Systematic and open identification of researchers and authors: focus on open researcher and contributor ID

Evaluation of the productivity of hospital-based researchers: comparative study between the h-index and the h(fa)-index

The h-index is often used to evaluate researchers and to measure their respective contributions to the scientific community. However, it does not take into account the relative contribution of each author to the articles. We aimed to assess the added value of the h(fa)-index, an index introducing a weighting factor for the first author. This cross-sectional study was conducted in March 2020 in Switzerland. We selected all hospital-based senior physicians practicing internal medicine or family medicine in the six university hospitals. Using Web of Science, we retrieved the h-index and computed the h(fa)-index of all physicians with a non-zero h-index. We used Spearman coefficients to examine the correlation between the two indices and Cohen’s kappa to determine the inter-rater agreement. 244 physicians were included in the study (men: 63%). They had a median h-index of 3 (IQR 11) and a median h(fa) index of 4.5 (IQR 14). The correlation between the two indices was very high (rho 0.98, p-value < 0.001). However, the inter-rater agreement was only moderate (Kappa 0.59 [95% CI 0.56–0.64]). The h(fa)-index was able to correct the categorization of the researchers in about 1/3 of the cases (agreement 63.4%). Although it is very challenging to evaluate researchers with a unique indicator, these data suggest that the h(fa)-index could be a better evaluation tool of researchers’ productivity.

Scientific publications in internal medicine and family medicine: a comparative cross-sectional study in Swiss university hospitals

BACKGROUND

Family medicine is a relatively new academic medical discipline. We aimed to compare the main bibliometric indices of hospital-based senior physicians practicing internal medicine versus family medicine in Switzerland.

METHODS

We conducted this cross-sectional study in March 2020. We selected all hospital-based senior physicians practicing internal medicine or family medicine in the six Swiss university hospitals. Using Web of Science, after removing from both groups of physicians the 5% with the highest number of publications, we extracted the number of publications, the number of publications per year, the number of citations, the number of citations per year, the number of citations per publication and the h-index. We compared the data between the two groups using negative binomial regressions and the proportion of physicians having at least one publication using chi-square tests.

RESULTS

We included 349 physicians in the study (internal medicine: 51%, men: 51%). The median number of publications was three [interquartile range (IQR) = 18], the median number of citations was nine (IQR = 158) and the median h-index was one (IQR = 5). All bibliometric indices were similar in both groups, as was the proportion of physicians having at least one publication (family medicine: 87% versus 82%, P = 0.15).

CONCLUSIONS

We found no association between the bibliometric indices and the medical specialty. Further studies are needed to explore other important indicators of academic output, such as those more specifically assessing its quality and scientific importance.

Accuracy of PubMed-based author lists of publications and use of author identifiers to address author name ambiguity: a cross-sectional study

Objective: To assess the accuracy of PubMed-based author lists of publications and use of author identifiers to address author name ambiguity. Methods: In this Swiss study conducted in 2019, 300 hospital-based senior physicians were asked to generate a list of their publications in PubMed and complete a questionnaire (type of query used, number of errors in their list of publications, knowledge and use of ORCID and ResearcherID). Results: 156 physicians (52%) agreed to participate, 145 of whom published at least one article (mean number of publications: 60 (SD 73)). Only 17% used the advanced search option. On average, there were 5 articles in the lists that were not co-authored by participants (advanced search: 1.0 (SD 2.6) vs. 5.9 (SD 13.9), p value 0.02) and 3 articles co-authored by participants that did not appear in the lists (advanced search: 1.5 (SD 2.0) vs. 3.6 (SD 8.4), p-value 0.05). Although 82% were aware of ORCID, only 16% added all their articles (39% and 6% respectively for ResearcherID). Conclusions: When used by senior physicians, the advanced search in PubMed is accurate for retrieving authors’ publications. Author identifiers are only used by a minority of physicians and are therefore not recommended in this context, as they would lead to inaccurate results.

Methods to Mitigate Industry Influence in Industry Sponsored Research

Medical and surgical research has always had a long-standing relationship with industry-based funding from sources, such as drug and device companies. Concerns exist surrounding the association between funding sources, outcome from studies and publication bias. Studies demonstrating increased odds ratios associated with positive results in industry sponsored studies across medicine have stimulated Cochrane reviews, literature reviews and other articles to examine this relationship further. In spine surgery in particular, studies with positive results have an odds ratio of 3.3 of being published. This article discusses the biases associated with industry sponsorship, possible ways to reduce such biases and ways to improve transparency in research relationships. This article explores the types of bias that can be encountered at different stages of research including previous trials in spine surgery. The means of improving transparency including the Physician Payment Sunshine Act of 2010 and International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICJME) accreditation are discussed. We recognize that physicians undertaking industry sponsored research should be protected and not be liable to perverse incentives. We conclude that mitigating bias in industry sponsored research is a multistep process and needs a multifaceted approach. The main beneficiary of research should be patients and as such a collective effort from medical professionals, health care institutions, journals and industry should approach research, and publications with that in mind.

Scientific authorship: a primer for researchers

The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) proposed the authorship criteria which can be employed by medics and allied specialists. Scholars who substantively contribute to research and writing, revise, approve final drafts for target journal submissions, and take responsibility for all aspects of the work deserve authorship. Increasing awareness of the ICMJE criteria, incorporating related points in journal instructions, and enforcing them in daily practice may have positive impact for healthcare. Instances of inappropriate authorship are ethical transgressions which can be avoided by editors employing strategies of author profile evaluations. There are several platforms for recording author accomplishments which may improve the discoverability of scholarly works and prevent unethical conduct.

Most publishers advise authors to submit their Open Researcher and Contributor IDs (ORCID) at the manuscript submission. Other identifiers, such as Twitter handles, are also emerging as tools to stimulate post-publication communication and increase authors’ accountability for published articles.

Use of author identifier services (ORCID, ResearcherID) and academic social networks (Academia.edu, ResearchGate) by the researchers of the University of Caen Normandy (France): A case study

The purpose of this paper was to assess the presence of researchers on two author identifier services (ORCID and ResearcherID) and to compare the results with two academic social networks (Academia.edu and ResearchGate) using the categories of discipline, career advancement, and gender in a medium sized multidisciplinary university in France (University of Caen Normandy). Metrics such as number of publications per researcher, h-indexes, and average number of citations were also assessed. Of the 1,047 researchers studied, 673 (64.3%) had at least one profile on the four sites, and the number of researchers having multiple profiles decreased as more sites were studied. Researchers with only one profile numbered 385 (36.8%), while 204 (19.5%) had two, 68 (6.5%) had three, and only 16 (1.5%) had four. ResearchGate had by far the highest number of researchers present, with 569 (54.3%), whereas presence on the other sites was about 15%. We found that, apart from Academia.edu, researchers in Sciences, Technology, and Medicine (STM) were over-represented. Overall, experienced male researchers were over-represented on the sites studied. Our results show that, because of the numerous profiles lacking publication references (particularly on ORCID) and a low presence of researchers on the four sites studied (except for ResearchGate), assessing the number of publications, h-indexes, or average number of citations per article of individuals or institutions remains challenging. Finally, our data showed that French researchers have not adopted the use of the two author identifier sites (i.e. ORCID and ResearcherID). As long as French researchers remain reticent, these sites will not be able to provide the services for which they were created: addressing the problem of author misidentification, consequently providing exhaustive access to scientific production and bibliometric indicators of individual researchers and their institutions.

ORCID in the Open Science scenario: opportunities for academic libraries

The persistent identification of authors and contributors plays a decisive role within the Open Science landscape. The increasing number of published research products and new open publishing models and infrastructures requires author identification which goes beyond fields or infrastructures and guarantees interoperability. ORCID iD is presented as a persistent identifier for researchers in this context. As information managers and organisers, many academic libraries have taken the lead in offering ORCID-related services and implementing it in their systems. This paper scans the implementation models across Europe and the actions carried out by libraries. Finally, it also depicts perspectives for integration in the Austrian library and research context.

Comprehensive Approach to Open Access Publishing: Platforms and Tools

The Open Access Initiative is gaining momentum due to the worldwide availability of advanced digital tools, online publishing platforms, and systems for tracking academic contributions. Several declarations and initiatives, including Plan S, have already laid a foundation for moving away from subscription to full and immediate open-access publishing. The global initiatives imply targeting journals satisfying the upgraded quality and visibility criteria. To meet these criteria, a comprehensive approach to Open Access is recommended. This article overviews the essential components of the comprehensive approach, increasing transparency, adherence to ethical standards, and diversification of evaluation metrics. With the increasing volume of quality open-access journals, their indexing with free databases and search engines is becoming increasingly important. The Directory of Open Access Journals and PubMed Central currently free searches of open-access sources. These services, however, cannot fully satisfy the increasing demands of the users, and attempts are underway to upgrade the indexing and archiving of open-access sources in China, Japan, Korea, Russia, and elsewhere. The wide use of identifiers is essential for transparency of scholarly communications. Peer reviewers are now offered credits from Publons. These credits are transferrable to their Open Researcher and Contributor iDs. Various social media channels are increasingly used by scholars to comment on articles. All these comments are tracked by related metric systems, such as Altmetrics. Combined with traditional citation evaluations, the alternative metrics can help timely identify and promote publications influencing education, research, and practice.

Researcher and Author Profiles: Opportunities, Advantages, and Limitations

Currently available online profiling platforms offer various services for researchers and authors. Opening an individual account and filling it with scholarly contents increase visibility of research output and boost its impact. This article overviews some of the widely used and emerging profiling platforms, highlighting their tools for sharing scholarly items, crediting individuals, and facilitating networking. Global bibliographic databases and search platforms, such as Scopus, Web of Science, PubMed, and Google Scholar, are widely used for profiling authors with indexed publications. Scholarly networking websites, such as ResearchGate and Academia.edu, provide indispensable services for researchers poorly visible elsewhere on the Internet. Several specialized platforms are designed to offer profiling along with their main functionalities, such as reference management and archiving. The Open Researcher and Contributor Identification (ORCID) project has offered a solution to the author name disambiguation. It has been integrated with numerous bibliographic databases, platforms, and manuscript submission systems to help research managers and journal editors select and credit the best reviewers, and other scholarly contributors. Individuals with verifiable reviewer and editorial accomplishments are also covered by Publons, which is an increasingly recognized service for publicizing and awarding reviewer comments. Currently available profiling formats have numerous advantages and some limitations. The advantages are related to their openness and chances of boosting the researcher impact. Some of the profiling websites are complementary to each other. The underutilization of various profiling websites and their inappropriate uses for promotion of 'predatory' journals are among reported limitations. A combined approach to the profiling systems is advocated in this article.

Statement on Publication Ethics for Editors and Publishers

The digitization and related developments in journal editing and publishing necessitate increasing the awareness of all stakeholders of science communication in the emerging global problems and possible solutions. Journal editors and publishers are frequently encountered with the fast-growing problems of authorship, conflicts of interest, peer review, research misconduct, unethical citations, and inappropriate journal impact metrics. While the number of erroneous and unethical research papers and wasteful, or 'predatory', journals is increasing exponentially, responsible editors are urged to 'clean' the literature by correcting or retracting related articles. Indexers are advised to implement measures for accepting truly influential and ethical journals and delisting sources with predatory publishing practices. Updating knowledge and skills of authors, editors and publishers, developing and endorsing recommendations of global editorial associations, and (re)drafting journal instructions can be viewed as potential tools for improving ethics of academic journals. The aim of this Statement is to increase awareness of all stakeholders of science communication of the emerging ethical issues in journal editing and publishing and initiate a campaign of upgrading and enforcing related journal instructions.

Scientific author names: errors, corrections, and identity profiles

Authorship problems are deep-rooted in the field of science communication. Some of these relate to lack of specific journal instructions. For decades, experts in journal editing and publishing have been exploring the authorship criteria and contributions deserving either co-authorship or acknowledgment. The issue of inconsistencies of listing and abbreviating author names has come to the fore lately. There are reports on the difficulties of figuring out Chinese surnames and given names of South Indians in scholarly articles. However, it seems that problems with correct listing and abbreviating author names are global. This article presents an example of swapping second (father’s) name with surname in a ‘predatory’ journal, where numerous instances of incorrectly identifying and crediting authors passed unnoticed for the journal editors, and no correction has been published. Possible solutions are discussed in relation to identifying author profiles and adjusting editorial policies to the emerging problems. Correcting mistakes with author names post-publication and integrating with the Open Researcher and Contributor ID (ORCID) platform are among them.

Rewarding peer reviewers: maintaining the integrity of science communication

This article overviews currently available options for rewarding peer reviewers. Rewards and incentives may help maintain the quality and integrity of scholarly publications. Publishers around the world implemented a variety of financial and nonfinancial mechanisms for incentivizing their best reviewers. None of these is proved effective on its own. A strategy of combined rewards and credits for the reviewers1 creative contributions seems a workable solution. Opening access to reviews and assigning publication credits to the best reviews is one of the latest achievements of digitization. Reviews, posted on academic networking platforms, such as Publons, add to the transparency of the whole system of peer review. Reviewer credits, properly counted and displayed on individual digital profiles, help distinguish the best contributors, invite them to review and offer responsible editorial posts.

Capturing citation activity in three health sciences departments: a comparison study of Scopus and Web of Science

Scopus and Web of Science are the two major citation databases that collect and disseminate bibliometric statistics about research articles, journals, institutions, and individual authors. Liaison librarians are now regularly called upon to utilize these databases to assist faculty in finding citation activity on their published works for tenure and promotion, grant applications, and more. But questions about the accuracy, scope, and coverage of these tools deserve closer scrutiny. Discrepancies in citation capture led to a systematic study on how Scopus and Web of Science compared in a real-life situation encountered by liaisons: comparing three different disciplines at a medical school and nursing program. How many articles would each database retrieve for each faculty member using the author-searching tools provided? How many cited references for each faculty member would each tool generate? Results demonstrated troubling differences in publication and citation activity capture between Scopus and Web of Science. Implications for librarians are discussed.

Marketing to Develop the Premier Medical Brand in the Huaihai Economic Zone

Based on the practices at Xuzhou Central Hospital, the authors analyzed the improvements in the healthcare quality and economic efficiency after implementing a brand marketing strategy. Using methods including questionnaires and business controlling means, we summarized that the improvements to the healthcare quality and economic efficiency after strategies were implemented in the areas of network, reputation, academic research, and public welfare. After the implementation of a brand marketing campaign, the medical service quality and brand reputation have been greatly improved. Meanwhile, a central hospital group was formed and gradually became the central healthcare provider in the Huaihai Economic Zone. The new marketing facilitated the drastic increase of medical service and brand reputation.