The effect of the publication of a major clinical trial in a high impact journal on clinical practise: the ORACLE Trial experience

2002 ◽  
Vol 109 (12) ◽  
pp. 1341-1343 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sara Kenyon ◽  
David J. Taylor
BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. e046002
Author(s):  
Kamber L Hart ◽  
Roy H Perlis

ObjectiveAuthorship and number of publications are important criteria used for making decisions about promotions and research funding awards. Given the increase in the number of author positions over the last few decades, this study sought to determine if there had been a shift in the distribution of authorship among those publishing in high-impact academic medical journals over the last 12 years.DesignThis study analysed the distribution of authorship across 312 222 original articles published in 134 medium-impact to high-impact academic medical journals between 1 January 2008 and 31 December 2019. Additionally, this study compared the trends in author distributions across nine medical specialties and a collection of cross-specialty high-impact journal articles.Primary outcome measuresThe distribution of authorship was assessed using the Gini coefficient (GC), a widely used measure of economic inequality.ResultsThe overall GC for all articles sampled across the 12-year study period was 0.49, and the GCs for the first and last authorship positions were 0.30 and 0.44, respectively. Since 2008, there was a significant positive correlation between year and GC for the overall authorship position (r=0.99, p<0.001) the first author position (r=0.75, p=0.007) and the last author position (r=0.85, p<0.001) indicating increasingly uneven distribution in authorship over time. The cross-specialty high-impact journals exhibited the greatest rate of increase in GC over the study period for the first and last author position of any specialty analysed.ConclusionOverall, these data suggest a growing inequality in authorship across authors publishing in high-impact academic medical journals, especially among the highest impact journals. These findings may have implications for processes such as promotions and allocation of research funding that use authorship metrics as key criteria for making decisions.


2018 ◽  
Vol 35 (1) ◽  
pp. 25-30
Author(s):  
Bakthavachalam Elango ◽  
James Hartley

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to examine the bibliometric characteristics of papers published in a high impact journal World Psychiatry during the period 2006-2015. Design/methodology/approach The data for this study were obtained from Thompson Reuters’ “Web of Science”. Publication details were extracted for the journal title “World Psychiatry”. This study covers authorship patterns, annual growth, impact factors, document types, top contributors, international collaborations, highly cited papers and keyword analyses. Software programs such as “Histcite”, “intcoll.exe”, “Pajek” and “Leximancer” were used to analyze the publications. Findings More than half of the publications were by editorial materials and number of publications from low and middle income countries is very low when compared to proportion of editorial board members. Almost 40 per cent of papers came from the USA and editorial board members had considerable number of papers. Kings College London led the institutions. Originality/value Analysis of high impact journals in the field of psychiatry has been carried out in a very few. Hence, the results of this study will be useful to compare with other journals.


Drug Safety ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 41 (12) ◽  
pp. 1431-1437 ◽  
Author(s):  
John F. Marcinak ◽  
Melvin S. Munsaka ◽  
Paul B. Watkins ◽  
Takashi Ohira ◽  
Neila Smith

Synapse ◽  
2003 ◽  
Vol 50 (3) ◽  
pp. 261-265 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonathan D. Brodie ◽  
Emilia Figueroa ◽  
Stephen L. Dewey

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document