Journal Citation Reports Research Articles

Sleep researchers' rankings of sleep journals.

The impact factor is used to rank the quality of scientific journals but has been criticised for a number of reasons. The aim of the study was to investigate sleep researchers' perceptions of sleep journals to determine whether subjective rankings of journals were in line with the journals' impact factors. Clarivate's Journal Citation Reports website was used to identify journals containing the words 'sleep' or 'dream' in the titles with an impact factor since 2018, resulting in 12 journals. A survey including questions about how the respondent would rank these journals (e.g., three most prestigious journals) was developed. A total of 122 sleep researchers completed the survey. Sleep, Sleep Medicine Reviews and Journal of Sleep Research were ranked as the three most prestigious sleep journals, in line with the impact factors of the journals. For the rest of the journals, the subjective rankings and impact factors did not correspond as much.

Association between institutional affiliations of academic editors and authors in medical journals

Abstract Background Most of the literature on conflict of interest (COI) has not focused on the role of academic editors and their possible COIs, although academic editors often hold senior faculty positions at universities, which might be considered a COI if this influences towards a more favourable processing to articles submitted by institutional colleagues. The current study aims to assess whether academic editor affiliation, a potential COI, can influence academic institution ranking as top contributor in the biomedical field. Methods We conducted a cross-sectional analysis extracting publicly available data from the 2019 Clarivate InCites Journal Citation Reports for journals in the “Medicine, General & Internal” category and from each journal website. We constructed the following study outcomes: i) being a top 5 academic contributor for the peer-review journal of interest (yes/no), ii) being a top 10 academic contributor for the peer-review journal of interest (yes/no), and iii) ranking position as top 50 academic contributor for the peer-review journal of interest. Mixed-effect linear and logistic regression models were employed, as appropriate. Results We included 114 journals in our analysis, 49% were open-access only. Sharing same affiliation of any of the editorial board members was associated with a 6.7 and 5.6 greater likelihood of being top 5 and top 10 contributors, respectively (95%CI 5.07-8.73 and 4.34-7.22). Similarly, sharing same affiliation was associated with being 12.1 places higher as top contributor (95%CI 10.35-13.81). When considering the editor in chief affiliation solely, association was even stronger. Conclusions We found that academic editors sharing the same institutional affiliation with authors was strongly associated with the likelihood of that institution of being a top contributor. Shared institutional affiliations between editors and authors should be clearly stated as part of an open and transparent peer-review process. Key messages • Editors sharing same affiliation with authors was strongly associated with the likelihood for the institution the editor was affiliated with of being top contributor for academic medical journals. • Shared institutional affiliations between editors and authors should be clearly stated as part of an open and transparent peer-review process.

Research status and trends of the diabetic cardiomyopathy in the past 10 years (2012-2021): A bibliometric analysis.

Diabetic cardiomyopathy is one of the most life-threatening diabetic complications. However, the previous studies only discuss a particular aspect or characteristic of DCM, the current state and trends were explored by limited research. We aimed to perform a systemically bibliometric study of DCM research progress status in the past decade, visualize the internal conceptual structure and potential associations, and further explore the prospective study trends. Articles related to DCM published from January 2012 to December 2021 were collected in the Web of Science core collection (WoSCC) database on June 24, 2022. We exported all bibliographic records, including titles, abstracts, keywords, authorship, institutions, addresses, publishing sources, references, citation times, and year of publication. In addition, the journal Impact Factor and Hirsch index were obtained from the Journal Citation Report. We conducted the data screening, statistical analysis, and visualization via the Bibliometrix R package. VOS viewer software was employed to generate the collaboration network map among countries and institutions for better performance in visualization. In total, 1,887 original research articles from 2012 to 2021 were identified. The number of annual publications rapidly increased from 107 to 278, and a drastic increase in citation times was observed in 2017-2019. As for global contributions, the United States was the most influential country with the highest international collaboration, while China was the most productive country. Professor Cai Lu was the most prolific author. Shandong University published the most articles. Cardiovascular Diabetology journal released the most DCM-related articles. "Metabolic Stress-induced Activation of FoxO1 Triggers Diabetic Cardiomyopathy in Mice" Battiprolu PK et al., J Clin Invest, 2012. was the most top-cited article regarding local citations. The top three keywords in terms of frequency were apoptosis, oxidative stress, and fibrosis. The analysis of future topic trends indicated that "Forkhead box protein O1," "Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction," "Dapagliflozin," "Thioredoxin," "Mitochondria dysfunction," "Glucose," "Pyroptosis," "Cardiac fibroblast" and "Long non-coding RNA" could be promising hotspots. This study provides meaningful insights into DCM, which is expected to assist cardiologists and endocrinologists in exploring frontiers and future research directions in the domain through a refined and concise summary.

Does publication history influence the integrity of the journals: studying publication timelines and their impact on journal metrics?

PurposeThe purpose of the study is to evaluate the relationship of Journal Publication Timeline (submission to first decision and submission to final decision) with various Journal Metrics (citing half-life, article influence score, the immediacy index, the acceptance rate, the impact factor (IF), five years IF, Eigenfactor and cited half-life) of top 600 journals retrieved from Journal Citation Report (JCR) 2020 under the tag, Elsevier Unified.Design/methodology/approachTop 600 journals in the decreasing order of the IFs under the tag, “Elsevier Unified” were retrieved from JCR 2020 of Clarivate Analytics. Information about “Journal Metrics” was ascertained using “Customized Service” of JCR, while information about the “Publication Timeline” of each journal was obtained using Elsevier's “Journal Insights Service.” It was found that only 177 journals provided the complete information regarding the “Publication Timeline” and hence considered for the study. Descriptive statistics and correlation analysis was conducted to test the different hypotheses.FindingsIt was found that submission to first decision has a significant relationship with the immediacy index, citing half-life and the acceptance rate. Submission to final decision has a significant relationship with Journal Impact Factor (JIF), the immediacy index, Eigenfactor, citing half-life and the acceptance rate.Research limitations/implicationsThe study will provide the authors with sound and valuable information to support their selection of journals. Inferences in light of fluctuations in the scholarly communication process in terms of Publication Timelines and Journal Metrics can be deeply understood with the aid of the current study's findings. What considerations authors have to take before submitting their papers is the main implication of the study. Journal administrators can also benefit from the findings of the current study as it can help recruit and manage reviewers, which will ensure a successful publication timeline.Originality/valueThe study correlates Publication Timeline Indicators with Journal Metrics Indicators using secondary cross-sectional data. Though most previous studies only examine the relationship of the Publication Timeline with the Journal Impact Factor (JIF), there is very scarce literature that deciphers the influence of Publication Timeline indicators on different Journal Metrics indicators (including JIF).Peer reviewThe peer review history for this article is available at: https://publons.com/publon/10.1108/OIR-02-2022-0108.

Pushing Propofol and Gender Equity-Female Authorship in Anesthesia Publications.

Purpose: While women and men have graduated from medical school in similar proportions since 2009, some specialties, such as anesthesia, have lagged behind in equal gender representation. This difference is especially evident when it comes to academic leadership roles. 1,2 As promotion in academic medicine is influenced by scholarly activities including research and publication, it is important to understand if a lack of women’s authorship in anesthesia publications is contributing to this gender gap. 3,4 This paper aims to assess how women’s authorship trends have changed in the last 15 years. Method: The 3 highest-impact journals in anesthesia were identified using InCites Journal Citation Reports. These were the Journal of Clinical Anesthesia, British Journal of Anesthesia, and Anesthesiology. Data was collected from articles published in 2005, 2010, 2015, and 2020. For each article, number of total authors, women authors, male authors, authors of unknown gender, and the presence or absence of a woman first and/or last author were recorded. A total of 750 articles were included in the study. Results: There was a statistically significant increase in the total number of women authors listed over the 15-year period with 21.9% women authors in 2005 and 32.5% in 2020. This was true in all 3 journals when stratified. Women’s first authorship increased from 18.8% of articles in 2005 to 29.2% in 2020. When stratified by journal, increase in women first authors was only significant for Anesthesiology. Women’s last authorship rose from 9.2% in 2005 to 20.1% in 2020. Increase in women last authors was only significant in The British Journal of Anaesthesiology. There was a statistically significant relationship between women senior authors and articles with 50% or more women authors. Only 14.7% of articles with male senior authors had 50% or more women authors compared with 53.2% of publications with women senior authors. This trend remained significant when stratified by year. Discussion: This analysis shows that women are slowly gaining representation in academic publications in the top journals in anesthesia. In the last 15 years, there has been an upward trend not only in the number and proportion of women authors but also in women last and first authors. While this is encouraging news for the progress of gender equity in academic medicine and anesthesia, a closer look at the numbers shows there is more work to be done. As of 2020, women still only represented ~30% of total and first authors and ~20% of last authors in the journals surveyed. This disparity remains important as senior authorship in particular can be important in advancing in academic leadership. 3,4 As recently as 2016, just 7.4% of women in anesthesiology were full professors compared with 17.3% of their male counterparts and only 14% of anesthesiology department chairs were women. 1 Significance: These data present a starting point for further investigation into contributing issues to the gender disparities seen within anesthesia. For example, the difference in number of articles with 50% or more women authors with men versus women senior authors should be considered. This may point to a lack of mentorship from women playing a role in the gender gap. Additionally, not all journals showed a significant increase in women’s first and last authorship when stratified. Although this may be due to lower statistical power from a decreased sample size, the editorial evaluation process for article acceptance presents as a potential source of gender bias. These among other issues must be identified and addressed to continue the forward progress in gender equity in anesthesia.

Comparison of evaluation indexes for Gastroenterology and Hepatology journals in different databases.

BACKGROUNDAccurate assessment of the quality of academic journals is of great significance. While Journal Impact Factor (JIF), calculated by Clarivate and based upon the Web of Science literature database, and CiteScore (CS), developed by Elseiver and based upon the Scopus database, have enjoyed high uptake worldwide, efforts continue towards creation of other scientometric indexes that will provide ever-greater qualitative insights into journal impact. Such efforts have yielded the newly-launched Journal Article Influence Index (JAII), which is based on the Reference Citation Analysis (RCA) database, an open multidisciplinary citation analysis database based on artificial intelligence technology.AIMTo evaluate and summarize the similarities and differences between JAII and JIF/CS as journal evaluation indicators, and provide an intuitive method for visual representation of the related data.METHODSWe searched the Journal Citation Reports to obtain the 2021 JIF list, downloaded the CS list updated in July on the Scopus website, and collected the comprehensive list of 2022 JAIIs from the RCA database (www.referencecitationanalysis.com).RESULTSOur research results revealed that by breaking through the time limit of mainstream journal evaluation methods, the JAII is able to perform well in data reliability, establishing its benefit as a complementary scientometric index to JIF and CS.CONCLUSION JAII provides comprehensive assessment of the quality and performance of journals.

Bibliometric analysis of top-cited articles in Journal of Dental Sciences

Background/purposeBibliometric analysis is a method for quantifying the article distribution, impact, and performance. The purpose of this study was to identify the most top-cited articles published in Journal of Dental Sciences (JDS) and further analyze their main characteristics. Materials and methodsWeb of Science, Journal Citation Reports database was searched to retrieve the most-cited articles in JDS published from 2007 to July 31, 2022. Among the included top-cited articles, the following parameters were recorded and analyzed: article title, article type, year, country, number of citations, and average citations pre year. Microsoft Excel was applied for the descriptive bibliometric analysis. Results41 top-cited articles were filtered from total 1165 JDS articles in Web of Science database. The results showed that 41 top-cited articles were cited between 20 and 186 times from Journal Citation Reports. Most of the article types are original article (28/41, 68.29%) following by review article (7/41, 17.07%). The majority of articles were originated from Taiwan (23/41, 56.10%). The top 4 most cited articles were relative to the research topic on COVID-19, lateral canal, guided-tissue regeneration barriers, and platelet-rich fibrin, respectively. However, articles analyzed by the average citations per year since publication were focused on COVID-19 followed by artificial intelligence. ConclusionThis bibliometric analysis illustrates the progress and trend of researches in JDS. The results may also offer a reference for recognizing the hot issues with the most citations in JDS.

'You can't be what you can't see': equity, diversity and inclusivity of editorial teams of dental journals.

Introduction Equity, diversity and inclusivity in research is critical to ensure all of society contributes.Aim This study analysed the gender and location (workplace) of editorial teams across 124 dental journals.Methods All chief editors of the 91 dental journals listed on the journal citation report for 2021 were contacted to provide details of the numbers of chief editors, other editors and the editorial board members, plus a summary of their demographic information including gender, age (group) and location. If chief editors did not respond, publicly available information was collated for the analysis. The same publicly available information of 45 PubMed indexed journals not on the citation report and three emerging online journals was also retrieved.Results Of the 159 chief editors across the 124 journals, 131 (82%) were men and 30% were based in the USA. Of the 1,265 other editors, two-thirds were from the USA, UK, Brazil and Japan. Of the 3,044 editorial board members, half were from the same four countries.Conclusions 'You can't be what you can't see': women and people from many parts of the world cannot see themselves as chief editors, other editors or editorial board members of dental journals.

Indian Journal of Dermatology, Venereology and Leprology: A scientometric analysis.

Background A study related to an overview of the editorial workflow, editorial decision-making and timelines of the Indian Journal of Dermatology, Venereology and Leprology (IJDVL) had been published earlier. However, a study on publication pattern, citations, contributing organizations, most cited publications etc. of IJDVL has not been performed till now. Objectives This study aims to identify and analyse the impact of IJDVL on various scientometric indicators viz. year-wise publication growth, impact factor trend, most contributing organizations, global outreach, most cited papers, and cited and citing journals, over the years 2007 to 2019. Methods Data for this study were retrieved from the Web of Science-core collection database of Journal Citation Reports (Clarivate Analytics, 2021) on 12th May 2021. The search was performed by using the advanced search feature of the database. Using the "InCites", a search for journal citation reports of IJDVL was performed. Results The highest number of cumulative citations have been received by publications published in the year 2019 with 2,122 citations which is 91.53% in citable items. In the year 2009 journal, the impact factor was 0.976, which jumped to 2.712 (Journal Citation Reports™ 2018). IJDVL received its highest impact factor (3.030) in the year 2019. All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi is the most prolific organization contributing to IJDVL with 51 publications. Among foreign countries, China is leading with reference to most contributions by any foreign country with 51 publications in IJDVL. Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology having an impact factor 8.277 has been cited 145 times in this journal. Limitations Only one database was used for the study. Conclusion The high proportion of frequently cited articles in recent years, together with its currently high journal impact factor and quartile two-factor, give sustenance to the view that IJDVL publishes high-standard articles relevant to dermatology research and clinical practice.

Identifying Immediate Impact Disciplines and Journals by Combining Three Citation‐Based Indicators

ABSTRACTThis study identifies immediate impact disciplines and journals by using a new indicator, which combines the journal impact factor (JIF), five‐year impact factor (5‐year IF), and immediacy index (II). Although the numbers of immediate impact journals in both the natural sciences (NS) and social sciences (SS) have increased, NS disciplines have a higher average level of immediate impact than SS disciplines. Among 12,272 NS and SS journals indexed by the 2020 version of Journal Citation Reports, most (62.7%) exhibited the highest value of journal impact in 5‐year IF and lowest value in II, followed by journals with a JIF value higher than that of 5‐year IF (34.3%). Although only 113 journals (0.9%), including SS journals, had the highest value in II and the lowest value in 5‐year IF, the finding rejects the stereotype regarding the nonimmediate impact of SS journals.

Article Impact and the International Publishing Landscape in Foot and Ankle Research

Category: Other Introduction/Purpose: In recent years, digital publishing and indexing have accelerated the pace of collaboration in foot and ankle (FA) research. As journals become more electronically accessible, authors have greater opportunity to submit to journals that are most appropriate for their work and relevant to the global community. While previous studies have reported general publishing trends in FA research, there is little information available on which topics and authorship practices bring the greatest value to the orthopaedic community. The goal of this study is to investigate global and journal-specific factors associated with high- impact FA research, including sub-topics and collaboration trends. Methods: We examined 43 orthopedic journals, including FA-specific journals, general orthopedic journals, and sports medicine journals. We utilized the National Library of Medicine's MEDLINE database for general article information, and Web of Science's (WOS) Journal Citation Report for citation counts. All 43 journals were indexed in both MEDLINE and WOS. We categorized articles as FA-specific using a keyword search. To measure the impact factor of a journal, we calculated a 5-year 'impact factor' following modified WOS guidelines (Total citations in 2020 for articles published 2015-2019 / total publications from 2015-2019). To measure individual 'article impact', we calculated the average citations/year for that article following publication. Only articles published in the last five years were included for each topic to ensure all article averages are current. Other variables, such as publishing nationality, number of authors, and article type were collected using MEDLINE article metadata and keyword searches. Results: A total of 7,679 FA-specific articles published in 43 journals were included for analysis. Globally, US authors publish the greatest number of first-author FA articles (32%, Figure 1a), followed by the UK (8%), China (6%), and South Korea (5%). Author nation of origin varies considerably by journal; FAI is composed of 53% American first-authors, while 13% of articles from the international journal KSSTA feature American first-authors. Article impact also varies considerably by topic (Figure 1b). Sports- related FA articles, for example, outperform the average FA article in citations/year (2.27 vs. 1.69, p < 0.0001), while deformity- related articles underperform the FA average (1.25, p < 0.0001). The number of authors has a strong positive correlation with article impact (r = 0.88, Figure 1c). Conclusion: A clear understanding of publication trends in the literature allows authors to select the most appropriate journal readership for their work. American authors are global leaders in FA publications, and primarily publish in American journals. We found that many factors, including article sub-topic and authorship group size, influence article impact and journal impact factor. These findings raise opportunities for collaboration, research focus and journal selection. Monitoring publication trends allows authors and journal editors to more accurately predict high-impact areas of research, and to identify potentially under- represented fields needing greater attention and investigation.

S1511 Gender Differences in Gastroenterology and Hepatology Authorship: 2000-2020

Introduction: Considering peer-reviewed publications affect female's practice and career in gastroenterology and hepatology field, barriers to female's publishing must be removed. In this study, we aimed to describe gender trends of first and last authors in published manuscripts of gastroenterology and hepatology journals from 2000 to 2020. Furthermore, we assessed the predictors associated with female authorship. Methods: Ten highest impact factor gastroenterology and hepatology journals were selected on the basis of the 2020 Web of Science InCite Journal Citation Report impact factor rankings. Using the online archives on each journal's website, we reviewed all original research manuscripts published in 2000, 2005, 2010, 2015, and 2020. Gender of first and last authors was determined using a validated algorithm, genderize.io. We described female first and last authorship percentages by journal and by year of publication. Linear by linear association trend test was used to evaluate for gender trend over time, while logistic regression analysis was performed to identified predictors of female first and last authorship. Results: Overall, 7,853 first authors with 2,138 females (27.2%) and 8,034 last authors with 1,156 females (14.4%) were included in final analysis. The proportion of female first authors in the selected journals combined increased from 20.7% (383/1852) in 2000 to 32.8% (370/1128) in 2020 with a statistically nonsignificant time trend (P value for trend = 0.054). Similarly, the proportion of female senior authors increased from 9.8% (182/1852) in 2000 to 17.5% (222/1271) in 2020 (P value for trend = 0.058). On multivariable analysis, journal, year of publication, and author’s continent remained significantly predictive of female first and last authorship. Conclusion: Overall, gender disparities persist within gastroenteroly and hepatology original publications, and the rate of improvement may be slowing. Today, the challenges facing women in the fields of gastroenterology and hepatology are yet to be overcome.

English

The aim of this research is to analyse the scientific production of publications produced during a decade (2010-2019) about injuries in football (soccer). A bibliographic search was done for publications featuring key terms such as football, soccer, and injuries. We searched for studies in journals that had a five-year impact factor in the Journal Citation Report in the “Sport Sciences” category. The PRISMA methodology was used. The following bibliometric indicators were analysed: number of publications by journal; country of origin; country of publication; publications per year; number of authors; authors’ native language; evidence level; type of study; sex; anatomical location and topographic location of injuries. To assess the level of evidence, the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (CEBM) level of evidence classification was used, dichotomised as follows: articles with level 1 and level 2 evidence were ‘high evidence’, and articles with levels 3, 4, and 5 were ‘low evidence’. The statistical tests were performed using SPSS V. 28. A total of 222 articles published in four journals met the inclusion criteria. Production rose as the decade progressed. The highest frequency was in 2013. The British Journal of Sports Medicine (BJSM) had the highest number of publications. Sports Medicine (SM) had the most authors per article and the highest level of evidence. The United States was the main producer. There were more publications regarding injuries in males, and in males and females, compared to publications that only took females into account. More muscle, thigh, and hip injuries were described. The level of evidence was generally low. The increase in scientific production related to football (soccer) injuries during the decade reflect an elevated interest for the subject matter. Publications that prevail around this theme consider injuries in the thigh and lower extremities and in men.

Research Agenda on Multiple-Criteria Decision-Making: New Academic Debates in Business and Management

Systemic disruptions are becoming more continuous, intense, and persistent. Their effects have a severe impact on the economy in volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous (VUCA) environments that are increasingly transversal to productive sectors and activities. Researchers have intensified their academic production of multiple-criteria decision-making (MCDM) in recent years. This article analyzes the research agenda through a systematic review of scientific articles in the Web of Science Core Collection according to the Journal Citation Report (JCR), both in the Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI) and in the Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE). According to the selected search criteria, 909 articles on MCDM published between 1979 and 2022 in Web of Science journals in the business and management categories were located. A bibliometric analysis of the main thematic clusters, the international collaboration networks, and the bibliographic coupling of articles was carried out. In addition, the analysis period is divided into two subperiods (1979–2008 and 2009–2022), establishing 2008 as the threshold, the year of the Global Financial Crisis (GFC), to assess the evolution of the research agenda at the beginning of systemic disruptions. The bibliometric analysis allows the identification of the motor, basic, specialized, and emerging themes of each subperiod. The results show the similarities and differences between the academic debate before and after the GFC. The evidence found allows academics to be guided in their high-impact research in business and management using MCDM methodologies to address contemporary challenges. An important contribution of this study is to detect gaps in the literature, highlighting unclosed gaps and emerging trends in the field of study for journal editors.

Research agenda on turnaround strategies beyond systemic disruptions

PurposeSince the Great Financial Crisis (GFC), the shocks are getting deeper and deeper on the economy, sectors and companies. In these years, turnaround strategies have evolved and contribute to improving the agility and audacity of managers. This article studies the change in the research agenda and in the academic discourse as systemic disruptions become widespread and provides evidence on collaboration networks and publication opportunities.Design/methodology/approachThis research uses a comparative bibliometric analysis to understand the changes in the academic debate as of 2008. The core collection of Web of Science (WoS) is used and 198 articles on turnaround strategies published in journals indexed in Journal Citation Reports® (JCR) – Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI) in areas like business, management, economics and finance during 1965–2022.FindingsThis research reveals an important intertemporal evolution between periods, both in the collaborative networks of researchers and in the journals that dominate the impact discourse. In addition, it provides evidence of the change in academic discourse, through the evolution of the topics of interest after the GFC. The results suggest publication opportunities around gaps not yet closed by the academic literature.Practical implicationsThis article allows researchers to be guided in identifying gaps that have not yet been closed. In addition, this research has important managerial implications, since it guides and advises journal editors on new emerging issues.Originality/valueThis document offers a global vision on the subject of study and an understanding of the development of the discourse of the academy.

Gender representation on editorial boards of leading oncology journals

BackgroundThere has historically been women underrepresentation on editorial boards of peer-reviewed medical journals. High-ranked oncology journals showcase cancer-related scientific work at the forefront of the discipline. There is urgent need to investigate gender representation on editorial boards at leading oncology journals.Materials and methodsSixty high-ranked oncology journals based on impact factor calculated by the Journal Citation Reports (JCR) 2021 from Web of Science/Clarivate Analytics were identified. Gender-related information of editorial boards was obtained from each journal’s website. The gender of each member of the editorial team was confirmed by an internet search for picture and/or gender-specific pronoun from journal or personal profile. Fisher’s exact tests and analysis of variance were used to analyze categorical and continuous variables, respectively. Significance was set at P < 0.05.ResultsAmong 4898 members on editorial boards of top oncology journals with the highest impact factor, 1177 were women. Women made up 24% (1177 of 4898) of members on editorial boards in top oncology journals, and there was significantly less women board members than men (P < 0.0001). The mean female composition of editorial boards of oncology journals was 27% (range from 4% to 100%). Among 71 editors-in-chief of the top oncology journals, 14 (20%) were women. There was a positive correlation between the presence of women in journal editorial leadership and the percentage of women on editorial boards (rs = 0.340, P = 0.008). The underrepresentation of women on oncology journal editorial boards was significantly different among quartiles of journal impact factor. There was no significant correlation between women’s representation on journal editorial boards (%) and journal impact factors (rs = 0.226, P = 0.086).ConclusionsThe results demonstrated that there are gender disparities among editorial leadership at high-impact oncology journals. There are cultural and structural barriers and prejudices to gender parity and diversity on editorial boards of oncology journals.

Nurses as agents for achieving environmentally sustainable health systems: A bibliometric analysis.

To analyse the current scientific knowledge and research lines focused on environmentally sustainable health systems, including the role of nurses. There seem to be differences between creating interventions focused on environmentally sustainable health systems, including nurses, and the scarcity of research on this topic, framed on the Sustainable Development Goals. A bibliometric analysis was carried out, via three databases (Web of Science, Scopus and Pubmed), and the guideline recommendations were followed to select bibliometric data. The search resulted in 159 publications, significantly increasing the trends from 2017 to 2021 (p = .028). The most relevant countries in this area were the United States, the United Kingdom and Sweden. Also, the top articles were from relevant journals, indexed in Journal Citation Report, and the first and the second quartiles linked to the nursing field and citations (p < .001). Education is key to achieving environmentally sustainable health systems via institutions and policies. There is a lack of experimental data and policies on achieving or maintaining environmentally sustainable health care systems, indicating that nurses have an important role and should be consulted and included in decision-making policies regarding sustainability in the health care systems.

Occupational Therapy Interventions for Dementia Caregivers: Scoping Review.

Background and purpose: caregivers of people with dementia (PwD) often experience a significant caregiver burden. Occupational Therapy (OT) is a helpful discipline for improving quality of life and other health factors for these caregivers. We conducted a Scoping Review to describe OT interventions for caregivers of PwD. Methods: two authors searched PubMed, Scopus, EMBASE and Web of Science databases and OT journals indexed in the Journal Citation Reports. Terms included in the search strategy were: dementia, Alzheimer, Parkinson, caregivers and OT. We included articles with experimental design in which an OT intervention in caregivers of PwD was carried out, written in Spanish or English and with the full text available. Results: a total of 2121 articles were obtained, 31 of which were included; 22 of them described home-based OT interventions: Tailored Activity Program (TAP) (n = 5), Environmental Skill-Building Program (ESP) (n = 4) and Advancing Caregiver Training (ACT) (n = 3) and other household interventions (n = 10); the remaining studies described OT interventions in other settings (n = 9). Conclusions: OT interventions for caregivers of PwD were mainly carried out at home. The most commonly used interventions were TAP focused on caregivers of people with Alzheimer’s disease, aimed at lessening the burden, depression and stress experienced by caregivers.

Editorial Note: Makara Human Behavior Studies in Asia’s Responds to Political Challenges in Scientific Publication

Three challenges of political nature were identified in 2022: increasing number of institutions in many countries in Asia to require journal article publication for graduation of an academic degree, changes in Journal Citation Index (JCITM) policy, and a retraction case in Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology. As a response to these challenges, Makara Human Behavior Studies in Asia made several changes. First, we now publish incrementally to accommodate the requirement to publish in time. In Indonesia, as well as in many parts of Asia, publications in journals are increasingly used to satisfy administrative requirements. We have received requests for faster publication due to graduation requirements from authors from Indonesia, Malaysia, and Pakistan. The importance of journal publication is increasing in the region. Second, the everchanging scientific landscape triggers a response from Clarivate Analytics that decided to include Journal Impact Factor (JIFTM) in the subsequent publication of the Journal Citation Reports (JCRTM) in 2023.

Scientific Fraud, Publication Bias, and Honorary Authorship in Nuclear Medicine.

Our objective was to investigate nuclear medicine scientists' experience with scientific fraud, publication bias, and honorary authorship. Methods: Corresponding authors who published an article in one of the 15 general nuclear medicine journals (according to Journal Citation Reports) in 2021 received an invitation to participate in a survey on scientific integrity. Results: In total, 254 (12.4%) of 1,897 corresponding authors completed the survey, of whom 11 (4.3%) admitted to having committed scientific fraud and 54 (21.3%) reported having witnessed or suspected scientific fraud by someone in their department in the past 5 y. Publication bias was considered present by 222 (87.4%) respondents, and honorary authorship practices were experienced by 100 (39.4%) respondents. Respondents assigned a median score of 8 (range, 2-10) on a 1- to 10-point scale for their overall confidence in the integrity of published work. On multivariate analysis, researchers in Asia had significantly more confidence in the integrity of published work, with a β-coefficient of 0.983 (95% CI, 0.512-1.454; P < 0.001). A subset of 22 respondents raised additional concerns, mainly about authorship criteria and assignments, the generally poor quality of published studies, and perverse incentives of journals and publishers. Conclusion: Scientific fraud, publication bias, and honorary authorship appear to be nonnegligible practices in nuclear medicine. Overall confidence in the integrity of published work is high, particularly among researchers in Asia.