BackgroundFollowing the total computerization of prescriptions in the Geriatric Center over the past two years, the pharmaceutical team performs a pharmaceutical analysis for all the beds in the centre every...

Linguistic Research 30(2), 163-193. This research investigates errors of referring expressions used in L2 narrative discourse through two learner corpora, namely the Cambridge Learner Corpus (CLC), and a subsequent controlled corpus created in CLAN. By adopting the cross-sectional approach to learner language used in the English Profile Programme, the research identifies the frequency and type of errors of reference made by Mandarin and Korean L2 English groups from A1 (beginner) to C2 (advanced) levels of the CEFR (Council of Europe, 2001), and asks if and when L2 learners cease making errors of reference, and whether L1 background is a factor in the frequency and type of errors made. The results suggest that L2 learners produce little to no syntactic marking of reference at lower proficiencies, gradually incorporating the appropriate markings of the L2 target at higher proficiencies. It was also found that Korean L2 English learners produce more errors compared to the Mandarin L2 English group at each CEFR level. The difference in the type and frequency of errors between the L2 groups is suggested to lie in the potential grammaticization of numerals and demonstratives in L1 Mandarin to sharing the same functions as the English indefinite and definite articles. (Li and Thompson, 1976, 1989, Hedberg, 1996, Chen, 2004), giving the Mandarin group an advantage in mapping syntactic form (articles) to pragmatic function (introducing and maintaining reference) in the L2.

The aim of this study is to investigate the frequency of incorrect citations and its effects on the impact factor of a specific biomedical journal: the American Journal of Roentgenology. The Cited Reference Search function of Thomson Reuters' Web of Science database (formerly the Institute for Scientific Information's Web of Knowledge database) was used to identify erroneous citations. This was done by entering the journal name into the Cited Work field and entering "2011-2012" into the Cited Year(s) field. The errors in any part of the inaccurately cited references (e.g., author names, title, year, volume, issue, and page numbers) were recorded, and the types of errors (i.e., absent, deficient, or mistyped) were analyzed. Erroneous citations were corrected using the Suggest a Correction function of the Web of Science database. The effect of inaccurate citations on the impact factor of the AJR was calculated. Overall, 183 of 1055 citable articles published in 2011-2012 were inaccurately cited 423 times (mean [± SD], 2.31 ± 4.67 times; range, 1-44 times). Of these 183 articles, 110 (60.1%) were web-only articles and 44 (24.0%) were print articles. The most commonly identified errors were page number errors (44.8%) and misspelling of an author's name (20.2%). Incorrect citations adversely affected the impact factor of the AJR by 0.065 in 2012 and by 0.123 in 2013. Inaccurate citations are not infrequent in biomedical journals, yet they can be detected and corrected using the Web of Science database. Although the accuracy of references is primarily the responsibility of authors, the journal editorial office should also define a periodic inaccurate citation check task and correct erroneous citations to reclaim unnecessarily lost credit.

BackgroundThe use of new total joint arthroplasty technologies, including patient-specific implants/instrumentation (PSI), computer-assisted (CA), and robotic-assisted (RA) techniques, is increasing. There is an ongoing debate regarding the value provided and potential concerns about conflicts of interest (COI).MethodsPRISMA guidelines were followed. PubMed, MEDLINE, and Web of Science databases were searched for total hip and knee arthroplasties, unicompartmental knee arthroplasties (UKA), PSI, CA, and RA. Bibliometric data, financial COI, clinical/functional scores, and patient-reported outcomes were assessed.ResultsEighty-seven studies were evaluated, with 35 (40.2%) including at least one author reporting COI, and 13 (14.9%) disclosing industry funding. COI and industry funding had no significant effects on outcomes (P = 0.682, P = 0.447), and there were no significant effects of conflicts or funding on level of evidence (P = 0.508, P = 0.826). Studies in which author(s) disclosed COI had significantly higher relative citation ratio (RCR) and impact factor (IF) than those without (P < 0.001, P = 0.032). Subanalysis demonstrated RA and PSI studies were more likely to report COI or industry funding (P = 0.045). RA (OR = 6.31, 95% CI: 1.61–24.68) and UKA (OR = 9.14, 95% CI: 1.43–58.53) had higher odds of reporting favorable outcomes than PSI.ConclusionsAuthor COIs (about 40%) may be lower than previously reported in orthopedic technologies/techniques reviews. Studies utilizing RA and PSI were more likely to report COI, while RA and UKA studies were more likely to report favorable outcomes than PSI. No statistically significant association between the presence of COIs and/or industry funding and the frequency of favorable outcomes or study level of evidence was found.Level of evidenceLevel V Systematic Review