Subspecialty Of Research Research Articles

Comprehensive Analysis of Retracted Publications in Dentistry: A 23-Year Review.

Background In the modern tech-savvy era, scientific literature publication remains the optimal way to disperse knowledge, even if it has transformed from print to mostly electronic. With the new and improved publication methods, also come more scrutiny and analytic criticism of the scientific work. It becomes even more important in this context to rectify flawed scientific work responsibly. This present study was undertaken to help clarify the process and causes of retractions occurring in the dental community and analyse its reasons. Methodology. A total of 8092 PubMed indexed articles were scanned from the online libraries, and individually scanning for author details, place of study, subspecialty of research, funding, dates of original publication, and retraction notices issued along with journal specifics such as type and impact factors, country of publishing was compiled and analysed by two authors. The dataset was then collaboratively analysed using Panda's Library in Python software as an analysis tool for data preparation and for frequency analysis. The estimates were presented as mean differences (MD) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). Results The present study had a compiled dataset of 198 articles after screening and revealed that maximum retractions of dentistry-related research originated from India (25.3%) and, on average, took 2.6 years to be issued a retraction notice. We also deciphered that the USA retracted maximum dental articles (34.8%), and plagiarism was cited as the most common (38.02%) reason for doing so. The present study also brought to light that there was a trend for lower impact factor-dental journals in retracting maximum articles, most of which were nonfunded (62.16%). The results signify that 63.78% of all retracted papers continued to be cited postretractions. Conclusions The retractions happening in the field of dental literature are currently too time-consuming and often unclear to the readers. The authors would like to conclude that the retracted papers were mostly from India and Spain mostly related to endodontics or prosthodontic research. All of this warrants the need for better scrutiny and reforms in the area.

How can the integrity of occupational and environmental health research be maintained in the presence of conflicting interests?

BackgroundThe sciences, and especially the research subspecialties of occupational and environmental health, are being misused. The misuse serves to interfere with the advancement of policies that depend on rational evidence needed for policies to protect public health.MethodsWe selectively surveyed the independent scientific literature. In addition, the efforts of respected international professional organizations of scientists whose focus is on maintaining and improving public health have been considered. This commentary is unique in assembling not only the factual basis for sounding alarms about significant bias in occupational and environmental health research, but also about the manipulative mechanisms used, and, in turn, the methods needed to keep science honest.ResultsScientific integrity is based on the principle that research is conducted as objectively as possible; it cannot be compromised by special interests whose primary goals are neither to seek truth nor to protect human health. Evidence demonstrates a significant risk of bias in research reports sponsored by financial interests. Practices of corporate malfeasance include the orchestrated contamination of editorial boards of peer-reviewed scientific journals with industry apologists; interference with activities of national regulatory bodies and international review panels engaged in safeguarding occupational and public health; constructing roadblocks by capitalizing on uncertainty to undermine scientific consensus for much-needed government regulation of carcinogenic, endocrine-disrupting and/or immunotoxic agents; promoting “causation” criteria that lack foundation and effectively block workers’ access to legal remedies for harms from occupational exposures resulting in morbidity and premature mortality; and, violating standards of professional conduct by seducing reputable scientists with financial incentives that make them beholden to corporate agendas.ConclusionsWell-orchestrated assaults on science continue unabated and must now be met head-on. Success could be achieved by promoting and protecting the integrity of research. Furthermore, avoiding influence by conflicted corporate affiliates in occupational and public health regulations is needed. Identifying, managing and, ideally, eliminating corporate influence on science and science policy are needed to protect research integrity. Protecting the public’s health, preventing disease, and promoting well-being must be the unambiguous goals of research in occupational and environmental health.

How to write a successful grant or fellowship application

Successful grant writing takes careful thought as well as considerable skill. Experienced investigators appreciate just how much work and background development are required. However, those new to the ‘game’ are...

A quantitative examination of the intellectual profile and evolution of information security from 1965 to 2015

Information security has become a central societal concern over the past two decades. Few studies have examined the information security research domain, and no literature has been found that has applied an objective, quantitative methodology. The central aim of the current research was to quantitatively describe the profile and evolution of the information security specialty. Bibliometric data extracted from 74,021 Scopus research records published from 1965 to 2015 were examined using impact and productivity measures as well as co-word and domain visualization techniques. This scientometric study presents a comprehensive view of the information security specialty from several perspectives (e.g., temporal, seminal papers, institutions, sources, authors). After a long and steady period of growth (1965---2004), an exponential publication output occurred between 2005 and 2010. Among all the countries involved in information security research, the United States and China had the greatest impact, and China has surpassed the United States in terms of productivity. Information security as a specialty is largely populated by publications from the technical fields of computer science and engineering. Several research themes were found throughout the decades (e.g., cryptography and information security management and administration), and emergent research subspecialties appeared in later decades (e.g., intrusion detection, medical data security, steganography, wireless security). This study reduces the complexity of the specialty to controllable terms, supplies objective data for science policy making, identifies the salient bibliographic units, and uncovers growth patterns. It also serves as an information retrieval tool to identify important papers, authors, and institutions.

All author cocitation analysis and first author cocitation analysis: A comparative empirical investigation

The majority of author cocitation analysis (ACA) have relied on the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) citation databases. ISI convention allows only the retrieval of papers that cite works of which the author is first or sole author. Non-primary authors (authors whose name appear in second or later position) will not be counted when assembling a cocitation frequency matrix. Therefore, this has been a methodological issue in ACA study. This paper empirically examines the impact of the ISI convention on the results of ACA. Previous research has addressed and shed light on some parts of methodological issues, but failed to address issues such as to what extent the use of different approach has resulted in different outcomes in terms of actual intellectual structure of a given academic discipline. Using our data and cociation matrix generation systems, we compare the differences in the process and outcomes of using different cocitation matrices. Our study concludes that all author based ACA is better than first author based ACA to capture all influential researchers in a field. It also identifies more research subspecialties. Finally, all Author based ACA and first author based ACA produce little differences in stress values of MDS outputs.

The contributions of systems science to the development of the decision support system subspecialties: an empirical investigation

This is a comprehensive study that, by means of an empirical assessment of the decision support systems (DSS) literature over the past 23 years (1971–1993), systematically identifies the DSS reference disciplines and traces how concepts and findings by systems researchers have been picked up by DSS researchers to be applied, extended and refined in the development of DSS research subspecialties. Cluster analysis was applied to an author cocitation frequency matrix derived from a comprehensive database of the DSS literature to uncover 12 clusters consisting of six major areas of DSS research (foundations, group DSS, model management, user interfaces, implementation and multicriteria DSS) and six contributing disciplines (multiple-criteria, decision-making, cognitive science organization science, artificial intelligence, group decision-making and systems science). This study concludes that systems scientists have made important contributions to the development of foundational concepts, implementation, user interface, model management and group decision support systems. Copyright © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

The contributions of multi-criteria decision making to the development of decision support systems subspecialties: an empirical investigation

This study focuses on examining the structure of decision support systems (DSS) research, with a particular emphasis on assessing the contributions of multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) to the development of each of the DSS subspecialty areas. This study traces how concepts and findings by researchers in the MCDM area have been picked up by DSS researchers to be applied, extended and refined in the development of DSS research subspecialties. In doing so, factor analysis is applied to an author cocitation frequency matrix derived from a large database file of comprehensive DSS literature. This study concludes that researchers in the MCDM area have made crucial contributions to the development of DSS research subspecialties. Copyright © 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Relationships between the decision support system subspecialities and reference disciplines: An empirical investigation

This is a comprehensive study, that, by means of an empirical assessment of the DSS literature, systematically identifies the DSS reference disciplines and traces how concepts and findings by researchers in the contributing disciplines have been picked up by DSS researchers to be applied, extended, and refined in the development of DSS research subspecialties. Cluster analysis was employed to an author cocitation frequency matrix derived from a comprehensive database of the DSS literature over the period of 1970 through 1993. Twelve clusters were uncovered consisting of six major areas of DSS research (group DSS, foundations, model management, user interfaces, implementation, and multiple criteria DSS) and six contributing disciplines (multiple criteria decision making, cognitive science, organization science, artificial intelligence, group decision making, and systems science).

The contributions of organizational science to the development of decision support systems research subspecialties

This study is conducted to infer the intellectual structure of the decision support systems (DSS) field by means of an empirical assessment of the DSS literature over the period 1971 through 1990. Three multivariate data analysis tools (factor analysis, multidimensional scaling, and cluster analysis) are applied to an author cocitation frequency matrix derived from a large database file of comprehensive DSS literature over the same period. We conclude that decision support systems are grounded in several contributing disciplines, such as organizational science, multiple criteria decision making, group decision making, and strategic planning. We further conclude that the DSS area is in the process of building its own articulated theories in the subareas of foundations, group decision support systems, model management, user interface/individual differences, and decision support systems implementation, and that organizational scientists have made important contributions to the development of DSS research subspecialties.

Decision support systems research: Reference disciplines and a cumulative tradition

This study applies factor analysis of an author cocitation frequency matrix derived from a database file consisting of a total of 15,030 cited reference records taken from 692 citing articles. Seven informal clusters of decision support systems (DSS) research subspecialties and reference disciplines were uncovered. Four of them represent DSS research subspecialties—foundations, group DSS, model/data management, and individual differences. Three other conceptual groupings define the reference disciplines of DSS—organizational science, multiple criteria decision making, and artificial intelligence. DSS is a very young academic field and is still growing. DSS has just entered the era of growth after 20 years of research. During the 1990s, DSS research will be further grounded in a diverse set of reference disciplines. Furthermore, DSS is in the active process of solidifying its domain and demarcating its reference disciplines. A DSS theory is imminent in the very near future in some area of DSS research such as model management.