Over the past six decades, authorship numbers in academic publications have increased significantly, a phenomenon known as authorship inflation. This study aims to analyze comparative authorship trends and the influence of multicenter collaborations across major orthopedic, medical, and surgical journals. We reviewed metadata from The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), Annals of Surgery (AS), and The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (JBJS) from January 1, 1960, to December 31, 2019. The number of authors per publication, the prevalence of multicenter studies, and their correlation were analyzed. Data was visualized using heat maps and box plots, and trends were statistically tested using the Jonckheere-Terpstra, Mann-Kendall, and generalized linear mixed models (GLMMs). A total of 73,062 articles were analyzed, with 1,190 articles identified as originating from multicenter studies. The number of multicenter trials was found to have increased significantly over time (p < 0.001), plateauing in NEJM but continuing to rise in JBJS and AS. There was a significant increase in authorship numbers per publication over time, across all journals (p < 0.0001). There was a significant statistical correlation (p < 0.0001) as indicated by the coefficient of determination (r2), for the association between the proportion of publications with >10 authors and the proportion of multicenter publications across all three journals. Authorship inflation in academic publishing may be attributable to the rise in multicenter collaborations. The rate of increase in authorship was more pronounced in medical and surgical journals compared to orthopedic journals, reflecting differing trends across specialties. These findings highlight the evolving nature of research collaboration and authorship practices in academic publishing.

Physical inactivity can lead to frailty and negative health outcomes in middle-aged to older adults. Sedentary individuals have double the risk of death compared to those who engage in high levels of physical activity (PA). The advantages of practicing PA in older age are significant, with regular, moderate-intensity activity (150 min per week)being consistently linked with a decreased risk of chronic disease, cognitive decline, and mortality. Therefore, the study aimed to carry out a bibliometric review related to the terms \"Physical activity,\" \"Functional capacity\" and \"Aging\" including all the documents published in the Web of Science Core Collection until 31st December 2023. The sample was made up of 231 studies related to the topic. The results reported that the first document was published in 1994. However, there was no continuity in the publication of the documents till 1998, which was the first year with at least one document published. Considering 1998 as the first year, it is observed an exponential growth of 77.4%, between the oldest (1997-2008) and contemporaneous studies (2008-2023), in which \"Geriatric Gerontology\" was the Web of Science category with the highest number of documents (n = 59). The journal \"Experimental Gerontology\" was associated with the largest number of published documents (n = 7), being indexed in Quartil 2. The years 2009 had the highest number of citations (n = 1811), with a total of 7 documents published and 2018 with the higher number of documents (n = 25). These results reported the importance of PA in elderly people, and how it influences the risk of falls, improving the balance and the functional capacity. Thus, it is important to carry out programmes to promote physical activity to this population and reduce the risk of falls and the presence of diseases.

Background The publication of scholarly work in peer-reviewed journals is a well-established method for disseminating knowledge and findings to a global audience. However, the publishing process is constantly evolving and encountering various obstacles that hinder progress. Despite a significant increase in the number of research projects undertaken, there are few studies evaluating the challenges faced by investigators in publishing their research. This study aims to identify the factors and elements that influence the publication process after the completion of research. Methods This study included 759 projects approved by the Institutional Ethics Committee (IEC) from 2016 to 2021 at a tertiary care centre in South India. A list of these approved projects was analysed for overall output in terms of publication and completion. Investigators were contacted and interviewed using a validated, 15-question survey to identify various factors influencing scientific publications. Results A total of 759 projects approved by the IEC from 2016 to 2021 were analyzed. It was found that only 36.72% of studies were completed by faculty members, and the publication conversion rate was 34.24%. A single-point analysis showed a statistically significant lower conversion rate for resident articles (p = 0.032). The 15-point analysis detailed the factors influencing publication conversion, revealing that the majority of researchers publish based on academic and research interests (68.89% and 72.12%, respectively). Various deterrents to publication, such as study design, statistical analysis, journal selection, and knowledge about journal submission, were identified. Notably, 98.4% of researchers expressed a desire to publish more in the future, highlighting the importance of this study. Conclusion The study highlights areas that require attention to facilitate and augment research. It identifies the real gaps in the publication process and suggests points of intervention needed to enhance the research environment, increase publication rates, and establish demand-based research support units in the medical education sector.

BACKGROUND: Digital health research plays a vital role in advancing equitable health care. The diversity of research teams is thereby instrumental in capturing societal challenges, increasing productivity, and reducing bias in algorithms. Despite its importance, the gender distribution within digital health authorship remains largely unexplored.
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to investigate the gender distribution among first and last authors in digital health research, thereby identifying predicting factors of female authorship.
METHODS: This bibliometric analysis examined the gender distribution across 59,980 publications from 1999 to 2023, spanning 42 digital health journals indexed in the Web of Science. To identify strategies ensuring equality in research, a detailed comparison of gender representation in JMIR journals was conducted within the field, as well as against a matched sample. Two-tailed Welch 2-sample t tests, Wilcoxon rank sum tests, and chi-square tests were used to assess differences. In addition, odds ratios were calculated to identify predictors of female authorship.
RESULTS: The analysis revealed that 37% of first authors and 30% of last authors in digital health were female. JMIR journals demonstrated a higher representation, with 49% of first authors and 38% of last authors being female, yielding odds ratios of 1.96 (95% CI 1.90-2.03; P<.001) and 1.78 (95% CI 1.71-1.84; P<.001), respectively. Since 2008, JMIR journals have consistently featured a greater proportion of female first authors than male counterparts. Other factors that predicted female authorship included having female authors in other relevant positions and gender discordance, given the higher rate of male last authors in the field.
CONCLUSIONS: There was an evident shift toward gender parity across publications in digital health, particularly from the publisher JMIR Publications. The specialized focus of its sister journals, equitable editorial policies, and transparency in the review process might contribute to these achievements. Further research is imperative to establish causality, enabling the replication of these successful strategies across other scientific fields to bridge the gender gap in digital health effectively.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the present study was to analyze the trends of neurosurgical research in low and lower middle-income countries (LLMICs).
METHODS: The data was retrieved from Scopus database and 82 neurosurgical journals were analyzed.
RESULTS: Initially the global research scholarly output (n = 195,658) was explored and later papers originating solely from LLMICs, without international collaboration with advance countries (n = 8408) were analyzed. The per decade number of publications (from 1920 to May 2024), top ten authors, universities, countries and sources of all (global) countries, and 98 LLMICs is provided. Eighty countries have published less than 50 papers. Even more striking, 68, 55, 38, and 36 LLMICs countries have produced less than 20, 10, 5, and 3 papers, respectively. The keywords analysis was performed to present the main focus of 8408 publications. The top 1000 most cited documents were also identified, and later relevant scientometrics details were provided. The top countries dynamic and most prolific authors (on the basis of number of publications, total citations, h-index, g-index, and m-index) in the top 1000 cited documents (from LLMICs) are highlighted.
CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest that neurosurgical research in LLMICs is low, which could be attributed to several factors including limited funding, inadequate infrastructure, and insufficient training opportunities.

暂无摘要。

Malaria has inflicted serious morbidity and mortality across the globe. The major brunt of the disease has been on African, South-East Asian and South American countries. Proportionally, malaria has attracted global research priorities and this is evident from the number of publications related to malaria from across the globe, irrespective of its endemicity. However, formal and exhaustive analyses of these \'malaria publications\' are rarely reported. The systematic review and secondary data analyses were done to retrieve information on what has been published on malaria, where is it published, and which countries are major contributors to malaria research.The study presents malaria publications from 1945 to 2020 retrieved using three databases: Web of Science™, Embase® and Scopus®. Exported data were examined to determine the number of publications over time, their subject areas, contributions from various countries/organizations, and top publishing journals.The total number of published records on malaria ranged from 90,282 to 112,698 (due to three different databases). Based on the number of publications, USA, UK, France, and India were identified as the top four countries. Malaria Journal, American Journal of Tropical Medicine & Hygiene, and PLoS One were the most preferred journals, whereas the University of London (Institutions other than LSHTM), the National Institute of Health, the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, and the University of Oxford appeared to be the top contributing organization.A disproportional contribution to malaria research was observed with non-malaria endemic countries making the largest contribution. Databases differed in their output format and needed standardization to make the outputs comparable across databases.

This study underscores the persistent underrepresentation of women in academic dermatology leadership positions by examining the gender composition of editorial boards across top dermatology journals, emphasizing the urgent need for proactive strategies to promote diversity, equity, and inclusion.

暂无摘要。

UNASSIGNED: Optimizing access to high-quality scientific journals has become an important priority for academic departments, including the ability to read the scientific literature and the ability to afford to publish papers in those journals. In this contribution, we assess the question of whether institutional investment in scientific journals aligns with the journals where researchers send their papers for publication, and where they serve as unpaid reviewers and editors.
UNASSIGNED: We assembled a unique suite of information about the publishing habits of our Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, including summaries of 3,540 journal publications by 35 faculty members. These data include economic costs of journals to institutions and to authors, benefits to authors in terms of journal prestige and citation rates, and considerations of ease of reading access for individuals both inside and outside the university. This dataset included data on institutional costs, including subscription pricing (rarely visible to scholars), and \"investment\" by scholars in supporting journals, such as time spent as editors and reviewers.
UNASSIGNED: Our results highlighted the complex set of relationships between these factors, and showed that institutional costs often do not match well with payoffs in terms of benefits to researchers (e.g., citation rate, prestige of journal, ease of access). Overall, we advocate for greater cost-benefit transparency to help compare different journals and different journal business models; such transparency would help both researchers and their institutions in investing wisely the limited resources available to academics.