Authors Of Editorials Research Articles

P02-212 - Authorship, gender and geography: the imbalance in British psychiatric journals

ObjectivesTo determine female authorship of original articles, editorials and the geographical region of female first authors in selected British Psychiatric journals.MethodThe gender of the first author of original articles and editorials published between January 1997 and December 2008 in British Journal of Psychiatry and Psychiatric Bulletin was determined. Editorials from Advances in Psychiatric Treatment and the geographical region of the female first authors of original articles were also included in the study.ResultsThe gender was determined for 99.2% of the 2324 first authors of original articles and 100% of the editorials. The percentage of original articles by female first authors fluctuated over the study period, ranging from 22.5% to 42.1% with an average of 33.6% in British Journal of Psychiatry and a range of 25.5% to 45% with an average of 37.6% in Psychiatric Bulletin. There was a gross under-representation of females as first authors of editorials. Female first authors of original articles from low- and middle income countries range from 0.3% to 3.4% in both British Psychiatric literatures.ConclusionsThere is an increasing trend in female first authorship of original articles. However, female remain under-represented especially in editorials, in the British psychiatric journals examined. Female first authors from low and middle income countries are disproportionately low.

Plagiarism: Transparency Required

J. Couzin-Frankel and J. Grom (“Plagiarism sleuths,” News Focus, 22 May, p. [1004][1]) suggest that “[r]epetitious reviews and incremental reports are part of an accepted tradition.” Accepted when and by whom? The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) has for many years included a detailed section on overlapping publications in its “Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals” ([ 1 ][2]). The need for transparency, both to editors and readers, is a paramount concern. Nowhere in the ICMJE document is there an exemption for any particular type of manuscript, including reviews and translations. Essentially all journals include in their instructions to authors a statement such as that provided by Heart Failure Reviews : “Submission of a manuscript implies that the work described has not been published before and that it is not under consideration for publication anywhere else.” Many require a signed declaration. Nevertheless, the authors of many reviews, editorials, and textbook chapters fail to disclose the inclusion of substantial sections of text lifted largely verbatim from previously published or simultaneously submitted material. One of the authors apparently unhappy about inclusion in the Deja vu database is quoted as saying “[t]here's going to be redundancy [in review articles], but I don't think that's scientific misconduct.” Without appropriate permission from all the relevant editors, as well as the inclusion of an overt notice in the later publication to inform readers, it is deception and therefore is indeed misconduct; copyright may also be a problem if it has been assigned to the original publisher. Moreover, if the second submission occurs with a declaration—signed, implied, or otherwise—that none of the material has been or will be published elsewhere, it amounts to outright fraud. Authors who have sought editorial permission and been transparent when reusing material have nothing to fear from inclusion in Deja vu. They may ultimately point to the entry as independent confirmation of their integrity. 1. [↵][3] International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, “Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals: Writing and editing for biomedical publication” ([www.icmje.org][4]). [1]: /lookup/doi/10.1126/science.324_1004 [2]: #ref-1 [3]: #xref-ref-1-1 View reference 1 in text [4]: http://www.icmje.org

Key Elements of Effective and Practical Disclosure Policies for Health Science Journals

Key Elements of Effective and Practical Disclosure Policies for Health Science Journals

Attacks intended to block access to information

The problem of attacks by those who feel threatened by scientific evidence has existed for hundreds of years.1 In the USA, researchers who examine controversial safety-related issues and the institutions...

Disclosure of Conflicts of Interest by Authors of Clinical Trials and Editorials in Oncology

There is concern that financial relationships between sponsors and investigators may bias research results. Our objective was to evaluate the epidemiology of conflicts of interest (COIs) among authors of clinical trials and editorials in oncology and the relationship between COI disclosure and source of funding. We did a cross-sectional survey of clinical trials and editorials of anticancer agents and supportive care medications published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology (JCO) during a 1-year period. Of 1,533 articles published in JCO between January 1, 2005, and January 31, 2006, 332 met our inclusion criteria; 289 (87%) were clinical trials, and 43 (13%) were editorials. The pharmaceutical industry entirely or partially funded 44% of the clinical trials. At least one COI was disclosed in 69% of clinical trials and 51% of editorials. The most common types of COI reported by authors were consultancy fees, honoraria, and research funds. The highest monetary levels of interest reported by authors were for research grants, but the majority of authors with COIs received less than US$10,000. In multivariable analysis, authors of clinical trials conducted in North America (North America v Europe: odds ratio [OR] = 2.9, P = .002) and authors of trials funded entirely (industry only v nonprofit: OR = 13.8, P < .001) or partially (both industry and nonprofit v nonprofit only: OR = 5.8, P < .001) by industry were more likely to report personal COIs. COIs are common in clinical cancer research and usually take the form of consultancy fees, honoraria, and research funds. Source of study funding was significantly associated with COI disclosure.

Reflecting on My First Year as Editor-in-Chief

As of this writing it has been a year since I assumed the position of editor-in-chief of Social Work. It has been a tremendously exciting activity. I want to sincerely thank the many authors who have submitted the product of their work to be considered for publication; the various authors of guest editorials that have addressed controversial topics; the NASW Press staff who manage the day-to-day operations of this very laborious, and sometimes thankless, activity; the members of the Editorial Board who have been tremendously supportive of the journal and my work; and the many reviewers without whose volunteering of a tremendous amount of time to reviewing manuscripts, we would not have a peer-reviewed journal of this caliber. PEER-REVIEW PROCESS As I reflect on this year's activities, I would like to take this opportunity to share with you my observations on the manuscript submission process. My intention is that these tips, if you will, may serve to expedite and strengthen the whole manuscript submission and revision process. I also want to share some initiatives the board of Social Work has taken to further improve the review process. It will be to no one's surprise that the tips I list should facilitate the review of manuscripts; they are simple reminders and definitely not necessarily new ideas to authors. However, given my experience this past year, I believe it may be worthwhile to spend some time highlighting some of these to minimize delays. I have found the following to be the most common errors authors make: * not double spacing the text * not providing five copies of the manuscript * not including abstracts and key words * not formatting tables properly (that is, using tabs instead of grids) * not checking the accuracy of totals and percentages in tables and text. Not adhering to these guidelines can delay the review of a manuscript. Also, authors should keep in mind when submitting manuscripts to include an updated literature review that reflects current knowledge--say that of the past three years--and as many details as possible of the study's methodology to better inform readers of the nature of the study. Some authors may want to have a colleague read and critique the manuscript before submitting it for review. It is essential for authors to address all of the reviewers' comments included in the decision letter. A revised manuscript should be accompanied by a list of the changes, if any, in the text and where the changes occur. An author does not have to agree with all of the reviewers' comments, but addressing all comments substantially, whether agreeing or disagreeing with the reviewer, strengthens the revised manuscript and reduces the time to a final decision. STRENGTHENING CONTENT Regarding topics, I encourage authors to submit more articles that provide some form of empirical evidence for what is being proposed, particularly if the topic is not entirely new or novel. …

JOSPT: A Team Effort

The Editor-in-Chief thanks the many dedicated and thoughtful individuals who contributed to the success of the Journal in 2006: the authors of manuscripts, guest editorials, and book reviews; manuscript reviewers, editorial review board members, and associate editors. Journal review time has steadily improved over the past 2 years. The review time for new manuscript submissions averaged 52 days (median 50 days) in 2006, and for revised manuscripts, 30 days (median 27 days). This demonstrates excellent performance by the reviewers and the editorial board members. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 36(12):899–902. doi:10.2519/jospt.2006.0113

The “Gender Gap” in Authorship of Academic Medical Literature — A 35-Year Perspective

Participation of women in the medical profession has increased during the past four decades, but issues of concern persist regarding disparities between the sexes in academic medicine. Advancement is largely driven by peer-reviewed original research, so we sought to determine the representation of female physician-investigators among the authors of selected publications during the past 35 years. Original articles from six prominent medical journals--the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), the Annals of Internal Medicine (Ann Intern Med), the Annals of Surgery (Ann Surg), Obstetrics & Gynecology (Obstet Gynecol), and the Journal of Pediatrics (J Pediatr)--were categorized according to the sex of both the first and the senior (last listed) author. Sex was also determined for the authors of guest editorials in NEJM and JAMA. Data were collected for the years 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000, and 2004. The analysis was restricted to authors from U.S. institutions holding M.D. degrees. The sex was determined for 98.5 percent of the 7249 U.S. authors of original research with M.D. degrees. The proportion of first authors who were women increased from 5.9 percent in 1970 to 29.3 percent in 2004 (P<0.001), and the proportion of senior authors who were women increased from 3.7 percent to 19.3 percent (P<0.001) during the same period. The proportion of authors who were women increased most sharply in Obstet Gynecol (from 6.7 percent of first authors and 6.8 percent of senior authors in 1970 to 40.7 percent of first authors and 28.0 percent of senior authors in 2004) and J Pediatr (from 15.0 percent of first authors and 4.3 percent of senior authors in 1970 to 38.9 percent of first authors and 38.0 percent of senior authors in 2004) and remained low in Ann Surg (from 2.3 percent of first authors and 0.7 percent of senior authors in 1970 to 16.7 percent of first authors and 6.7 percent of senior authors in 2004). In 2004, 11.4 percent of the authors of guest editorials in NEJM and 18.8 percent of the authors of guest editorials in JAMA were women. Over the past four decades, the proportion of women among both first and senior physician-authors of original research in the United States has significantly increased. Nevertheless, women still compose a minority of the authors of original research and guest editorials in the journals studied.

Information for authors

Information for authors