Authorship proliferation in the orthopaedic literature

The level of evidence in prosthodontics in relation to author's characteristics: An analysis of three leading prosthodontics journals

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to examine the level of evidence (LOE) characteristics and associated factors that change over time in three leading prosthodontics journals.

Materials and methods

Articles published in The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry (JPD), International Journal of Prosthodontics (IJP), and Journal of Prosthodontics (JP) in 2013 and 2020 were reviewed by eight independent reviewers. After applying exclusion and inclusion criteria, the number of authors, the corresponding author's educational degree, corresponding author's origin in each clinical research article were recorded. The included articles were rated by reviewers according to the level of evidence criteria and proposed level of evidence-associated factors. Descriptive statistics, univariable, and binary logistic regression analysis were performed to investigate dependent variables and potentially associated factors. All independent variables with a significant effect were analyzed by using a multivariable test. The entry and exit alpha level were set at αE = 0.15. The statistical significance was set at α = 0.05.

Results

A total of 439 articles from 3 selected journals for the years studied met the inclusion criteria. The percentages of level 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 articles were 2.7 %, 11.4 %, 9.6 %, 13.4 % and 62.9 %, respectively. Univariable analysis results demonstrated significant associations related to the number of authors (P = 0.005), the corresponding author's educational degree (P = 0.022), and the corresponding author's geographic origin (P = 0.042). Multivariable analysis results demonstrated significant associations related to the number of authors (P = 0.002), and the corresponding author's geographic origin (P = 0.014).

Conclusions

The number of authors, CA degree, and CA origin had a significant association with the LOE of included prosthodontic studies. Although there was an increase in the number of publications from 2013 to 2020, the level of evidence trend shows no improvement over the years.

Mega-authorship implications: How many scientists can fit into one cell?

The past 20 years has seen a significant increase in articles with 500 or more authors. This increase has presented problems in terms of determining true authorship versus other types of contribution, issues with database metadata and data output, and publication length. Using items with 500+ authors deemed as mega-author titles, a total of 5,533 mega-author items were identified using InCites. Metadata about the items was then gathered from Web of Science and Scopus. Close examination of these items found that the vast majority of these covered physics topics, with medicine a far distant second place and only minor representation from other science fields. This mega-authorship saw significant events that appear to correspond to similar events in the Large Hadron Collider's timeline, indicating that the projects for the collider are driving this heavy output. Some solutions are offered for the problems resulting from this phenomenon, partially driven by recommendations from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors.

Correlation between research productivity during and after orthopaedic surgery training

Background

Research experience is mandatory for all Orthopaedic Surgery residency programs. Although the allocation of required protected time and resources varies from program to program, the underlying importance of research remains consistent with mutual benefit to both residents and the program and faculty. Authorship and publications have become the standard metric used to evaluate academic success. This study aimed to determine if there is a correlation between the research productivity of Orthopaedic Surgery trainees and their subsequent research productivity as attending Orthopaedic Surgeons.

Methods

Using the University of Mississippi Orthopaedic Residency Program Research Productivity Rank List, 30 different Orthopaedic Surgery Residency Programs were analyzed for the names of every graduating surgeon in their 2013 class. PubMed Central was used to screen all 156 physicians and collect all publications produced by them between 2008 and August 2022. Results were separated into two categories: Publications during training and Publications post-training.

Results

As defined above, 156 Surgeons were analyzed for publications during training and post-training. The mean number of publications was 7.02 ± 17.819 post-training vs. 2.47 ± 4.313 during training, P < 0.001. The range of publication post-training was 0-124 vs. 0-30 during training. Pearson correlation between the two groups resulted in a value of 0.654, P < 0.001.

Conclusion

Higher research productivity while training correlates to higher productivity post-training, but overall Orthopaedic surgeons produce more research after training than during. With the growing importance of research, more mentorship, time, and resources must be dedicated to research to instill and foster greater participation while in training.

An analysis of publications originating from abstracts presented at the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES) Meeting

BACKGROUND

Research presentation has benefits, including CV building, networking, and collaboration. A measurable standard for achievement is publication in a peer-reviewed journal. Expectations regarding the likelihood of publication are unknown for studies presented at a national surgical scientific meeting. This study aims to evaluate predictors of manuscript publication arising from abstracts presented at a national surgical scientific meeting.

METHODS

Abstracts presented at the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES) Meeting 2019 were reviewed. Identification of published manuscripts was completed using MedLine, Embase, and Google Scholar 28 months after the presentation to allow for time for publication. Factors evaluated for association with publication included author and abstract measures. Descriptive analyses and multivariable statistics were performed.

RESULTS

724 abstracts (160 podiums, 564 posters) were included. Of the podium presentations, 128 (80%) were published in a median of 4 months after the presentation. On univariable and multivariable analyses, there was no association between publication and abstract topic, gender, degree, number of publications, or H-indices of first and senior authors. 154 (27.3%) poster presentations were published with a median of 13 months. On univariable analysis, there was a statistically significant difference regarding the abstract topic (p = 0.015) and senior author degree (p = 0.01) between published and unpublished posters. Multivariable analysis demonstrated that colorectal surgery (OR 2.52; CI 1.02-6.23) and metabolic/obesity (OR 2.53; CI 1.09-5.84) are associated with an increased odd of publication. There was an inverse association with female senior authors (OR 0.53; CI 0.29-0.98), while additional degrees (e.g., doctorate and/or master's degree) of the senior authors were associated with an increased publication rate (OR 1.80; CI 1.00-3.22).

CONCLUSION

80% of podiums but only 27% of posters were ultimately published. While some predictors of poster publication were noted, it is unclear if these are why these projects fail to publish. Future research is warranted to determine if there are effective strategies to increase poster publication rates.

Significant increase in quantity and quality of knee arthroplasty related research in KSSTA over the past 15 years

PURPOSE

This study aimed to evaluate both publication and authorship characteristics in Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy journal (KSSTA) regarding knee arthroplasty over the past 15 years.

METHODS

PubMed was searched for articles published in KSSTA between January 1, 2006, and December 31st, 2020, utilising the search term 'knee arthroplasty'. 1288 articles met the inclusion criteria. The articles were evaluated using the following criteria: type of article, type of study, main topic and special topic, use of patient-reported outcome scores, number of references and citations, level of evidence (LOE), number of authors, gender of the first author and continent of origin. Three time intervals were compared: 2006-2010, 2011-2015 and 2016-2020.

RESULTS

Between 2016 and 2020, publications peaked at 670 articles (52%) compared with 465 (36%) published between 2011 and 2016 and 153 articles (12%) between 2006 and 2010. While percentage of reviews (2006-2010: 0% vs. 2011-2015: 5% vs. 2016-2020: 5%) and meta-analyses (1% vs. 6% vs. 5%) increased, fewer case reports were published (13% vs. 3% vs. 1%) (p < 0.001). Interest in navigation and computer-assisted surgery decreased, whereas interest in perioperative management, robotic and individualized surgery increased over time (p < 0.001). There was an increasing number of references [26 (2-73) vs. 30 (2-158) vs. 31 (1-143), p < 0.001] while number of citations decreased [30 (0-188) vs. 22 (0-264) vs. 6 (0-106), p < 0.001]. LOE showed no significant changes (p = 0.439). The number of authors increased between each time interval (p < 0.001), while the percentage of female authors was comparable between first and last interval (p = 0.252). Europe published significantly fewer articles over time (56% vs. 47% vs. 52%), whereas the number of articles from Asia increased (35% vs. 45% vs. 37%, p = 0.005).

CONCLUSION

Increasing interest in the field of knee arthroplasty-related surgery arose within the last 15 years in KSSTA. The investigated topics showed a significant trend towards the latest techniques at each time interval. With rising number of authors, the part of female first authors also increased-but not significantly. Furthermore, publishing characteristics showed an increasing number of publications from Asia and a slightly decreasing number in Europe.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV.

Authorship trends in the Egyptian orthopedic journal (from 2012 to 2020), as an example of a specialized Egyptian medical journals

Background

Authorship trends in medical journals were studied in many disciplines, mostly in western countries' journals. We aimed at studying the authorship trends in the Egyptian Orthopaedic Journal as an example of a specialized Egyptian medical journal.

Results

A total of 397 articles were eligible for analysis. The mean number of authors per article was 2 ± 1 (range from 1 to 6), 161 (40.6%) articles were single authorship. The degree of the first author was reported in 305 (76.6%), the first author carried an M.D. degree in 302 (99%) articles, and in three (1%), the first author carried a master’s degree. No authors with a bachelor's degree were reported. Forty-two institutions contributed to the publications, 14 (33.3%) international and 28 (66.7%) Egyptian national institutions. In 368 (92.7%) articles, all the authors were from the same institution, and 29 (7.3%) articles were published as a cooperation between different institutions with a mean 1.1 ± 0.3 institution per article. International contribution to the journal was found in 21 (5.3%) articles. The orthopedic department from Cairo university was the most contributing department to the journal publications.

Conclusions

The old trend of single authorship prevails in the journal publications with a notable deficiency in young researchers’ contribution to the journal and low incidence of international contribution and poor national institution cooperation.

Evaluating Strength of Evidence of Pediatric Otolaryngology Research Literature: A 20-Year Review

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS

Quantity and quality of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery (OTL-HNS) research are increasing, yet patterns within Pediatric OTL-HNS publications are unknown. This study examines trends in the level of evidence of pediatric OTL-HNS articles over a 20-year period to quantify the growth and characterize contributing factors.

STUDY DESIGN

Review article.

METHODS

A retrospective review was conducted on 12 peer-reviewed OTL-HNS journals at three time-points: 1996, 2006, and 2016. Pediatric-specific OTL-HNS journals were selected; all were among the top 10 highest impact factor journals, with one pediatric-specific and one Canadian journal. Publication details, author characteristics, and study focus were collected. Papers were classified based on the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine Levels of Evidence by two independent reviewers.

RESULTS

Of the 1,733 articles reviewed, 727 met inclusion criteria. A greater absolute number of pediatric OTL-HNS articles were published over the years studied: from 95 in 1996 to 359 in 2016 (P < .001). As well, the absolute number of high-quality studies has increased over the study period, from 28 articles in 1996 to 100 articles in 2016. However, the relative percentage of high-quality papers remained stable between 27.9% and 32.2% with an average of 29.7% (P = .89). Higher impact factor journals did not tend to publish higher-quality pediatric OTL-HNS articles (P = .48).

CONCLUSIONS

Over the past 20 years, there is no appreciable improvement in the proportion of high-quality publications in pediatric OTL-HNS; however, there is an overall greater number of high-quality papers within OTL-HNS literature. These findings likely relate to challenges of research within pediatric surgical specialties.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

NA Laryngoscope, 2021.

Increasing author counts in neurosurgical journals from 1980 to 2020

OBJECTIVE

Scientific productivity, as assessed by publication volume, is a common metric by which the academic neurosurgical field assesses its members. The number of authors per peer-reviewed article has been observed to increase over time across a broad range of medical specialties. This study provides an update to this trend in the neurosurgical literature.

METHODS

All publications from January 1, 1980, to April 30, 2020, were queried from four neurosurgical journals: Neurosurgery, Journal of Neurosurgery (JNS), JNS: Pediatrics, and JNS: Spine. Publication information was acquired from the National Center for Biotechnology Information Entrez database and reconciled with the Scopus database. Publication type was limited to articles and excluded editorials, letters, and reviews. The number of authors and affiliation counts were determined based on structured abstract fields provided in the two databases.

RESULTS

Between January 1, 1980, and April 30, 2020, the overall increase in author count for the four neurosurgical journals was 0.12 to 0.18 authors per year (p < 0.001). For Neurosurgery, the mean (SD) author count increased from 2.81 (1.4) in 1980-1985 to 7.97 (4.92) in 2016-2020 (p < 0.001). For the JNS, the mean (SD) author count increased from 2.82 (1.04) in 1980-1985 to 7.6 (3.65) in 2016-2020 (p < 0.001). The percentage of articles with more than 10 authors increased from 0.2% to 22.3% in Neurosurgery and from 1.9% to 17.5% in JNS. Only 28% of the author count variation was explained by an increasing number of institutional or departmental affiliations.

CONCLUSIONS

Author counts for peer-reviewed articles in neurosurgical academic journals have increased significantly during the past 4 decades, with large increases in the numbers of articles with more than 10 authors in the past 5 years. A total of 28% of the variation in this increase can be explained by an increase in multiinstitutional or multidepartmental studies.

The Influence of Geographic Region on Hip and Knee Arthroplasty Literature From 1988 to 2018

Total joint arthroplasty constitutes a major focus of publications within orthopaedics. Because research expands and investigators from around the world contribute, it is important to understand the dynamics of publication.

Does Publication History Predict Future Publication Output in Orthopaedics?

Background

The number of publications is widely used as a measure of academic productivity in the field of orthopaedics. How “productive” a physician is has a great influence on consideration for employment, compensation, and promotions. Predictors of potential high-output researchers would be of value to the orthopaedic department and university leadership for new faculty evaluation.

Methods

The study population included orthopaedic faculty from the top 10 orthopaedic institutions in the United States. Their names and the number of publications at each point in their training (medical school, residency, and fellowship) and early career (first five and 10 years following fellowship) along with a total number of publications to date were collected by using PubMed.

Results

Strong correlations were seen between publications during total training and publications output in the first five years following fellowship (r_s=0.717, P<0.0001). However, no significant correlations were found comparing publications during each stage of training and the first 10 years following fellowship. A moderate positive correlation was found when comparing publications during medical school and residency output (r_s=0.401, P<0.0001).

Conclusions

The data presented here may be utilized by department chairs during the evaluation of faculty and candidates to not interpret the number of publications during training and early career as a gauge of research interest and potential for future publications. Program directors may also use the only moderate correlation between publications in medical school and residency when evaluating applications as support of a more holistic review of applicants to determine research interest.

Bibliometric Analysis of the English Musculoskeletal Literature over the Last 30 Years

Publication and authorship are important in academia for career advancement, obtaining grants, and improved patient care. There has been a recent interest in bibliometric changes over time, especially regarding the gender gap. The purpose of this study was to explore bibliometric changes in the musculoskeletal literature. Bibliometric variables (number of authors, institutions, countries, pages, references, corresponding author position, author gender, geographic region of origin, and editorial board makeup) were analyzed for 5 basic science and 12 clinically oriented musculoskeletal journals from 1985 through 2016. Statistical analyses comprised bivariate analyses, multifactorial ANOVAs, and logistic regression analyses. A p < 0.005 was considered significant. Nearly, all variables increased over time. Asia had the highest number of authors and corresponding author positions, Australia/New Zealand the highest number of institutions and references, North America the highest number of pages, and Europe the highest number of countries. Those with a female first author had more authors, institutions, countries, references, and pages. Likewise, those with a female corresponding author had more authors, institutions, countries, references, and pages. Single-authored manuscripts decreased over time. The percentage of female first authors rose from 10.8% in 1985-1987 to 23.7% in 2015-2016. There were more female 1^st authors in the basic science journals compared to the clinical journals (33.2% vs. 12.7%). Single-authored manuscripts were more likely to be written by males (5.1 vs. 2.4%) and decreased over time. The many differences by geographic region of origin likely reflect different socio/cultural attitudes regarding academia and research, as well as the gender composition of the disciplines by geographic region. Overall, there has been an increase in the number of female 1^st and corresponding authors, editorial board members, and chief editors, indicating a slow but progressive narrowing of the gender gap.

Comparing the gender diversity and affiliation trends of the authors for two orthopaedics journals from the Arab world

OBJECTIVES

Authorship trends, female authors' contributions, and the collaboration among institutions have been a concern in the medical field. This study primarily aims to report and compare the number of authors per article and the prevalence of female authors by comparing two orthopaedics journals from the Arab world. The secondary objective of this study is to evaluate the characteristics of the authors' affiliations and the pattern in institutions' collaborations and contributions to the published articles.

METHODS

This cross-sectional study reviewed all articles (until July 2020) published in the Archives of the Egyptian Orthopaedic Journal (EOJ) (the official journal of the Egyptian Orthopaedic Association) and the Journal of Musculoskeletal Surgery and Research (JMSR) (the official journal of the Saudi Orthopaedic Association).

RESULTS

We evaluated 383 and 122 articles from the EOJ and JMSR, respectively. The average number of authors per article was significantly higher for JMSR (4.3 ± 1.7) than EOJ (2.0 ± 1.0); p = 0.000. There was a significantly larger number of contributions by female authors in JMSR (75, 14.2%) than EOJ (2, 0.3%); p = 0.000. The average number of institutions per article was significantly larger for JMSR (2.1 ± 1.2) than EOJ (1.1 ± 0.3); p = 0.000. For the JMSR, the incidence of national institutions' cooperation (27.9%) and international institutions' contributions (53.3%) were significantly higher than their counterparts for the EOJ-6% and 4.7%, respectively; p = 0.000.

CONCLUSION

The JMSR showed superiority regarding the number of authors per article and the prevalence of female authors. The incidence of national institutions' cooperation and international contributions were higher in the JMSR compared with the EOJ.

Publication Characteristics of Foot and Ankle Trauma Publications: A Review of Articles From 1997 to 2017

Background

The purpose of this study is to evaluate and compare publishing characteristics in foot and ankle trauma articles published in two subspecialty journals and two general orthopedic journals.

Methods

All trauma articles related to foot and ankle surgery published from five different time intervals over a 20-year period were collected and the following was analyzed: authorship, level of evidence, type of study, citations, and geographic region.

Results

Foot and Ankle International (FAI) had the highest percentage of last and corresponding authors that were fellowship-trained in foot and ankle. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery American and British volumes (JBJS(A) and JBJS(B), respectively) and the Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma (JOT) articles had a higher percentage of last and corresponding authors that were fellowship-trained in trauma.

Conclusion

Foot and ankle-trained authors are currently under-represented in foot and ankle trauma literature. As the field of foot and ankle continues to grow, it is important that the experts in the field are well represented in the literature.

Publishing Characteristics of Foot and Ankle Research Over a 15-Year Time Interval: A Review of The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery from 2004 to 2018

BACKGROUND

As the foot and ankle subspecialty continues to grow in orthopaedics, trends in published literature provide valuable insights to help understand and strengthen the field. The current study evaluates the changes in the characteristics of foot and ankle articles in The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery (American Volume) (JBJS-A) from 2004 to 2018.

METHODS

Foot and ankle-related articles in JBJS-A from 2004 to 2018 were identified and categorized by type of study, level of evidence, number of authors, academic degree(s) of the first and last authors, male and female authorship, number of citations, number of references, region of publication, and use of patient-reported outcomes (PROs).

RESULTS

A total of 336 foot and ankle articles from 2004 to 2018 were reviewed. The type of study published has changed over time, with more clinical therapeutic evidence and less case reports. The level of evidence grades, as rated by JBJS-A and objective evaluators, have increased over the past 15 years. The total number of authors per article has increased, and female authorship has increased significantly. The number of references per article has increased, and the number of citations per year has decreased. The field of foot and ankle surgery has seen an increase in global publications.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study suggest that the foot and ankle literature that has been published in JBJS-A has continued to increase in quality and diversity over the past 15 years.

Ten Years of Sports Health: Authorship Characteristics and Levels of Evidence

CONTEXT

Sports Health: A Multidisciplinary Approach, now 10 years into production, has been ranked a top-25 journal in sport sciences and has tripled its impact throughout its existence.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate authorship trends and levels of evidence (LOE) of articles published in Sports Health from 2009 to 2018. The secondary aim was to analyze funding sources and internationalization throughout the journal's tenure.

DATA SOURCES

All clinical studies published in Sports Health between the years 2009 and 2018 were examined.

STUDY SELECTION

All publications from the provided years were electronically reviewed by 2 reviewers and evaluated for inclusion criteria. Editorials, society news, memorials, letters to the editor, and corrigenda were excluded.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level 5.

DATA EXTRACTION

Articles were examined for number of authors, presence of female authorship, funding, country of origin, international collaboration, academic degree or certification of first and senior authors, and LOE. Clinical articles were assigned LOE based on guidelines from the University of Oxford's Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine.

RESULTS

A total of 654 articles were examined. The percentage of high-LOE studies increased throughout the study period. The percentage of publications with female authors also increased throughout the study period. The mean number of authors per article increased from 3.2 to 4.6 over the 10-year period (P < 0.05). The percentage of publications with international collaboration stayed consistent, while the number of countries per year increased during the study period. Overall, institutions from 23 countries have published in Sports Health since its inception to the time of this study.

CONCLUSION

Female authorship in Sports Health surpasses industry standards, and the percentage of high-LOE studies remains remarkably high. Sports Health has stayed true to its multidisciplinary scope, as evidenced by the authors' varying degrees and numerous countries that publish in the journal.

Comparative analysis of authorship trends in the Journal of Hand Surgery European and American volumes: A bibliometric analysis

Background

The purpose of this study was to better understand the authorship publishing trends in the field of hand surgery. To accomplish this, a comparative analysis was completed between the European and American volumes of the Journal of Hand Surgery (JHSE and JHSA) over the past three decades. Well-established bibliometric methods were used to examine one representative year from each of the past three decades. The focus of the study was to examine changes in author gender over time as well as to compare authorship trends across the two volumes.

Materials and methods

All JHSA and JHSE publications from 1985, 1995, 2005, and 2015 were placed into a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet. Data was collected for each publication including the gender of first and corresponding authors, corresponding author position, corresponding author country of origin, number of credited institutions, authors, printed pages, and references. Countries were grouped by regions.

Results

A total of 450 and 763 manuscripts from JHSE and JHSA, respectively, met inclusion criteria. JHSE and JHSA both showed increases in most variables analyzed over time. Both journals showed an increase in female first and corresponding authors. JHSE and JHSA displayed a rise in collaboration between institutions and countries.

Conclusions

Both JHSE and JHSA display increasing female inclusion in the hand surgery literature, which has traditionally been a male dominated field. The observed increase in collaboration between institutions and countries is likely linked to advances in technology that allow sharing of information more conveniently and reliably than was previously possible. As further advances are made socially and technologically, hopefully these trends will continue, leading to faster and higher quality research being generated in the field of hand surgery.

•

Orthopaedic hand literature has seen increases in collaboration over the past 30 years.

•

Significant increase in female first authors in the orthopaedic hand literature.

•

Female first and corresponding author manuscripts received the most citations.

Academic productivity and obstacles encountered during residency training: A survey among residents in orthopedics and traumatology programs in Turkey

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to investigate the academic productivity of and the obstacles encountered by orthopedic residents in Turkey.

METHODS

Overall, 220 orthopedic specialists who were registered in the Ministry of Health and had started orthopedic residency between 2009 and 2010 were invited to participate in a survey through e-mail. The survey comprised a total of 19 questions to evaluate the academic works conducted and obstacles encountered during residency. Academic work was defined as an article published in the peer-reviewed journals as well as an oral or poster presentation at a national or international congress. Case reports, letters to the editor, and technical notes were excluded.

RESULTS

Data were obtained from 116 respondents who completed the survey. In peer-reviewed journals in Science Citation Index (SCI) or SCI-Expanded, the mean number of articles published with and without the first name per resident was 0.09 and 0.73, respectively. In peer-reviewed journals other than those in SCI and SCI-Expanded, the mean number of articles published with and without the first name per resident was 0.37 and 1, respectively. The mean number of oral and poster presentations per resident at national and international congresses was 2.63 and 4.67, respectively. No significant difference in the number of academic works was noted between the regions and institutions (p>0.05). A significant positive correlation was observed between the number of associate professors and assistant professors in the clinic and the total number of academic works (article plus presentation) (p<0.01 and p=0.017, respectively). Regarding encouragement and support to academic works, 6.9% of the respondents found the clinic to be excellent, 20.7% good, 24.1% moderate, and 48.3% bad. No significant difference in encouragement and support to academic works was noted among the institutions (p=0.115). The most common obstacle encountered in conducting academic works was long working hours (74.5%).

CONCLUSION

Regardless of the region and institution, the participation of orthopedic residents in academic works is low in Turkey. Several obstacles were encountered in conducting academic works, with the most common being long working hours.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, Diagnostic study.

The Proportion of Abstracts Presented at the 2010 American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons Annual Meeting Ultimately Published

As attendees of orthopedic meetings consider how to integrate presented information into their practice, it is helpful to consider the quality of the data presented. One surrogate metric is the proportion of and changes to presented abstracts that become journal publications. With this study, using the 2010 American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) Annual Meeting abstracts, the authors sought to answer the following questions: Did the publications following abstract presentations differ in terms of the conclusions, study subjects, or coauthors? What proportion of abstracts was published? What are the most common subtopics and journals, and what is the most common author country? Keywords and authors from the 2010 AAOS Annual Meeting proceedings program (698 podium and 548 poster abstracts) were searched in PubMed, Embase, and Google Scholar. If a publication resulted, differences in the conclusion, number of study subjects, and authorship between the abstract and the journal publication were tabulated. The proportion of abstracts published, specialty subtopics, authorship country, and journals of publication were collected. At journal publication, 1.7% of podium and 1.7% of poster conclusions changed. Mean number of authors for podium and poster increased significantly (P<.001), and 30% of podium and 44% of poster had a change in the number of study subjects. The overall journal publication percentage was 61% (68% podium and 53% poster). The majority of the authors were from the United States. The most common journal was The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery. It is important to evaluate the usefulness and clinical applicability of meetings, especially the final disposition of conference abstracts, from various angles to ensure that they are as worthwhile and educational as possible. [Orthopedics. 2020;xx(x):xx-xx.].

Authorship and study characteristic trends in spine publications from years 2004 to 2017

Background

The goal of this study was to analyze the trends in authorship and study characteristics in Spine using two overlapping ten-year time periods: 2004-2014 and 2007-2017. To our knowledge, no other literature reports study characteristics and authorship in the same time period for spine that would allow for the assessment of confounding factors of trends.

Methods

Authorship and study characteristic data was collected from all scientific manuscripts published in Spine during the years of 2004, 2007, 2014, and 2017. Basic statistics and Kruskal-Wallis test were used to analyze the data.

Results

We found a significant increase in total number of authors (P<0.0001) without discrepancy of unequivocal increases in author degree type: MD/Equivalent (P≤0.0001), PhD/Doctorate (P=0.0017), Masters (P=0.0015), and Bachelors (P≤0.0001). We observed an increase in industry authorship (P≤0.0001), but without a significant increase in industry funding during the same time span. Increases in administration database studies (P≤0.0001) and economic/value studies (P≤0.0001) were also noted. A significant change in percentage of articles with trauma pathology (decrease, P<0.0001) and deformity (increase, P=0.0002) occurred. The number of multi-institutional studies increased (P≤0.0001), while no change in the number of multi-disciplinary studies.

Conclusions

Increases in author number for spine articles over time are a result of a general increase in authors in all degree types, not just non-doctorate degrees. This may be potentially influenced by the increase in multi-institutional studies. From 2004-2017, higher percentages of articles focus on economics. An increase in industry authorship without a corresponding increase in funding suggests industry's more 'hands-on' approach to publication results from their funded studies.

Trends and Characteristics of Spine Research From 2006 to 2015: A Review of Spine Articles in a High Impact General Orthopedic Journal

STUDY DESIGN

Literature review.

OBJECTIVE

To determine characteristics and trends in published spine research over a recent decade in a high impact, general orthopedic surgery journal.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Recent trends in published spine research in a high-impact orthopedic surgery journal are unknown. Such knowledge could guide future research in the field.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature review of clinical and basic science spine articles published in The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery from 2006 to 2015 was conducted. Articles were assessed for: title, year of publication, authorship, academic degrees of the authors, number of citations, institution of origin, and spine topic. Clinical articles were evaluated for: sex and race/ethnicity of the human subjects, level of evidence, and inclusion of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Basic science articles were evaluated for: type of study (animal, cadaver, cell-based), sex of the animals, cadavers or cells studied (male, female, or male and female), and presence of sex-based reporting (defined as reporting of results by sex).

RESULTS

A total of 203 spine articles were evaluated from the 10-year study period. At least 35 validated or nonvalidated patient-reported outcome measures were utilized in clinical spine research. The most commonly reported PROMs were the Oswestry Disability Index (24.4%), Short Form-36 Health Survey (23.7%), and Visual Analog Scale for Pain (19.3%). The average level of evidence improved from 3.25 in 2006 to 2.60 in 2015. Only 13.2% of clinical spine articles reported the race/ethnicity of the subjects.

CONCLUSION

A consensus regarding validated PROMs in spine research would be valuable. From 2006 to 2015, the level of evidence of spine articles in The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery improved. Accurate and complete reporting of patient demographics is an area for improvement in spine research in light of studies demonstrating sex and race/ethnicity-related differences in clinical outcome after spine surgery.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

5.

The Archivesof Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation at 100: A Century of Authorship

OBJECTIVE

To describe the authors who have contributed articles to the Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (APM&R) over the 100 years of its existence.

DESIGN

Extraction of relevant information from a sample of APM&R articles.

SETTING

Not applicable.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 4933 authors contributing to 1787 articles.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Number of authors and their gender, professional education, and country of residence.

RESULTS

The average number of authors per article increased from 1.1 in 1922 to 5.8 in 2017. The percentage of women authors grew from <5% to about 40%. In 1922 the majority of authors had an MD degree (85%); this declined to <30% by 2017, while the percentage of authors with a PhD grew from about 10% to about 30%. The percentage of contributors with a bachelor's degree initially was about 1%, grew to 13%, and then declined again. While in APM&R's early years, >90% of authors were from the United States, this percentage went into a steep decline beginning in about 1997 and now is around 35%.

CONCLUSIONS

The APM&R has seen major transformations in the nature of its contributors over a century of publication; many of these parallel the changes seen in other areas of health care and medical science, but some characteristics and shifts (especially in gender and level of training of its authors) appear unique.

Approaching Impact Meaningfully in Medical Education Research

Medical education research faces increasing pressure to demonstrate impact and utility. These pressures arise amidst a climate of accountability and within a culture of outcome measurement. Conventional metrics for assessing research impact such as citation analysis have been adopted in medical education, despite researchers' assertion that these quantitative measures insufficiently reflect the value of their work. Every knowledge community has its own definitions of what counts as knowledge, how that knowledge should be produced, and how the quality of that knowledge production should be evaluated. Definitions of impact and knowledge shape and constrain researchers' foci and endeavors. Therefore, metrics that meaningfully evaluate the knowledge outputs of researchers need to be defined within each field. It is time for medical education research, as a field, to examine how to measure research impact and carefully consider the broader implications these measures may have. The authors discuss developments in research metrics more broadly, then critically examine impact metrics currently used in the medical education field and propose alternatives to more meaningfully track and represent impact in medical education research. Grey metrics and narrative impact stories to more fully capture the richness and nuanced nature of impact in medical education research are introduced. The authors advocate for a continual examination of how impact is defined, eschewing unquestioned use of conventional metrics. A new conversation is needed, as well as a research agenda to help medical education conceptualize and study metrics more appropriate for the field.

Opinions on Authorship: A Survey of Plastic Surgery Residents and Fellows

BACKGROUND

Scientific publications are the cornerstone of scholarly activities. The importance of appropriately assigned authorship cannot be overstated. Hence, we felt it prudent to examine the perception of plastic surgery trainees regarding authorship. We hypothesized that plastic surgery trainees would not be in compliance with International Committee of Medical Journal Editors guidelines when determining what constitutes an authorship justifying contribution.

METHODS

An online survey describing 4 distinct scenarios was distributed to plastic surgery trainees at 2 academic institutions using the Qualtrics research software (Provo, UT). Additional parameters queried included level of training and number of publications. Linear regression models were used to test correlation between responses and level of training and number of publications.

RESULTS

Thirty-three of 48 trainees responded (response rate, 68.8%). All respondents had previously authored publications, with the majority (54.5%) having at least 10 publications. Although none of the scenarios presented justified authorship based on international guidelines, 33.3% of respondents believed that authorship was warranted in at least 3 of the 4 presented scenarios. Linear regression comparing for demographic variables to number of perceived authorship scenarios found a mild-moderate positive correlation with level of training (R = 0.34, P = 0.05) and number of publications (R = 0.32, P = 0.07).

CONCLUSIONS

Plastic surgery trainees do not seem to be familiar with guidelines regarding authorship justifying contributions. It is important to raise awareness regarding criteria that warrant authorship and to educate our residents and fellows in matters of appropriate scholarly conduct because nothing short of the credibility of our scientific endeavors is otherwise in question.

A Closer Look at the Relationship Between Industry and Orthopaedic Sports Medicine Surgeons

Background:

A recent study demonstrated that discrepancies exist between disclosures reported by authors publishing in The American Journal of Sports Medicine and disclosures listed in the Physician Payments Sunshine Act–initiated Open Payments database, managed by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). However, no study to date has explored the relationship between the biopharmaceutical and device industry (industry) and the membership base of the American Orthopaedic Society for Sports Medicine (AOSSM).

Purpose:

To critically examine the relationship between orthopaedic sports medicine surgeons and industry.

Study Design:

Cross-sectional study.

Methods:

The publicly available CMS Open Payments database website was accessed to search for sports medicine orthopaedic surgeons in the United States who were members of the AOSSM. Financial data, specifically general, research, and ownership payments for 2015, were recorded for each surgeon. The American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) disclosures of each surgeon were then obtained. Descriptive statistics and simple proportions were calculated to summarize the collected data, including years in practice and amount of payment. Median values for general payments were compared to provide a more accurate reflection of payments transferred to a “typical” sports medicine surgeon.

Results:

A total of $58,113,561 in general payments, $3,996,051 in research payments, $72,481,814 in money invested, and $144,552,383 in interest earned from money invested were identified as being paid to 2274 surgeons (all amounts in US$). The distribution of total general payments received was skewed: 10% of surgeons received 95.4% ($55,463,183) of the total general payments. A total of 1433 surgeons had completed, up-to-date AAOS disclosures. Although 44% (635 surgeons) self-reported no financial conflict to the AAOS, the Open Payments database indicated some level of industry support to these surgeons. Unreported general payments totaled $1,393,212, or a median of $561 per surgeon (interquartile range, $10-$200,048).

Conclusion:

Although orthopaedic sports medicine surgeons received substantial payments from industry, most of the total general payments were given to a small proportion of people. The regional distribution of these payments did not differ significantly. Summary reports of data are largely skewed by outliers and should be interpreted with caution. However, a large percentage of these surgeons failed to reveal industry support of any kind in their AAOS disclosures, including meals and educational funding, demonstrating the importance of transparency and accuracy when completing financial disclosures.

Female-Authored Articles Are More Likely to Include Methods-Trained Authors

Objective

Studies with authors trained in research methods are of higher quality than those without. We examined inclusion of authors with master's or doctoral degrees incorporating advanced research methods training on original research articles in high-impact journals, investigating differences between journals and by first-author sex.

Methods

Using all original research articles from 1 issue of The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), Annals of Internal Medicine (Annals), and JAMA-Internal Medicine/Archives of Internal Medicine (Archives) every alternate month, February 1994 to October 2016, we assessed the prevalence of articles listing authors with master's/doctoral research degrees and its adjusted associations with time of publication, journal, and first-author sex via multivariable logistic regression models (accounting for number of authors, study type, specialty/topic, and continent and for interactions between journal and time of publication, study type, and continent).

Results

Of 3009 articles examined, 84.4% (n=2539) had authors listing research degrees. After adjustment, the prevalence of such articles increased from 1994 to 2016 (P<.001), but patterns differed among journals. Annals and NEJM increased to approximately100% by 2016; JAMA and Archives peaked around 2010 to 2011, then declined. Articles with female first authors were more likely to list authors with research degrees (adjusted odds ratio=1.66; 95% CI, 1.29-2.13; P<.001).

Conclusion

The prevalence of original research articles listing authors trained in research methods in high-impact journals increased significantly but is now declining at some journals, with potential effects on quality. The greater prevalence among female first-authored articles suggests possible sex differences in structuring/crediting research teams or subconscious sex bias during review.

Authorship Trends in Spine Publications From 2000 to 2015

STUDY DESIGN

Literature review.

OBJECTIVE

To examine changes in authorship characteristics for Spine publications from the year 2000 to 2015.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Scientific publications are considered an indication of academic achievement for physicians. Recently, authorship trends have been investigated; however, limited information is available on this topic within spine-specific literature.

METHODS

Original research articles published in Spine in the years 2000, 2005, 2010, and 2015 were evaluated. Authorship characteristics were collected for each article, including the number of authors and institutions per publication, first and last authors' sex, publication origin, and highest degree held by the first and last author. Trends over time were analyzed using numeric and visual descriptive analyses including percentages, means, standard deviations, and graphs.

RESULTS

An average of 506 articles per year was published in Spine during the years 2000, 2005, 2010, and 2015. The number of articles written by 10 or more authors increased during this time (0.9%-14.4%). There was a substantial increase in the number of multiple institutional affiliations (33.6%-68.7%) and articles originating from outside North America (47.6%-55.7%) from 2000 to 2015. The percentage of first authors with bachelor's degrees was higher in 2015 (6.6%) as compared to 2000 (1.4%), and more last authors were identified as MD/PhDs in 2015 (19.2%) than in 2000 (10.0%). Similar female representation was noted for first and last authorship for all years evaluated.

CONCLUSION

The results of this study demonstrate increases in authors per article published in Spine from 2000 to 2015. In addition, first authors were more likely to hold bachelor's degrees over time. This may be attributed to increasing competition in spine-related fields, necessitating earlier research exposure to aid in academic achievement. Interestingly, the percentage of female authorship has not changed significantly over time, in contrast with much of the previous literature.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

2.

Comparative Analysis of Bibliometric, Authorship, and Collaboration Trends Over the Past 30-Year Publication History of the Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma and Injury

OBJECTIVES

In the scientific and medical field, authorship has become increasingly important for tenure and career advancement in addition to improvement in medical care. It was the purpose of this study to investigate changes in bibliometric variables, authorship, and collaboration trends in the Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma (JOT) and Injury over a 30-year period.

METHODS

A bibliometric analysis was completed for all manuscripts meeting the inclusion criteria and published throughout 1 representative year of each decade over the past 30 years. A total of 444 and 1105 manuscripts for JOT and Injury, respectively, met the inclusion criteria. Standard statistical analyses were performed with nonparametric methods for continuous variables and Pearson χ and Cochran linear trend tests for categorical variables. A P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

There were significant increases over time in all bibliometric variables for both journals, except in the number of countries and pages in JOT. For JOT, the overall percentage of female first authors increased 2.3 times from 1987 to 2015 (P = 0.021). The overall percentage of female corresponding authors was 7.3%. For Injury, the overall percentage of female first authors increased 1.5 times (P = 0.007). The overall percentage of female corresponding authors was 13.1%.

CONCLUSIONS

Understanding changes in publishing characteristics over time and by region is critical with the rising demands of publishing in academic medicine. JOT and Injury have showed an increase in most variables analyzed. However, female authorship in JOT is climbing at a higher rate than Injury.

Bibliometric Analysis of Gender Authorship Trends and Collaboration Dynamics Over 30 Years of Spine 1985 to 2015

STUDY DESIGN

A bibliometric analysis.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this article was to study bibliometric changes over the last 30 years of Spine. These trends are important regarding academic publication productivity.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Inflation in authorship number and other bibliometric variables has been described in the scientific literature. The issue of author gender is taking on increasing importance, as efforts are being made to close the gender gap.

METHODS

From 1985 to 2015, 10-year incremental data for several bibliometric variables were collected, including author gender. Standard bivariate statistical analyses were performed. Trends over time were assessed by the Cochran linear trend. A P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

Inclusion criteria were met for 1566 manuscripts. The majority of the manuscripts were from North America (51.2%), Europe (25.2%), and Asia (20.8%). The number of manuscripts, authors, countries, pages, and references all increased from 1985 to 2015. There was a slight increase in female first authors over time (17.5% to 18.4%, P = 0.048). There was no gender change over time for corresponding authors (14.3% to 14.0%, P = 0.29). There was an 88% increase in the percentage of female first authors having male corresponding authors (P = 0.00004), and a 123% increase in male first authors having female corresponding authors (P = 0.0002). The 14% to 18% of female authors in Spine is higher than the ∼5% female membership of the Scoliosis Research Society and North American Spine Society.

CONCLUSION

Manuscripts in Spine over the past 30 years have shown a significant increase in the number of authors, collaborating institutions and countries, printed pages, references, and number of times each manuscript was cited. There has been a mild increase in female first authorship, but none in corresponding authorship. Increases in female authorship will likely require recruitment of more females into the discipline rather than providing females in the discipline with authorship opportunities.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

N/A.

A bibliometric analysis assessing temporal changes in publication and authorship characteristics in The Knee from 1996 to 2016

BACKGROUND

Evidence-based practice is a foundation to clinical excellence. However there remains little evidence on the characteristics of authors who contribute to the evidence-base and whether these have changed over time. The purpose of this study was to explore these characteristics by undertaking a bibliometric analysis to explore publication and authorship characteristics in a leading sub-speciality orthopaedic journal (The Knee) over a 20-year period.

METHODS

All articles published in The Knee in 1996, 2006 and 2016 were identified. For each article, data collected included: highest academic award; profession; gender; continent of first and last author; total number of authors; the level of evidence; and funding source. We analysed temporal changes in these variables using appropriate statistical models.

RESULTS

A total of 413 papers were analysed. Between 1996 to 2016 there has been a significant increase in the overall number of authors, the number of paper submitted from Asia, the proportion of Level 1 or 2 tiered evidence, the proportion of people with Bachelor or Master-level degrees as their highest level of educational award and the proportion of non-medically qualified authors (P<0.001). From 2006 to 2016 there was a significant increase in the proportion of articles whose first author was female (P=0.03), but no significant change in the number of females as last author (P=0.43).

CONCLUSION

The findings indicate that there have been changes in publication and authorship characteristics in this sub-speciality orthopaedic journal during the past 20years. This provides encouraging indication of greater diversification and internationalisation of orthopaedic research.

Level of evidence and authorship trends of clinical studies in knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy, 1995-2015

PURPOSE

There is increasing emphasis on publication quality and internationalization of author groups in orthopaedic literature. The purpose of this review was to evaluate the type of studies and the level of evidence (LOE) published in knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy (KSSTA) from 1995 to 2015. The secondary aim was to analyze trends in authorship characteristics in KSSTA.

METHODS

Two reviewers reviewed the table of contents of KSSTA and identified original papers from 1995, 2000, 2005, 2010, and 2015. The reviewers graded LOE from Levels I to IV using guidelines from the University of Oxford's Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. For each article, the total number of authors and country of author group were also analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 880 papers were analyzed. The proportions in LOE have stayed consistent throughout the study period (n.s.). There has been a significant increase in the number of published articles and the number of Level I and II studies (P < 0.01). Therapeutic articles were the most common type. The mean number of authors per KSSTA article significantly increased from 3.9 to 5.7 over the 20-year period (P < 0.01). The number of represented countries increased yearly and academic institutions from 40 different nationalities published articles in the Journal. Of the examined years, the percent of articles with international collaboration was 17.6%.

CONCLUSION

The proportion of LOE I and II articles published in KSSTA remains consistently high. Therapeutic studies are the most frequently published articles. There is an increase in international groups publishing in KSSTA.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV.

Publication Productivity of Orthopaedic Surgery Chairs

BACKGROUND

As academic leaders, orthopaedic chairs represent role models for scholarly activities. Despite the importance of journal publications as a measure of scholarly activity, data on the publication productivity of orthopaedic chairs remain limited. The goals of this study were to record the publication productivity of orthopaedic chairs and evaluate the extent to which they maintained their scholarly activity while serving as chairs.

METHODS

The chairs of all orthopaedic residency programs in the United States were identified through the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) web site, and were confirmed by information found on the web site of each orthopaedic program that was included in the study. University and non-university chairs were defined based on affiliation of the program with a medical school. The publication records of the program chairs were retrieved through the Scopus database.

RESULTS

During the 7 years prior to their appointment to chair, the mean number of total publications was significantly higher for university chairs (n = 58.6, range 0 to 217) than for non-university chairs (n = 29.1, range 0 to 13) (p = 0.003). The mean number of publications per year during the 7 years leading up to the chair position was 4.66 (range, 0 to 25) for the university chairs, and 2.29 (range, 0 to 10.9) for the non-university group (p = 0.02). While serving as chair, the mean number of publications per year significantly decreased among the university chairs to 3.75 (range, 0 to 32.8; p = 0.015), whereas no significant change was observed among non-university chairs. The mean percentage of first authorships was not significantly different between university and non-university chairs. Both groups showed significant declines in first authorships while serving as chair.

CONCLUSIONS

At the time of becoming chair, the average university chair had published approximately 60 manuscripts, whereas the average non-university chair had published approximately 30 manuscripts. While serving as chair, the number of publications per year significantly decreased for university chairs. Among all chairs, the percentage of first authorships significantly decreased while serving as chair.

Authorship Trends in 30 Years of the Journal of Arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

While various studies have investigated trends in characteristics of authors in other medical literature, no study has examined these characteristics in the field of arthroplasty.

METHODS

A database was created of all articles published in The Journal of Arthroplasty in 1986, 1990, 1995, 2000, 2005, 2010, and 2015. Degree(s) of authors, number of authors, number of references, and region of institution were recorded.

RESULTS

A total of 1343 original articles were assessed over the study period. There was a significant increase in the number of authors per publication from 3.45 in 1986 to 4.98 in 2015 (P < .001) and number of references per article from 17.36 to 29.76 (P < .001). There was a significant increase in proportion of first authors with a bachelor's degree (P = .001), MD/PhD (P < .001), and MD/MBA (P = .016), with a significant decrease in first authors with an MD degree only (P < .001). There was a significant increase in number of last authors with an MD/PhD (P = .001) and MD/MBA (P = .003). There has been a significant growth in papers from outside North America (P = .007), with a decrease in articles from the UK/Ireland (P = .003) and an increase in contributions from the Far East (P < .001).

CONCLUSION

Trends of authorship characteristics in the arthroplasty literature largely mirror those seen in other medical literature including increased number of authors per article over time, changes in author qualifications, and increased contributions from international author groups.

Progression of Authorship of Scientific Articles in The Journal of Hand Surgery, 1985-2015

PURPOSE

For scientists, authorship is academic currency. Authorship characteristics have been studied in a subset of the surgical and medical literature, but trends in the specialty of hand surgery have not yet been investigated. Specifically, a longitudinal analysis of number, educational training, sex, and geographical origin of authors has not been conducted. We explored the progression of authorship of scientific articles in a leading hand surgery journal.

METHODS

We recorded number of authors, number of references, degrees, and sex of the first and senior authors as well as geographical origin of the corresponding author in The Journal of Hand Surgery in 1985, 1995, 2005, and 2015. All original work was analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 892 articles were reviewed. The mean number of authors per article increased significantly from 2.6 in 1985 to 3.9 in 2015 and the number of references increased significantly from 13.7 in 1985 to 22.6 in 2015. There was a significant increase in the proportion of first authors with an MD/PhD, PhD, master's or bachelor's degree since 1985. During that same time period, a decrease in the proportion of first authors who held solely an MD was seen. There was a significant increase in proportion of the number of last authors with an MD/PhD, PhD or Master's degree in that same time period. There has been significant growth in publications originating from the "Far East" and "Other" regions, with 4.2% and 5.0% of publications, respectively, in 1985 having increased to 10.3% and 7.4% of publications, respectively, in 2015. Female first authorship significantly increased over the study period from 7.9% in 1985 to 22.1% of publications in 2015.

CONCLUSIONS

There has been a significant increase in number of authors per article in The Journal of Hand Surgery. Similar to other studies, we noted shifts in the degrees most commonly held by authors, an increase in references per article, and a greater representation of international authors in the hand surgery. In addition, the proportion of manuscripts written by female authors has increased in the past 30 years, with the largest increase occurring between 2005 and 2015.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

This manuscript strives to provide further insight into the changing characteristics of authors contributing to the hand surgery literature. With increased pressure to publish in academia, it is important to understand how publishing author characteristics have evolved over time. In addition, the published literature of a field could be considered one repository of the insights and advancements of the field. One would hope that the authors contributing to that literature are a deep and wide reflection of the people working in that field. Analyzing authorship is one way to assess the breadth and depth of contributions from the profession.

How Many Orthopaedic Surgeons Does It Take to Write a Manuscript? A Vignette-Based Discussion of Authorship in Orthopaedic Surgery

The issue of appropriate authorship designation continues to be a topic of importance because authorship of scholarly work plays an important role in the academic community. It is a recognition of an individual's scholarly work and a factor in academic promotion. The Orthopaedic Trauma Association (OTA) sponsored a minisymposium in 2014 to encourage discussion of the issues that arise in authorship decisions. A residency program director/department chair, a journal editor, a clinical trials coordinator, and a promotions committee member provided viewpoints. In the pages that follow, vignettes are presented along with discussion points to encourage conversation on this topic. Authorship criteria are clearly defined. Authorship based simply on seniority or contribution of cases to clinical trials is inappropriate. Discussion of authorship criteria prior to the initiation of clinical research investigations is a standard that must be met. The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) guidelines provide a framework for this discussion and should be reviewed by all authors prior to publication. Modifications to published authorship guidelines may be necessary to address some of the scenarios identified here that are not adequately addressed by the existing guidelines.

Publication Productivity of Early-Career Orthopedic Trauma Surgeons

The goals of this study were to: (1) define the publication productivity of early-career orthopedic trauma surgeons over time; (2) compare the early-career publication productivity of recent orthopedic trauma fellowship graduates vs their more senior colleagues; and (3) determine the proportion of fellowship graduates who meet the Orthopaedic Trauma Association (OTA) publication criteria for active membership early in their careers. Orthopedic trauma fellowship graduates from 1982 to 2007 were analyzed. A literature search was performed for each fellow's publications for the 6-year period beginning the year of fellowship graduation. Publication productivity was compared between early and recent groups of graduates, 1987 to 1991 and 2003 to 2007, respectively. Fulfillment of OTA publication criteria was determined. Seventy-nine percent of graduates contributed to 1 or more publications. The recent group produced more total publications per graduate (4.06 vs 3.29, P=.01) and more coauthor publications (2.60 vs 2.04, P=.019) than the early group. The number of first-author publications did not differ between groups (1.46 vs 1.25, P=.26). A greater percentage of the recent group met current OTA publication criteria compared with the early group (51% vs 35%, P=.04). The findings showed that recent orthopedic trauma graduates had increased publication productivity compared with their more senior colleagues, although a proportion had not qualified for active OTA membership 6 years into their career. Overall, these data are encouraging and suggest that young orthopedic trauma surgeons remain committed to sustaining a high level of academic excellence.

Trends in Authorship Characteristics in The American Journal of Sports Medicine, 1994 to 2014

BACKGROUND

Trends in author qualifications, the number of authors per article, and the internationalization of author groups in sports medicine journals have not been widely investigated.

PURPOSE

To examine trends in authorship characteristics in a single prominent sports medicine journal.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review.

METHODS

Articles published in The American Journal of Sports Medicine (AJSM) in 1994, 2004, and 2014 were reviewed. For each article, the academic degree(s) of the first and last author, the total number of authors, the country of the author group, and academic institution status were recorded.

RESULTS

A total of 708 articles met the inclusion criteria: 129 in 1994, 244 in 2004, and 335 in 2014. There were significant differences in the proportion of first authors with an MD degree (80% in 1994, 75% in 2004, 67% in 2014; P = .01), a dual MD/PhD degree (4.7% in 1994, 6.2% in 2004, 9.3% in 2014; P < .001), and a bachelor's degree (0% in 1994, 0% in 2004, 3.9% in 2014; P < .001). The proportion of last authors with an MD/PhD significantly increased over the 2 decades studied (7% in 1994, 13% in 2004, 17% in 2014; P = .01). The mean number of authors per article also significantly increased (3.8 in 1994, 4.3 in 2004, 5.8 in 2014; P < .0001). The proportion of articles published by an international group and the proportion of articles published by an academic institution increased over the 20-year span as well (both P < .0001).

CONCLUSION

Within the past 2 decades, there has been a significant increase in the average number of authors per article in AJSM, as well as a higher proportion of international groups and academic institutions publishing in the journal. More nonphysicians are publishing in AJSM, with a significantly higher percentage of first authors with a bachelor's degree as their highest degree. This is likely due to a combination of a general increased interest in research as well as increased competition among medical students. These factors have likely led to larger research groups and thus a significantly higher average number of authors per article.

Authorship Considerations: What Qualifies?

Publications indicate academic achievement. Unjustified authorship is a violation of scientific integrity. However, many different authorship guidelines have been purposed. Subjective assessments of contributions may differ substantially when made by individual authors. Complex research structures including multicenter multidisciplinary studies further cloud the definition of authorship. New quantitative measurement of research contributions may help guide who deserves to be recognized as an author. Agreement of authorship and order of listing should be discussed at the beginning of any project likely to result in a publication.

Worldwide research productivity in the field of spine surgery: a 10-year bibliometric analysis

PURPOSE

Bibliometrics is increasingly used to assess the quantity and quality of scientific research output in many research fields worldwide. However, the bibliometric studies in the field of spine surgery are scarce. This study aimed to evaluate the worldwide research productivity in the field of spine surgery using bibliometric methods and to provide an insight into the spine research for surgeons and researchers.

METHODS

Articles published between 2004 and 2013 were retrieved using the Scopus database in 5 spine journals, including Spine, European Spine Journal, The Spine Journal, Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine, and Journal of Spinal Disorders and Techniques. The number of articles, trend of publications, countries' contribution and h-index, authorship, subspecialty, funding source, journal pattern, institutions, and top cited articles were analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 13,115 publications were identified in the database of Scopus from 2004 to 2013. The time trend of the number of articles showed a significant increase of 1.9-fold between 2004 and 2013 (p = 0.000). The largest number of articles in the field of spine surgery was from United States (39.17%), followed by Japan (10.74%) and China (8.62%). United States also have the highest h-index (106), followed by Canada (60) and United Kingdom (54). China (p = 0.000) and South Korea (p = 0.000) have a significantly increasing trend of contribution proportion to the world spine production over time in years, but h-index was still low (39 and 38, respectively). Spine published the highest number of articles (45.44%), followed by European Spine Journal (21.43%) and Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine (13.32%). The most productive institutions were University of California, San Francisco (1.98%), followed by Thomas Jefferson University (1.61%) and University of Toronto (1.41%).

CONCLUSIONS

There has a rapid increase of scientific research productivity in the field of spine surgery during the past 10 years. United States has special contributions to the body of spine publications. China and South Korea have increasing contributions to the field of spine surgery.

Development of nanotoxicology: implications for drug delivery and medical devices

Current nanotoxicology research suffers from suboptimal in vitro models, lack of in vitro–in vivo correlations, variability within in vitro protocols, deficits in both material purity and physicochemical characterization. Reliable nanomaterial toxicity and mechanistic insights are required for health and toxicity risk assessments. Much in vitro toxicological data is inconclusive in designating whether nanomaterials for drug delivery and medical device implants are truly safe. A critique is presented to analyze the interface between toxicology and nanopharmaceuticals. Deficiencies of existing practices in toxicology are reviewed and useful emerging techniques (e.g., lab-on-a-chip, tissue engineering, atomic force microscopy, high-content analysis) are highlighted. Cross-fertilization between disciplines will aid development of biocompatible delivery and implant platforms while improvements are being suggested for better translation of nanotoxicology.

Peer support of a faculty "writers' circle" increases confidence and productivity in generating scholarship

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

Publishing is critical for academic medicine career advancement. Rejection of manuscripts can be demoralizing. Obstacles faced by clinical faculty may include lack of time, confidence, and optimal writing practices. This study describes the development and evaluation of a peer-writing group, informed by theory and research on faculty development and writing.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Five clinical-track radiology faculty members formed a "Writers' Circle" to promote scholarly productivity and reflection on writing practices. Members decided to work with previously rejected manuscripts. After members' initial meeting, interactions were informal, face to face during clinical work, and online. After the first 6 months, an anonymous survey asked members about the status of articles and evaluations of the writing group.

RESULTS

Ten previously rejected articles, at least one from each member, were submitted to the Circle. In 6 months, four manuscripts were accepted for publication, five were in active revision, and one was withdrawn. All participants (100%) characterized the program as worth their time, increasing their motivation to write, their opportunities to support scholarly productivity of colleagues, and their confidence in generating scholarship.

CONCLUSIONS

Peer-support writing groups can facilitate the pooling of expertise and the exchange of recommended writing practices. Our peer-support group increased scholarly productivity and provided a collegial approach to academic writing.

Characteristics of clinical shoulder research over the last decade: a review of shoulder articles in The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery from 2004 to 2014

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to determine characteristics and trends in published shoulder research over the last decade in a leading orthopaedic journal.

METHODS

We examined all clinical shoulder articles published in The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery from 2004 to 2014. The number of citations, authorship, academic degrees of the authors, country and institution of origin, topic, level of evidence, positive or nonpositive outcome, and inclusion of validated patient-reported outcome measures were assessed for each article.

RESULTS

Shoulder articles that included an author with an advanced research degree (MD [Doctor of Medicine] with a PhD [Doctor of Philosophy] or other advanced degree) increased during the study period (p = 0.047). Level-I, II, and III studies were more likely to have an author with an advanced research degree, and Level-IV studies were more likely to have MDs only (p = 0.03). Overall, there was great variability of outcome measures, with at least thirty-nine different validated or nonvalidated outcome measures reported.

CONCLUSIONS

Over the last decade, there was an improvement in the level of evidence of shoulder articles published in The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery that corresponds with recent emphasis on evidence-based medicine. A consensus is needed in shoulder research for more consistent application of validated patient-reported outcome measurement tools.