ArticleJournal of oral biology and craniofacial research
Authors' awareness of concepts in the authorship of scientific publications: Viewpoints of the dental faculty in India.
Article in Journal of oral biology and craniofacial research. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Authors' awareness of concepts in the authorship.Journal of oral biology and craniofacial researchArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere is a great deal of enthusiasm amongst the contemporary dental academicians and researchers to publish their research findings and interesting cases. The competitive atmosphere has fostered a 'publish or perish' sentiment following which authors sideline certain essential and valid concepts in authorship and at times resort to unethical behavior knowingly or unknowingly to expand their publication list. MATERIALS AND
methodWe attempted to assess the current knowledge of the Indian dental teaching faculty regarding some important basic concepts in scientific authorship by means of a questionnaire-based pilot study. The respondents were asked questions pertaining to their knowledge of terms such as "authorship criteria", "conflict of interest", "plagiarism", and other authorship issues.
resultsOur findings suggested significant lacunae regarding the authors' understanding of important basic concepts in scientific writing.
conclusionWe suggest possible measures to address this concern and also aim to survey a larger section of the academia in the future.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.