Authorship Proliferation in the Orthopaedic Literature

Camp, Mark; Escott, Benjamin G.

doi:10.2106/jbjs.l.00519

Cited by 57 publications

(54 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In radiology, the number of authors per article significantly increased for all radiologic subspecialties, with the mean number of authors increasing from 5.1 to 7.1 over a 20‐year period . In orthopedics, the mean number of authors per original research article increased from 1.6 in 1949 to 5.1 in 2009 . These trends have also been confirmed in neurosurgery and plastic surgery .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 79%

“…11 In orthopedics, the mean number of authors per original research article increased from 1.6 in 1949 to 5.1 in 2009. 4 These trends have also been confirmed in neurosurgery and plastic surgery. 5,6 Our findings of an average of 5.4 authors per article between 2014 and 2016 in otolaryngology are consistent with that of other specialties, with cross-disciplinary collaboration in other medical specialties (50.9%) more common among articles with a greater number of authors.…”

Section: Cross-disciplinary Research Involves Team Members With Divermentioning

confidence: 72%

“…The benefits of cross‐disciplinary authorship have also been well‐documented, producing more frequently cited, high‐impact research in comparison to solo authors in the production of scientific knowledge . In a variety of specialties, trends in authorship have been investigated, confirming the increased number of authors per article and a decrease in single‐author publications …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…3 In a variety of specialties, trends in authorship have been investigated, confirming the increased number of authors per article and a decrease in single-author publications. [4][5][6] Although various studies investigating authorship trends have been performed in other specialties such as orthopedic surgery, neurosurgery, and plastic surgery, [4][5][6] no prior study has specifically evaluated cross-disciplinary collaboration in otolaryngology literature. Although the number of authors per article can be expected to follow trends observed in other fields, there is a lack of knowledge about the characteristics of authorship with regard to specialty or study design.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Reaching across the aisle: Cross‐disciplinary collaboration in otolaryngology research

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives Collaboration and diversity of expertise are increasingly emphasized in the production of successful research. However, the degree of cross‐disciplinary collaboration in otolaryngology research is unknown. In this study, we quantify cross‐disciplinary collaboration in otolaryngology publications. Methods We retrospectively analyzed authorship and study characteristics for all original articles published from January 2014 to December 2016 in three key peer‐reviewed otolaryngology journals: Laryngoscope, Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery, and JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery. Author affiliations and online searches were used to determine author's primary discipline. Subspecialty topic of article, study design, and funding sources were also recorded. Fisher exact test was used to compare characteristics of articles with and without cross‐disciplinary authorship. Results A total of 2,378 articles were reviewed, of which 1,312 (55%) articles had one or more cross‐disciplinary collaborators. Among articles with cross‐disciplinary collaboration, the greatest representation of disciplines was from other medical specialties (1,109, 50.9%), epidemiology/biostatistics (266, 12.2%), pathology/histology (175, 8.0%), biologic sciences (168, 7.7%), and radiology/imaging (144, 6.6%). Cross‐disciplinary studies had a significantly greater proportion of articles on the topic of head and neck compared to studies without collaboration (P < 0.0001). The proportion of funded studies was significantly greater among articles with collaboration compared to articles without collaboration (P < 0.0001). Conclusion The majority of articles published during a 3‐year period in three influential otolaryngology journals had cross‐disciplinary collaboration. There is potential opportunity for further leveraging expertise, funding opportunities, and dissemination of key findings through collaborative research. Level of Evidence NA Laryngoscope, 129:1800–1805, 2019

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 79%

Section: Cross-disciplinary Research Involves Team Members With Divermentioning

confidence: 72%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Reaching across the aisle: Cross‐disciplinary collaboration in otolaryngology research

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Authorship proliferation in publications has occurred with more authors per article along with an increase in the proportion of nonclinician scientists 1,2 . The level of evidence has also improved 3,4 .…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Gartsman

Morris

Unger

et al. 2015

The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Five decades of gratitude: A meta‐synthesis of acknowledgments research

Desrochers

Paul‐Hus

Pecoskie³

2017

Asso for Info Science & Tech

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This review of the literature presents an overview of the last 50 years of research on acknowledgments in the context of scholarly communication. Through qualitative coding and bibliometric methods, this meta-synthesis provides an in-depth description of acknowledgments research and reveals the five main thematic categories that emerge from this corpus of literature. Adopting a historical approach, this review shows a diversified and scattered research landscape. Despite five decades of analysis putting forward the potential value of acknowledgments as markers of scientific capital, the literature still lacks consensus as to the value and functions of acknowledgments within the reward system of science.1. What is the comprehensive landscape of acknowledgments research from the past five decades? 2. Does acknowledgment research build upon the preexisting body of research? 3. What are the thematic categories of acknowledgments research and how is the literature distributed among them?Additional Supporting Information may be found online at:

show abstract

Authorship Proliferation in the Orthopaedic Literature

Cited by 57 publications

References 26 publications

Reaching across the aisle: Cross‐disciplinary collaboration in otolaryngology research

Reaching across the aisle: Cross‐disciplinary collaboration in otolaryngology research

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

Five decades of gratitude: A meta‐synthesis of acknowledgments research

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About