Status Of Author Research Articles

What makes a Thesis by Publication? An international study of policy requirements and restrictions

ABSTRACT The thesis by publication is expanding across countries, institutions and disciplines, and so a more in-depth understanding of the format across contexts is warranted, to ensure that all stakeholders understand the implications of this format and implement it in a fair and transparent manner. This paper provides a cross-sectional analysis of policies related to the Thesis by Publication in six countries, investigating requirements and restrictions related to the timing and number of publications, publication and authorship status, preferred publication characteristics, and structure and format of the submission, with an ultimate aim to answer the question: what makes a Thesis by Publication? The findings show diversity across programs and flexibility within them, but present a common yet broad conceptualisation that maintains the integrity of doctoral research. Less attention to finer details may reflect flexibility and autonomy but may also lead to uncertainty for doctoral researchers, supervisors, and examiners.

From scriptor to promptor: an evaluation of the status of authorship, authenticity, and creativity in light of the use of artificial intelligence in screenwriting

Even though the immense disruptive potential of the introduction of generative artificial intelligence into creative fields is clear, the specific ways in which this will happen is still uncertain. One significant worry is that the problematic distinction between the original and the fake is going to become further blurred. The status of language becomes particularly problematic in the age of artificial intelligence. In this study, we draw on a number of philosophical theories on the nature of language to set up a conceptual framework within which one can analyze the status of authorship and originality in the case of the operation of generative AI. We argue that two conceptual orientations, namely deconstruction and genealogy, converge on the claim that authorship should be seen as always already a co-authorship. We then use this conceptual framework to interpret the results of a classroom experimentation with the use of generative AI in the production of screenplay loglines and synopses. A key finding of our study is that we must improve the critical skills of the students that will enable them to develop responsible ways of self-expression in creative production.

RETRACTION: Xenografts Supplemented with Pamindronate placed in postextraction sockets to avoid crestal bone resorption. Experimental study in Fox hound dogs.

N. Lozano-Carrascal, R. A. Delgado-Ruiz, J. Gargallo-Albiol, J. E. Maté-Sánchez, F. Hernandez Alfaro, J. L. Calvo-Guirado, "Xenografts Supplemented with Pamindronate placed in postextraction sockets to avoid crestal bone resorption. Experimental study in Fox hound dogs", Clinical Oral Implants Research 27, no. 2 (2016): 149-155, https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12550 The retraction has been agreed due to concerns raised by third parties on the data presented in the article. Several flaws and inconsistencies between results presented and experimental methods described were found. Specifically, instances of overlapping data with another publication authored by the same group have been found, despite the articles have different study designs. Additionally, Figure3c and Figure4i derive from the same histological section, but used in different contexts. Accordingly, the editors consider the findings of this article unreliable and the conclusions to be invalid. The authors have been informed of the decision to retract the article. The corresponding author J. L. Calvo-Guirado and co-author R. A. Delgado-Ruiz disagree with the decision of retraction. The first author N. Lozano-Carrascal states being unaware of these issues; however, this author disagrees with the decision for retraction based on the presented findings. Co-author Jordi Gargallo-Albiol states being unaware of these issues and concurs with the decision for retraction based on the presented findings. Co-author F. Hernandez Alfaro, citing their guest authorship status, claims complete unawareness of the research presented in the article and agrees with its retraction. The remaining co-authors were not available for a final confirmation of the retraction.

Authorship Status Derived from the Complementarity of Contracts

Authorship Status Derived from the Complementarity of Contracts

Enhancing data consistency in ATLAS and CERN HR databases through automated synchronization

As the largest particle physics laboratory in the world, it is no surprise that CERN has a vast network of thousands of collaborators spread globally. Among CERN’s experiments, ATLAS stands out with over 6,000 active members and 300 associate institutes. This extensive community must go through the standard registering and maintenance procedures within CERN’s human resources database, called Foundation. Simultaneously, the Glance system, among other specific functions, also aims to fulfill the same objectives within the context of different CERN experiments, such as ATLAS, LHCb and ALICE. It achieves that by having its own database. Since members need to exist in the two databases, a lot of data was being duplicated. Manual updates by the ATLAS secretariat became necessary to maintain consistency over members and institutes data, such as names, employment information and authorship status. Today, the Glance system undergoes a transformative process to redefine its relationship with Foundation. The goal is to eliminate duplication of data by establishing a single source of truth. At the same time, the automation of a series of internal processes will be made to ensure synchronization between the two databases at all times, thus removing the need for manual intervention from the ATLAS secretariat. This requires some restructuring to Glance’s database, updates to the code and overall implementation of new tools that facilitate seamless communication with Foundation.

What do we know about campaign finance and gender so far? The scoping review as an analysis tool with a feminist approach

This paper aims to present the scoping review as an analysis tool for the feminist debate. Through the use of this bibliometric technique, we surveyed the academic production of two central themes of political science: campaign finance and female political participation. To understand what has the literature shown us so far, we produced a state of the art based on 51 articles found in two databases (Scopus and Web of Science). We could see that even with the increase in production on these themes, the male authorship status quo remains, and gender-related issues in political processes continue to be peripheral in the debate. This fact reinforces the need for a feminist perspective that looks at gender beyond an analysis variable.

Teaching and Learning Method to Enforce Authorship in College Writing

This paper focused on checking the concept of authorship, which is necessary in college writing class, and providing students a method on how to write in actual class. The authorship required in college writing classes is basically a characteristic required of members of the academic community, but the characteristics of the discourse community emphasized by social constructionists help us understand authorship. Furthermore, the autobiographical self, discoursal self and the possibilities for self-hood in the socio-cultural and institutional context in addition to self as author should be operational in balance to alleviate the problems developed by the lopsidedness of authorship required for academic writing aimed in college writing classes. This is a perspective that it is important in its ability to recognize the presence of authorship in learners from the start and to manifest it after seeing that the method forcing learners to study well only in accordance to the customs of academic community has limitations. We suggested two steps of a detailed learning method to accomplish this goal. First, Bakhtin’s externalization concept in activity for topic establishment was applied for learners to recognize authorship and to allow them to find the status of authorship by themselves. It is to target columns written by professional writers but on topics that are widely accessible, so that learners can find their own authorship as much as professional writers. This method allows learners to have the characteristics of a college student, a consumer, a member of the MZ generation, and a citizen and to find a favorable position to take in order for them to adopt a professional perspective. Next, this method makes learners apprehend the discourse according to presented topic and to draw the perspective of support or agreement. Afterwards, students can incorporate this opinion into their own perspective. Students will be able to examine what perspectives are revealed through issues related to mobility rights for persons with disabilities that were easily accessible to learners, and to experience the process of finding detailed perspectives, The process to experience and to find an attitude of their own is more beneficial for learners to build authorship than the perspective or insistence itself.

Is There Gender Disparity in Orthopedic Surgery Resident Research Productivity?

Background: Compared with male senior authors, female senior authors publish less often in orthopedic journals than expected based on their population proportion. It is unknown whether this trend is also present among orthopedic trainees. Purpose: We sought to determine whether there is a gender discrepancy in the publication volume and authorship status among orthopedic residents. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional analysis to evaluate the research productivity of male and female orthopedic residents. The top 10 ranked US orthopedic surgery residencies by research output in 2021-2022 were obtained from Doximity. Residents' names were recorded from each institution's residency website. We classified each resident as male or female, searched on PubMed, and recorded the number of publications relevant to orthopedic surgery. Resident contribution to each publication was recorded as either a first/last author or a middle author. To assess contributions by postgraduate year, we compared male and female junior residents (PGY1-3) and senior residents (PGY4-5) using the number of total publications, middle author publications, first/last author publications, and the difference between the number of middle and first/last author publications. Results: Among the 335 male and 117 female residents included, male residents had more total publications than female residents. Among PGY4-5, male residents had more total publications and middle author publications. There was no difference in the number of first/last author publications between male and female PGY4-5 residents. Conclusions: Our cross-sectional analysis found that in the 2021-2022 academic year, male orthopedic surgery residents published more often than female residents, although among PGY4-5 residents, we found no gender differences in number of first/last author publications. The difference in total publications among PGY4-5 residents is likely due to differences in middle author publications. Future research should consider residents' self-identified gender, including non-binary and gender-fluid identity.

Decoding Authorship: Is There Really no Place for an Algorithmic Author Under Copyright Law?

The third technological revolution is dragging the world, incrementally but surely, into an era where Artificial Intelligent (AI) is taking over cultural production from human beings. Nevertheless, authorship remains largely defined in humanistic terms across Western cultures as a projection of the image of the “romantic author” emanating from the 18th century. Although it is not spelt out in the law, judges do seem to demonstrate remarked reluctance to grant authorship status to AI. The developments in three important areas may enable a reconstruction of the human-centric authorship ideology: a structural pro-corporate prejudice, a low threshold for originality, and the judicial avoidance of aesthetic assessment. Distilled to its essence, AI can be as equally creative as human beings as they follow the same laws of cultural production. In dealing with the resulting ownership issue of AI authorship, an altered “work made for hire” doctrine is proposed as a promising solution design template.

An Ethical Exploration of IncreasedAverage Number of Authors Per Publication.

This article explores the impact of an Increase in the average Number of Authors per Publication (INAP) on known ethical issues of authorship. For this purpose, the ten most common ethical issues associated with scholarly authorship are used to set up a taxonomy of existing issues and raise awareness among the community to take precautionary measures and adopt best practices to minimize the negative impact of INAP. We confirm that intense international, interdisciplinary and complex collaborations are necessary, and INAP is an expression of this trend. However, perverse incentives aimed to increase institutional and personal publication counts and egregious instances of guest or honorary authorship are problematic. We argue that whether INAP is due to increased complexity and scale of science, perverse incentives or undeserved authorship, it could negatively affect known ethical issues of authorship at some level. In the long run, INAP depreciates the value of authorship status and may disproportionately impact junior researchers and those who contribute to technical and routine tasks. We provide two suggestions that could reduce the long-term impact of INAP on the reward system of science. First, we suggest further refinement of the CRediT taxonomy including better integration into current systems of attribution and acknowledgement, and better harmony with major authorship guidelines such as those suggested by the ICMJE. Second, we propose adjustments to the academic recognition and promotion systems at an institutional level as well as the introduction of best practices.

JOYCE's CONSTRUCTION OF INTERNAL SPEECH IN V. PELEVIN's NOVEL “THE LIFE OF INSECTS”

The article is devoted to the comparative analysis of the poetics of the novels by J. Joyce “Ulysses” and V. Pelevin “The Life of Insects”. Afore in J. Joyce's speech, speech ceases to correlate subject-object relations, turning into an independent substance, and in V. Pelevin's speech dematerialization occurs simultaneously with this process. It is important for V. Pelevin, that Joyce's techniques change the author's status, calling into question his existence as such. The article highlights general strategies for mastering someone else's word, general principles of reflection on speech models of the world, which ultimately turns into a principle of structural reassembly of universes of authors, combining both forward movement and a constant return to the origins, the desire to automate the text and the termination of any kind of dependence on reality (including thoughts and texts that are born in this universe), cyclism and movement in a circle.

Who Authored On Liberty? Stylometric Evidence on Harriet Taylor Mill's Contribution

AbstractIt is well known that John Stuart Mill (JSM) repeatedly acknowledges Harriet Taylor Mill's (HTM) substantial contribution to On Liberty. After her death, however, he decides to publish the book under his name only. Are we justified in continuing this practice, initiated by JSM, of refusing unequivocal co-authorship status to HTM? Drawing on stylometric analyses, we make a preliminary case that JSM did not write On Liberty all by himself and that HTM had a hand in formulating it. Drawing on plausible standards for authorship ascription, we further point out that authorship status requires, in addition to a substantial contribution, the approval by all contributors. We discuss potential reasons to assume that HTM did not approve the published version of On Liberty and would have objected to including her name on the title page.

15th-Century Practical Medicine in Print

Abstract By drawing on a comprehensive bibliographic census (ISTC) this article offers a mapping of printed medical-scientific production in 15th-century Europe, with an eye to the manuscript tradition, the authorship status, and the use of Latin and vernaculars in a century of transition that was not merely linguistic. It identifies in some titles from the practical medicine category—namely books on materia medica, regimina sanitatis booklets and short medical poems—the crucial contribution of proto-typography to the wider dissemination of medical knowledge. In regard to some long-lived titles (Regimina Sanitatis Salernitana; Il perché by Girolamo Manfredi; Cibaldone), this paper explores the evolution of their material forms in the early modern centuries in the direction of a more enjoyable style that was far from being only professional, while new methodological research paths are suggested. The sheer variety of actual readers is focused in the case of printed herbals and of the Cibaldone. The popularity of such genres is ultimately couched within the lively context of household medicine in the early modern era.

Multiple co-first authors, co-corresponding authors and co-supervisors: a synthesis of shared authorship credit

PurposeAuthorship is the ultimate status of intellectual recognition in academic publishing. Although fairly robust guidelines have already been in place for a considerable amount of time regarding authorship criteria and credit, such as those by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors or Contributor Roles Taxonomy, the lack of reliable verification techniques hamper their accuracy, thereby reducing the validity of authorship claims in such statements. This paper aims to focus on the authorship status and responsibilities of co-first authors and co-corresponding authors.Design/methodology/approachTo appreciate authorship responsibilities in this subset of authors, the broader academic authorship literature, as well as position statements, rules and guidelines, were consulted.FindingsAcademic publishing that relies on metrics is a global multi-billion-dollar business, so strict measures to assess and confirm authorship, which can be intellectually or financially “profitable” among academics that game such metrics, are needed. The current assessment is that there are inconsistent rules for equally credited authors such as co-first authors, co-corresponding authors and co-supervisors. In shared and collaborative authorship, there are also shared authorship-related responsibilities, but these are infrequently discussed, or tend to only be dealt with broadly.Originality/valueWithin the wider, and important, discussion about authorship, which is one of the most central issues in academic publishing, there has been a limited focus on equally credited authors such as co-first authors, co-corresponding authors and co-supervisors. This paper expands and fortifies that discussion.

Alternative dissertation formats in education-based doctorates

ABSTRACT The doctorate and doctoral writing remain popular areas of inquiry and discussion, and yet very little research has empirically investigated the trends in dissertation types and how these trends might indicate broader changes in dissertation writing practices. This article builds on our recent work that investigated the macrostructures and research designs of 1,373 education-based PhD dissertations from five major Canadian research universities. In this current article, we more deeply explore the emergence in popularity of two ‘alternative’ or non-traditional dissertation macrostructures in education fields: the manuscript-style dissertation and the topic-based PhD dissertation. We highlight the popularity of these two dissertation types as evidence of shifting notions of what doctoral research and dissertations can (and do) look like in contemporary PhD programs. We focus specifically on these two dissertation macrostructures that were prevalent in our analysis, yet which are scarcely addressed in education-based dissertation resources. We provide a deeper reflection on the popularity of these dissertation models from our large-scale study, the ways these types of dissertations are organized at the global (macrostructural) level, and the chosen research designs, number of chapters, word counts, and authorship status (as either single-authored, partially co-authored, or mostly co-authored texts).

Reporting of Research by Matched Otolaryngology Residency Applicants.

Matching to an otolaryngology residency program is a competitive process for medical students, and research performed by students is considered as a factor for granting interviews by program directors. Because abstracts, presentations and publications are all reported in combination by the National Resident Matching Program's "Charting Outcomes in the Match" (ChOM) and may be weighted differently by PDs, we specifically investigated the number of publications by past applicants accepted to top otolaryngology residency programs. The top 25 otolaryngology residency programs were identified using Doximity, sorting by reputation. Current residents were determined from the programs' websites. Using PubMed, each resident's number of publications, authorship status, and journal type were recorded. A total of 24 programs were included in the final analysis and the average number of manuscripts was 2.76 ± 4.01. The mean number of publications in otolaryngology journals was 1.03 ± 1.91. The difference between the investigated average number of publications (2.76) and those published by ChOM (10.4) represent a discrepancy due to the lack of delineation between abstracts, presentations and publications. The reported numbers for research may lead medical students to pursue alternate measures to increase their own research. Some options, such as adding a research year are not universally accessible. A clearer and more detailed approach to reporting research statistics would be beneficial to both applicants and PDs for otolaryngology programs.

Low Misrepresentation Rates of Scholarly Work in Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery Residency Applications.

ObjectivesTo evaluate research trends, including rates of misrepresentation of scholarly work, in otolaryngology residency applications received by a single institution during the 2018-2019 residency application cycle.MethodsAfter obtaining Institutional Review Board approval, all residency applications to the Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery at Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN for the 2018-2019 cycle were de-identified and analyzed. Demographic and research information including the number of listed peer-reviewed articles/abstracts, types of research projects, and misrepresentations were retrospectively evaluated.ResultsOur institution received 321 applications, which represented 69.5% of the entire 2018-2019 otolaryngology applicant pool. The average United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 1 score was 246 ±12.4. There were 203 (62.2%) applicants who reported 591 published citations with 20 (6.2%) applicants misrepresenting 26 items (4.4%). Applicants who misrepresented research output had lower average Step 1 scores (237.4 vs 246.4, p: <0.05). Self-promotion to higher authorship status was the most common form of misrepresentation (61.5%).ConclusionsThe role of scholarly work in stratifying applicants continues to expand. Although a competitive application climate motivates a minority of applicants to misrepresent scholarly work, rates of misrepresentation in otolaryngology applications are low and continue to decline. The level of evidence assigned to this study is III.

Principles and Ethics of Authorship.

Purpose Rules and ethics of authorship for scientific papers are reviewed. Those authorship criteria specific to American Speech-Language-Hearing Association journals are reviewed as well as those required by journals in related fields. Conclusions The importance of first author status for students publishing their doctoral dissertation research is stressed as well as the need to discuss and resolve authorship status for all investigators early in the research process. The authorship criteria for the journal of choice are mandatory, and this necessitates educating all authors regarding the existing requirements.

Update on Misrepresentation of Research Publications Among Orthopaedic Surgery Residency Applicants.

Our 2 previous studies (1999, 2007) examining misrepresentation of research publications among orthopaedic residency applicants revealed rates of misrepresentation of 18.0% and 20.6%, respectively. As the residency selection process has become more competitive, the number of applicants who list publications has increased. The purpose of this study was to determine current rates of research misrepresentation by orthopaedic surgery applicants. We reviewed the publication listings and research section of the Common Application Form from the Electronic Residency Application Service (ERAS) for all applicants applying to 1 orthopaedic residency program. The PubMed-MEDLINE database was principally used to search for citations. The PubMed Identifier (PMID) number was used; if no PMID number was listed, a combination of authors or the title of the work was used. If the citations were not found through PubMed, a previously developed algorithm was followed to determine misrepresentation. Misrepresentation was defined as (1) nonauthorship of a published article in which authorship was claimed, (2) claimed authorship of a nonexistent article, or (3) self-promotion to a higher authorship status within a published article. Five hundred and seventy-three applicants applied to our institution for residency in 2016 to 2017: 250 (43.6%) of 573 applicants did not list a publication, whereas 323 (56.4%) of 573 applicants listed ≥1 publication. We found 13 cases of misrepresentation among a total of 1,100 citations (1.18% in 2017 versus 18.0% in 1999 and 20.6% in 2007, p < 0.001). Ten cases of misrepresentation were self-promotion to a higher authorship status. There were 2 cases of claimed authorship of an article that could not be found. Only 1 applicant misrepresented more than once. Based on our findings, orthopaedic surgery residency applicants are accurately representing their publication information. The incorporation of the PMID number on the ERAS application has streamlined the process for finding publications, and has possibly encouraged veracity on residency applications. Faculty involved in the resident selection process should be aware of the significant decline in the rate of misrepresentation by medical students applying for orthopaedic surgery residency versus the rate in our prior studies.

Author contributions to ecological publications: What does it mean to be an author in modern ecological research?

Authorship is a central element of scientific research carrying a variety of rewards and responsibilities, and while various guidelines exist, actual author contributions are often ambiguous. Inconsistent or limited contributions threaten to devalue authorship as intellectual currency and diminish authors’ responsibility for published content. Researchers have assessed author contributions in the medical literature and other research fields, but similar data for the field of ecological research are lacking. Authorship practices in ecological research are broadly representative of a variety of fields due to the cross-disciplinary nature of collaborations in ecological studies. To better understand author contributions to current research, we distributed a survey regarding co-author contributions to a random selection of 996 lead authors of manuscripts published in ecological journals in 2010. We obtained useable responses from 45% of surveyed authors. Reported lead author contributions in ecological research studies consistently included conception of the project idea, data collection, analysis, and writing. Middle and last author contributions instead showed a high level of individual variability. Lead authorship in ecology is well defined while secondary authorship is more ambiguous. Nearly half (48%) of all studies included in our survey had some level of non-compliance with Ecological Society of America (ESA) authorship guidelines and the majority of studies (78%) contained at least one co-author that did not meet International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) requirements. Incidence of non-compliance varied with lead author occupation and author position. The probability of a study including an author that was non-compliant with ESA guidelines was lowest for professor-led studies and highest for graduate student and post doctoral researcher-led studies. Among studies with > two co-authors, all lead authors met ESA guidelines and only 2% failed to meet ICMJE requirements. Middle (24% ESA, 63% ICMJE) and last (37% ESA, 60% ICMJE) authors had higher rates of non-compliance. The probability of a study containing a co-author that did not meet ESA or ICMJE requirements increased significantly with the number of co-authors per study although even studies with only two co-authors had a high probability of non-compliance of approximately 60% (ICMJE) and 15 to 40% (ESA). Given the variable and often limited contributions of authors in our survey and past studies of other research disciplines, institutions, journals, and scientific societies need to implement new approaches to instill meaning in authorship status. A byline approach may not alter author contributions but would better define individual contributions and reduce existing ambiguity regarding the meaning of authorship in modern ecological research.