Percent Of Authors Research Articles

Peripheral voices: women in international trade scholarship

Abstract We ask how women are faring in the field of international trade both as knowledge producers and as policy-makers, with a focus on the former. This is an important question in light of the increased, if belated, attention paid to the gendered impact of international trade rules and of the gendered nature of academia. Using article publishing as a proxy for international trade scholarship, we create a unique dataset consisting of trade-related articles published in the 27 most influential journals in the field during the past 20 years. Examining the gender balance of authors in our database reveals that, despite recent progress, women's voices are still peripheral in the field, comprising just 31.5 percent of authors in the past five years. We find no reasons to believe this is a peculiarity of knowledge creation in the field of international trade. Rather, the analysis suggests that it is the highly gendered nature of the broad fields of International Relations and International Political Economy that explains the gender imbalance we find. Looking ahead, if we are serious about addressing gender imbalances in international trade policy-making and knowledge production, new knowledge and strategies are needed that address the structural reasons that contribute to the arbitrary but very real gender inequalities both in academia and policy-making. Ensuring women scholars and policy-makers are fully represented in formulating and implementing these strategies is a basic, even if insufficient, precondition for their success. Only after the weaknesses and hurdles are addressed will the deterrence and defence of the region attain a fully credible level.

An analysis of publishing studies journals: An insight into the structure of the field based on publications

AbstractAlthough interest in publishing studies is increasing, the academic status of PS is still uncertain. The aim of this work is to provide insight into the structure of the field by naming its core journals, determining the size of the research community and degree of collaboration, identifying the most relevant authors and institutions and answering the question as to whether PS is more academically or professionally oriented. This paper uses Scopus data and VOSviewer software to illustrate similarities between journals, authors and countries based on bibliographic coupling, co‐authorship, citation and co‐citation analysis. Eight journals representing various publishing sectors (trade, education, scholarly and professional publishing) were identified as the main sources of PS articles. They differ in their frequency of publication, number of citations, visibility in bibliographic databases, the percentage of co‐authored articles and the affiliation structure of the authors. Nine percent of authors out of 3370 unique authors form the publishing studies research community, with 1%–3% being identified as the key authors. The researchers worked mainly alone or in collaboration with one or two partners. Analysis of the authors' affiliations and a co‐citation analysis of source titles confirm strong PS research connections with the publishing industry.

Suomalaisen käännöstieteen näkyvyys maailmalla

The history of Translation Studies in Finland is still largely unstudied. Particularly little research has so far been done on scholarly publishing. The well-known exception to the rule is Gideon Toury (2009), who when studying the statistics of the prestigious journal Target from its first twenty years (1989–2008), observed that Finland was among the major contributing countries and thus a central country on the map of Translation Studies. This paper investigates what happened to Finland’s centrality in Target during 2009–2020, albeit with different methods. Furthermore, the analysis has been extended to five other well-known journals: Meta, Perspectives, The Translator, trans-kom and Translation Studies, in order to study Finland’s visibility in Translation Studies on a larger scale. The analysis shows changes in the proportions of contributing countries in Target. Scholars with a Finnish affiliation represented only 3 percent of all (co-)authors 2009–2020. However, when multiple appearances are calculated the proportions are slightly different, and Finland ranks ninth with Canada among the ten most contributing countries to Target. As to the other journals, Finnish scholars have a visible position (8 per cent of all authors) only in trans-kom, whereas in the four other journals, they represent 1–3 per cent of all contributors.

On Occasion of the 12th “Days of AMNuBiH 2021” and “SWEP 2021” Conferences, Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina

On Occasion of the 12th “Days of AMNuBiH 2021” and “SWEP 2021” Conferences, Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina

PP65 Methods Applied For Systematic Reviews Of Economic Evaluations In Health Technology Assessment

IntroductionWhen making decisions in health care, it is essential to consider economic evidence about an intervention. The objective of this study was to analyze the methods applied for systematic reviews of economic evaluations in Health Technology Assessment (HTA) and to identify common challenges.MethodsWe manually searched the webpages of HTA organizations and included HTA-reports published since 2015. Prerequisites for inclusion were the conduct of a systematic review of economic evaluations in at least one electronic database and the use of the English, German, French, or Spanish language. Methodological features were extracted in standardized tables. We prepared descriptive statistical (e.g., median, range) measures to describe the applied methods. Data were synthesized in a structured narrative way.ResultsEighty-three reports were included in the analysis. We identified inexplicable heterogeneity, particularly concerning literature search strategy, data extraction, assessment of quality, and applicability. Furthermore, process steps were often missing or reported in a nontransparent way. The use of a standardized data extraction form was indicated in one-third of reports (32 percent). Fifty-four percent of authors systematically appraised included studies. In 10 percent of reports, the applicability of included studies was assessed. Involvement of two reviewers was rarely reported for the study selection (43 percent), data extraction (28 percent), and quality assessment (39 percent).ConclusionsThe methods applied for systematic reviews of economic evaluations in HTA and their reporting quality are very heterogeneous. Efforts toward a detailed, standardized guidance for the preparation of systematic reviews of economic evaluations definitely seem necessary. A general harmonization and improvement of the applied methodology would increase their value for decision makers.

Gender Representation in Economics Across Topics and Time: Evidence from the NBER Summer Institute

We document the representation of female economists on the conference programs at the NBER Summer Institute from 2001-2016. Over the period from 2013-2016, women made up 20.6 percent of all authors on scheduled papers. However, there was large dispersion across programs, with the share of female authors ranging from 7.3 percent to 47.7 percent. While the average share of women rose slightly from 18.5% since 2001-2004, a persistent gap between finance, macroeconomics and microeconomics subfields remains, with women consisting of 14.4 percent of authors in finance, 16.3 percent of authors in macroeconomics, and 25.9 percent of authors in microeconomics. We examine three channels potentially affecting female representation. First, using anonymized data on submissions, we show that the rate of paper acceptance for women is statistically indistinguishable to that of men. Second, we find that the share of female authors is comparable to the share of women amongst all tenure-track professors, but is ten percentage points lower than the share of women among assistant professors. Finally, within conference program, we find that when a woman organizes the program, the share of female authors and discussants is higher.

From the members: On the biogeography of biogeographers

membership corner ISSN 1948‐6596 from the members On the biogeography of biogeographers Biogeography is concerned with “the study at all possible scales of analysis of the distribution of life across space, and how, through time, it has changed” (Whittaker et al. 2005). It is a long es‐ tablished field of research, with its roots in the early nineteenth century. Recently, the fifth IBS International Meeting was held in Irakleion, Crete, where the latest scientific research in relation to biogeography was presented by biogeographers from around the world. The list of topics covered in this conference was comprehensive: there were four symposia covering Mediterranean biogeogra‐ phy, comparative phylogeography, biogeography and ecology, and analytical advancements in mac‐ roecology and biogeography; and six sessions with contributed papers on island biogeography, cli‐ mate change biogeography, conservation biogeog‐ raphy, palaeoecology, marine biogeography and hot topics in biogeography. Overall, there were 63 talks and 271 poster presentations covering a wide range of biogeographical topics. However I noticed that the geographical origin of the attendees of the conference was less diverse: the majority were from the US and Europe and I was surprised to see only a few re‐ searchers from South America and Asia and practi‐ cally none from Africa. In a relatively advanced field such as biogeography, concerned with distri‐ bution patterns, I found it slightly ironic that the diversity of the biogeographers at this meeting was relatively low. Out of the total of 334 contri‐ butions at the meeting, nearly 60 percent of the authors came from a European institution and 26 percent from North American ones, whereas 7 percent of the first authors came from Central and South America, just about 5 percent from Asia, 2 percent from Oceania, and only 0.3 percent from Africa. So I wondered: where were our colleagues from these regions? I wanted to know whether the low propor‐ tion of researchers from outside of Europe and North America at the IBS meeting is representa‐ tive for the wider academic biogeography commu‐ nity, so I investigated recent contributions pub‐ lished in the four main biogeography journals. I looked up all articles published during 2010 in Journal of Biogeography, Global Ecology and Bio‐ geography, Diversity and Distributions and Ecogra‐ phy, and counted and classified them into six geo‐ graphical regions according to the United Nations Statistics Division (2010) composition of macro‐ geographical regions based on the first mentioned affiliation of the first author of the paper. I consid‐ ered a total of 490 papers in these four journals and found that 45 percent had a first author affili‐ ated with an institution in Europe, 29 percent had a first author from North America, nearly 13 per‐ cent from Oceania, just about 5 percent from Asia, 4 percent from Central and South America, and only 4 percent from Africa. The fact that the proportion of Europeans was relatively high at the conference is logical since the conference was being held in Europe and thus easier to attend for researchers based in this part of the world. The opposite is true for bio‐ geographers from Oceania, who were underrepre‐ sented, probably because of the large distance they had to travel to attend the conference. How‐ ever, considering these minor differences, the geographical distribution of the biogeographers attending the conference seems to correspond with the distribution of those publishing in the four journals. Thus, it would be fair to say that the biogeographers at the IBS meeting were fairly rep‐ resentative of the wider publishing biogeography community in terms of their geographical origin. There are of course various factors contrib‐ uting to the observed patterns, and I will refrain from attempting to explain them. Moreover, the manner in which I classified the publications does not acknowledge the contribution from co‐ authors affiliated with institutions outside of Europe and North America, which is likely to hide a wider international participation. Nevertheless, it is interesting to be aware of the geographical distribution of biogeography researchers and en‐ courage further participation and contributions from underrepresented regions. For example, it frontiers of biogeography 3.1, 2011 — © 2011 the authors; journal compilation © 2011 The International Biogeography Society

Open access publishing.

A leading comment in yesterday’s Guardian, George Monbiot’s provocatively titled and aggressively argued Academic publishers make Murdoch look like a socialist is bound to irritate some of the big academic publishing companies, but the time has come to bring this argument to the attention of all. Open Access (OA) is very much a hot topic among researchers and librarians, and this stirring article raises many interesting points. OA refers to unrestricted online access to articles published in scholarly journals and has been fueled by instant connection to the World Wide Web, thus allowing low-cost distribution of academic material. However, academic publishers have a lot to lose financially. As Monbiot states in his piece, “people should be encouraged to understand science and other academic research. Without current knowledge, we cannot make coherent democratic decisions. But the publishers have slapped a padlock and a ‘keep out’ sign on the gates.” Prices of academic journals are often prohibitively expensive. Monbiot specifically cites Elsevier, a major publisher in the field, as their Biochimica et Biophysica Actacosts $20,930 per year, but they are by no means the only publishers who put stress on a librarian’s budget. The article reports that downloading one, single paper can cost up to $42. Recently I have encountered papers costing up to $100. Elsevier, Springer, Wiley and others are laughing all the way to the proverbial bank. As is pointed out, the notorious Robert Maxwell made much of his millions from academic publishing. At least the infamous Rupert Murdoch pays those who write for his publications. Academic publishers receive papers from their writers for free, while the taxpayers funded the research and then have to pay exorbitant costs again to see the results of the research. It is little wonder that many people rely on informal networks of friends and colleagues to collect papers necessary for their research. I have even heard of librarians breaching copyright law in this way. I recall once, in a moment of extreme deadline desperation, asking a librarian in the US if he could, off the record, send me a paper published by someone in their university; however, his reply only just stopped short of threatening me with legal action. Open Access has so far “failed to displace the monopolists”, as Elsevier are still riding high on a 40% profit margin. Monbiot calls for academic publishers’ practices to be brought to the attention of the competition watchdogs and encourages publicly-funded institutional repositories; whereby research articles can be stored and “liberated”. A recent paper from the European Association of Cancer Research (EACR), which will appear next week in ecancermedicalscience, an open access journal in which it is free to publish, discusses in detail the effect of publishing costs and access to information on cancer research. The results of an EU funded project highlighted the issue of access to subscription journals, the barrier to essential and urgent information that a ‘paywall’ creates, and the need for free access. The authors were amazed to find that a quarter of cancer researchers experience difficulty gaining access to what their peers have published, and that they are compelled to spend valuable time tracking down and supplying themselves with such publications without them costing an arm and a leg. It is especially salient for those working independently without institutional library back-up. Publishers frown on them using “informal networks of friends and colleagues” but if a paper can only be downloaded at the all too common cost of $100, what are the realistic options? “Journal prestige” is a big issue, not just for personal ego, but publishing in a high-impact factor, prestigious, journal is pretty much demanded by most institutions for tenure and funding. As the authors say, “if OA can address any remaining concerns over esteem and quality authors will progressively move across to this model”. It will take time for an OA journal to gain the prestige of Nature, but what if Nature were to become open access? “Eighty-eight percent of authors believe that publicly funded research should be made available to be read and used without access barriers” and the statistics speak for themselves. Perhaps publishers fear they’ll suffer like the music industry with, less than legal, rampant digital downloads, but “change is inevitable”. Bearing in mind that this report was requested by the EC, some action is necessary. The huge number of comments on the Guardian website provides an interesting insight “from the coal face” and offer many starting points for a stimulating discussion and debate also here on ecancermedicalscience’s site.

Asian and Pacific Region Authorship Characteristics in Leading Library and Information Science Journals

Authorship characteristics from the Asian and Pacific region in the top twenty journals in library and information science are studied. Data was collected searching the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) Web of Science databases. Major findings of this study are: there are a total of 1,317 articles for the period 1967 to 2005; the most productive countries are, in rank order, Australia, China, South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, Japan, New Zealand, Malaysia, Thailand and Philippines; and 77.6 percent of authors in the top twenty library and information science journals contributed a single article. Among the library science journals about 50 percent were written by multiple authors, while 73.1 percent of articles in the information science journals were written collaboratively. The most productive individual authors in the region are reported. The strongest collaboration within the region took place between Australia and China; China and Singapore; Australia and New Zealand.

Asian and Pacific Region Authorship Characteristics in Leading Library and Information Science Journals

Authorship characteristics from the Asian and Pacific region in the top twenty journals in library and information science are studied. Data was collected searching the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) Web of Science databases. Major findings of this study are: there are a total of 1,317 articles for the period 1967 to 2005; the most productive countries are, in rank order, Australia, China, South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, Japan, New Zealand, Malaysia, Thailand and Philippines; and 77.6 percent of authors in the top twenty library and information science journals contributed a single article. Among the library science journals about 50 percent were written by multiple authors, while 73.1 percent of articles in the information science journals were written collaboratively. The most productive individual authors in the region are reported. The strongest collaboration within the region took place between Australia and China; China and Singapore; Australia and New Zealand.

Relationships between authors of clinical practice guidelines and the pharmaceutical industry.

Increasing contact has been reported between physicians and the pharmaceutical industry, although no data exist in the literature regarding potential financial conflicts of interest for authors of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). These interactions may be particularly relevant since CPGs are designed to influence the practice of a large number of physicians. To quantify the extent and nature of interactions between authors of CPGs and the pharmaceutical industry. Cross-sectional survey of 192 authors of 44 CPGs endorsed by North American and European societies on common adult diseases published between 1991 and July 1999. One hundred authors (52%) provided usable responses representing 37 of 44 different CPGs that we identified. Nature and extent of interactions of authors with drug manufacturers; disclosure of relationships in published guidelines; prior discussion among authors regarding relationships; beliefs regarding whether authors' own relationships or those of their colleagues influenced treatment recommendations in guidelines. Eighty-seven percent of authors had some form of interaction with the pharmaceutical industry. Fifty-eight percent had received financial support to perform research and 38% had served as employees or consultants for a pharmaceutical company. On average, CPG authors interacted with 10.5 different companies. Overall, an average of 81% (95% confidence interval, 70%-92%) of authors per CPG had interactions. Similarly, all of the CPGs for 7 of the 10 diseases included in our study had at least 1 author who had some interaction. Fifty-nine percent had relationships with companies whose drugs were considered in the guideline they authored, and of these authors, 96% had relationships that predated the guideline creation process. Fifty-five percent of respondents indicated that the guideline process with which they were involved had no formal process for declaring these relationships. In published versions of the CPGs, specific declarations regarding the personal financial interactions of individual authors with the pharmaceutical industry were made in only 2 cases. Seven percent thought that their own relationships with the pharmaceutical industry influenced the recommendations and 19% thought that their coauthors' recommendations were influenced by their relationships. Although the response rate for this survey was low, there appears to be considerable interaction between CPG authors and the pharmaceutical industry. Our study highlights the need for appropriate disclosure of financial conflicts of interest for authors of CPGs and a formal process for discussing these conflicts prior to CPG development.

The Spanish Comedias Project at the University of Colorado

This paper reviews a project at the University of Colo- rado at Boulder Libraries utilizing the AMC format to u grade the P accessibility of a collection of Spanish plays cataloged in 956 as an unanalyzed set. The project used the original finding aid as a tool to create records providing access at box level to a collection of 3700 plays kept in 145 boxes. Results show 58 percent of authors traced in the project are unique to Colorado's on-line holdings, while another 12 percent are represented by just one other entry. Therefore, an en- richment of the coverage of Spanish literature at CU has been ac- complished.