Academic performance is still primarily judged on publications. Not surprisingly, pressure to publish for the purpose of academic standing or promotion can be huge. People have been put off from an academic career simply because of this necessity. This is unfortunate because publishing our research findings or knowledge is our core business and why we become academicians. The notion that teaching is the academician’s chief duty is only half correct. We should and can enjoy publishing if we accept this as an inseparable part of our job. (Copied from article).
Despite the widely used author contribution criteria, unethical authorship practices such as guest, ghost, and honorary authorship remain largely unsolved. We have identified six major reasons by analyzing 78 published papers addressing unethical authorship practice. Those are lack of: (i) awareness about and (ii) compliance with authorship criteria, (iii) universal definition and scope for determining authorship, (iv) common mechanisms for positioning an author in the list, (v) quantitative measures of intellectual contribution; and (vi) pressure to publish. As a measure to control unethical practice, we have evaluated the possibility to adopt an author categorization scheme - proposed according to the common understanding of how first-, co-, principal-, or corresponding- author is perceived. Based on an online opinion survey, the scheme was supported by ~80% of the respondents (n=370). The impact of the proposed categorization was then evaluated using a novel mathematical tool to measure "Author Performance Index (API)" that can be higher for those who might have authored more papers as primary and/or principal authors than those as coauthors. Hence, if adopted, the proposed author categorization scheme together with the API would provide a better way to evaluate the credit of an individual as a primary and principal author.
After submission and acceptance of a scientific paper by a journal, the final stages in the publishing process are copy-editing and proofreading. The primary purpose of this step is to ensure accurate and quality production of scientific papers. Authors are responsible for checking their proofs properly and in detail, ensuring that everything is correct as this is their last chance to make any changes before their work is set in print forever.
The debate surrounding "predatory publishing" continues to be unable to find entirely effective solutions to dealing with this problem, despite fervent efforts by many academics and policy makers around the world. Given this situation, we were interested in appreciating whether ChatGPT would be able to offer insight and solutions, to complement current human-based efforts.
The Global Alliance for Infections in Surgery appreciates the great effort of the task force who derived and validated the Sepsis-3 definitions and considers the new definitions an important step forward in the evolution of our understanding of sepsis. Nevertheless, more than a year after their publication, we have a few concerns regarding the use of the Sepsis-3 definitions.
Research paper recommenders emerged over the last decade to ease finding publications relating to researchers' area of interest. The challenge was not just to provide researchers with very rich publications at any time, any place and in any form but to also offer the right publication to the right researcher in the right way. Several approaches exist in handling paper recommender systems. However, these approaches assumed the availability of the whole contents of the recommending papers to be freely accessible, which is not always true due to factors such as copyright restrictions. This paper presents a collaborative approach for research paper recommender system. By leveraging the advantages of collaborative filtering approach, we utilize the publicly available contextual metadata to infer the hidden associations that exist between research papers in order to personalize recommendations. The novelty of our proposed approach is that it provides personalized recommendations regardless of the research field and regardless of the user's expertise. Using a publicly available dataset, our proposed approach has recorded a significant improvement over other baseline methods in measuring both the overall performance and the ability to return relevant and useful publications at the top of the recommendation list.
The purpose of the results section is to present the main data collected and the observations made during the research. It provides interpretation of the analysed data and does not contain details on the methods, materials or discussion. The first step in writing the results section is to review the analysed data and determine which results to present. This can be done by deciding which results are relevant to the question(s) presented in the introduction, and may be supplemented by illustrative tables and figures. The results section guides the reader through the questions investigated in the study and sets the stage for the discussion in the next section.
Considering the fact that publications serve as an important criterion to evaluate the scientific accomplishments of an individual within respective fields in academia, there has been an increasing trend to publish scientific articles whereby multiple authors are defined as primary, co-, or corresponding authors according to the roles performed. This article analyzes the authorship pattern in 4,561 papers (including 60 single-authored papers) from 1990 till 2020 of 94 academics who hold a position as professors and are affiliated with the Faculty of Medicine at three different research universities in Malaysia. Only 708 papers (15.5% of 4,561 papers) were authored by less than three authors. In 3,080 papers (67.5% of 4,561 papers), those academics appeared as coauthors. Using different years as cutoff periods, it was observed that the appearance as coauthor in the papers had steeply risen around the years: 2006, 2007, 2008 and onwards. The increased number of authors in the multi-author papers and the appearance of the selected academics as coauthors reflect the extent of boosting of collaborative research in that period which corresponds to the adoption of the "publish or perish policy" by the Ministry of Higher Education in Malaysia.
The year 2005 marked the rebirth of JUMMEC when the Editorial Board took over from its previous Editor with modest but realistic expectations. One year on, we have successfully achieved our initial expectation, that is, to encourage greater participation from our junior academics to write and publish in our very own journal, JUMMEC. As we head towards the end of 2006 and prepare to usher in 2007, we see JUMMEC consolidating and gaining in strength. Let us reflect on its past achievements and our expectations for the future.(Copied from article).
Journal business models are basically classified based on the source of income to cover publication costs and in general there are two main journal business models which are the toll-access and open-access. These leading to a question that still remains around the ethics of publishing academic work across the different journal business models in terms of (a) editorial decision-making and (b) the dissemination of research that has not been appropriately peer-reviewed for quality and rigor. This paper discussed about these two areas based on the literature and the authors' observations.
After publication of the article [1], it has been brought to our attention that two of the labels on Figure 4 have transposed. The labels "S-type SSU rRNA" and "A-type SSU rRNA" should be in opposite places.
CORRECTION: After the publication [1] it came to the attention of the authors that one of the co-authors was incorrectly included as Hamza Somrain. The correct spelling is as follows: Hamzeh Sumrein.
Following the publication of the article it has come to the authors' attention that the first panel of Fig. 11 has been repeated with the second panel of Fig. 11.
In 1986, the Malaysian Journal of Medical Sciences (MJMS) began as the small and newly established journal Diagnosa, established by the Universiti Sains Malaysia School of Medicine. After 28 years in the publishing industry, we have received the honor of a listing as a local journal in the Emerging Sources Citation Index (ESCI) created by Thomson Reuters (TR) to spotlight emerging high-quality scientific publications. The editorial team of MJMS looks forward to the next step in the march of progress toward the status of an international journal.