Protecting the Public's Health in An Era of Bioterrorism: The Model State Emergency Health Powers Act

During the fall of 2001, public health law scholars at the Center for Law and the Public's Health at Georgetown and Johns Hopkins Universities were asked by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and a series of national partners to develop the Model State Emergency Health Powers Act (MSEHPA). The MSEHPA provides a series of modern powers for states to consider in responding to catastrophic public health emergencies, including bioterrorism events. Since December 2001, provisions based on the MSEHPA have been introduced in nearly 40 states and passed in 20. Underlying the development of the act is a long-standing debate between legal and ethical scholars and law- and policymakers as to the appropriate ways to balance individual and communal rights. The drafting challenge was to create a comprehensive model law that provides adequate powers to protect the public's health while also respecting individual and group rights. The MSEHPA empowers public health agents with broad authority and simultaneously limits the exercise of power in time, duration, and scope to accomplish communal goals of abating serious public health threats. Coercive public health powers, particularly isolation and quarantine, are exercised on a temporary basis, only so long as are reasonably necessary and only among persons who justifiably may pose a risk to others because of their contagious conditions. Individual rights to contest the coercive use of public health powers, even during an emergency, are secured.     

A 9-Year Analysis of Bibliographical Trends for Journals in the Subject Category of General and Internal Medicine

For academic research outcomes, an important bibliometric scoring termed as the journal impact factor (JIF) is used when assessment of the quality of research is required. No known study has been conducted to explore the bibliographical trends of ‘Medicine, General & Internal’ journals indexed by the annual Journal Citation Reports. Data from the Journal Citation Reports and Web of Science database were extracted to formulate a comprehensive analysis. In this study, the trends of 15 journals (5 top ranked and 10 low ranked; 5 English and 5 non-English based) were selected and analysed over a 9-year period (starting from year 1999 to 2007). Using the year 1999 as the base year, the results showed that the JIF rose significantly for the selected top ranked journals (up to 180.9%) while the low ranked ones slipped in their JIF value (down to ?44.4%). The observed upward or downward trend was caused by a combination of other bibliographical measures like citations, number of citable, and total items published. It is postulated that changes in bibliographical trends can be classified as editorial and non-editorial influences. The impacts of these influences on the 15 selected journals over the 9-year period were also discussed retrospectively.     

Letter to the editor: On plurality and authorship in science

Moffatt argues that the “plurality of distinct accounts of scientific authorship” necessitates caution in attempts to identify unethical authorship practices, and urges that considerations be given to establishing a “single consensus account of authorship.” The revised International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) criteria do capture the essential features of authorship in terms of “intellectual contribution” and “responsibility and accountability,” which would clearly demarcate academically legitimate authorship from the common misdemeanors of ghost writing and honorary authorship. However, plurality in the practice of science and credit-sharing culture at the ground would likely render universal adoption or compliance of a single consensus account of authorship untenable.     

Awareness of Publication Guidelines and the Responsible Conduct of Research

We have conducted a longitudinal survey of NIH-funded F32 postdoctoral fellows to determine if mandated instruction in the responsible conduct of research (RCR) has measurable effects on awareness of, attentiveness to, and behavioral judgments about research ethics and authorship and publication. Of 418 F32 fellows participating in the study, 50% were aware of and had referred to guidelines on authorship and publication practices while 50% were either unaware of or had not referred to guidelines. Groups were similar with regard to total number of peer-reviewed publications and total number of first author publications, years of research experience, years since completing their doctoral degree, and receipt of RCR training. The equal distribution of guideline awareness and use, and group similarities with regard to career development and achievement provided us with an opportunity to consider whether awareness of and use of guidelines is associated with broader judgments about author roles and responsibilities. The findings suggest that awareness and utilization of guidelines are, at best, only modestly associated with more ethically appropriate judgments and attitudes about author roles and responsibilities among novice F32’s.     

Social Policy's ‘Greatest Hits’

The ‘age of metrics’ or ‘the metric tide’ in the form of bibliometrics has largely by‐passed Social Policy. This study aims to broaden the focus from the most cited articles in Social Policy journals to discover the most cited works in Social Policy or ‘Social Policy's Greatest Hits’. It finds some 24 works with over 2000 Google Scholar citations, but only nine of these are by social policy writers. In terms of total citations, Gosta Esping‐Andersen's The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism is the clear leader by a significant margin, with the most cited Social Policy (or Social Administration) writers being Peter Townsend, Richard Titmuss, Ruth Lister and Jane Lewis. In addition to total citations, it presents citations per year, and ‘Social Policy citations’ (i.e. the use made of the work within the discipline of Social Policy). This list is headed by Gosta Esping‐Andersen and Paul Pierson, with the leading social policy writer being Jane Lewis. This article presents a set of the ‘most plausible contenders’ for the works with greatest influence within Social Policy or ‘Social Policy's Greatest Hits’. It is concluded that, even with its flaws, bibliometrics is an important approach to exploring the vast field of Social Policy.     

Analysis and Implications of Retraction Period and Coauthorship of Fraudulent Publications

Studies have indicated that the number and frequency of fraudulent publications being retracted are not subsiding even with greater awareness of such incidents in the recent decades. In this study, the trends of retraction period, number of citations and coauthors of 5 selected researchers who had ≥ 15 fraudulent publications retracted were analyzed. The obtained results shows that the retraction period is 48.96 ± 32.16 months for the 113 publications affiliated to the 5 studied researchers. There are a total of 180 coauthors with 6.40 ± 3.26 coauthors per researcher's retracted publication. The linear regression analysis indicates that there is limited correlation (R² = .008) between the citation counts and retraction period. The p value for multiple F-tests to assess the number of coauthors to a fraudulent publication on an interresearcher basis is found to be ranging from < .001 to .458. It is also found that a better correlation (R² = .592) exists between the likelihood of a researcher to involve different individuals for isolated fraudulent publications while only selecting very few to be their frequent coauthors of their mischievous acts. With this study, the possible use of coauthors as a strategy for publishing fraudulent work and a potential approach to tighten coauthorship are discussed.     

Validation of the CoRE Questionnaire for a Medical Journal Peer Review

If a peer review instrument asks concrete questions (defined as items that can only generate disagreement if reviewers have different degrees of expertise), then questionnaires could become more meaningful in terms of resolving subjectivity thus leading to more reviewer agreement. A concrete item questionnaire with well-chosen questions can also help resolve disagreement when reviewers have the same level of expertise. We have recently created the core-item reviewer evaluation (CoRE) questionnaire for which decision-threshold score levels have been created, but which have not been validated. This prospective validation of these thresholds for the CoRE questionnaire demonstrated strong agreement between reviewer recommendations and their reported score levels when tested prospectively at Clinical Medicine and Research. We conclude that using the CoRE questionnaire will help reduce peer reviewer disagreement. More importantly, when reviewer expertise varies, editors can more easily detect this and decide which opinion reflects the greater expertise.     

基于中国知网高被引期刊被引指标的相关性探讨

统计并分析了中国知网《引文数据库》高被引期刊被引频次最高的前30名期刊发文量、被引频次、下载频次、H指数、被引率等指标间的相关性,显示发文量与下载频次间呈显著正相关,与被引率和H指数均为显著负相关;被引率与H指数呈现高度正相关。结果表明不宜片面追求发文量,而应保持刊物适度容量,走精品期刊道路;另一方面,也反映出H指数作为新出现的期刊计量指标所具有的应用价值。     

Influences on Authorship Issues: An Evaluation of Giving Credit

A survey on authorship issues was conducted with academic chemists in Ph.D.-granting institutions in the United States. Six hundred faculty members responded. The respondents reported a wide range in their attitudes and behavior regarding giving credit in a publication. The various guidelines for authorship are independent of academic background factors such as the relationship between the senior author and the contributor-potential author. However, the survey data reveal significant context-dependency by the respondents. Many respondents would give more credit to their own student than to another professor's student for the exact same contribution to a research project. The survey data further shows that the faculty who received their Ph.D. in the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s are the most likely to provide authorship, while those who received their Ph.D. in the 1990s and 2000s would most likely give either no credit or acknowledgments.     

Academic Affiliations of Social Work Journals Authors

No abstract available for this article.     

中学生心理问题的家庭原因分析

在中学生个案心理咨询工作中,我们发现中学生的心理问题产生的最主要原因是家长的主观性教育和不合理的家庭教育方式。“成也父母,败也父母”已成为当前青少年学生家庭教育中的普遍现象。     

Orphan Papers and Ghostwriting: The Case against the ICMJE Criterion of Authorship

Although popular, I argue that the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) account of authorship is flawed. It inadvertently allows for practices that it was designed to prevent. In addition, it creates a new category of authorless papers—orphan papers. The original World Association of Medical Editors (WAME) criterion is preferable.     

Quantifying fear: The social impact of terrorism

This paper proposes a methodology to measure social impact of terrorism. We define a multidimensional terrorism index based not only on deaths but also on other variables such as injuries, bombs and kidnappings. The weight of each terrorist activity is given by its social impact, which is estimated through its relevance in the media. For this task we build up a new data set from the four most important newspapers in Spain, namely, El País, El Mundo, ABC, and La Vanguardia. Finally, we evaluate the social impact of ETA terrorism in Spain from 1993 through 2004.     

Research Misconduct Policies of Social Science Journals and Impact Factor

In this study we gathered data on the misconduct policies of social science journals and combined it with the data from our previous study on journal misconduct policies, which did not include enough social science journals for data analysis. Consistent with our earlier finding, impact factor of the journal was the only variable significantly associated with whether a journal had a formal (written) misconduct policy with an odds-ratio of 1.72 (p < 0.01). We did not find that type of science (physical, biomedical, or social) or publisher had a significant effect on whether a journal had a policy. Another important finding is that less than half of the journals that responded to the survey had a formal misconduct policy.     

Conflict of interest reporting in biomedical journals published in China

This study aimed to investigate the current status and policy of Conflict of interest (COI) reporting in biomedical journals in China. Thirty Chinese-language medical journals and 37 English-language biomedical journals indexed by Journal Citation Reports categories were included into this study. These 67 journals were all published in China. All articles published in the most recent two issues were checked for identifying the disclosure statement in the text or not. Twenty-one of 30 (70%) Chinese-language journals required a disclosure of author’s potential COI. No journals require editors or referees to disclose the conflicts of interest to the readers. In total, 1,212 publications in Chinese-language were evaluated. Only two journals reported COI in their publications. For the 37 English-language journals, 32 (86.5%) required author’s potential COI disclosure, and four of them required only research articles or original articles to disclose COI. A total of 1,170 publications were evaluated. Among them, 50% editorials, 79.3% review articles, and 73.6% original articles reported presence or absence of COI. In our studied journals, the percentage of the policies requiring author COI disclosure is still low. Biomedical journals published in China should enforce COI disclosure policies to authors, editors, and referees.     

The Swing of the Regulatory Pendulum in Europe: From Precautionary Principle to (Regulatory) Impact Analysis

Regulation in Europe is currently driven by three distinct, yet not entirely unrelated factors. These are competitiveness, sustainable development and governance. Increasingly these factors influence both the need for, and concepts of, what the European Commission (the Commission) refers to as “better regulation.” To ensure better regulation, two regulatory philosophies have been put forward, namely the precautionary principle and impact assessment.^1,2 In this paper, I first briefly describe the current drivers of better regulation. Then I examine the use of these two regulatory philosophies in helping to achieve better regulation. In the final section I offer some speculations on the future development of European Union (EU) regulation. Will elements of the Commission and the EU member states operate in an even more precautionary environment, or will the implementation of the precautionary principle be seen as too costly, forcing regulators to resort to an even greater use of impact analysis?     

北京市"出版原创推新工程"首批推出作品述评

北京市"出版原创推新工程"自2008年正式启动以来,在社会上引起了强烈反响,推出了二十余部优秀原创作品。这些作品涉及小说、散文、诗歌等各种体裁,它们或关注现实人生,或抒发真情实感,充分体现出青年原创作者的创作潜力。     

The 100 Most Influential Contemporary Social Work Faculty as Assessed by the H-Index

The names of faculty employed by the 76 member social work programs of the Group for the Advancement of Doctoral Education in Social Work were retrieved via a web-search. This resulted in a list of 2204 social work faculty. Their individual H-Indices were then obtained, using either the Publish or Perish software, or via manual calculations from Google Scholar. The top 100 most influential contemporary social work faculty were identified, resulting in a listing of individuals who have published relatively large numbers of scholarly works which themselves have been subsequently highly cited. Apart from recognizing these productive individuals, listing them and their home institutions will permit future researchers to examine the causes and correlates of high academic productivity.     

论当代社科杂志编辑主体精神的重建

“知识经济”和“全球化”的到来,使社科杂志无法正常地发挥角色作用,显得无所适从,趋向于边缘化。边缘化的直接结果便是编辑主体意识的迷失。重建编辑主体精神成了当前刻不容缓的任务。这种重建包括敏感心、责任感、理论素养和数字化技术意识及能力,同时,这也是社科杂志重返社会文化中心的基础和前提。