PubMed · 11682848
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
D Szynal. 2001. Letting computers do the checking.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11682848/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
CONTEXT: It is not known whether articles with group authorship (ie, with a research group name listed as the author) are difficult to identify or whether use of group authorship may lead to problems with citation. METHODS: To examine ways in which reports of controlled trials with group authorship are indexed and citations counted in bibliographic databases, we conducted a cross-sectional study in January 2000. We identified 47 controlled trials funded by the National Eye Institute and 285 associated articles. Between January and August 2000, we searched PubMed and Science Citation Index (SCI) and recorded the citation practices for these articles. Our main outcome measures were ways in which trial reports were listed in PubMed and SCI and number of citations to each report by type of authorship. RESULTS: Of the 285 published reports identified, 126 (44%) had group authorship, 109 (38%) had modified group authorship (listing individual names plus the name of the research group), and 50 (18%) had named authors only. In PubMed, no group authors were listed in the author field (per MEDLINE rules); in SCI, group-authored reports generally were incorrectly attributed (first name on investigator list [35.3%], first name on writing committee [25.5%], contact name [16.7%], anonymous [16.7%], and other [5.9%]). Using the SCI general search, we identified citations to 16.7% of group-authored reports, compared with citations to 96.9% of reports with modified group authorship and 93.9% of citations to reports with named authors only. Other systematic search methods found that more than 98% of group-authored reports actually had been cited and that group-authored reports were cited more than other reports. CONCLUSIONS: Indexing systems are not optimally adapted to group authorship. We recommend that indexing services change their practices to include group authors in the author field to help correct the problem.
CONTEXT: Little is known about qualitative and quantitative characteristics of indexed health sciences electronic journals (e-journals). METHODS: To determine peer-review practices and qualitative and quantitative characteristics of different types of indexed health sciences e-journals, 3 types of e-journals indexed in MEDLINE were compared (type 1, completely electronic with no print counterpart; type 2, print and electronic versions with the same title but each publishing some unique content; and type 3, print and electronic versions containing equal content). RESULTS: There were 13 type 1 journals, 16 type 2 journals, and 16 type 3 journals. Most journals in each category (85%-94%) imply or state the use of peer review. Significant differences (P<.05, analysis of variance) exist among the e-journals for the inclusion of complex types of publications (clinical trials, randomized controlled trials, meta-analyses, and practice guidelines) (15%-100%), editorials (0%-75%), letters to the editor (10%-88%), and case reports (17%-94%); the average number of items indexed in MEDLINE (22.5-544.5); and the number of complex publication types, editorials, letters, and case reports. CONCLUSIONS: Type 1 e-journals do not have the qualitative or quantitative complexity of traditional print journals. Although editors' statements on editorial peer review are similar, there are differences in number and type of materials included in the 3 different types of e-journals.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.