当前位置: X-MOL 学术Scientometrics › 论文详情
Our official English website, www.x-mol.net, welcomes your feedback! (Note: you will need to create a separate account there.)
Letters to the editor in exercise science and physical therapy journals: an examination of content and “authorship inflation”
Scientometrics ( IF 3.9 ) Pub Date : 2021-06-23 , DOI: 10.1007/s11192-021-04068-w
James L. Nuzzo

Letters to the editor are often critiques of published research papers. Journal editors acknowledge the importance of letters in post-publication review, yet the themes of letters remain unclear. Incidentally, letters can also be used to examine “authorship inflation” in academic publishing, as confounders (e.g., research complexity) are naturally controlled by the letter model. Thus, the aim of Study 1 was to describe the contents of letters published in nine exercise science and physical therapy journals between 2000 and 2018 (n = 1047 letters). The aim of Study 2 was to determine if mean number of authors per letter increased between 1963 and 2018 in seven exercise science and physical therapy journals (n = 2247 letters). Letter writers most commonly commented on results interpretation (52.7% of letters), methods (52.5%), referencing (12.1%), statistics (11.7%), terminology or definitions (5.0%), data errors (4.1%), and ethical or safety issues (2.5%). Letter writers also frequently referenced their own work (51.8%) and provided compliments (31.5%). In Study 2, when data from all journals were combined and categorized in 5-year epochs, mean number of authors per letter generally increased over time: 1980–84 (1.30 ± 0.66; mean ± SD), 1985–89 (1.32 ± 0.64), 1990–94 (1.56 ± 1.42), 1995–99 (1.47 ± 0.87), 2000–04 (1.55 ± 0.95), 2005–09 (1.80 ± 1.11), 2010–14 (2.11 ± 1.27), and 2015–18 (2.73 ± 3.21). Percentage of single-author letters decreased from 77.9% in 1980–84 to 30.6% in 2015–18. Overall, the results clarify the role of letters in post-publication review. They also suggest “authorship inflation” in letters published in scientific journals.



中文翻译:

给运动科学和物理治疗期刊编辑的信:内容审查和“作者膨胀”

给编辑的信通常是对已发表研究论文的批评。期刊编辑承认信件在发表后审查中的重要性,但信件的主题仍不清楚。顺便说一下,信函也可用于检查学术出版中的“作者膨胀”,因为混杂因素(例如,研究复杂性)自然受信函模型的控制。因此,研究 1 的目的是描述 2000 年至 2018 年间在九种运动科学和物理治疗期刊上发表的信件内容(n  = 1047 封信件)。研究 2 的目的是确定 1963 年至 2018 年间七种运动科学和物理治疗期刊(n = 2247 个字母)。信件作者最常评论结果解释(52.7% 的信件)、方法(52.5%)、参考(12.1%)、统计(11.7%)、术语或定义(5.0%)、数据错误(4.1%)和道德或安全问题(2.5%)。写信人还经常引用他们自己的作品(51.8%)并提供赞美(31.5%)。在研究 2 中,当所有期刊的数据在 5 年时期内合并并分类时,每封信的平均作者人数通常会随着时间的推移而增加:1980-84(1.30 ± 0.66;平均值 ± SD),1985-89(1.32 ± 0.64) ), 1990–94 (1.56 ± 1.42), 1995–99 (1.47 ± 0.87), 2000–04 (1.55 ± 0.95), 2005–09 (1.80 ± 1.11), 2010–1), 15–2. 2. 18 (2.73 ± 3.21)。单作者信件的百分比从 1980-84 年的 77.9% 下降到 2015-18 年的 30.6%。全面的,结果阐明了信函在发表后审查中的作用。他们还建议在科学期刊上发表的信件中出现“作者身份膨胀”。

更新日期:2021-07-19
down
wechat
bug