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

Brinker, Alexander; Liao, Jane; Kraus, Kent R.; Young, Jocelyn; Sandelski, Morgan M.; Mikesell, Carter; Robinson, Daniel C.; Adjei, Michael; Lunsford, Shatoria; Fischer, Johannes; Kacena, Melissa A.; Whipple, Elizabeth C.; Loder, Randall T.

doi:10.1097/brs.0000000000002562

Cited by 31 publications

(38 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Covariance analysis showed that the characteristics of published reviews with authors from two or more countries and with more than three authors were associated with overall reporting quality. This was also demonstrated in Brinker et al () and Hou et al () studies. Fontelo and Liu () reported that authors from the United States published 27.6% of its total publication output in collaboration with other countries, followed by 23.5% from China, 16.0% from the UK, and 12.9% from Canada.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 80%

Has the Reporting Quality of Systematic Review Abstracts in Nursing Improved Since the Release of PRISMA for Abstracts? A Survey of High‐Profile Nursing Journals

Wang

Tian

Han

et al. 2019

Worldviews Ev Based Nurs

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The PRISMA for Abstracts (PRISMA‐A) was developed to guide authors to present a structured abstract. However, the adherence of abstracts to these guidelines in some areas was of concern. Aims To determine whether the publication of PRISMA‐A resulted in an improvement in the abstracts reported with nursing systematic reviews (SRs). Methods This was a cross‐sectional study. We searched PubMed for randomized controlled trials–based SRs published in top‐tier nursing journals. A PRISMA‐A checklist was used to assess abstracts in the SR included. Total score on checklists, comparison of total scores between two periods, and effect factors were analyzed. Results Overall, abstract reporting compliance with PRISMA‐A has not improved significantly with the time span. Of the 81 SRs, 74.1% were structured. About half reported eligibility criteria, information sources, and description of the effect as recommended. Registration status was reported only in 4.9%. The reporting quality was significantly higher for journals with higher impact factors (p < .001). Linking Evidence to Action Although not inclusive of all SRs in the nursing field, our sample reflects the general trend that there was no significant improvement in the compliance of SR abstracts reported in nursing with the release of PRISMA‐A. There is room for improvement, as most items have not been fully reported.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 80%

Has the Reporting Quality of Systematic Review Abstracts in Nursing Improved Since the Release of PRISMA for Abstracts? A Survey of High‐Profile Nursing Journals

Wang

Tian

Han

et al. 2019

Worldviews Ev Based Nurs

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Similar 30 year bibliometric studies were performed recently in several orthopaedic surgery (which is traditionally a male dominated field)/bone biology journals (which have a higher female representation than orthopaedic surgery). 8,17,24,32,42,43,49 ABME® was tied with the Journal of Orthopaedic Research for the highest percentage point increase (rounded to nearest whole number) in manuscripts with female first authors over 30 years (Range: 1 to 30). Similarly, ABME® was second for the highest percentage point increase over 30 years in female corresponding author manuscripts published (Range: 0 to 27).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Authorship Trends Over the Past 30-Years in the Annals of Biomedical Engineering

et al. 2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In academia, manuscripts serve as an important component of career development. The past several years have seen heightened evaluation of the role of the gender gap in career advancement, as well as other bibliometric changes in publications. We therefore analyzed authorship and publication trends in the Annals of Biomedical Engineering over the past three decades (one complete year of manuscripts for each decade; 1986, 1996, 2006, and 2016). The variables analyzed were number of authors per manuscript, numerical position of the corresponding author, number of collaborating institutions and countries, number of references, and number of citations per manuscript. The gender of both the first and corresponding authors was identified and analyzed over time and by region. Globally, the percentage of female first and corresponding authors significantly increased from 0% in 1986 to 28.6% (p = 0.003) and 20.4% (p = 0.0009) respectively, in 2016. Although there were significant differences regarding female first and corresponding author over time, they did not vary by region of origin (p = 0.5 and 0.2, respectively). Overall, these findings highlight the improvements made and the challenges that still exist related to publishing within the bioengineering field.

show abstract

“…As the study began in mid-2017, 2016 was the most recent year with a complete data. Such methodology using regularly spaced years is well established and used in many studies, [20,21,23,25,26,27,28,29,34,35,36,37,38]. Publication data from a PubMed search was downloaded into EndNote X7 (Thomson Reuters, New York, NY, 2013).…”

Section: Design and Data Sourcementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Changes over time in authorship and other bibliometric variables in the orthopaedic literature have been recently studied [18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32]. The common findings in these studies are an increasing number of authors, manuscript pages, references, and institutional/international collaborations over time, as well as an increasing number of female authors.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bibliometric and authorship trends over a 30 year publication history in two representative US sports medicine journals

Dynako

Owens

Loder

et al. 2020

Heliyon

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Bibliometric studies are important to understand changes and improvement opportunities in academia. This study compared bibliometric trends for two major sports medicine/arthroscopy journals, the American Journal of Sports Medicine® (AJSM®) and Arthroscopy® over the past 30 years. Trends over time and comparisons between both journals were noted for common bibliometric variables (number of authors, references, pages, citations, and corresponding author position) as well as author gender and continental origin. Appropriate statistical analyses were performed. A p < 0.001 was considered statistically significant. One representative year per decade was used. There were 814 manuscripts from AJSM® and 650 from Arthroscopy®. For AJSM® the number of manuscripts steadily increased from 86 in 1986 to 350 in 2016; for Arthroscopy® the number of manuscripts increased from 73 in 1985/1986, to 267 in 2006, but then dropped to 229 in 2016. There were significant increases in all bibliometric variables, except for the number of citations which decreased in Arthroscopy®. There were significant differences in manuscript region of origin by journal (p ¼ 0.000002). Arthroscopy® had a greater percentage of manuscripts from Asia than AJSM® (19.3% vs 11.5%) while AJSM® had a greater percentage from North America (70.3% vs 59.2%); both journals had similar percentages from Europe (18.2% for AJSM® and 21.6% for Arthroscopy®). For AJSM® the average percentage of female first authors was 13.3%, increasing from 4.7% in 1986 to 19.3% in 2016; the average percentage of female corresponding authors was 7.3%. For Arthroscopy®, the average percentage of female first authors was 8.1%, increasing from 2.8% in 1985/1986 to 15.7% in 2016 (p ¼ 0.00007). In conclusion, AJSM® and Arthroscopy® showed an increase in most variables analyzed. Although Arthroscopy® is climbing at a higher rate than AJSM® for female authors, AJSM® has an overall greater percentage of female authors.

show abstract

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

Abstract: N/A.

Cited by 31 publications

References 38 publications

Has the Reporting Quality of Systematic Review Abstracts in Nursing Improved Since the Release of PRISMA for Abstracts? A Survey of High‐Profile Nursing Journals

Has the Reporting Quality of Systematic Review Abstracts in Nursing Improved Since the Release of PRISMA for Abstracts? A Survey of High‐Profile Nursing Journals

Authorship Trends Over the Past 30-Years in the Annals of Biomedical Engineering

Bibliometric and authorship trends over a 30 year publication history in two representative US sports medicine journals

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About