Deictic gestures are gestures we make during communication to point at objects or persons. Indicative acts of directing-to guide the addressee to an object, while placing-for acts place an object for the addressee’s attention. Commonly used presentation software tools, such as PowerPoint and Keynote, offer ample support for placing-for gestures, e.g. slide transitions, progressive disclosure of list items and animations. Such presentation tools, however, do not generally offer adequate support for the directing-to indicative act (i.e. pointing gestures). In this paper we argue the value of presenting deictic gestures to a remote audience. Our research approach is threefold: identify indicative acts that are naturally produced by presenters; design tangible gestures for multi-touch surfaces that replicate the intent of those indicative acts; and design a set of graphical effects for remote viewing that best represent these indicative acts for the audience. Clinton Jorge1, Jos P. van Leeuwen2, Dennis Dams3, Jan Bouwen4 1 University of Madeira, Madeira-ITI, Funchal, Portugal; 2 The Hague University of Applied Sciences, The Hague, Netherlands; 3,4 Bell Labs, Alcatel-Lucent, Antwerp, Belgium Copyright shared between: University of Madeira, Madeira-ITI, Funchal, Portugal; The Hague University of Applied Sciences, The Hague, Netherlands; Bell Labs, Alcatel-Lucent, Antwerp, Belgium
To gain insight into changes of scholarly journals’ recommendations, we conducted a systematic review of studies that analysed journals’ Instructions to Authors (ItAs). We summarised results of 153 studies, and meta-analysed how often ItAs addressed: 1) authorship, 2) conflicts of interest, 3) data sharing, 4) ethics approval, 5) funding disclosure, and 6) International Committee of Medical Journal Editors’ Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts. For each topic we found large between-study heterogeneity. Here, we show six factors that explained most of that heterogeneity: 1) time (addressing of topics generally increased over time), 2) country (large differences found between countries), 3) database indexation (large differences found between databases), 4) impact factor (topics were more often addressed in highest than in lowest impact factor journals), 5) discipline (topics were more often addressed in Health Sciences than in other disciplines), and 6) sub-discipline (topics were more often addressed in general than in sub-disciplinary journals).
Background: Honorary authorship refers to the practice of naming an individual who has made little or no contribution to a publication as an author. Honorary authorship inflates the output estimates of honorary authors and deflates the value of the work by authors who truly merit authorship. This manuscript presents the protocol for a systematic review that will assess the prevalence of five honorary authorship issues in health sciences. Methods: Surveys of authors of scientific publications in health sciences that assess prevalence estimates will be eligible. No selection criteria will be set for the time point for measuring outcomes, the setting, the language of the publication, and the publication status. Eligible manuscripts are searched from inception onwards in PubMed, Lens.org, and Dimensions.ai. Two calibrated authors will independently search, determine eligibility of manuscripts, and conduct data extraction. The quality of each review outcome for each eligible manuscript will be assessed with a 14-item checklist developed and piloted for this review. Data will be qualitatively synthesized and quantitative syntheses will be performed where feasible. Criteria for precluding quantitative syntheses were defined a priori. The pooled random effects double arcsine transformed summary event rates of five outcomes on honorary authorship issues with the pertinent 95% confidence intervals will be calculated if these criteria are met. Summary estimates will be displayed after back-transformation. Stata software (Stata Corporation, College Station, TX, USA) version 16 will be used for all statistical analyses. Statistical heterogeneity will be assessed using Tau2 and Chi2 tests and I2 to quantify inconsistency. Discussion: The outcomes of the planned systematic review will give insights in the magnitude of honorary authorship in health sciences and could direct new research studies to develop and implement strategies to address this problem. However, the validity of the outcomes could be influenced by low response rates, inadequate research design, weighting issues, and recall bias in the eligible surveys. Systematic review registration: This protocol was registered a priori in the Open Science Framework (OSF) link: https://osf.io/5nvar/.
