SEARCH · PubMed Health
Results for “Authorship”
Explore indexed PubMed citations for clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health research. Read source abstracts and follow each citation to its original PubMed record.
Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.
A comparative study of authorship and subject matter of articles in Nursing Research.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
The authorship of Hammondia hammondi.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Publications and promotions for the clinical investigator.
If cooperative clinical trials are to compete with other types of clinical research for the attention of physician investigators, they must offer rewards in the form of publication credits and academic recognition. Large-scale multi-institutional clinical trials provide less opportunity for authorship than individual or small-group research. This problem cannot be solved by attempts to multiply publications unnecessarily or to blur the meaning of authorship. Only those who contribute significantly to the design and interpretation of an experiment should be designated as authors; journals should be prepared to recognize all those who meet that test. Increased opportunities for authorship can be provided if the National Institutes of Health (NIH) encourage small-scale clinical trials carried out by individual investigators. Academic recognition of the clinical investigator in increasing and would be greatly strengthened by an NIH policy of greater support for this kind of research.
What's the meta now? More updates on the problems with systematic reviews.
BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews are intended to provide trustworthy evidence synthesis, yet previous iterations of this living review have identified numerous recurring problems in their conduct and reporting. This article presents the third version and second update of the living systematic review examining issues raised across the academic literature. METHODS: Using consistent eligibility criteria and methods from earlier versions, literature searches were updated to May 2025. Eligible meta-research and editorial articles describing problems with systematic reviews were analyzed to identify emerging themes. Additionally, four basic indicators of methodological quality of the included meta-research were presented across review versions. RESULTS: The update included 209 additional articles. Critically low methodological quality and absence of protocols remained among the most frequently reported issues in systematic reviews across disciplines and journals but notably in evidence underpinning clinical practice guidelines. Spin in abstracts and conflicts of interest continued to be common. Apparent improvements in reporting quality were inconsistent, with modest gains in some full-text reporting but persistent deficiencies in abstracts. Authorship diversity of systematic reviews improved in gender representation but remained geographically concentrated in high-income countries, and primary research included in reviews similarly lacked global representativeness. The issue of misalignment between systematic review evidence bases and global burden of disease bring the total number of problems with systematic reviews to 69. Emerging use of automation and artificial intelligence was variably reported. Descriptive comparison of meta-research articles over the three versions of this living review suggests a greater proportion meeting basic quality indicators in more recent updates. CONCLUSION: Across successive updates, problems with systematic reviews remain widespread and consistent rather than isolated. Incremental reporting improvements coexist with persistent concerns about transparency, bias, and representativeness. Future efforts should prioritize evaluating interventions and aligning research incentives to support genuinely trustworthy evidence synthesis.
Genetics for all: Tri-directional research engagement as an equitable framework for international partnerships.
Over the past 5 years, human genetics and genomics research has placed a greater emphasis on increasing diversity among research participants and study researchers as a means of expanding the reach of human genetics and the knowledge accrued by it. Within this context, international collaborations between investigators in well-resourced research-funded countries (RFCs) and those in research-underfunded countries (RUCs) have flourished, with the goal of recruiting more geographically diverse participant pools. Past harms to communities engaged in genetics research have underscored the importance of bi-directional relational engagements, in which researchers and communities work together to ensure ethical research practices and participant involvement. Successful collaborations in the global genomics space, however, are often dependent upon RUC stakeholder investigators and physicians, whose needs are frequently either excluded from existing models of bi-directional community engagement or conflated with that of the study community. Here, we advocate for building more equitable international partnerships through the empowerment of RUC stakeholder investigators-a tri-directional engagement model-that includes supporting, building, and validating the efforts of RUC investigators through training, access, and authorship. We highlight existing initiatives that serve as exemplars in this effort and offer a framework for the broader genetics community to support equitable models of international research partnerships while being mindful of practical challenges. The core concepts embodied augment ongoing efforts to diversify the field of human genetics and complement the long-term goal of genetics for all.
The value of international collaborations for supporting neuroanesthesia practice, education, and research in resource-constrained settings.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Neuroanesthesia practice in low- and middle-income countries is constrained by workforce shortages, limited infrastructure, and variability in clinical practice. Growing global interest in collaboration makes it timely to evaluate how international partnerships can address these gaps and improve equity in care, education, and research. RECENT FINDINGS: Recent literature highlights substantial variability in neuroanesthesia practice and limited access to context-appropriate guidelines and advanced technologies. International collaborations, including training partnerships, scholarship programs, and research networks, have improved knowledge exchange, workforce development, and the adoption of standardized practices. Evidence suggests that specialized training is associated with improved clinical outcomes. However, persistent inequities in research participation, authorship, and leadership, as well as concerns regarding sustainability and 'parachute research', remain. SUMMARY: International collaboration is a key strategy for advancing neuroanesthesia in resource-constrained settings. Sustainable, equitable partnerships that prioritize local ownership, capacity building, and contextual adaptation are essential to improving clinical practice, strengthening education, and enhancing global research representation.
Retraction of the landmark glyphosate safety publication by Williams, Kroes and Munro (2000) should be reversed.
The decision by the co-Editor-in-Chief of Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, Prof. Martin van den Berg, to retract the 2000 review article by Williams, Kroes, and Munro has elicited widespread criticism within the scientific community. Issued in late 2025, the retraction decision cites procedural concerns including potential ghostwriting, undisclosed conflicts of interest, and omission of certain unpublished studies, invoking Committee on Publication Ethics guidelines despite lacking evidence of fraud or scientific flaws. This editorial argues that the retraction decision involves editorial overreach and misapplication of the guidelines. The alleged omissions stemmed from proprietary data access limitations that were disclosed in the original paper. Subsequent reviews by several independent expert panels and regulatory authorities with access to all glyphosate data, including the studies cited by the retracting editor, reached similar conclusions. Claims of ghostwriting were previously investigated and found lacking, including a declaration by EFSA as to the clarity of the conflict disclosures. The retraction's timing, reliance on litigation documents, and apparent biases that were not disclosed in the retraction notice raise questions of ideological interference. Absent substantive rebuttals based on scientific merit rather than speculative claims of inappropriate authorship and data access, this retraction decision sets a dangerous precedent for retroactive censorship, potentially chilling beneficial industry-academic collaborations and eroding trust in the integrity of scientific publishing. With the strongest conviction, we assert that retracting a paper without scientific flaws isn't protection-it is censorship. We therefore call for the immediate reversal of this flawed and unjustified retraction to preserve trust in peer-reviewed literature.
The beginnings of Gestalt psychology in the United States.
Robert M. Ogden's unrecognized contributions to the beginnings of Gestalt psychology in the United States are briefly discussed. It is proposed that he not only introduced Gestalt psychology to this country through his books, but was also instrumental in bringing Gestalt psychologists to America.
Who will be effective as a clinical trials investigator and what are adequate incentives? Appendix 1: A proposed mechanism and set of criteria for the evaluation of the scientific contribution of individual investigators in collaborative studies, including large clinical trials.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
TAPVC vital statistics: ethics and moral values.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Should the lax set the pace?
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
SOMA--Society of Medical Authors. A possible role.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
SOMA--Society of Medical Authors. Author's tales.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Variations in contracts among publishers.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
SOMA--Society of Medical Authors. Summing-up.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.