Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Authorship is the currency of the academic orthopaedic surgeon. There has been an unprecedented increase in the number of authors per publication in many biomedical fields. Possible reasons for this trend include increased complexity of research, "undeserved" authorship, and the "pressure to publish." We explored the change in authorship in two leading orthopaedic journals over a period of sixty years. METHODS: We examined all original research articles and case reports published in The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (American and British Volumes) (JBJS-A and JBJS-B) in ten-year intervals from 1949 to 2009. For each article, we determined the number of authors, the geographic origin of the research, and the academic degrees of the authors; we also examined the changes that occurred in these categories. RESULTS: The mean number of authors per original research article increased from 1.6 in 1949 to 5.1 in 2009. There has been a noticeable internationalization of the two journals, with a decreasing proportion of articles from North America and the United Kingdom and Ireland as a result of increased contributions from Europe and the Far East. Authors with advanced research degrees (PhD; MS; MD, PhD; and MD, MS) account for an increasing proportion of contributing authors; over 30% of authors had an advanced research degree in 2009. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that the trend of authorship proliferation in biomedical research is also seen in the orthopaedic literature. The mean number of authors, the proportion of authors per research article with an advanced research degree, and variation in the geographic origin of articles has increased over the past sixty years.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.074 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.022 | 0.021 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".