ArticleClinical and translational science2025
Global Trends in the Value of Author Order Across Medical Publications: A Cross-Sectional Bibliometric Study.
Article in Clinical and translational science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Author Number May Matter in Determining Author Order.Clinical and translational science · 2026Article
- Research capacity and decolonisation in Sub-Saharan Africa: a bibliometric analysis.BMJ global health · 2026Article
- Authorship Order: Modest Proposals From a Retired Japanese Obstetrics-Gynecology Professor.Clinical and translational science · 2025Article
- Reply to "Authorship Order: Modest Proposals From a Retired Japanese Obstetrics-Gynecology Professor".Clinical and translational science · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to analyse the value of author order across countries, within the 'Medicine General Internal' and 'Surgery' fields, to enhance transparency and fairness in academic evaluations, particularly in international collaborative research. A cross-sectional bibliometric study was conducted using data from 2,845,748 papers published in 2022 across over 18,000 journals listed on Web of Science. The study focused on 124,736 papers from the 'Medicine General Internal' and 'Surgery' fields published in the top 19 countries. The analysis examined the position of the corresponding author relative to other co-authors by country and specialty. Hierarchical clustering was applied to identify patterns and group countries based on author order. Three distinct clusters were identified with regard to the corresponding author's position. In Cluster A (South Korea, China and Taiwan), the corresponding author was often the last author. In Cluster B (India, Japan, Italy, Türkiye and Spain), the corresponding author was frequently the second author. Cluster C (the United States, England and Germany) included countries where the corresponding author was typically the first author. The findings underscore the need for clear, internationally accepted author order standards. Establishing such standards is crucial for promoting fairness, transparency and efficiency in international collaborative research and for ensuring equitable scientific communication.
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.