IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v126y2021i8d10.1007_s11192-021-04068-w.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Letters to the editor in exercise science and physical therapy journals: an examination of content and “authorship inflation”

Author

Listed:
  • James L. Nuzzo

    (Independent researcher)

Abstract

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.

Suggested Citation

  • James L. Nuzzo, 2021. "Letters to the editor in exercise science and physical therapy journals: an examination of content and “authorship inflation”," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(8), pages 6917-6936, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:126:y:2021:i:8:d:10.1007_s11192-021-04068-w
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-021-04068-w
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-021-04068-w
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11192-021-04068-w?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. James L. Nuzzo, 2020. "Large sex difference despite equal opportunity: authorship of over 3000 letters in exercise science and physical therapy journals over 56 years," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 124(1), pages 679-695, July.
    2. Blaise Cronin, 2001. "Hyperauthorship: A postmodern perversion or evidence of a structural shift in scholarly communication practices?," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 52(7), pages 558-569.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Nadine Desrochers & Adèle Paul‐Hus & Jen Pecoskie, 2017. "Five decades of gratitude: A meta‐synthesis of acknowledgments research," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 68(12), pages 2821-2833, December.
    2. Waltman, Ludo, 2012. "An empirical analysis of the use of alphabetical authorship in scientific publishing," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 6(4), pages 700-711.
    3. Olle Persson & Wolfgang Glänzel, 2014. "Discouraging honorific authorship," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 98(2), pages 1417-1419, February.
    4. Jo Royle & Louisa Coles & Dorothy Williams & Paul Evans, 2007. "Publishing in international journals," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 71(1), pages 59-86, April.
    5. Rosenzweig, Stav & Grinstein, Amir & Ofek, Elie, 2016. "Social network utilization and the impact of academic research in marketing," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 33(4), pages 818-839.
    6. Franceschini, Fiorenzo & Maisano, Domenico, 2011. "Structured evaluation of the scientific output of academic research groups by recent h-based indicators," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 5(1), pages 64-74.
    7. Franceschet, Massimo & Costantini, Antonio, 2010. "The effect of scholar collaboration on impact and quality of academic papers," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 4(4), pages 540-553.
    8. Liming Liang & Junwan Liu & Ronald Rousseau, 2004. "Name order patterns of graduate candidates and supervisors in Chinese publications: A case study of three major Chinese universities," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 61(1), pages 3-18, September.
    9. Chung-Souk Han, 2011. "On the demographical changes of U.S. research doctorate awardees and corresponding trends in research fields," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 89(3), pages 845-865, December.
    10. Shanwu Tian & Xiurui Xu & Ping Li, 2021. "Acknowledgement network and citation count: the moderating role of collaboration network," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(9), pages 7837-7857, September.
    11. Xuan Zhen Liu & Hui Fang, 2014. "Scientific group leaders’ authorship preferences: an empirical investigation," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 98(2), pages 909-925, February.
    12. Perianes-Rodriguez, Antonio & Waltman, Ludo & van Eck, Nees Jan, 2016. "Constructing bibliometric networks: A comparison between full and fractional counting," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(4), pages 1178-1195.
    13. Arsev U. Aydinoglu & Suzie Allard & Chad Mitchell, 2016. "Measuring diversity in disciplinary collaboration in research teams: An ecological perspective," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 25(1), pages 18-36.
    14. Fiorenzo Franceschini & Domenico Maisano & Luca Mastrogiacomo, 2014. "The citer-success-index: a citer-based indicator to select a subset of elite papers," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 101(2), pages 963-983, November.
    15. Julia Heuritsch, 2023. "The Evaluation Gap in Astronomy—Explained through a Rational Choice Framework," Publications, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-26, June.
    16. Mingers, John & Yang, Liying, 2017. "Evaluating journal quality: A review of journal citation indicators and ranking in business and management," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 257(1), pages 323-337.
    17. Al Lily, Abdulrahman Essa, 2016. "Crowd-authoring: The art and politics of engaging 101 authors of educational technology," International Journal of Information Management, Elsevier, vol. 36(6), pages 1053-1061.
    18. Guillaume Cabanac, 2012. "Shaping the landscape of research in information systems from the perspective of editorial boards: A scientometric study of 77 leading journals," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 63(5), pages 977-996, May.
    19. Guillaume Cabanac, 2012. "Shaping the landscape of research in information systems from the perspective of editorial boards: A scientometric study of 77 leading journals," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 63(5), pages 977-996, May.
    20. Tanel Hirv, 2022. "The interplay of the size of the research system, ways of collaboration, level, and method of funding in determining bibliometric outputs," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(3), pages 1295-1316, March.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:126:y:2021:i:8:d:10.1007_s11192-021-04068-w. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.