author affiliation in research paper example

• Interlibrary Loan and Scan & Deliver
• Course Reserves
• Purchase Request
• Collection Development & Maintenance
• Current Negotiations
• Ask a Librarian
• Instructor Support
• Library How-To
• Research Guides
• Research Support
• Study Rooms
• Research Rooms
• Partner Spaces
• Loanable Equipment
• Print, Scan, Copy
• 3D Printers
• Poster Printing
• OSULP Leadership
• Strategic Plan

Scholarly Articles: How can I tell?

• Journal Information
• Literature Review

Author and affiliation

Learn more about the author.

• Introduction
• Specialized Vocabulary
• Methodology
• Research sponsors
• Peer-review

If you can't find an author affiliation or want to learn more about the authors and their credentials, here are some ways to do so:

• Search for the author on Google. Sometimes you can find a personal page about an individual. Many of the faculty members at OSU have a website that lists their credentials (education) and research.
• Do a search in one of the online databases to see what else the author has written. Is this person someone who published a lot in this field? For example, a search in the Academic Search Complete database for the author Sandra Hofferth shows the articles she has co-authored on a range of children's issues .
• Look up the institution. What kind of institution is it?  Is the author still affiliated with the institution?

One of the first things to look for is the author or authors. In a research article, the authors will list their affiliation, usually with a university or research institution. In this example, the author's affiliation is clearly shown on the first page of the article. In a research article, you will never have an anonymous author or need to look for the author's name or affiliation.

• << Previous: Literature Review
• Next: Abstract >>
• Last Updated: Sep 20, 2023 4:01 PM
• URL: https://guides.library.oregonstate.edu/ScholarlyArticle

Contact Info

121 The Valley Library Corvallis OR 97331–4501

Phone: 541-737-3331

Services for Persons with Disabilities

In the Valley Library

• Oregon State University Press
• Special Collections and Archives Research Center
• Undergrad Research & Writing Studio
• Graduate Student Commons
• Tutoring Services
• Northwest Art Collection

Digital Projects

• Oregon Explorer
• Oregon Digital
• ScholarsArchive@OSU
• Digital Publishing Initiatives
• Atlas of the Pacific Northwest
• Marilyn Potts Guin Library  
• Cascades Campus Library
• McDowell Library of Vet Medicine

We use cookies on this site to enhance your experience

By clicking any link on this page you are giving your consent for us to set cookies.

A link to reset your password has been sent to your email.

Back to login

We need additional information from you. Please complete your profile first before placing your order.

Thank you. payment completed., you will receive an email from us to confirm your registration, please click the link in the email to activate your account., there was error during payment, orcid profile found in public registry, download history, understanding author affiliation and accurately mentioning it in different scenarios.

• Charlesworth Author Services
• 16 April, 2022

In academic publishing, the affiliation of an author is the place (institution) at which the author conducted the research that they have reported / written about . However, given the frequent mobility of academics, that place may not necessarily be the place the author happens to be based at the time of submitting the paper . This article explains the significance of affiliation and illustrates how to accurately mention your affiliation in different scenarios.

The importance of affiliation

In some cases, affiliation is linked to authenticity . Imagine a research paper on field pollination of rice by an author whose affiliation is that of an institute in the polar region. It is not that this work cannot be done, but it would seem incongruous and may raise doubts.

In many cases, it is a matter of prestige . Science may be democratic, but not all research institutions and laboratories are considered equal.

Some may be better equipped than others. Some may have more luminaries on their staff – people who have outstanding work (or even prizes) to their credit. Some may have enviable collections of records or research material. 

Therefore, by proxy, work carried out at those institutions is regarded more highly, at least initially, than that carried out at lesser-known institutions.

A study by Peters and Ceci (1982) found that when 12 already published papers were resubmitted after doctoring the affiliations to replace the original high-status institutions with fictitious ones with no status in the field, eight of those papers were rejected.

Mentioning your affiliation in a paper

In nearly all published papers, affiliations of their authors are given after their names but before the abstract. The typical sequence is: 

• Title of the paper
• Names of authors
• Affiliations
• Abstract and keywords

Paper with title, author names, affiliation, abstract and keywords

Mentioning affiliation and address

Authors of research papers must keep an important distinction in mind: that an affiliation is not the same thing as a mailing address . The former names the institution at which the work in question was carried out whereas the latter simply supplies the current contact details of the author. 

For example…

A PhD candidate submitting a paper based on their doctoral work should name, as their affiliation, the university/institution that is granting them the doctorate. However, that author may have since moved to another institution for a post-doctoral job. This is not considered their affiliation, but just provides their current contact details.

Therefore, you may have to name two institutions in your manuscript: 

• Under Affiliation : Name the institution where the work (that forms the subject of the present study) was undertaken.
• Under Current address : Name the institution at which you happen to be working at the time of submission or even your home address if you have retired. 

Note : The ‘current address’ serves as the means of contact and can change; the affiliation cannot. 

Mentioning affiliation when you change your institute

It may also happen that when you submitted the paper, you were stationed at Institute A and accordingly gave that as your contact address, and subsequently, you moved to Institute B. In such cases, so long as your paper is yet to be published, you should inform the journal of your new current address at Institute B. The paper is based on the work you carried out while you were based at institute A, which constitutes the affiliation and remains unchanged.

Mentioning affiliations for multi-author papers

Most research papers have multiple authors and not all of them may have the same affiliation. To match their names to their affiliations, journals may use the method used for indicating footnotes . The names of authors are followed by superscript letters, numerals or other symbols, and the same symbols precede the respective affiliations.

We recommend : Note the journal’s preferred method (letters, numerals or other symbols) and be sure to  follow the  journal guidelines  when  preparing your manuscripts for submission .

Numerals indicating authors (above) and their affiliations (below) in a paper

Dealing with affiliations during peer review

To avoid the kind of bias mentioned earlier, affiliation information is removed in manuscripts sent out for review: in a blind review , the reviewers do not know who wrote the paper under review, nor their institutional affiliation. To make this easier, many journals ask that such identifying information be separated from the body of the paper . Authors are advised to attend to the journal’s instructions in this regard, which typically involve a separate title page explicitly showing the names and affiliations. This page is usually removed before sending the paper to reviewers.

Maximise your publication success with Charlesworth Author Services.

Charlesworth Author Services, a trusted brand supporting the world’s leading academic publishers, institutions and authors since 1928.

To know more about our services, visit: Our Services

Share with your colleagues

Related articles.

Authorship of academic papers

Charlesworth Author Services 11/07/2017 00:00:00

Understanding and following the Information for Authors (Author Guidelines)

Charlesworth Author Services 12/01/2022 00:00:00

What to pay attention to when submitting your article

Charlesworth Author Services 16/03/2021 00:00:00

Related webinars

Bitesize Webinar: How to write and structure your academic article for publication - Module 1: Know when are you ready to write

Charlesworth Author Services 04/03/2021 00:00:00

Bitesize Webinar: How to write and structure your academic article for publication: Module 4: Prepare to write your academic paper

Bitesize Webinar: How to write and structure your academic article for publication: Module 6: Choose great titles and write strong abstracts

Charlesworth Author Services 05/03/2021 00:00:00

Bitesize Webinar: How to write and structure your academic article for publication: Module 11: Know when your article is ready for submission

How to use Footnotes and Endnotes in academic papers

Charlesworth Author Services 28/01/2022 00:00:00

From writing to submission: Checklist for writing and submitting a Quality Scientific Article

Charlesworth Author Services 10/11/2021 00:00:00

Differences between Single-Blind and Double-Blind Peer Review

Charlesworth Author Services 22/09/2020 00:00:00

• Writing Your Manuscript
• Copyright & Plagiarism
• Publication Ethics
• Deceptive (Predatory) Publishing
• Citation Styles
• Writing Help
• Peer Review
• Author Affiliations

Writing Your Manuscript : Author Affiliations

• Health Science Information Consortium of Toronto
• University Health Network - New

How should you include affiliation information for the authors?

When you are getting ready to submit your manuscript you will need to include the author names, their credentials, and their affiliations - but with so many institution names and affiliations, what do you do?  UHN Research has developed guidance to help you with listing affiliations, find that guidance as a PDF document and in the text below.

• UHN Author Affiliations Guidance Guidance from UHN Research for best practices for listing names, affiliations and funding in publications. December 21, 2022

UHN Guidance for Author Names and Affiliations in Publications

December 21, 2022

This document provides guidance to UHN researchers on best practices for listing their names, UHN affiliations, and funding in publications to ensure consistency, maximize traceability and publicity.

Why this is important

There is an increased push towards increasing accountability for scientists, research institutes, and funding agencies through more effective data collection of research outputs.

As a researcher, you can better showcase your scientific output by ensuring that your publications are correctly attributed to you, your institution(s), and your funders in various databases.

The guidance is as follows:

1) Publish under a Consistent Author Name

It is recommended that you publish under a consistent name format, and that you try to make that name format as unique as possible. Ensure that all future publications list your name in the same format, including those in which you are a co-author.

For example, including a middle name or initial such as “H. C.” can help differentiate “Robert H. C. Chen” from the approximately 30 other “Robert Chen”s in the Web of Science database. This becomes particularly important in journals that only list the initials and last name of authors (e.g. ~15 “R. H. Chen”s vs ~235 “R. Chen”s in Web of Science).

It is recommended that you do not publish under diminutive names (e.g. “Bob” instead of “Robert”) as analysts and database programs may not be aware of these aliases. If you prefer to go by an alias or diminutive name, it is recommended that you use that specific name in all your publications, including those in which you are a co-author.

2) Include Author Identifiers such as ORCID

Whenever possible, it is recommended that you submit an author identifier when you submit a manuscript. A popular identifier is the Open Researcher and Contributor ID (ORCID; https://orcid.org/ ).

When journal publishers send article information to the various databases (e.g., Web of Science, Scopus) for indexing, they also provide ORCID information. This guarantees that the publication will be included in the search results when someone searches for you using your ORCID in the database.

Many major publishers now require that authors’ ORCIDs be submitted along with the manuscript. By including your ORCID when submitting a manuscript, the publication will automatically be added to your ORCID profile—ensuring that the publications in your profile are always up to date.

Most of the major publication databases can update your ORCID profile with their data, but only a select few (Web of Science/Publons and Europe PMC) allow synchronization in the reverse direction (i.e. permit your ORCID profile to update their database). This can lead to your publications not being properly attributed to you in databases.

For more information on what ORCID does and how to manage yours, visit the Research Intranet ORCID service page .

3) Ensure Complete and Proper Listing of Affiliations

It is recommended that “University Health Network” (fully spelled out) is part of your affiliation listing, as well as your Research Institute or hospital site. Your UHN affiliation does not have to take precedence over other, more-direct affiliations such as a clinical unit, but it should be present.

Affiliations are important because many external organizations will identify your publications based only on the listed author names and affiliations. Failure to list all your affiliations may lead to you, your group, your Research Institute, or UHN not being credited with your work. This can impact the accuracy of reviews.

The recommended formats for listing the Research Institutes at UHN are as follows:

KITE - Toronto Rehabilitation Institute, University Health Network.

[Krembil Brain Institute / Donald K Johnson Eye Institute / Schroeder Arthritis Institute], Krembil Research Institute, University Health Network.

McEwen Stem Cell Institute, University Health Network.

Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network.

Techna Institute, University Health Network.

The Institute for Education Research, University Health Network.

Toronto General Hospital Research Institute, University Health Network.

Here are some common errors in listing affiliations at UHN:

4) Ensure Complete Listing of Funding

When you acknowledge the funding sources for your work, it is recommended that you include the grant identifiers (IDs).

Databases, such as Web of Science, Scopus and Dimensions, index almost all information in a publication—including the acknowledgement section. They offer the option of searching for publications associated with specific grant IDs. Granting agencies may track these IDs to assess their return on investment.

To demonstrate your productive track record and the benefits of funding your research, include the agency/sponsor-assigned grant ID of the grants that supported the research that you are submitting for publication.

Princess Margaret Cancer Centre also recommends that their researchers use the following template text for citing funding in their published work:

Funding for this work was provided by [other sources of funding citing specific grant sponsors to the published work in order of magnitude of contribution], Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, The Princess Margaret Cancer Foundation, and Ontario Ministry of Health.

• << Previous: Peer Review
• Last Updated: Aug 17, 2023 3:41 PM
• URL: https://guides.hsict.library.utoronto.ca/writingyourmanuscript

We acknowledge this sacred land on which the University Health Network operates. For thousands of years it has been the traditional territory of the Huron-Wendat, the Haudenosaunee, and most recently, the Mississaugas of the Credit River. This territory was the subject of the Dish With One Spoon Wampum Belt Covenant, an agreement between the Haudenosaunee Confederacy and the Confederacy of the Ojibwe and allied nations to peaceably share and care for the resources around the Great Lakes. Today, the meeting place of Toronto is still the home to many Indigenous people from across Turtle Island and we are grateful to have the opportunity to work and learn on this territory

UHN Library and Information Services

In this section:

• Advertising and sponsorship
• Authorship and contributorship
• Competing interests
• Copyright and authors’ rights
• Correction and retraction policies
• Data protection policy
• Data sharing
• Editor Roles & Responsibilities
• Gender identity and race & ethnicity data in ScholarOne
• Patient and public partnership
• Patient consent and confidentiality
• Peer Review Terms and Conditions
• Publication embargo
• Reproducing third party illustrative materials
• Research Ethics
• Rapid responses
• Scientific misconduct
• Trial registration

This policy ensures that contributors who have made substantive intellectual contributions to an article are given credit and that contributors understand their role in taking responsibility and being accountable for what is published. Contributors are either author contributors (meaning that they meet all four authorship criteria – see below) or non-author contributors.

BMJ credits and lists contributors in two ways:

• Authorship – we publish a list of authors’ names at the beginning of the paper in the byline
• Contributorship – we publish a contributorship statement at the end of the paper, giving details of who did what in planning, conducting, and reporting the work. This should include all author contributors and may include non-author contributors.

We also publish an acknowledgements statement at the end of the paper, detailing those who helped in carrying out the research but that have not been recognised as contributors, and for personal expressions of gratitude.

Submitting author

Corresponding author, joint first authorship, collaborators (group authorship), deceased authors, alteration to authorship, acknowledgements.

The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals ( ICMJE Recommendations 2019 ) recommend that authorship be based on the following four criteria:

• Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work; AND
• Drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content; AND
• Final approval of the version to be published; AND
• Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

BMJ requires that all those designated as authors should meet all four ICMJE criteria for authorship, and all who meet the four criteria should be identified as author contributors. We recognise only natural persons (an individual human being, as opposed to a private or public organisation) as authors. These authorship criteria are intended to reserve the status of authorship for those who deserve credit and can take responsibility for the work. The criteria should not be used to disqualify colleagues from authorship who otherwise meet authorship criteria by denying them the opportunity to meet criterion number 2 or 3. Therefore, all individuals who meet the first criterion should have the opportunity to participate in the review, drafting and final approval of the manuscript.

Contributors who have contributed materially to the paper but whose contributions do not justify authorship should be described clearly in the contributorship statement .

In addition to being accountable for the parts of the work they have done, an author should be able to identify which co-authors are responsible for specific other parts of the work. In addition, authors should have confidence in the integrity of the contributions of their co-authors.

Submitting authors should provide assurance that all authors included on a paper fulfil the criteria of authorship. We also ask for assurance that there is no one else who fulfils the criteria that has been excluded as an author.

When we encounter disagreements among authors we follow guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

The submitting author takes primary responsibility for submitting the article to the journal using our manuscript submission system ScholarOne and for communicating with the journal during the article submission, peer review and revision process. They ensure that all of the journal’s administrative requirements are properly completed. These include, but are not limited to, providing details of authorship, ethics committee approval, clinical trial registration documentation, and gathering conflict of interest forms and statements. These tasks may be delegated to one or more co-authors, but the submitting author remains responsible for them.

When you submit your article through our submission system you will be asked to provide a name, email address and institutional affiliation for all author contributors. In the final published article author names, institutions and addresses will be taken from these completed fields and not from the submitted Word document.

Affiliations listed should be those where the work was carried out at the time the research/article was written. If institution details appear incorrectly these can be directly amended under ‘Actions’ by selecting the ‘Edit’ drop down next to each author.

All author contributors receive a confirmation email when an article has been submitted and when a final decision is made.

The submitting author should assign the corresponding author when providing author details (see below for more information about the corresponding author role). The submitting author and corresponding author can be the same person.

The corresponding author, as listed on ScholarOne, takes primary responsibility for completing all necessary actions after acceptance of the manuscript and communicating with the journal and with readers after publication. All email communication from BMJ will be sent to the corresponding author including:

• The timeline for your article proof with a link to Publishing at Work where you can track your article’s status
• If your article will be published open access or in colour in the print edition of the journal, you will receive an email from Rightslink with payment options and instructions. If you are not making the payment yourself, you may forward the email to the person or organisation that will be paying on your behalf
• A link to review and approve the proof when available
• Confirmation that your article has been published online
• Notifications when a response has been posted to your article

Find out more about what to expect when your article has been accepted .

Although we include only one corresponding author on ScholarOne for email communication, multiple authors can be listed with correspondence information in the author byline of the final published article. This information can be included at the article proof stage, after acceptance.

Note, the policy for The BMJ differs and can be found here

Joint first authors can be indicated by the inclusion of the statement ‘X and X contributed equally to this paper’ in the contributorship statement.

Collaborators are a large group of multi-author contributors (e.g. a specific consortium, committee, study group or the like). Collaborators should decide who will be an author before the work is started and confirm who is an author before submitting the manuscript for publication. All members of the group named as authors should meet all four criteria for authorship as detailed above. They will also be expected as individuals to complete conflict-of-interest disclosure forms and provide a summary in the relevant section.

The collaborator group name(s) should be included in the main author list on ScholarOne. The collaborator group name(s) followed by the individual names should also be listed in the ‘Collaborator’ field on ScholarOne. BMJ will list the author group name(s) in the author byline, with the full list of individual names included in a collaborator statement at the end of the article. Details of the group’s contributions should also be listed in the ‘Contributorship statement’ field on ScholarOne.

If the journal is indexed in PubMed (MEDLINE and/or PubMed Central), the group name will be listed in the author byline and the names of individual group members entered as collaborators on the PubMed record to ensure individual due credit.

The BMJ Effect of a collector bag for measurement of postpartum blood loss after vaginal delivery: cluster randomised trial in 13 European countries

PubMed record >>

BMJ Open Establishing a core outcome set for treatment of uncomplicated appendicitis in children: study protocol for an international Delphi survey

AI technologies will not be accepted as an author(s) of any content submitted to BMJ for publication. BMJ only recognises humans as being capable of authorship since they must be accountable for the work.

Deceased persons deemed appropriate as authors should be highlighted to the Editorial Assistant when submitting your article and should also be included in your contributorship statement.

If an author’s affiliation has changed during the course of the work, the author may either list the affiliation at the time that the research (or most significant portion of the research) was conducted, or their current affiliation, or both. The change of affiliation can be explained in an acknowledgements section.

Any change in authors after initial submission and before publication must be approved by all authors. This applies to additions, deletions, a change of order to the authors’ names or a change to the attribution of contributions. Any alterations must be explained to the Editor. The Editor may contact any of the authors and/or contributors to ascertain whether they have agreed to any alteration.

Contributorship statement

A contributorship statement is required for every article submitted and should outline who has contributed what to the planning, conduct and reporting of the work described in the article. A contributorship statement should include author contributors, non author contributors and group author contributors (collaborators). Contributors who have contributed materially to the paper but whose contributions do not justify authorship should be described clearly in the contributorship statement; for example, “served as scientific advisors”, “critically reviewed the study proposal”, “collected data” or “provided and cared for study patients”.

Researchers must determine among themselves the precise nature of each person’s contribution, and we encourage open discussion among all participants to reach a consensus.

This is also the appropriate place to include contributions by patients or members of the public who have assisted as research volunteers, giving their names and specific roles. We encourage authors to fully acknowledge the contribution of patients and the public to their research where appropriate.

All individuals named in the contributorship statement must give permission to be included, as readers may infer their endorsement of the data and conclusions of the paper. It is the responsibility of the submitting author to ensure that permission is obtained and to be able to provide evidence of this if required.

Each contributorship statement must make clear who is responsible for the overall content as guarantor. The guarantor accepts full responsibility for the finished work and/or the conduct of the study, had access to the data, and controlled the decision to publish.

• To ensure transparent declaration of AI, authors should:

2. Transparent declaration includes a description of: 

• What AI technology was used (the name of the technology)
• Why this AI technology was used (the reason for its use)
• How the AI technology was used (what the task of the technology was)
• Consider including a summary of the input, output, and the way in which the AI output was reviewed on the part of the authors as supplementary files or additional information for the editor to review. The editor may ask for more information and/or for information to be added to the content for internal use and/or for publication.

An acknowledgements statement may be included at the end of the paper, detailing those who helped in carrying out the research but who have not been recognised as contributors, as well as for personal expressions of gratitude.

Because acknowledgment may imply endorsement by acknowledged individuals of a study’s data and conclusions, authors are strongly advised to obtain permission to be acknowledged from all acknowledged individuals before submitting to any BMJ journal.

A uthor name change requests

As an inclusive publisher, BMJ wishes to ensure a smooth process and experience to facilitate author name changes after publication. For more information on how to request an author name change in an existing publication see our corrections policies.

Last updated: March 2023

Publishing Strategies: Author Affiliations

• Author Affiliations
• Where to Publish
• Finding Collaborators

Affiliations in academic papers refer to places (institutions) where authors belong when they are conducting the published research. Given the mobility of faculty, the affiliated institutions may not always be the ones that authors based at the time of paper submission. Publishing with accurate affiliation(s) facilitates not only authorship identification, but also citation tracking for both authors themselves and their affiliated organisations, which prevents scattered citation counts in split profiles. Note that publishers seldom allow changes on affiliations once the paper is accepted, and it takes time and effort for both authors and publishers to communicate and rectify the wrong data. Authors are therefore advised to check and display correct affiliation data in their publications to minimise problems with authorship misattribution, paper disappearance, citation loss, etc.

What are publishers saying about affiliations?

• Taylor & Francis: https://authorservices.taylorandfrancis.com/editorial-policies/defining-authorship-research-paper/#affiliations
• Springer: https://www.springer.com/us/editorial-policies/authorship-principles#toc-49266
• Elsevier: https://service.elsevier.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/34306/supporthub/publishing/
• Cambridge University Press: https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/authors/journals/author-affiliations
• Next: Where to Publish >>
• Last Updated: Dec 7, 2023 8:31 AM
• URL: https://libguides.library.cityu.edu.hk/publishing_strategies

© City University of Hong Kong | Copyright | Disclaimer

Research Voyage

Research Tips and Infromation

7 Essential Steps for Changing Author Affiliation in Research Paper

As researchers traverse their academic journey, their affiliations may undergo changes due to new opportunities, collaborations, or career advancements. While the process of publishing research papers often involves meticulous attention to detail, unforeseen circumstances can occasionally lead to inaccuracies in affiliations associated with a published paper.

As a researcher, you might have encountered situations where you needed to update your affiliation on an already published research paper. Whether it’s joining a new institution, relocating to a different country, or transitioning to a different research group, it’s essential to ensure that your affiliations accurately reflect your current standing in the academic community. In this blog post, we aim to provide a comprehensive guide on how to navigate the process of changing affiliations in already published research papers.

Emphasizing the importance of adhering to publication policies and maintaining accuracy in scientific literature, this guide will walk you through the step-by-step process of correcting affiliations. We’ll explore how to initiate the correction process, gather the necessary documentation, and interact with journal publishers in a professional manner. Furthermore, we’ll touch upon considerations for more substantial changes and address the significance of updating personal profiles and notifying indexing services.

By sharing insights and best practices, we hope to empower researchers to navigate the affiliation change process smoothly and responsibly. Ultimately, this blog post aims to contribute to the integrity and reliability of scientific literature, ensuring that affiliations accurately represent the journeys and contributions of researchers in the ever-evolving realm of academia.

Let’s delve into the intricacies of updating affiliations in published research papers, and equip ourselves with the knowledge to make necessary corrections with confidence and efficiency.

Introduction

Importance of understanding publication guidelines:, tips on where to find publication guidelines:, types of documentation for affiliation change:, advice on contacting the journal or publisher:, process of submitting a correction or erratum:.

• Journal's Role in Reviewing the Correction or Erratum:

Emphasizing the Need for Accuracy and Validity:

Importance of notifying indexing services:, informing indexing services:, advice on updating personal profiles:, request letter for affiliation change in published paper.

Research papers are the currency of knowledge dissemination, and the affiliations listed on these papers carry significant weight. Affiliations serve as a vital identifier, linking researchers to their respective institutions or organizations, and they play a crucial role in establishing credibility, recognizing contributions, and fostering collaborations within the scientific community.

When a research paper is published, the affiliations of the authors are essentially imprinted in time, forever associated with the findings and insights presented in the work. However, the journey of a researcher is dynamic, and circumstances can change over time. Researchers may find themselves faced with situations where their affiliations need to be updated in already published papers. These situations can arise due to a variety of reasons, such as career advancements, relocation to a new institution, or joining a collaborative project with colleagues from different organizations.

Imagine a scenario where Dr. Smith, an esteemed biologist, publishes a groundbreaking study on genetic mutations in cancer cells. The paper, which carries her former institution’s affiliation, receives widespread recognition and becomes a cornerstone in cancer research. However, a year after the publication, Dr. Smith accepts an enticing research opportunity at a leading medical centre. Now, with her scientific journey taking her to a new institution, she realizes the need to update her affiliation on the already published paper, ensuring that her latest work reflects her current professional standing.

In such cases, ensuring accurate and up-to-date affiliations is not only a matter of personal career progression but also a matter of scientific integrity. It’s crucial to maintain an accurate historical record of affiliations, as these affiliations provide valuable insights into the collaborative networks and institutional contributions that shaped the research landscape.

In this blog post, we aim to shed light on the significance of affiliations in research papers and why researchers may need to modify them post-publication. We recognize the challenges researchers might face when attempting to make such changes and the potential impact on their academic standing and future collaborations. To empower researchers in navigating this process, we will provide a step-by-step guide, offering practical advice on how to initiate and implement affiliation changes in published papers.

Whether you’re a seasoned researcher or a budding scholar, understanding the process of updating affiliations is essential for maintaining the accuracy and credibility of your scientific contributions. So, let’s embark on this informative journey and equip ourselves with the knowledge and tools to responsibly manage affiliation changes in the dynamic world of academic research.

I have written articles on the possible corrections an author may want to do to a research paper that is already published. Please visit the articles listed below for further details.

• “ 5 Proven Steps to Change Author Email Id in a Published Research Paper”
• “ How to Change Author Name on a Previously Published Research Paper? “
• “ 4 Easy Steps to Withdraw Author Name from a Research Paper “

How can I change my affiliation in a Published Research Paper?

Step 1: check publication policy.

Before embarking on the process of changing affiliations in an already published research paper, it is vital to familiarize yourself with the publication’s guidelines and policies regarding corrections and updates. Each journal or publication may have specific procedures and requirements for making changes to author affiliations, and understanding these guidelines is crucial to ensure a smooth and successful process.

Journal publications uphold rigorous standards of accuracy and integrity to maintain the credibility of scientific literature. Affiliation details play a significant role in establishing the author’s credibility, expertise, and institutional association with the research presented in the paper. Any changes to affiliations should be done in a manner that preserves the historical record of the paper while reflecting the most current and accurate information.

Let’s consider an example where Dr. Johnson, a researcher in the field of environmental science, published a paper on climate change with her previous institution’s affiliation. Due to her recent appointment as a faculty member at a renowned university, Dr. Johnson now wishes to update the affiliation on the published paper to reflect her current position. However, she is unsure about the correct procedure to follow.

• Journal Website : The publication’s website often contains a dedicated section titled “Instructions for Authors” or “Author Guidelines.” This section outlines the journal’s policies, including instructions on how to correct or update affiliations post-publication.
• Author’s Dashboard : If the paper was submitted through an online manuscript submission system, the author’s dashboard may provide information on how to request affiliation changes.
• Contact the Editorial Office : If the journal’s guidelines are not easily accessible, contacting the editorial office via email or phone is a reliable way to obtain the necessary information. Editorial staff members are well-versed in the publication’s policies and can provide guidance on making affiliation changes.
• Online Resources : Some journals have FAQs or online resources addressing common author queries, including how to correct affiliations. Check the journal’s website or relevant forums for any such resources.
• Publication Agreement : Revisit the publication agreement or copyright transfer form you signed during the submission process. It may contain provisions related to post-publication changes.

Example (Continued):

After some research, Dr. Johnson visits the journal’s website and locates the “Instructions for Authors” page. She discovers a subsection specifically addressing corrections and updates to published papers. Following the provided instructions, she prepares to contact the editorial office to initiate the process of changing her affiliation.

By understanding the publication’s guidelines and following the correct procedure, researchers like Dr. Johnson can navigate the affiliation change process with confidence, ensuring that their contributions are accurately represented in the scientific literature. Remember, each journal may have its own unique guidelines, so it’s essential to be diligent in locating and adhering to the specific instructions for the paper in question.

Step 2: Gather Documentation

Once you have familiarized yourself with the publication’s guidelines and determined the appropriate procedure for changing affiliations, the next crucial step is to gather the necessary documentation to support the affiliation change. Providing proper documentation is essential to validate the updates and ensure the accuracy and credibility of the revised affiliation.

• Official Letters from the New Institution : A formal letter from the new institution confirming your affiliation with them is one of the primary and most important documents. The letter should be on the institution’s official letterhead and signed by an authorized representative, such as the department head, dean, or human resources officer. The letter should include your name, the effective date of the affiliation change, your official title or position at the new institution, and any other relevant details.

Let’s consider Dr. Rodriguez, a postdoctoral researcher in the field of neuroscience, who recently accepted a position at a prestigious research institute. She now needs to update her affiliation on a published paper that was submitted during her previous postdoctoral position. To support the affiliation change, Dr. Rodriguez obtains an official letter from the research institute confirming her employment and new affiliation. The letter contains all the necessary details, including the effective date of the change.

• Employment Contract or Offer Letter : If your affiliation change is due to a new job or employment opportunity, providing a copy of your employment contract or offer letter can be valuable documentation. This document further substantiates the official nature of your affiliation with the new institution and reinforces the validity of the update.
• Acceptance Letters or Invitations to Collaborate : In cases where the affiliation change is the result of a collaboration with researchers from a different institution, you can include acceptance letters or invitations to collaborate as additional supporting documentation. These letters should clearly state the nature of the collaboration and your role in the project.
• Publication Agreement : Including a copy of the publication agreement or copyright transfer form you signed during the initial submission can serve as proof that you are an author associated with the paper.
• CV or Resume : While not a formal document for the affiliation change process, providing an updated CV or resume that includes your new affiliation can be helpful for the editorial office to cross-check and verify the change.

Having received the official letter from the prestigious research institute, Dr. Rodriguez is now ready to initiate the affiliation change process. She gathers all the relevant documentation, including the official letter, her new employment contract, and a copy of the publication agreement signed during the initial submission.

By compiling the necessary documentation, researchers like Dr. Rodriguez ensure that their affiliation change request is well-substantiated and meets the publication’s requirements for validation. Proper documentation adds credibility to the affiliation change, giving the journal’s editorial office confidence in implementing the updates accurately. Remember to provide clear and legible copies of the documents to avoid any delays or complications in the process.

Step 3: Contact the Journal or Publisher

After gathering the necessary documentation to support the affiliation change, the next step is to contact the journal or publisher to initiate the process formally. Professional and courteous communication is essential when reaching out to the editorial office to ensure smooth and efficient handling of your request.

• Locating Contact Information : Start by identifying the appropriate contact information for the journal or publisher. Most reputable journals will have a dedicated editorial office or a contact email specifically for author inquiries or corrections. You can typically find this information on the journal’s website, in the published paper, or in any communications you may have received from the journal during the review process.
• Compose a Clear and Concise Email : When drafting your email, be clear and concise in stating the purpose of your inquiry. Begin by mentioning the title of the published paper, the names of all authors, and the DOI (Digital Object Identifier) or any other identifying information of the paper.

Subject: Request for Affiliation Change – Paper Title: “Advancements in Neural Network Research”

Dear [Journal/Publisher Name],

I hope this email finds you well. I am writing to request a correction to the affiliation associated with the published paper titled “Advancements in Neural Network Research,” authored by [Author Names]. The DOI for the paper is [DOI number].

• Explain the Reason for the Affiliation Change : Briefly explain the reason for the affiliation change and attach the relevant supporting documentation. State the effective date of the affiliation change and provide a clear statement of the updated affiliation details.

As of [Effective Date], I have joined [New Institution Name] as [New Position/Title]. I kindly request to update my affiliation on the published paper to reflect this change accurately. Please find attached the official letter from [New Institution Name] confirming my affiliation with them.

• Express Gratitude and Professionalism : Show appreciation for the journal’s consideration of your request and maintain a professional tone throughout the email.

I understand that the editorial process involves careful attention to detail, and I genuinely appreciate your assistance in making this important correction. Should you require any additional information or have any questions, please do not hesitate to reach out to me.

Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.

Sincerely, [Your Name] [Your Current Affiliation]

• Attach Relevant Documents : Attach the supporting documentation, such as the official letter from the new institution, your updated CV, or any other documents requested by the journal’s guidelines.

Dr. Rodriguez drafts a professional email following the guidelines outlined above. She attaches the official letter from the prestigious research institute and includes her updated CV for reference. After thoroughly reviewing the email for clarity and accuracy, she sends it to the contact email provided by the journal.

By communicating professionally and providing all the necessary information, researchers like Dr. Rodriguez can ensure that their affiliation change request is handled efficiently by the journal’s editorial office. Remember to be patient during this process, as it may take some time for the journal to review and process the request, especially if there are other pending corrections or updates.

Step 4: Submit a Correction or Erratum

Once the journal or publisher has acknowledged your request to change the affiliation on the published paper and provided instructions for correction, it’s time to prepare and submit a formal correction or erratum. A correction is issued to rectify errors or inaccuracies in the published paper, while an erratum is used to address mistakes made by the journal itself.

• Identify the Corrected Information : Clearly state the specific changes that need to be made to the affiliations. Include the updated affiliation details, including the new institution’s name, department, address, and any additional information required by the journal’s guidelines.

The corrected affiliation for Dr. Johnson is as follows: Department of Environmental Science, Prestigious Research Institute, City, Country.

• Title the Correction or Erratum : Use a descriptive title that indicates that the document is a correction or erratum for the published paper. Include the paper’s title and any relevant identifying information, such as the DOI or publication date.

Correction to: “Insights into Climate Change Impact on Biodiversity” – DOI: [DOI number]

• Explain the Reason for the Correction or Erratum : Provide a concise explanation of the reason for the change in affiliations. Mention that the original publication had an outdated affiliation and that this correction aims to update and accurately reflect the author’s current institutional affiliation.

We are issuing this correction to update the author’s affiliation on the published paper to reflect her current position at the Prestigious Research Institute. The previous affiliation listed was based on her previous postdoctoral position.

• Reference the Original Paper : Include the full citation or reference to the original published paper that requires the correction or erratum. This will help readers and indexers connect the corrected version to the original work.

Original Paper: [Author Names]. (Year). “Insights into Climate Change Impact on Biodiversity.” Journal of Environmental Science, Volume(X), Page Range. DOI: [DOI number]

• Attach Supporting Documentation : Include the relevant supporting documentation that validates the affiliation change. Attach the official letter from the new institution or any other documents required by the journal’s guidelines.

Following the journal’s instructions, Dr. Johnson prepares the correction document. She includes the updated affiliation information, the title indicating the document as a correction, and a concise explanation of the reason for the change. Dr. Johnson references the original paper with its full citation and attaches the official letter from the prestigious research institute.

• Submit the Correction or Erratum : Follow the journal’s specific instructions for submission. Some journals may have a dedicated online platform for corrections or errata, while others may require submission via email.

Dr. Johnson submits the correction document, along with the required attachments, through the journal’s online submission system as per their guidelines.

By submitting a well-organized and clear correction or erratum document, researchers like Dr. Johnson ensure that the journal’s readership and indexing services have access to the accurate and updated affiliation information. This process upholds the integrity of the published scientific literature and ensures that researchers’ contributions are appropriately recognized with their current institutional affiliations.

Step 5: Review and Approval

After submitting the correction or erratum to the journal, the document undergoes a review process to ensure its accuracy and validity. The journal’s role in this step is essential as they act as gatekeepers of scientific integrity, maintaining the credibility of the published literature.

Journal’s Role in Reviewing the Correction or Erratum:

• Verification of Information : The journal’s editorial team carefully reviews the submitted correction or erratum to verify the accuracy of the requested changes. They cross-reference the provided documentation with the original publication and ensure that the updated affiliation information aligns with the supporting evidence.

In Dr. Johnson’s case, the journal’s editorial team compares the correction document with the original paper titled “Insights into Climate Change Impact on Biodiversity” to validate the affiliation change from her previous institution to the prestigious research institute.

• Adherence to Publication Policies : The journal’s editorial team ensures that the correction or erratum complies with the publication’s policies and guidelines. They confirm that the document follows the correct formatting, includes the necessary information, and adheres to ethical standards.

The journal confirms that Dr. Johnson’s correction document includes all the required elements, such as the corrected affiliation, a clear explanation of the change, and a reference to the original paper. They also verify that the supporting documentation provided by Dr. Johnson meets the journal’s requirements.

• Communication with the Author : If any discrepancies or questions arise during the review process, the journal’s editorial team may communicate with the author to seek clarification or additional information. Open communication helps ensure the accuracy and completeness of the correction or erratum.

The journal contacts Dr. Johnson to inquire about a minor formatting issue in the correction document. Dr. Johnson promptly addresses the matter, providing the necessary adjustments.

• Approval and Publication : Once the review process is complete, and the correction or erratum is deemed accurate and valid, the journal approves the document for publication. The updated affiliation is then published in a subsequent issue, either as a standalone correction or as part of an erratum section.

After conducting a thorough review and confirming the validity of Dr. Johnson’s correction document, the journal’s editorial team approves it for publication. The corrected affiliation of Dr. Johnson is scheduled to be published in the upcoming issue of the journal.

It is crucial to underscore that accuracy and validity are paramount when making corrections or issuing errata. The journal’s role in reviewing and approving such changes ensures that the scientific record remains reliable and up-to-date. By maintaining strict quality control measures, journals safeguard against potential inaccuracies and contribute to the integrity of the research community.

As researchers, authors, and readers, we share the collective responsibility to uphold the accuracy of published work. Collaboration between authors and journal teams in the correction process reinforces the commitment to transparent and accurate scientific communication. With these rigorous standards in place, the scientific literature continues to be a reliable foundation for advancing knowledge and shaping the future of research.

Step 6: Notify Indexing Services (if applicable)

After the correction or erratum has been approved and published by the journal, it is essential to notify indexing services about the affiliation change. Indexing services, such as PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and others, play a crucial role in organizing and providing access to the vast amount of scientific literature. Informing them about the affiliation change ensures that the updated information is accurately reflected in their databases, facilitating proper attribution and discoverability of the research.

• Accurate Attribution : Indexing services use affiliations to attribute research to specific institutions or organizations accurately. Keeping this information up to date is essential to ensure that researchers are credited appropriately for their work and that institutions receive proper recognition for their contributions.

When Dr. Rodriguez’s affiliation is updated to the prestigious research institute in the journal’s published correction, notifying indexing services like PubMed about this change ensures that her research contributions are accurately linked to her new institution in their database. This allows other researchers and institutions to recognize her affiliation with the prestigious research institute when accessing her publications.

• Discoverability and Accessibility : Correctly indexed affiliations help researchers and readers easily discover relevant literature from specific institutions or researchers. This enhances the accessibility and visibility of research from particular institutions or research groups.

If a reader searches for publications from the prestigious research institute, the correct indexing of Dr. Rodriguez’s research under her new affiliation will lead to more accurate and relevant search results, making it easier for readers to find her latest work.

• Research Evaluations and Rankings : Some institutions and funding agencies use publication records to assess research productivity and impact. Ensuring accurate affiliations is crucial for fair evaluations and rankings, which can influence funding decisions and institutional recognition.

The prestigious research institute’s ranking and reputation may be positively affected by the accurate affiliation indexing of its researchers, such as Dr. Rodriguez. This can lead to increased opportunities for research funding and collaborations.

Each indexing service has its own procedures for updating affiliations. It may involve contacting the indexing service directly, filling out a form, or following specific instructions on their website. Journals or publishers might also have direct communication channels with indexing services to facilitate such updates.

After the publication of the correction with Dr. Rodriguez’s updated affiliation, the journal’s editorial team takes the initiative to notify indexing services about the change. They ensure that the corrected information is communicated accurately to the relevant indexing databases.

By proactively notifying indexing services about affiliation changes, journals, researchers, and institutions contribute to maintaining the accuracy and integrity of research records worldwide. It also ensures that researchers receive proper recognition and that their contributions are accurately represented in the scientific community.

Step 7: Update Personal Profiles

After the affiliation change has been approved and published in the journal, it is crucial for the author to update their personal profiles to reflect the new affiliation. This step helps maintain consistency across various platforms and ensures that the author’s current institutional association is accurately represented in the academic community.

• Researcher Profile Websites : If you have a researcher profile on platforms like ResearchGate, Academia.edu , Google Scholar , or ORCID , log in to your account and update your affiliation information.

Dr. Smith, who recently changed her affiliation to a new university, visits her ResearchGate profile and updates the “Affiliation” section with her new institution’s details. This change is automatically reflected on her ResearchGate profile, which is viewed by researchers worldwide.

• University/Institution Websites : If your new institution hosts researcher profiles on its website, update your affiliation information there as well. This ensures that your profile is consistent with the official records of your institution.

Dr. Johnson, who is now affiliated with the prestigious research institute, visits the institute’s website and navigates to her faculty profile. She updates the “Affiliation” field on her profile page, providing her new position and affiliation details.

• Social and Professional Networking Sites : Platforms like LinkedIn are widely used for professional networking. Make sure to update your LinkedIn profile to reflect the correct affiliation, as this information is visible to potential collaborators, employers, and colleagues.

Dr. Rodriguez, now affiliated with the prestigious research institute, logs in to her LinkedIn account and edits her “Experience” section, adding her new position and affiliation. This update is visible to her connections and professional network.

• Publication Records : If you maintain a personal publication list on your website or other platforms, update the affiliation information for your published papers to match the corrected version in the journal.

Dr. Smith manages her personal website, where she maintains a list of her publications. She updates the affiliation for the published paper to reflect her new institution and provides a link to the corrected version of the paper on the journal’s website.

• Provide Links to the Corrected Paper : When updating your personal profiles, consider providing links to the corrected version of the published paper, especially if it is available online. This allows readers and colleagues to access the accurate and updated version of your work.

Dr. Johnson updates her ResearchGate profile and includes a link to the corrected version of her paper, “Advancements in Neural Network Research,” on the journal’s website. This way, readers who visit her profile can access the most recent and accurate information about her research.

By updating personal profiles with the correct affiliation and providing links to the corrected version of the published paper, researchers ensure that their professional information is current and consistent across different platforms. This contributes to establishing a reliable and accurate academic identity, allowing colleagues and collaborators to find and connect with them easily.

Subject: Request for Affiliation Change in Published Paper

I hope this email finds you well. I am writing to request a correction to the affiliation associated with the published paper titled “[Paper Title]” authored by [Author Names]. The paper’s DOI is [DOI number], and it was published in [Journal Name], [Volume], [Issue], [Publication Year].

I recently experienced a change in my institutional affiliation, and I wish to update the information in the published paper to reflect my current position. The correction is necessary to ensure the accuracy and credibility of the scientific literature and to properly credit my research contributions to the institution with which I am currently affiliated.

I kindly request to update my affiliation as follows:

Old Affiliation: [Old Institution Name], [Old Department], [Old City], [Old Country]

New Affiliation: [New Institution Name], [New Department], [New City], [New Country]

To support this affiliation change, I have attached an official letter from [New Institution Name] confirming my current association with them. The letter is on the institution’s official letterhead and is signed by [Name and Designation of Authorized Representative].

I assure you that the affiliation change has no impact on the content, results, or conclusions presented in the published paper. All co-authors have been informed of this request, and they fully support this correction.

Please let me know if you require any additional information or documentation to proceed with the affiliation change process. I am more than willing to provide any further details necessary.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. I greatly appreciate your cooperation in updating my affiliation in the published paper. I look forward to your positive response.

[Your Name] [Your Current Affiliation] [Contact Email] [Contact Phone Number]

The journey of academic research is one paved with innovation, collaboration, and growth. As researchers, our affiliations serve as critical milestones, connecting us to the institutions and organizations that shape our contributions to the scientific community. However, the dynamic nature of our careers can lead to situations where updating affiliations in already published research papers becomes necessary.

In this comprehensive guide, we have explored the step-by-step process of changing affiliations in published papers, emphasizing the importance of accuracy, transparency, and integrity. Understanding the publication’s guidelines, gathering the right documentation, and maintaining professional communication with the journal’s editorial team are the initial keystones to navigating this process.

We have witnessed the significance of notifying indexing services to ensure accurate records, enhance discoverability, and preserve the credit and recognition researchers deserve. Updating personal profiles with the correct affiliations reinforces a consistent and reliable academic identity, making it easier for colleagues and collaborators to connect and engage.

Upcoming Events

• Visit the Upcoming International Conferences at Exotic Travel Destinations with Travel Plan
• Visit for  Research Internships Worldwide

Recent Posts

• 04 Reasons for Outsourcing Academic Conference Management
• How to Put Research Grants on Your CV ?
• How to Request for Journal Publishing Charge (APC) Discount or Waiver?
• Do Review Papers Count for the Award of a PhD Degree?
• Vinay Kabadi, University of Melbourne, Interview on Award-Winning Research
• All Blog Posts
• Research Career
• Research Conference
• Research Internship
• Research Journal
• Research Tools
• Uncategorized
• Research Conferences
• Research Journals
• Research Grants
• Internships
• Research Internships
• Email Templates
• Conferences
• Blog Partners
• Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2024 Research Voyage

Design by ThemesDNA.com

• - Google Chrome

Intended for healthcare professionals

• Access provided by Google Indexer
• My email alerts
• BMA member login
• Username * Password * Forgot your log in details? Need to activate BMA Member Log In Log in via OpenAthens Log in via your institution

Search form

• Advanced search
• Search responses
• Search blogs
• News & Views
• Research papers should...
• Authors’ affiliations in Research Papers: To Include or not

Rapid response to:

Research papers should omit their authors’ affiliations

• Related content
• Article metrics
• Rapid responses

Rapid Response:

The fact that the affiliation of authors could influence readers/reviewers has been highlighted by Matthew Harris in a Personal View (1). It has also been suggested that research papers should omit their authors’ affiliations. Nevertheless, we assume that, although the presence of authors’ affiliations in the articles could impose the concept that the study is well-conducted or more immediately relevant to the context of the reader, their elimination would violate the freedom of the readers.

Furthermore, when it comes to the medical sciences and the lives that could be either saved thanks to an excellent study or lost due to a fabricated or biased study, the editors and reviewers ought to be more cautious. The emerging discipline of “reverse innovation” is extremely appealing yet it neglects a crucial fact. In case of detection of any conflict, bias, mistake or fabrication in the studies from within developed countries, they are ultimately retracted from the databases; this is not an uncommon phenomenon these days, especially in the leading journals (2, 3). Consequently, the authors shoulder the responsibility; appropriate legislation is ready to be promptly implemented and the losses caused due to the flawed study are compensated to some extents. One might skeptically pose the question whether this would be true for all authors from every corner of the world.

References:

1. BMJ 2014;349:g6439 2. Shafer SL. Editor's Note: Notice of Retraction. Anesth Analg. 2014;119(5):1225. doi: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000000417. 3. Lancet Editors. Retraction--Valsartan in a Japanese population with hypertension and other cardiovascular disease (Jikei Heart Study): a randomised, open-label, blinded endpoint morbidity-mortality study. Lancet. 2013; 7;382(9895):843. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)61847-4.

Competing interests: No competing interests

Library Research Guides - University of Wisconsin Ebling Library

Uw-madison libraries research guides.

• Course Guides
• Subject Guides
• University of Wisconsin-Madison
• Research Guides
• Publication Tracking
• Searching for an Affiliation in Google Scholar

Publication Tracking : Searching for an Affiliation in Google Scholar

• Getting Started
• Searching for an Individual Author in PubMed
• Searching for a Group of Authors in PubMed
• Searching for an Institution or Department in PubMed
• Searching for an Individual Author in Scopus
• Searching for a Group of Authors in Scopus
• Searching for an Affiliation in Scopus
• Searching for an Individual Author in Google Scholar
• Searching for a Group of Authors in Google Scholar
• Exporting Search Results

This page gives tips on how to search for an affiliation in Google Scholar. Click here to access this information as a downloadable PDF.

Click here to access a PDF containing search templates and examples of searching for an affiliation in Google Scholar.

Constructing Your Search

1. construct a search using affiliation keywords.

Unfortunately Google Scholar does not have a field tag for affiliations. In consequence, you will need to construct your search using affiliation keywords, and combine them with the Boolean OR (or the “|” symbol in Google Scholar), like so:

wisconsin|Madison|UW|wi|wisc

“|” works the same as a Boolean OR would, in that it will be retrieving publications that mention wisconsin, Madison, UW, wi, or wisc, or all of the terms in them.

2. Increase Specificity by Using Quotation Marks

If any of your affiliation keywords are comprised of more than one word, you can use quotation marks to search for the keyword as a phrase. So, for example, searching "young adult" is going to search for that intact phrase, whereas searching young adult, without quotation marks, will look for articles that have young and adult anywhere in the article, regardless of how apart those two words might be in the article (e.g., it could retrieve an article that says, "The young polar bear was now an adult").

So if you wanted to narrow your search to only publications that mention some variation of the University of Wisconsin-Madison, and not just Wisconsin, your search could look something like this:

“University of Wisconsin Madison”|”University of Wisconsin-Madison”|”UW Madison”

This search will only retrieve publications that mention the University of Wisconsin Madison, the University of Wisconsin-Madison, UW Madison, or all of these terms.

3. Limit by Date

You can limit by date by using the date filters on the left-hand side of the page. If you would like to search by a specific date range, you can click “Custom Range.”

Google Scholar has a character limit!

Important : Note that Google Scholar has a limit of only 256 characters for searches

How Do I Interpret These Searches?

Boolean Operators (AND and OR, represented by a space and | in Google Scholar)

OR ("|" in Google Scholar) is used to combine synonyms together. For example, a search of parent|guardian is going to retrieve publications that have the word parent, the word guardian, or both the words parent and guardian in them.

AND (a space in Google Scholar " ") is used to combine concepts together. For example, a search of parent guardian is going to retrieve publications that have BOTH the words parent and guardian in them. If a publication has the word parent, and not the word guardian, your search will not retrieve that publication.

Quotation Marks " "

These tell Google Scholar to search for two or more words as an intact phrase. So, for example, search ing "young adult" is going to search for that intact phrase, whereas search ing young adult, without quotation marks, will look for articles that have young and adult anywhere in the article, regardless of how apart those two words might be in the article (e.g., it could retrieve an article that says, "The young polar bear was now an adult ").

• << Previous: Searching for a Group of Authors in Google Scholar
• Next: Exporting Search Results >>
• Last Updated: Sep 27, 2023 11:47 AM
• URL: https://researchguides.library.wisc.edu/publication-tracking

• Journal Article Publishing Support Center

To post social content, you must have a display name. The page will refresh upon submission. Any pending input will be lost.

What affiliations should I use?

Authors should use their current or recent affiliation in Author forms, and the affiliation that applied mostly when the manuscript was being prepared/ research was undertaken in the proofs of the paper.

Proof Central makes it possible to change the author list, including the affiliations and the associated footnotes. To do so, click on the 'pencil' icon to open the edit screen in the right pane. Here you can add, remove or edit author names, the author’s associated affiliations and footnotes. Changes made to the author group will always be reviewed and require approval from the journal editor, to make sure no invalid correction is being made by the corresponding author.

Was this answer helpful?

Thank you for your feedback, it will help us serve you better. If you require assistance, please scroll down and use one of the contact options to get in touch.

Help us to help you:

Thank you for your feedback!

• Why was this answer not helpful?
• It was hard to understand / follow.
• It did not answer my question.
• The solution did not work.
• There was a mistake in the answer.
• Feel free to leave any comments below: Please enter your feedback to submit this form

Related Articles:

• What should I do if my organization (i.e. affiliation or funder) is not found when I am requested to add this information when completing the Rights and Access form?
• Author Guide to the Publication Process (Post-Acceptance)
• What should I do if the proof is incorrect or incomplete?
• Will I get to check my proofs again?
• Can I make a correction to my typeset article after I have returned my proofs?

For further assistance:

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here .

Submission Guidelines

Related information for authors

• PLOS Writing Center
• Submission system
• Journal scope and publication criteria
• Getting started guide
• Guidelines for revisions
• Publication fees
• APC Support

Style and Format

Manuscript organization.

Manuscripts should be organized as follows. Instructions for each element appear below the list.

• Download sample title, author list, and affiliations page (PDF)
• Download sample manuscript body (PDF)

Parts of a Submission

Include a full title and a short title for the manuscript.

Titles should be written in sentence case (only the first word of the text, proper nouns, and genus names are capitalized). Avoid specialist abbreviations if possible. For clinical trials, systematic reviews, or meta-analyses, the subtitle should include the study design.

Author list

Author names and affiliations.

Enter author names on the title page of the manuscript and in the online submission system.

On the title page, write author names in the following order:

• First name (or initials, if used)
• Middle name (or initials, if used)
• Last name (surname, family name)

Each author on the list must have an affiliation. The affiliation includes department, university, or organizational affiliation and its location, including city, state/province (if applicable), and country. Authors have the option to include a current address in addition to the address of their affiliation at the time of the study. The current address should be listed in the byline and clearly labeled “current address.” At a minimum, the address must include the author’s current institution, city, and country.

If an author has multiple affiliations, enter all affiliations on the title page only. In the submission system, enter only the preferred or primary affiliation. Author affiliations will be listed in the typeset PDF article in the same order that authors are listed in the submission.

Corresponding author

The submitting author is automatically designated as the corresponding author in the submission system. The corresponding author is the primary contact for the journal office and the only author able to view or change the manuscript while it is under editorial consideration.

The corresponding author role may be transferred to another coauthor. However, note that transferring the corresponding author role also transfers access to the manuscript. (To designate a new corresponding author while the manuscript is still under consideration, watch the video tutorial below.)

Only one corresponding author can be designated in the submission system, but this does not restrict the number of corresponding authors that may be listed on the article in the event of publication. Whoever is designated as a corresponding author on the title page of the manuscript file will be listed as such upon publication. Include an email address for each corresponding author listed on the title page of the manuscript.

Consortia and group authorship

If a manuscript is submitted on behalf of a consortium or group, include its name in the manuscript byline. Do not add it to the author list in the submission system. You may include the full list of members in the Acknowledgments or in a supporting information file.

PubMed only indexes individual consortium or group author members listed in the article byline. If included, these individuals must qualify for authorship according to our criteria .

Author contributions

Provide at minimum one contribution for each author in the submission system. Use the CRediT taxonomy to describe each contribution. Read the policy and the full list of roles .

Contributions will be published with the final article, and they should accurately reflect contributions to the work. The submitting author is responsible for completing this information at submission, and we expect that all authors will have reviewed, discussed, and agreed to their individual contributions ahead of this time.

PLOS ONE will contact all authors by email at submission to ensure that they are aware of the submission.

Cover letter

Upload a cover letter as a separate file in the online system. The length limit is 1 page.

The cover letter should include the following information:

• Summarize the study’s contribution to the scientific literature
• Relate the study to previously published work
• Specify the type of article (for example, research article, systematic review, meta-analysis, clinical trial)
• Describe any prior interactions with PLOS regarding the submitted manuscript
• Suggest appropriate Academic Editors to handle your manuscript ( see the full list of Academic Editors)
• List any opposed reviewers

IMPORTANT: Do not include requests to reduce or waive publication fees in the cover letter. This information will be entered separately in the online submission system.

The title, authors, and affiliations should all be included on a title page as the first page of the manuscript file.  

The Abstract comes after the title page in the manuscript file. The abstract text is also entered in a separate field in the submission system.  

The Abstract should:

• Describe the main objective(s) of the study
• Explain how the study was done, including any model organisms used, without methodological detail
• Summarize the most important results and their significance
• Not exceed 300 words

Abstracts should not include:

• Abbreviations, if possible

Introduction

The introduction should:

• Provide background that puts the manuscript into context and allows readers outside the field to understand the purpose and significance of the study
• Define the problem addressed and why it is important
• Include a brief review of the key literature
• Note any relevant controversies or disagreements in the field
• Conclude with a brief statement of the overall aim of the work and a comment about whether that aim was achieved

Materials and Methods

The Materials and Methods section should provide enough detail to allow suitably skilled investigators to fully replicate your study. Specific information and/or protocols for new methods should be included in detail. If materials, methods, and protocols are well established, authors may cite articles where those protocols are described in detail, but the submission should include sufficient information to be understood independent of these references.

Supporting reproducibility with protocols

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend and encourage you to make your protocols public. There are several options:

Protocols associated with Research Articles

Protocol documents may be uploaded as Supporting Information or linked from the Methods section of the article. For laboratory protocols, we recommend protocols.io. Include the DOI link in the Methods section of your manuscript using the following format: http://dx.doi.org/10.17504/protocols.io.[PROTOCOL DOI]. This allows editors and reviewers to consult the detailed step-by-step protocol when evaluating your manuscript. You can choose to keep the protocol private on the protocols.io platform until your article is published—at which time it will be published automatically. 

Protocols published in their own right

PLOS ONE offers two options for publishing stand-alone protocol articles: Lab Protocols that describe reusable methodologies and Study Protocols that describe detailed plans and proposals for research projects. Specific guidelines apply to the submission of Lab Protocol and Study Protocol manuscripts. Read the detailed instructions for submitting Lab Protocols and Study Protocols .

Results, Discussion, Conclusions

These sections may all be separate, or may be combined to create a mixed Results/Discussion section (commonly labeled “Results and Discussion”) or a mixed Discussion/Conclusions section (commonly labeled “Discussion”). These sections may be further divided into subsections, each with a concise subheading, as appropriate. These sections have no word limit, but the language should be clear and concise.

Together, these sections should describe the results of the experiments, the interpretation of these results, and the conclusions that can be drawn.

Authors should explain how the results relate to the hypothesis presented as the basis of the study and provide a succinct explanation of the implications of the findings, particularly in relation to previous related studies and potential future directions for research.

PLOS ONE editorial decisions do not rely on perceived significance or impact, so authors should avoid overstating their conclusions. See the PLOS ONE Criteria for Publication for more information.

Acknowledgments

Those who contributed to the work but do not meet our authorship criteria should be listed in the Acknowledgments with a description of the contribution.

Authors are responsible for ensuring that anyone named in the Acknowledgments agrees to be named.

Any and all available works can be cited in the reference list. Acceptable sources include:

• Published or accepted manuscripts
• Manuscripts on preprint servers, providing the manuscript has a citable DOI or arXiv URL.

Do not cite the following sources in the reference list:

• Unavailable and unpublished work, including manuscripts that have been submitted but not yet accepted (e.g., “unpublished work,” “data not shown”). Instead, include those data as supplementary material or deposit the data in a publicly available database.
• Personal communications (these should be supported by a letter from the relevant authors but not included in the reference list)
• Submitted research should not rely upon retracted research. You should avoid citing retracted articles unless you need to discuss retracted work to provide historical context for your submitted research. If it is necessary to discuss retracted work, state the article’s retracted status in your article’s text and reference list.

Ensure that your reference list includes full and current bibliography details for every cited work at the time of your article’s submission (and publication, if accepted). If cited work is corrected, retracted, or marked with an expression of concern before your article is published, and if you feel it is appropriate to cite the work even in light of the post-publication notice, include in your manuscript citations and full references for both the affected article and the post-publication notice. Email the journal office if you have questions.

References are listed at the end of the manuscript and numbered in the order that they appear in the text. In the text, cite the reference number in square brackets (e.g., “We used the techniques developed by our colleagues [19] to analyze the data”). PLOS uses the numbered citation (citation-sequence) method and first six authors, et al.

Do not include citations in abstracts. 

Make sure the parts of the manuscript are in the correct order  before  ordering the citations.

​ Formatting references

PLOS uses the reference style outlined by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), also referred to as the “Vancouver” style. Example formats are listed below. Additional examples are in the ICMJE sample references .

Journal name abbreviations should be those found in the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) databases . 

Supporting information

Authors can submit essential supporting files and multimedia files along with their manuscripts. All supporting information will be subject to peer review. All file types can be submitted, but files must be smaller than 20 MB in size.

Authors may use almost any description as the item name for a supporting information file as long as it contains an “S” and number. For example, “S1 Appendix” and “S2 Appendix,” “S1 Table” and “S2 Table,” and so forth.  

Supporting information files are published exactly as provided, and are not copyedited.

Supporting information captions

List supporting information captions at the end of the manuscript file. Do not submit captions in a separate file.

The file number and name are required in a caption, and we highly recommend including a one-line title as well. You may also include a legend in your caption, but it is not required.

In-text citations

We recommend that you cite supporting information in the manuscript text, but this is not a requirement. If you cite supporting information in the text, citations do not need to be in numerical order.

Figures and tables

Do not include figures in the main manuscript file. Each figure must be prepared and submitted as an individual file.

Cite figures in ascending numeric order at first appearance in the manuscript file.

Figure captions

Figure captions must be inserted in the text of the manuscript, immediately following the paragraph in which the figure is first cited (read order). Do not include captions as part of the figure files themselves or submit them in a separate document.

At a minimum, include the following in your figure captions:

• A figure label with Arabic numerals, and “Figure” abbreviated to “Fig” (e.g. Fig 1, Fig 2, Fig 3, etc). Match the label of your figure with the name of the file uploaded at submission (e.g. a figure citation of “Fig 1” must refer to a figure file named “Fig1.tif”).
• A concise, descriptive title

The caption may also include a legend as needed.

Cite tables in ascending numeric order upon first appearance in the manuscript file.

Place each table in your manuscript file directly after the paragraph in which it is first cited (read order). Do not submit your tables in separate files.

Tables require a label (e.g., “Table 1”) and brief descriptive title to be placed above the table. Place legends, footnotes, and other text below the table. 

Statistical reporting

Manuscripts submitted to PLOS ONE are expected to report statistical methods in sufficient detail for others to replicate the analysis performed. Ensure that results are rigorously reported in accordance with community standards and that statistical methods employed are appropriate for the study design.

Consult the following resources for additional guidance:

• SAMPL guidelines , for general guidance on statistical reporting
• PLOS ONE guidelines , for clinical trials requirements
• PLOS ONE guidelines , for systematic review and meta-analysis requirements
• EQUATOR , for specific reporting guidelines for a range of other study types

Reporting of statistical methods

In the methods, include a section on statistical analysis that reports a detailed description of the statistical methods. In this section:

• List the name and version of any software package used, alongside any relevant references
• Describe technical details or procedures required to reproduce the analysis
• Provide the repository identifier for any code used in the analysis (See our code-sharing policy .)

Statistical reporting guidelines:

• Identify research design and independent variables as being between- or within-subjects
• Describe any analysis carried out to confirm the data meets the assumptions of the analysis performed (e.g. linearity, co-linearity, normality of the distribution).
• If data were transformed include this information, with a reason for doing so and a description of the transformation performed
• Provide details of how outliers were treated and your analysis, both with the full dataset and with the outliers removed
• If relevant, describe how missing/excluded data were handled
• Define the threshold for significance (alpha)
• If appropriate, provide sample sizes, along with a description of how they were determined. If a sample size calculation was performed, specify the inputs for power, effect size and alpha. Where relevant, report the number of independent replications for each experiment.
• For analyses of variance (ANOVAs), detail any post hoc tests that were performed
• Include details of any corrections applied to account for multiple comparisons. If corrections were not applied, include a justification for not doing so
• Describe all options for statistical procedures. For example, if t-tests were performed, state whether these were one- or two-tailed. Include details of the type of t-test conducted (e.g. one sample, within-/between-subjects).
• Report the alpha level used
• Discuss whether the variables were assessed for collinearity and interaction
• Describe the variable selection process by which the final model was developed (e.g., forward-stepwise; best subset). See SAMPL guidelines .
• For Bayesian analysis explain the choice of prior trial probabilities and how they were selected. Markov chain Monte Carlo settings should be reported.

Reporting of statistical results

Results must be rigorously and appropriately reported, in keeping with community standards.

• Units of measurement. Clearly define measurement units in all tables and figures.
• Properties of distribution. It should be clear from the text which measures of variance (standard deviation, standard error of the mean, confidence intervals) and central tendency (mean, median) are being presented.
• Regression analyses. Include the full results of any regression analysis performed as a supplementary file. Include all estimated regression coefficients, their standard error, p-values, and confidence intervals, as well as the measures of goodness of fit.
• Reporting parameters. Test statistics (F/t/r) and associated degrees of freedom should be provided. Effect sizes and confidence intervals should be reported where appropriate. If percentages are provided, the numerator and denominator should also be given.
• P-values. Report exact p-values for all values greater than or equal to 0.001. P-values less than 0.001 may be expressed as p < 0.001, or as exponentials in studies of genetic associations.
• Displaying data in plots. Format plots so that they accurately depict the sample distribution. 3D effects in plots can bias and hinder interpretation of values, so avoid them in cases where regular plots are sufficient to display the data.
• Open data. As explained in PLOS’s Data Policy , be sure to make individual data points, underlying graphs and summary statistics available at the time of publication. Data can be deposited in a repository or included within the Supporting Information files.

Data reporting

All data and related metadata underlying the findings reported in a submitted manuscript should be deposited in an appropriate public repository, unless already provided as part of the submitted article.

See instructions on providing underlying data to support blot and gel results .

Repositories may be either subject-specific (where these exist) and accept specific types of structured data, or generalist repositories that accept multiple data types. We recommend that authors select repositories appropriate to their field. Repositories may be subject-specific (e.g., GenBank for sequences and PDB for structures), general, or institutional, as long as DOIs or accession numbers are provided and the data are at least as open as CC BY. Authors are encouraged to select repositories that meet accepted criteria as trustworthy digital repositories, such as criteria of the Centre for Research Libraries or Data Seal of Approval. Large, international databases are more likely to persist than small, local ones.

To support data sharing and author compliance of the PLOS data policy, we have integrated our submission process with a select set of data repositories. The list is neither representative nor exhaustive of the suitable repositories available to authors. Current repository integration partners include  Dryad and FlowRepository . Please contact [email protected] to make recommendations for further partnerships.

Instructions for PLOS submissions with data deposited in an integration partner repository:

• Deposit data in the integrated repository of choice.
• Once deposition is final and complete, the repository will provide you with a dataset DOI (provisional) and private URL for reviewers to gain access to the data.
• Enter the given data DOI into the full Data Availability Statement, which is requested in the Additional Information section of the PLOS submission form. Then provide the URL passcode in the Attach Files section.

If you have any questions, please email us .

Accession numbers

All appropriate data sets, images, and information should be deposited in an appropriate public repository. See our list of recommended repositories .

Accession numbers (and version numbers, if appropriate) should be provided in the Data Availability Statement. Accession numbers or a citation to the DOI should also be provided when the data set is mentioned within the manuscript.

In some cases authors may not be able to obtain accession numbers of DOIs until the manuscript is accepted; in these cases, the authors must provide these numbers at acceptance. In all other cases, these numbers must be provided at full submission.

Identifiers

As much as possible, please provide accession numbers or identifiers for all entities such as genes, proteins, mutants, diseases, etc., for which there is an entry in a public database, for example:

• Entrez Gene
• Mouse Genome Database (MGD)
• Online Mendelian Inheritance in Man (OMIM)

Identifiers should be provided in parentheses after the entity on first use.

Striking image

You can choose to upload a “Striking Image” that we may use to represent your article online in places like the journal homepage or in search results.

The striking image must be derived from a figure or supporting information file from the submission, i.e., a cropped portion of an image or the entire image. Striking images should ideally be high resolution, eye-catching, single panel images, and should ideally avoid containing added details such as text, scale bars, and arrows.

If no striking image is uploaded, we will designate a figure from the submission as the striking image.

Additional Information Requested at Submission

Financial disclosure statement.

This information should describe sources of funding that have supported the work. It is important to gather these details prior to submission because your financial disclosure statement cannot be changed after initial submission without journal approval. If your manuscript is published, your statement will appear in the Funding section of the article.

Enter this statement in the Financial Disclosure section of the submission form. Do not include it in your manuscript file.

The statement should include:

• Specific grant numbers
• Initials of authors who received each award
• Full names of commercial companies that funded the study or authors
• Initials of authors who received salary or other funding from commercial companies
• URLs to sponsors’ websites

Also state whether any sponsors or funders (other than the named authors) played any role in:

• Study design
• Data collection and analysis
• Decision to publish
• Preparation of the manuscript

If they had no role in the research, include this sentence: “The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.”

If the study was unfunded, include this sentence as the Financial Disclosure statement: “The author(s) received no specific funding for this work."

Competing interests

This information should not be in your manuscript file; you will provide it via our submission system.

All potential competing interests must be declared in full. If the submission is related to any patents, patent applications, or products in development or for market, these details, including patent numbers and titles, must be disclosed in full.

Manuscripts disputing published work

For manuscripts disputing previously published work, it is  PLOS ONE  policy to invite a signed review by the disputed author during the peer review process. This procedure is aimed at ensuring a thorough, transparent, and productive review process.

If the disputed author chooses to submit a review, it must be returned in a timely fashion and contain a full declaration of all competing interests. The Academic Editor will consider any such reviews in light of the competing interest.

Authors submitting manuscripts disputing previous work should explain the relationship between the manuscripts in their cover letter, and will be required to confirm that they accept the conditions of this review policy before the manuscript is considered further.

Related manuscripts

Upon submission, authors must confirm that the manuscript, or any related manuscript, is not currently under consideration or accepted elsewhere. If related work has been submitted to  PLOS ONE  or elsewhere, authors must include a copy with the submitted article. Reviewers will be asked to comment on the overlap between related submissions.

We strongly discourage the unnecessary division of related work into separate manuscripts, and we will not consider manuscripts that are divided into “parts.” Each submission to  PLOS ONE  must be written as an independent unit and should not rely on any work that has not already been accepted for publication. If related manuscripts are submitted to  PLOS ONE , the authors may be advised to combine them into a single manuscript at the editor's discretion.

PLOS encourages authors to post preprints to accelerate the dissemination of research. Posting a manuscript on a preprint server does not impact consideration of the manuscript at any PLOS journal.

Authors posting preprints on  bioRxiv or medRxiv can choose to concurrently submit their manuscripts to relevant PLOS journals through the direct transfer service.

Authors submitting manuscripts in the life and health sciences to PLOS ONE  may choose to have PLOS forward their submission to bioRxiv or medRxiv, depending on the scope of the paper, for consideration for posting as a preprint.

Guidelines for Specific Study Types

Study design, reporting, and analyses are assessed against all relevant research and methodological technique standards held by the community. Guidelines for specific study types are outlined below.

Registered Reports

Submission and format requirements for Registered Report Protocols and Registered Reports are similar to those for a regular submission and may be specific to your study type. For instance, if your Registered Report Protocol submission is about a Clinical Trial or a Systematic Review, follow the appropriate guidelines.

For Registered Report Protocols:

• Provide enough methodological detail to make the study reproducible and replicable
• Confirm that data will be made available upon study completion in keeping with the PLOS Data policy ​
• Include ethical approval or waivers, if applicable
• Preliminary or pilot data may be included, but only if necessary to support the feasibility of the study or as a proof of principle 
• For meta-analyses or Clinical Trials, use the protocol-specific reporting guidelines PRISMA-P or SPIRIT respectively

For more guidance on format and presentation of a protocol, consult the sample template hosted by the Open Science Framework . Discipline-specific and study-specific templates are also available.

For Registered Report Research Articles:

• Report the results of all planned analyses and, if relevant, detail and justify all deviations from the protocol. 
• The manuscript may also contain exploratory, unplanned analyses.

Read more about Registered Report framework .

Human subjects research

Manuscripts should conform to the following reporting guidelines:

• Studies of diagnostic accuracy:  STARD
• Observational studies:  STROBE
• Microarray experiments:  MIAME
• Other types of health-related research: Consult the  EQUATOR  web site for appropriate reporting guidelines

Methods sections of papers on research using human subjects or samples must include ethics statements that specify:

• The name of the approving institutional review board or equivalent committee(s) . If approval was not obtained, the authors must provide a detailed statement explaining why it was not needed
• Why written consent could not be obtained
• That the Institutional Review Board (IRB) approved use of oral consent
• How oral consent was documented

For studies involving humans categorized by race/ethnicity, age, disease/disabilities, religion, sex/gender, sexual orientation, or other socially constructed groupings, authors should:

• Explicitly describe their methods of categorizing human populations
• Define categories in as much detail as the study protocol allows
• Justify their choices of definitions and categories, including for example whether any rules of human categorization were required by their funding agency
• Explain whether (and if so, how) they controlled for confounding variables such as socioeconomic status, nutrition, environmental exposures, or similar factors in their analysis

In addition, outmoded terms and potentially stigmatizing labels should be changed to more current, acceptable terminology. Examples: “Caucasian” should be changed to “white” or “of [Western] European descent” (as appropriate); “cancer victims” should be changed to “patients with cancer.”

For papers that include identifying, or potentially identifying, information, authors must download the Consent Form for Publication in a PLOS Journal , which the individual, parent, or guardian must sign once they have read the paper and been informed about the terms of PLOS open-access license. The signed consent form should not be submitted with the manuscript, but authors should securely file it in the individual's case notes and the methods section of the manuscript should explicitly state that consent authorization for publication is on file, using wording like:

The individual in this manuscript has given written informed consent (as outlined in PLOS consent form) to publish these case details.

For more information about  PLOS ONE  policies regarding human subjects research, see the  Publication Criteria  and  Editorial Policies .

Manuscripts describing observational clinical studies are subject to all policies regarding human research  and community standards for reporting observational research as outlined by the STROBE statement. Furthermore, authors submitting work of this nature should pay special attention to the following requirements:

• If the submitted manuscript is very similar to previous work, authors must provide a sound scientific rationale for the submitted work and clearly reference and discuss the existing literature.
• The sampling strategy and eligibility criteria of enrolled subjects should be described in sufficient detail.
• Sample size calculations should be justified with relevant inputs defined.
• Independent and dependent variables considered for statistical analysis should be clearly defined and justified.
• The validity and reliability testing of self-developed data collection tools should be reported.
• Conclusions should be appropriate for the study design, with indications on how the study results will contribute to the base of academic knowledge.

Clinical trials

Clinical trials are subject to all  policies regarding human research .  PLOS ONE  follows the  World Health Organization's (WHO) definition of a clinical trial :

All clinical trials must be registered in one of the publicly-accessible registries approved by the  WHO  or  ICMJE  (International Committee of Medical Journal Editors). Authors must provide the trial registration number. Prior disclosure of results on a clinical trial registry site will not affect consideration for publication. We reserve the right to inform authors' institutions or ethics committees, and to reject the manuscript, if we become aware of unregistered trials.

PLOS ONE  supports prospective trial registration (i.e. before participant recruitment has begun) as recommended by the ICMJE's  clinical trial registration policy .  Where trials were not publicly registered before participant recruitment began , authors must:

• Register all related clinical trials and confirm they have done so in the Methods section
• Explain in the Methods the reason for failing to register before participant recruitment

Clinical trials must be reported according to the relevant reporting guidelines, i.e.  CONSORT  for randomized controlled trials,  TREND  for non-randomized trials, and  other specialized guidelines  as appropriate. The intervention should be described according to the requirements of the  TIDieR checklist and guide . Submissions must also include the study protocol as supporting information, which will be published with the manuscript if accepted.

Authors of manuscripts describing the results of clinical trials must adhere to the  CONSORT  reporting guidelines appropriate to their trial design, available on the  CONSORT Statement web site . Before the paper can enter peer review, authors must:

• The name of the registry and the registration number must be included in the Abstract.
• Provide a copy of the trial protocol as approved by the ethics committee and a completed  CONSORT checklist  as supporting information (which will be published alongside the paper, if accepted). This should be named S1 CONSORT Checklist.
• Include the  CONSORT flow diagram  as the manuscript's “Fig 1”

Any deviation from the trial protocol must be explained in the paper. Authors must explicitly discuss informed consent in their paper, and we reserve the right to ask for a copy of the patient consent form.

The name of the registry and the registry number must be provided in the Abstract. If the trial is registered in more than one location, please provide all relevant registry names and numbers.

Lab Protocols

Lab Protocols consist of two interlinked components: a step-by-step protocol hosted on protocols.io , and a peer-reviewed article in  PLOS ONE that contextualises the protocol.

The PLOS ONE   article component must comply with the general PLOS ONE   submission guidelines (detailed above) and criteria for publication . In addition, the PLOS ONE article component should:

• Describe the value that the protocol adds to the published literature. Lab Protocols describing routine methods or extensions and modifications of routine methods that add little value to the published literature will not be considered for publication.
• Linking, in the Introduction section, to at least one supporting peer-reviewed publication in which the protocol was applied to generate data. or
• Providing validation or benchmarking data, which demonstrates that the underlying method achieves its intended purpose.
• Provide the step-by-step protocol as a supporting information (S1) file. 

We encourage you to post your protocol to the protocols.io platform before submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE . Posting your protocol prior to submission is not considered prior publication by PLOS ONE and will not affect your eligibility to publish a Lab Protocol.

Authors submitting a Lab Protocol can also use protocols.io’s protocol entry service  at no cost: the team at protocols.io will enter your protocol for you and format it in a way that takes advantage of the platform’s features. You will have an opportunity to review and make further changes before your protocol is shared with anyone else. 

If you would like to use protocols.io's protocol entry service in connection with a Lab Protocol submission, please contact [email protected] to request the customer code.

If you prefer to submit your manuscript to PLOS ONE before posting your protocol to protocols.io, then you must still provide your step-by-step protocol as a supporting information (S1) file in a format of your choosing. You will be expected to replace this file with a protocols.io PDF later in the editorial process.

Study Protocols

Study Protocols describe plans for conducting research projects and consist of a single article on  PLOS ONE .

Study Protocols must comply with the  PLOS ONE  general submission guidelines (detailed above in this article) and any guidelines specific to the related research study type. In addition, the protocol must:

• Relate to a research study that has not yet generated results.
• Be submitted before recruitment of participants or collection of data for the study is complete.
• Meet the same standards for ethics of experimentation and research integrity as the research study. If it involves human or animal subjects, cell lines or field sampling , or has potential biosafety implications , prior approval from the relevant ethics body must be obtained prior to submission. Please contact us if you have a valid reason for not obtaining approval. 

Additional prerequisites apply for these study types:

• The trial must be registered prior to submission of your protocol in one of the publicly accessible registries approved by the WHO or ICMJE (International Committee of Medical Journal Editors).
• The name of the registry and the trial or study registration number must be included in the Abstract.
• A copy of the protocol that was approved by the ethics committee must be submitted as a supplementary information file. Please provide an additional English translation if the original document is not in English. Please note that the protocol will be published with the manuscript if accepted.
• A SPIRIT schedule of enrollment, interventions, and assessments must be included as the manuscript’s Figure 1, and a completed SPIRIT checklist must be uploaded as Supporting Information file S1.
• A completed PRISMA-P checklist must be provided as a supporting information (SI) file. See PRISMA-P Explanation and Elaboration for more information on completing your checklist.

Study Protocols must also comply with general PLOS ONE   criteria for publication and in addition you should:

• include the word “Protocol” in your Title.
• the aim, design, and settling
• the sample size calculation
• how data saturation will be determined (for qualitative studies)
• the characteristics of participants e.g., inclusion and exclusion criteria, sample selection criteria, variables to be measured, randomization and blinding criteria (where applicable), and how informed consent will be obtained 
• how materials will be selected and used e.g., where and how they will be sourced, the processes, interventions, or comparisons to be used, the outcomes to be measured, and when and how they will be measured
• the data management plan
• safety considerations
• the type of data and statistical analyses to be used
• the status and timeline of the study, including whether participant recruitment or data collection has begun
• where and when the data will be made available. See our Data Availability policy for more.
• include an analysis of preliminary or pilot data, only if it is necessary to support the feasibility of the study or as a proof of principle. This is optional.
• we encourage authors you to register with OSF and provide the your registration number in the Materials and Methods section. This is optional.
• optionally add any other SI files, figures or tables that elaborate or authenticate the protocol: e.g., any reporting checklists applicable to your study type.

Read the supporting information guidelines for more details about adding SI files.

Study Protocols are subject to the same editorial and peer review process as all other articles, and are eligible for both signed and published peer review .

You can expedite the review process by providing:

• proof of external funding. This is typically your funding approval letter and a list of the names and credentials of the funders who conducted the external peer review of the protocol. Include an English translation if needed.
• proof of ethics approval (if required). This is typically the approval or waiver letter from the relevant ethics body and a copy of the protocol approved by this body. 

The proof of external funding and approval or waiver letter are used for internal purposes and do not form part of the published Study Protocol. Expedited review is conducted by an internal Staff Editor only and bypasses the external review process. 

If the Study Protocol describes a replication study or involves re-analysis of published work, we will invite the author of the initial or replicated study to provide a signed review. 

We encourage you to share your Study Protocol with other researchers, either before or after submission. You can publish it on your website or  protocols.io , or submit it for posting on  medRxiv  or another preprint server.

Animal research

All research involving vertebrates or cephalopods must have approval from the authors' Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) or equivalent ethics committee(s), and must have been conducted according to applicable national and international guidelines. Approval must be received prior to beginning research.

Manuscripts reporting animal research must state in the Methods section:

• The full name of the relevant ethics committee that approved the work, and the associated permit number(s).
• Where ethical approval is not required, the manuscript should include a clear statement of this and the reason why. Provide any relevant regulations under which the study is exempt from the requirement for approval.
• Relevant details of steps taken to ameliorate animal suffering.

This study was carried out in strict accordance with the recommendations in the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals of the National Institutes of Health. The protocol was approved by the Committee on the Ethics of Animal Experiments of the University of Minnesota (Protocol Number: 27-2956). All surgery was performed under sodium pentobarbital anesthesia, and all efforts were made to minimize suffering.

Authors should always state the organism(s) studied in the Abstract. Where the study may be confused as pertaining to clinical research, authors should also state the animal model in the title.

To maximize reproducibility and potential for re-use of data, we encourage authors to follow the Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments (ARRIVE) guidelines for all submissions describing laboratory-based animal research and to upload a completed  ARRIVE Guidelines Checklist  to be published as supporting information.

Non-human primates

Manuscripts describing research involving non-human primates must report details of husbandry and animal welfare in accordance with the recommendations of the Weatherall report, The use of non-human primates in research , including:

• Information about housing, feeding, and environmental enrichment.
• Steps taken to minimize suffering, including use of anesthesia and method of sacrifice, if appropriate.

Random source animals

Manuscripts describing studies that use random source (e.g. Class B dealer-sourced in the USA), shelter, or stray animals will be subject to additional scrutiny and may be rejected if sufficient ethical and scientific justification for the study design is lacking.

Unacceptable euthanasia methods and anesthetic agents

Manuscripts reporting use of a euthanasia method(s) classified as unacceptable by the American Veterinary Medical Association or use of an anesthesia method(s) that is widely prohibited (e.g., chloral hydrate, ether, chloroform) must include at the time of initial submission, scientific justification for use in the specific study design, as well as confirmation of approval for specific use from their animal research ethics committee. These manuscripts may be subject to additional ethics considerations prior to publication.

Humane endpoints

Manuscripts reporting studies in which death of a regulated animal (vertebrate, cephalopod) is a likely outcome or a planned experimental endpoint, must comprehensively report details of study design, rationale for the approach, and methodology, including consideration of humane endpoints. This applies to research that involves, for instance, assessment of survival, toxicity, longevity, terminal disease, or high rates of incidental mortality.

Full details of humane endpoints use must be reported for a study to be reproducible and for the results to be accurately interpreted.

For studies in which death of an animal is an outcome or a planned experimental endpoint, authors should include the following information in the Methods section of the manuscript:

• The specific criteria (i.e. humane endpoints) used to determine when animals should be euthanized.
• The duration of the experiment.
• The numbers of animals used, euthanized, and found dead (if any); the cause of death for all animals.
• How frequently animal health and behavior were monitored.
• All animal welfare considerations taken, including efforts to minimize suffering and distress, use of analgesics or anaesthetics, or special housing conditions.

If humane endpoints were not used, the manuscript should report:

• A scientific justification for the study design, including the reasons why humane endpoints could not be used, and discussion of alternatives that were considered.
• Whether the institutional animal ethics committee specifically reviewed and approved the anticipated mortality in the study design.

Observational and field studies

Methods sections for submissions reporting on any type of field study must include ethics statements that specify:

• Permits and approvals obtained for the work, including the full name of the authority that approved the study; if none were required, authors should explain why
• Whether the land accessed is privately owned or protected
• Whether any protected species were sampled
• Full details of animal husbandry, experimentation, and care/welfare, where relevant

Paleontology and archaeology research

Manuscripts reporting paleontology and archaeology research must include descriptions of methods and specimens in sufficient detail to allow the work to be reproduced. Data sets supporting statistical and phylogenetic analyses should be provided, preferably in a format that allows easy re-use.  Read the policy .

Specimen numbers and complete repository information, including museum name and geographic location, are required for publication. Locality information should be provided in the manuscript as legally allowable, or a statement should be included giving details of the availability of such information to qualified researchers.

If permits were required for any aspect of the work, details should be given of all permits that were obtained, including the full name of the issuing authority. This should be accompanied by the following statement:

If no permits were required, please include the following statement:

Manuscripts describing paleontology and archaeology research are subject to the following policies:

• Sharing of data and materials.  Any specimen that is erected as a new species, described, or figured must be deposited in an accessible, permanent repository (i.e., public museum or similar institution). If study conclusions depend on specimens that do not fit these criteria, the article will be rejected under  PLOS ONE 's  data availability criterion .
• Ethics.   PLOS ONE   will not publish research on specimens that were obtained without necessary permission or were illegally exported.

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses

A systematic review paper, as defined by The Cochrane Collaboration , is a review of a clearly formulated question that uses explicit, systematic methods to identify, select, and critically appraise relevant research, and to collect and analyze data from the studies that are included in the review. These reviews differ substantially from narrative-based reviews or synthesis articles. Statistical methods (meta-analysis) may or may not be used to analyze and summarize the results of the included studies.

Reports of systematic reviews and meta-analyses should include a completed PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) checklist and flow diagram to accompany the main text. Blank templates are available here:

• Checklist: PDF or Word document
• Flow diagram: PDF or Word document

Authors must also state in their “Methods” section whether a protocol exists for their systematic review, and if so, provide a copy of the protocol as supporting information and provide the registry number in the abstract.

If your article is a systematic review or a meta-analysis you should:

• State this in your cover letter
• Select “Research Article” as your article type when submitting
• Include the PRISMA flow diagram as Fig 1 (required where applicable)
• Include the PRISMA checklist as supporting information

Meta-analysis of genetic association studies

Manuscripts reporting a meta-analysis of genetic association studies must report results of value to the field and should be reported according to the guidelines presented in Systematic Reviews of Genetic Association Studies  by Sagoo  et al.

On submission, authors will be asked to justify the rationale for the meta-analysis and how it contributes to the base of scientific knowledge in the light of previously published results. Authors will also be asked to complete a  checklist (DOCX)  outlining information about the justification for the study and the methodology employed. Meta-analyses that replicate published studies will be rejected if the authors do not provide adequate justification.

Personal data from third-party sources

For all studies using personal data from internet-based and other third-party sources (e.g., social media, blogs, other internet sources, mobile phone companies), data must be collected and used according to company/website Terms and Conditions, with appropriate permissions. All data sources must be acknowledged clearly in the  Materials and Methods section .

In the Ethics Statement, authors should declare any potential risks to individuals or individual privacy, or affirm that in their assessment, the study posed no such risks. In addition, the following Ethics and Data Protection requirements must be met.

For interventional studies , which impact participants’ experiences or data, the study design must have been prospectively approved by an Ethics Committee, and informed consent is required. The Ethics Committee may waive the requirement for approval and/or consent.

For observational studies  in which personal experiences and accounts are not manipulated, consultation with an Ethics or Data Protection Committee is recommended. Additional requirements apply in the following circumstances:

• If information used could threaten personal privacy or damage the reputation of individuals whose data are used, an Ethics Committee should be consulted and informed consent obtained or specifically addressed.
• If authors accessed any personal identifying information, an Ethics or Data Protection Committee should oversee data anonymization. If data were anonymized and/or aggregated before access and analysis, informed consent is generally not required.

Authors reporting research using cell lines should state when and where they obtained the cells, giving the date and the name of the researcher, cell line repository, or commercial source (company) who provided the cells, as appropriate.

Authors must also include the following information for each cell line:

For  de novo  (new) cell lines , including those given to the researchers as a gift, authors must follow our policies for  human subjects research  or  animal research , as appropriate. The ethics statement must include:

• Details of institutional review board or ethics committee approval; AND
• For human cells, confirmation of written informed consent from the donor, guardian, or next of kin

For established cell lines , the Methods section should include:

• A reference to the published article that first described the cell line; AND/OR
• The cell line repository or company the cell line was obtained from, the catalogue number, and whether the cell line was obtained directly from the repository/company or from another laboratory

Authors should check established cell lines using the  ICLAC Database of Cross-contaminated or Misidentified Cell Lines  to confirm they are not misidentified or contaminated. Cell line authentication is recommended – e.g., by karyotyping, isozyme analysis, or short tandem repeats (STR) analysis – and may be required during peer review or after publication.

Blots and gels

Please review PLOS ONE ’s requirements for reporting blot and gel results and providing the underlying raw images .

Manuscripts reporting experiments using antibodies should include the following information:

• The name of each antibody, a description of whether it is monoclonal or polyclonal, and the host species.
• The commercial supplier or source laboratory.
• The catalogue or clone number and, if known, the batch number.
• The antigen(s) used to raise the antibody.
• For established antibodies, a stable public identifier from the Antibody Registry .

The manuscript should also report the following experimental details:

• The final antibody concentration or dilution.
• A reference to the validation study if the antibody was previously validated. If not, provide details of how the authors validated the antibody for the applications and species used. 

Small and macromolecule crystal data

Manuscripts reporting new and unpublished three-dimensional structures must include sufficient supporting data and detailed descriptions of the methodologies used to allow the reproduction and validation of the structures. All novel structures must have been deposited in a community endorsed database prior to submission (please see our list of recommended repositories ).

Small molecule single crystal data

Authors reporting X-Ray crystallographic structures of small organic, metal-organic, and inorganic molecules must deposit their data with the Cambridge Crystallographic Data Centre (CCDC), the Inorganic Crystal Structure Database (ICSD), or similar community databases providing a recognized validation functionality. Authors are also required to include the relevant structure reference numbers within the main text (e.g. the CCDC ID number), as well as the crystallographic information files (.cif format) as Supplementary Information, along with the checkCIF validation reports that can be obtained via the International Union of Crystallography (IUCr).

Macromolecular structures

Authors reporting novel macromolecular structures must have deposited their data prior to initial submission with the Worldwide Protein Data Bank (wwPDB), the Biological Magnetic Resonance Data Bank (BMRB), the Electron Microscopy Data Bank (EMDB), or other community databases providing a recognized validation functionality. Authors must include the structure reference numbers within the main text and submit as Supplementary Information the official validation reports from these databases.

Methods, software, databases, and tools

PLOS ONE  will consider submissions that present new methods, software, databases, or tools as the primary focus of the manuscript if they meet the following criteria:

Software submissions

Manuscripts whose primary purpose is the description of new software must provide full details of the algorithms designed. Describe any dependencies on commercial products or operating system. Include details of the supplied test data and explain how to install and run the software. A brief description of enhancements made in the major releases of the software may also be given. Authors should provide a direct link to the deposited software from within the paper.

Database submissions

For descriptions of databases, provide details about how the data were curated, as well as plans for long-term database maintenance, growth, and stability. Authors should provide a direct link to the database hosting site from within the paper.

New taxon names

Zoological names.

When publishing papers that describe a new zoological taxon name, PLOS aims to comply with the requirements of the  International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN) . Effective 1 January 2012, the ICZN considers an online-only publication to be legitimate if it meets the criteria of archiving and is registered in ZooBank, the ICZN's official registry.

For proper registration of a new zoological taxon, we require two specific statements to be included in your manuscript.

In the  Results  section, the globally unique identifier (GUID), currently in the form of a Life Science Identifier (LSID), should be listed under the new species name, for example:

You will need to contact  Zoobank  to obtain a GUID (LSID). Please do this as early as possible to avoid delay of publication upon acceptance of your manuscript. It is your responsibility to provide us with this information so we can include it in the final published paper.

Please also insert the following text into the  Methods  section, in a sub-section to be called “Nomenclatural Acts”:

All PLOS articles are deposited in  LOCKSS . If your institute, or those of your co-authors, has its own repository, we recommend that you also deposit the published online article there and include the name in your article.

Botanical names

When publishing papers that describe a new botanical taxon, PLOS aims to comply with the requirements of the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants (ICN). The following guidelines for publication in an online-only journal have been agreed such that any scientific botanical name published by us is considered effectively published under the rules of the Code. Please note that these guidelines differ from those for zoological nomenclature, and apply only to seed plants, ferns, and lycophytes.

Effective January 2012, the description or diagnosis of a new taxon can be in either Latin or English. This does not affect the requirements for scientific names, which are still to be Latin.

Also effective January 2012, the electronic PDF represents a published work according to the ICN for algae, fungi, and plants. Therefore the new names contained in the electronic publication of PLOS article are effectively published under that Code from the electronic edition alone, so there is no longer any need to provide printed copies.

Additional information describing recent changes to the Code can be found  here .

For proper registration of the new taxon, we require two specific statements to be included in your manuscript.

Journal staff will contact IPNI to obtain the GUID (LSID) after your manuscript is accepted for publication, and this information will then be added to the manuscript during the production phase

In the  Methods  section, include a sub-section called “Nomenclature” using the following wording:

Fungal names

When publishing papers that describe a new botanical taxon, PLOS aims to comply with the requirements of the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants (ICN). The following guidelines for publication in an online-only journal have been agreed such that any scientific botanical name published by us is considered effectively published under the rules of the Code. Please note that these guidelines differ from those for zoological nomenclature.

You will need to contact either  Mycobank  or  Index Fungorum  to obtain the GUID (LSID). Please do this as early as possible to avoid delay of publication upon acceptance of your manuscript. It is your responsibility to provide us with this information so we can include it in the final published paper. Effective January 2013, all papers describing new fungal species must reference the identifier issued by a recognized repository in the protologue in order to be considered effectively published.

In the  Methods  section, include a sub-section called “Nomenclature” using the following wording. Note that this example is for taxon names submitted to MycoBank; please substitute appropriately if you have submitted to Index Fungorum using the prefix http://www.indexfungorum.org/Names/NamesRecord.asp?RecordID=.

Qualitative research

Qualitative research studies use non-quantitative methods to address a defined research question that may not be accessible by quantitative methods, such as people's interpretations, experiences, and perspectives. The analysis methods are explicit, systematic, and reproducible, but the results do not involve numerical values or use statistics. Examples of qualitative data sources include, but are not limited to, interviews, text documents, audio/video recordings, and free-form answers to questionnaires and surveys.

Qualitative research studies should be reported in accordance to the  Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ) checklist  or Standards for reporting qualitative research (SRQR) checklist . Further reporting guidelines can be found in the Equator Network's  Guidelines for reporting qualitative research .

You may be eligible for APC support

Many institutional partners globally have publishing agreements with PLOS to allow their corresponding authors to publish with reduced or no APCs. To determine if your corresponding author is eligible, please visit our institutional partners page  to determine what kind of agreement your institution has with PLOS.

If your corresponding author is affiliated with a participating institution, they must follow the instructions below to demonstrate eligibility.

If your corresponding author is not from a participating institution and requires assistance paying publishing fees, please consider applying for a fee waiver at submission.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• J Korean Med Sci
• v.32(11); 2017 Nov

Researcher and Author Profiles: Opportunities, Advantages, and Limitations

Armen yuri gasparyan.

1 Departments of Rheumatology and Research and Development, Dudley Group NHS Foundation Trust (Teaching Trust of the University of Birmingham, UK), Russells Hall Hospital, Dudley, West Midlands, UK.

Bekaidar Nurmashev

2 South Kazakhstan State Pharmaceutical Academy, Shymkent, Kazakhstan.

Marlen Yessirkepov

3 Department of Biochemistry, Biology and Microbiology, South Kazakhstan State Pharmaceutical Academy, Shymkent, Kazakhstan.

Dmitry A. Endovitskiy

4 Voronezh State University, Voronezh, Russian Federation.

Alexander A. Voronov

5 Department of Marketing and Trade Deals, Kuban State University, Krasnodar, Russian Federation.

George D. Kitas

6 Arthritis Research UK Epidemiology Unit, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.

Currently available online profiling platforms offer various services for researchers and authors. Opening an individual account and filling it with scholarly contents increase visibility of research output and boost its impact. This article overviews some of the widely used and emerging profiling platforms, highlighting their tools for sharing scholarly items, crediting individuals, and facilitating networking. Global bibliographic databases and search platforms, such as Scopus, Web of Science, PubMed, and Google Scholar, are widely used for profiling authors with indexed publications. Scholarly networking websites, such as ResearchGate and Academia.edu, provide indispensable services for researchers poorly visible elsewhere on the Internet. Several specialized platforms are designed to offer profiling along with their main functionalities, such as reference management and archiving. The Open Researcher and Contributor Identification (ORCID) project has offered a solution to the author name disambiguation. It has been integrated with numerous bibliographic databases, platforms, and manuscript submission systems to help research managers and journal editors select and credit the best reviewers, and other scholarly contributors. Individuals with verifiable reviewer and editorial accomplishments are also covered by Publons, which is an increasingly recognized service for publicizing and awarding reviewer comments. Currently available profiling formats have numerous advantages and some limitations. The advantages are related to their openness and chances of boosting the researcher impact. Some of the profiling websites are complementary to each other. The underutilization of various profiling websites and their inappropriate uses for promotion of ‘predatory’ journals are among reported limitations. A combined approach to the profiling systems is advocated in this article.

INTRODUCTION

Comprehensive evaluation of research performance is an increasingly important task for the research and publishing enterprise in the era of digitization, open access, and diversification of social networking ( 1 ). A wide variety of individual and institutional websites is now available to keep the global scientific community abreast of ongoing research projects, published articles, conferences, and opportunities for collaboration. The digitization of the individual curriculum vitae has advanced the archiving of scholarly articles, books, presentations, and audio and video materials in specifically designed websites, which were not available even a decade ago ( 2 ). The accuracy, transparency, and completeness of information on such platforms mark the professionalism and scientific prestige of the creators and moderators.

Online profiles are increasingly employed for evaluating prospective academic mentors, authors, reviewers and journal editors, for sharing and commenting on scholarly articles, and establishing scholarly networks. For the global scientific community, one of the most important components of such profiles is the article in English ( 3 , 4 ). Subsequently, simultaneous searches through the global databases and platforms, such as MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar, increase chances of retrieving relevant items and navigating through the authors' profiles for their comprehensive evaluation ( 5 ). The journal editors often refer to profiles of their contributors in their editorial management systems, linked to bibliographic databases and search platforms, for improving their quality checks and promoting the best contributors. Publishers and editors are strongly encouraged to evaluate academic profiles and online identifiers of their contributors to avoid ‘fake’ reviewer commenting and other forms misconduct ( 6 ). Several search platforms, scholarly networking websites, and bibliographic databases have adjusted their online tools to offer regularly updated information on researchers and authors for advanced profiling and aggregating scholarly information.

This article provides an overview of some of the established and emerging profiling platforms ( Table 1 ).

ORCID = Open Researcher and Contributor Identification, RePEc = Research Paper in Economics.

PROFILING PLATFORMS

Scopus author identifiers.

Scopus author identifiers are unique digital links to research performance of individual scholars in any academic discipline. Such identifiers are automatically generated when the authors get at least one Scopus-indexed item, allowing them to track and analyse their citation data, and particularly the h-index values, display professional keywords, affiliations, and links to their co-authors' profiles. Advanced tools are now available to navigate through authors' list of publications, analyse their annual publication activity, highly-cited items, target journals, names of co-authors, article types, and subject areas. Scopus profiles may also include the Open Researcher and Contributor Identification (ORCID), which are now searchable through a separate browsing window at the Scopus interface. Such information is available for free previews and can be processed for ranking authors in certain fields and evaluating their impact over time ( 7 ).

The recent integration of PlumX Metrics with Scopus has added a new direction to the online profiling by aggregating information on article-level metrics, such as usage (downloads, HTML views), captures (bookmarks), mentions (blog posts, e-comments, Wikipedia references), social media attention, and citation counts beyond Scopus ( 8 ). Comparisons with other altmetrics tools, such as ImpactStory, proved that PlumX has the most comprehensive coverage of social resonance of scholarly information ( 9 ). Subscribing institutions can now open individual accounts on the PlumX dashboard to comprehensively track their researchers' impact ( 10 ).

Although Scopus author identifiers are linked to records of the largest abstract and citation database, limited timeline of the contents coverage (mostly back to 1996) may distort profiles of scholars with longer academic career and higher citations of their initial works, which are not yet covered by this database. Scopus profiles may also contain technical mistakes due to the automatic processing of data and generating more than one identifier for the same author. Such a limitation can be overcome by regularly monitoring updates and merging two or more profiles at the request of the users.

ResearcherID

In contrast to Scopus, Web of Science does not automatically generate author identifiers, which is viewed by some as a limitation in terms of comprehensive evaluation of an individual's publication activity and related metrics ( 11 ). In 2008, Thomson Reuters launched ResearcherID as a multidisciplinary service, which was integrated with the Web of Science platform. The website was specifically designed to disambiguate authors by creating unique profiling web pages and showcasing individual scholars' publications and citations from Web of Science.

The authors with access to Web of Science can create the ResearcherID profile, present and regularly update their biographic notes and indexed articles, track citations and h-index values, provide links to their ORCID IDs, and find collaborators. Although this profiling system does not provide comprehensive coverage of all authors with Web of Science-indexed items, it is often employed for distinguishing the most prolific and influential researchers globally ( 12 ).

Despite the fact that there are more than 270,000 registered IDs on Web of Science ( 13 ), their distribution is disproportionate across academic disciplines and countries, and quantitative comparisons with other profiling systems are not in favor of ResearcherID. In fact, an analysis of 4,307 Norwegian researchers' profiles revealed that ResearcherID was the least popular platform, with only 130 ID holders (3%) ( 14 ). The same study reported that there were 1,307 scholars with ResearchGate (30%) and 333 with Google Scholar (8%) profiles.

In contrast to the Scopus identification system, ResearcherID relies exclusively on the authors' self-identification ( 15 ), which may create inaccuracies and errors in their publication lists by aggregating non-indexed and other authors' Web of Science-indexed items. Finally, concerns have been raised that the ResearcherID platform, which was initially designed for individuals, is now abused and filled with numerous ‘predatory’ journal profiles. Such profiles are created to mislead the readership and claim that these journals are visible on Web of Science ( 16 ).

PubMed does not issue unique author identifiers, but biomedical and allied specialists often rely on this free and rapidly updated platform for literature searches and evaluations of individual profiles linked to MEDLINE-indexed and PubMed Central-archived articles ( 17 ). It is rightly credited as the primary research tool for biomedical specialists ( 18 ).

The accuracy of profiling on PubMed depends on the use of correct author names and their affiliations. Manual corrections of the retrieved records are sometimes required ( 19 ).

The main advantage of the PubMed/MEDLINE profile is its integration with the Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) specialist keywords vocabulary and scientific prestige of the indexed items ( 17 ).

Importantly, a web server called Peer2ref is designed to pick expert reviewers and editors by evaluating profiles of authors with MEDLINE-indexed articles ( 20 ). More than 3,800 MEDLINE-indexed journals in the last ten years are searched through for the profiling. The programme automatically evaluates and disambiguates profiles by analysing authors' bibliographies, co-authors, and keywords in their MEDLINE abstracts.

An important recent development for name disambiguation in PubMed was its integration with ORCID, enabling the transfer of bibliographic records from PubMed Central to ORCID IDs ( 21 ).

Researchers who apply for or receive grants from the US National Institutes of Health can now create their Science Experts Network Curriculum Vitae (SciENcv) profile, which is a service of The National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) ( 22 ). This service is available to all researchers who hold personal accounts at NCBI. The SciENcv service is also compliant with ORCID ( 23 ). It allows them to showcase their research and academic accomplishments, previous grants, awards, and bibliographies.

Google Scholar Citations

Google Scholar Citations was launched in 2012 as a free online platform, and was viewed by some as an alternative to other global citation-tracking services ( 24 ). It now functions as a basic tool for promoting authors from any scholarly discipline with at least one published item in an indexed journal, book, conference proceedings, and non-reviewed sources, which are tracked by Google. The authors with a few or no indexed articles, poorly visible on Scopus and Web of Science, and particularly those from the Social Sciences and Humanities, can benefit from managing their Google Scholar Citations profile. Such a profile is also useful for promoting early career researchers and preserving information about eminent and deceased scholars.

The author profiles can be filled with photographs, links to similar profiles of co-authors, manually added or retrieved from Google articles, books, dissertations, presentations, and any other published items. Citations to these items, which are processed for calculating the individuals' h-index, are also collected from a wide variety of automatically identifiable sources. Evidence from the field of information science suggests that article downloads and captures (bookmarkings) increase Google Scholar Citations ( 25 ).

The lack of filtering poor quality and irrelevant items and the absence of an organized thesaurus for systematizing searches are the main limitations of Google Scholar. The platform is not protected from manipulations and citation boosting by uploading apparently fake citing sources on the Internet ( 26 ). It is also filled with articles from numerous ‘predatory’ journals, polluting science and damaging reputation of Google Scholar as a reliable source for evaluating research performance ( 27 ). At the same time, attempts have been made to introduce validation tools for improving the reliability of the Google Scholar Citations profiles ( 28 ).

ResearchGate

ResearchGate is one of the largest social networking sites for researchers with more than 4.5 million registered users ( 29 ). It was launched in 2008 as a multidisciplinary hub of researchers, a platform for sharing articles and interacting with potential collaborators, and a scholarly discussion forum.

To create the profile page, a researcher should have at least one publication, which is identifiable by the system, or an email account from a recognized institution. Other tools have also been introduced to create verifiable profiles. The ResearchGate profiles incorporate photographs, keywords of professional interests, links to published articles, and other scholarly items. The users can follow publication activity of other registered researchers, send online messages, discuss research issues, and get notifications when their articles are viewed, downloaded, or cited.

The website's functionality is similar to that of other profiling and social networking services, such as Academia.edu, Google Scholar, Facebook, and LinkedIn. However, ResearchGate is primarily designed for scholarly communication and data sharing between researchers, authors, and journal editors ( 30 ). It also stands out of numerous networking sites by archiving full-texts of pre-published and published items in line with the copyrights ( 31 ).

A study revealed that ResearchGate and Google Scholar cover almost the same scholarly items. However, early archiving of pre-published articles on ResearchGate increases their visibility and chances of getting cited ( 32 ). There is also evidence suggesting that readers who view articles on ResearchGate tend to cite them in their Scopus-indexed articles ( 33 ).

The platform tracks citations along with alternative metrics to calculate the ResearchGate Score, which is proved a reliable measure of individual research performance comparable to that of Scopus-based metrics ( 34 ).

Along with the advantages, ResearchGate has also limitations due to the lack of validation tools for preventing archiving of non-reviewed and ‘predatory’ items ( 32 , 35 ). Copyright violations are also common due to users' lack of awareness of the publishers' open archiving regulations. An analysis of randomly selected full-texts of 500 articles, which were posted on ResearchGate, demonstrated that only 108 (21.6%) of these items were from open access journals ( 36 ). The same study demonstrated that 201 (51.3%) of 392 non-open-access items were not eligible for posting on ResearchGate, and in most cases it was possible to avoid the copyright violations by repositing pre-published manuscripts instead of published PDF versions of articles. Finally, concerns have also been raised over the abuses of ResearchGate, leading to cyber-bulling and breaches of privacy ( 37 ).

Academia.edu

About 11 million users have accounts on Academia.edu ( 29 ). This website shares some features with ResearchGate ( 38 ). However, Academia.edu is more tailored to the academic needs. It generates personalized lists of recommended references for its users, saving time for related literature searches ( 39 ). Although Academia.edu is a multidisciplinary hub, one study found that linguists and sociologists keen to preferentially use this website for profiling in their field of professional interests ( 40 ). Based on an analysis of a sample of 31,216 articles, it was found that an article posted on Academia.edu attracts 69% more citations after 5 years than a comparable article not available online ( 41 ). Widely known limitations of this website are related to inappropriate use of its domain name (edu) and scarce tools for the quality scholarly communication.

Researchers who wish to interact and cooperate with their colleagues worldwide, and especially those at early stages of their career, should correctly and consistently list their names in all publications. Creating a unique digital identifier is critically important for them and for authors with common, identical, and variably recorded names ( 42 ). Getting an ORCID identifier allows recording variably listed or common names under a unique digital link and overcoming the author name ambiguity.

Launched in 2012, the ORCID initiative is now the main multidisciplinary hub of researchers, authors, reviewers, mentors, and other academic contributors with permanent identifiers ( 43 ). The number of registered ORCID account holders has grown rapidly over the past 5 years and reached 3,742,608 (as of August 21, 2017). Many leading publishing houses, grant funding agencies, and libraries have endorsed this initiative and provided funding for its development ( 44 ).

The ORCID profiles can be filled with manually added or transferred from CrossRef, Scopus, ResearcherID (Web of Science), Europe PubMed Central, KoreaMed, and other online platforms records of published journal articles, book chapters, and dissertations. Unpublished scholarly works can also be presented on the users' profiles to share preliminary research data. Additionally, the account holders can populate their ORCID profiles with links to their presentations, datasets, images, video files on Figshare, and automatically feed their integrated profiles on ScienceOpen for promoting research and attracting post-publication comments ( 45 , 46 , 47 ). Finally, scholars with Publons accounts acquire a peer review section on their ORCID profiles to fill it with exported information about verified reviewer assignments ( 48 ).

The list of keywords and biographical sketches at the ORCID interface can be edited by the account holders to highlight their scope of professional interests and main achievements, which are required for grant applications, academic promotions, and research collaborations. The ORCID platform has also tools to secure privacy of the users.

Despite its advantages in terms of openness, increased visibility for early career researchers and experts from developing countries, improved management of grant applications and journal submissions, there are some limitations of the system. Approximately 20% of the registered ORCID accounts are now inactive ( 49 ). Some of the scholarly works listed on the users' profiles are poorly validated and apparently incorrect ( 44 ). Although enormous efforts have been made to cover a large number of researchers and contributors, roughly only 10% of the world's researchers are currently represented on the ORCID platform, their distribution across countries is not proportional, and not all research funding agencies and academic institutions mandate opening and maintaining ORCID IDs ( 50 ). Concerns have also been raised over the eventual monopolization of the scholarly communication through the digital identifiers ( 49 ).

A more specialized approach to evaluating academic activities is offered by Publons, which is an increasingly reputable platform for peer reviewers. It was recently acquired by Clarivate Analytics, recognizing this platform as an essential tool for evaluating research performance ( 51 ). Publons also partners with the ScholarOne editorial management system to aid editors in evaluating potential reviewers ( 52 ).

This initiative was launched in 2013 to freely register and credit reviewer and editorial contributions, and rapidly became the only online platform for crediting reviewers and allowing them to claim publication activity by getting digital identifiers from CrossRef for the best reviewer comments ( 53 ).

Unique Publons identifiers are issued to all registered users, who may fill their profiles with photographs and biographic notes, list journals assigning them reviewer and editorial duties, integrate with their ORCID IDs and other academic profiles, and transfer their reviewer comments for open access with the publishers' permission ( 54 ). Publons supports all models of peer review, ranging from double-blind to post-publication review, and is compliant with their users' privacy requirements in terms of listing any reviewer and editorial assignments ( 55 ).

A recent study comparing research performance on Google Scholar and Publons demonstrated that the latter serves a unique purpose, allowing journal editors to pick the best reviewers for future services regardless of their author activities tracked by Google ( 56 ).

Publishers endorsing the initiative and allowing their reviewers to record related information on Publons increase not only the reviewers' but also their own visibility. This is why some non-Anglophone publishers have also joined the initiative and encouraged their contributors to showcase their reviewer and editorial accomplishments on Publons ( 57 ).

DIFFERENCES IN THE USE OF SCHOLARLY PROFILES

For comprehensive evaluation of any individual research profile, no single bibliographic database or scholarly networking platform is currently sufficient. In fact, empiric analyses of information scientists' profiles on Scopus, Web of Science, Google Scholar, ResearchGate, specialist databases, and social networking websites revealed that each of these services covered less than 50% of the authors' publication activity ( 58 ).

An analysis of 6,132 profiles on Google Scholar, Academia.edu, ResearchGate, and Mendeley demonstrated that specialists in the Social Sciences and Humanities mostly rely on Academia.edu while biologists prefer ResearchGate for scholarly networking ( 59 ). A survey of 296 faculty members of one of the major New York research and academic institutions pointed to a surprisingly low awareness of the author identifiers among them (n = 95, 32%), with physicists, biologists, and health scientists being relatively better informed than other specialists and mathematicians, who were least informed ( 60 ). The surveyed faculty members mostly used ORCID IDs (n = 49, 15%), followed by Scopus author ID (n = 29, 9%), ResearcherID (n = 25, 7%), and arXiv ID (n = 20, 6%).

The use of online profiles differs substantially across countries. Scholars from Brazil and India are well represented on ResearchGate while their Chinese, Russian, and Korean colleagues rarely use this platform for showcasing their publication activity and interacting with potential collaborators ( 37 , 61 ).

Functionalities and content coverage of scholarly networking and profiling websites also differ substantially. ResearchGate predominantly archives recent articles of the profile holders while historic papers remain poorly visible on this platform, and particularly in the Social Sciences, Arts and Humanities ( 62 ). A recent analysis of search, navigation, analytics, privacy, filtering, and other features of ResearchGate, Academia.edu, Mendeley, and Zotero proved that none of these services has advanced operational functions ( 63 ). The same study scored ‘above average’ and ranked first ResearchGate based on an analysis of its information retrieval and management functions.

PERSPECTIVES OF PROFILING INDIVIDUAL SCHOLARS

Online researcher and author profile is a recognized tool for self-promotion, scholarly networking, sharing publications, and making an impact ( 64 , 65 ). Global visibility of research output and availability of complementary platforms for aggregating massive volumes of scholarly items and tracking citations and alternative metrics add to the research management and ranking of scholars. Advanced searches through ResearchGate and Academia.edu are increasingly employed for systematic analyses of literature, and particularly in non-mainstream science countries ( 66 , 67 , 68 ).

Authors are now able to monitor daily interest of the global scientific community toward publications posted on their Google Scholar and ResearchGate profiles ( 69 ). Many other networking platforms are upgraded to accommodate digital profiles (resumes) for academic, research, or business purposes ( 70 ). All these developments suggest that profiling is there to stay.

Additionally, there are some national platforms, which are prioritized for profiling scholars in non-Anglophone countries (e.g., the Index Copernicus Scientists panel, the Science Index platform of the Russian Science Citation Index database). Although these websites promote publications of the account holders locally, their coverage and global visibility are still limited due to the language barrier and skewed impact metrics. The latter is a particularly big issue for the Index Copernicus database, which has been criticized for indexing numerous ‘predatory’ journals and issuing questionable metrics ( 71 ).

New dimensions for profiling emerge to increase visibility and scholarly reputation of researchers at any stage of their career. The ScienceOpen platform with its unique model of profiling, open-access publishing, and post-publication commenting is a good example of the close relationship between online profiling and publishing ( 46 ). Kudos, a powerful toolkit for authors, is yet another innovative option for strengthening scholarly reputation and comprehensively measuring the impact of publications. This service is integrated with the Web of Science citation tracking and ScholarOne and Aries editorial management systems. Kudos allows sharing links to articles of the profile holders through social media and scholarly networks, thus increasing chances of their use ( 72 ). A recent study showed that authors discussing and sharing their articles via Kudos increase downloads of these items by 23% ( 73 ).

But advances in the digitization and social networking have also created challenges, which will prevail and grow in the coming years. Paradoxically, one of the pressing issues is the wide variety of online platforms offering diverse services for setting individual accounts. Not all researchers embrace the advantages of the available platforms and some of them question the quality and credibility of information provided on social networking channels ( 39 ). On the other hand, it is difficult for the individual researcher to discern the advantages and disadvantages of each platform, and continuing proliferation of such platforms is likely to make this problem even worse. There is a real risk that early career researchers aiming to enhance their profile and optimize their visibility may spend more time updating their profile in multiple networking platforms than continuing to be academically productive. Research and academic institutions, in turn, fail to incorporate relevant topics in the process of education and make online profiling mandatory. In the wake of proliferation of profiling platforms, ORCID is perhaps the only universal option which can become mandatory for early career researchers and senior scholars alike.

Research managers, journal editors, and publishers are in their position to make the use of reliable profiling platforms mandatory for ranking scholars. Given the preferential use of some websites for profiling authors in certain disciplines (e.g., PubMed for medicine, Academia.edu for social sciences and humanities), a combined approach can be viewed as an optimal solution ( Table 2 ).

With the increasing use of various online tools for research, it is likely that new complementary profiling platforms will be offered and established ones will be upgraded to meet the growing needs of interdisciplinary research and scholarly publishing. It is much desirable to strengthen the complementarity (“cross-talk”) of profiling platforms so that one could easily update, secure, validate, and populate each of them with information from a single source.

DISCLOSURE: The authors have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose. The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any institution.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTION: Conceptualization: Gasparyan AY, Yessirkepov M, Endovitskiy DA, Kitas GD. Methodology: Gasparyan AY, Nurmashev B, Yessirkepov M, Voronov AA. Writing - original draft: Gasparyan AY, Yessirkepov M, Kitas GD. Writing - review & editing: Gasparyan AY, Nurmashev B, Yessirkepov M, Endovitskiy DA, Voronov AA, Kitas GD.

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Published: 08 April 2024

Tumor-selective activity of RAS-GTP inhibition in pancreatic cancer

• Urszula N. Wasko 1 , 2   na1 ,
• Jingjing Jiang 3   na1 ,
• Tanner C. Dalton 1 , 2 ,
• Alvaro Curiel-Garcia   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-6249-3267 1 , 2 ,
• A. Cole Edwards 4 ,
• Yingyun Wang 3 ,
• Bianca Lee 3 ,
• Margo Orlen   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-9834-6282 5 ,
• Sha Tian 6 ,
• Clint A. Stalnecker   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-0570-4416 7 , 8 ,
• Kristina Drizyte-Miller 7 ,
• Marie Menard 3 ,
• Julien Dilly   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-4006-5285 9 , 10 ,
• Stephen A. Sastra 1 , 2 ,
• Carmine F. Palermo 1 , 2 ,
• Marie C. Hasselluhn   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-9765-4075 1 , 2 ,
• Amanda R. Decker-Farrell 1 , 2 ,
• Stephanie Chang   ORCID: orcid.org/0009-0000-2026-5215 3 ,
• Lingyan Jiang 3 ,
• Xing Wei 3 ,
• Yu C. Yang 3 ,
• Ciara Helland 3 ,
• Haley Courtney 3 ,
• Yevgeniy Gindin 3 ,
• Karl Muonio 3 ,
• Ruiping Zhao 3 ,
• Samantha B. Kemp 5 ,
• Cynthia Clendenin   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-4535-2088 11 ,
• Rina Sor   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-2042-5746 11 ,
• William P. Vostrejs   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-1659-0186 5 ,
• Priya S. Hibshman 4 ,
• Amber M. Amparo   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-3805-746X 7 ,
• Connor Hennessey 9 , 10 ,
• Matthew G. Rees   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-2987-7581 12 ,
• Melissa M. Ronan   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-4269-1404 12 ,
• Jennifer A. Roth   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-5117-5586 12 ,
• Jens Brodbeck 3 ,
• Lorenzo Tomassoni 2 , 13 ,
• Basil Bakir 1 , 2 ,
• Nicholas D. Socci 14 ,
• Laura E. Herring   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-4496-7312 15 ,
• Natalie K. Barker 15 ,
• Junning Wang 9 , 10 ,
• James M. Cleary 9 , 10 ,
• Brian M. Wolpin   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-0455-1032 9 , 10 ,
• John A. Chabot 16 ,
• Michael D. Kluger 16 ,
• Gulam A. Manji 1 , 2 ,
• Kenneth Y. Tsai   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-5325-212X 17 ,
• Miroslav Sekulic 18 ,
• Stephen M. Lagana 18 ,
• Andrea Califano 1 , 2 , 13 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 ,
• Elsa Quintana 3 ,
• Zhengping Wang 3 ,
• Jacqueline A. M. Smith   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-5028-8725 3 ,
• Matthew Holderfield 3 ,
• David Wildes   ORCID: orcid.org/0009-0009-3855-7270 3 ,
• Scott W. Lowe   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-5284-9650 6 , 24 ,
• Michael A. Badgley 1 , 2 ,
• Andrew J. Aguirre   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-0701-6203 9 , 10 , 12 , 25 ,
• Robert H. Vonderheide   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-7252-954X 5 , 11 , 26 ,
• Ben Z. Stanger   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-0410-4037 5 , 11 ,
• Timour Baslan 27 ,
• Channing J. Der   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-7751-2747 7 , 8 ,
• Mallika Singh 3 &
• Kenneth P. Olive   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-3392-8994 1 , 2  

Nature ( 2024 ) Cite this article

Metrics details

We are providing an unedited version of this manuscript to give early access to its findings. Before final publication, the manuscript will undergo further editing. Please note there may be errors present which affect the content, and all legal disclaimers apply.

• Pancreatic cancer
• Pharmacodynamics

Broad-spectrum RAS inhibition holds the potential to benefit roughly a quarter of human cancer patients whose tumors are driven by RAS mutations 1,2 . RMC-7977 is a highly selective inhibitor of the active GTP-bound forms of KRAS, HRAS, and NRAS, with affinity for both mutant and wild type (WT) variants (RAS(ON) multi-selective) 3 . As >90% of human pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) cases are driven by activating mutations in KRAS 4 , we assessed the therapeutic potential of the RAS(ON) multi-selective inhibitor RMC-7977 in a comprehensive range of PDAC models. We observed broad and pronounced anti-tumor activity across models following direct RAS inhibition at exposures that were well-tolerated in vivo . Pharmacological analyses revealed divergent responses to RMC-7977 in tumor versus normal tissues. Treated tumors exhibited waves of apoptosis along with sustained proliferative arrest whereas normal tissues underwent only transient decreases in proliferation, with no evidence of apoptosis. In the autochthonous KPC model, RMC-7977 treatment resulted in a profound extension of survival followed by on-treatment relapse. Analysis of relapsed tumors identified Myc copy number gain as a prevalent candidate resistance mechanism, which could be overcome by combinatorial TEAD inhibition in vitro . Together, these data establish a strong preclinical rationale for the use of broad-spectrum RAS-GTP inhibition in the setting of PDAC and identify a promising candidate combination therapeutic regimen to overcome monotherapy resistance.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals

Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription

24,99 € / 30 days

cancel any time

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 51 print issues and online access

185,98 € per year

only 3,65 € per issue

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Author information

These authors contributed equally: Urszula N. Wasko, Jingjing Jiang

Authors and Affiliations

Department of Medicine, Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, NY, USA

Urszula N. Wasko, Tanner C. Dalton, Alvaro Curiel-Garcia, Stephen A. Sastra, Carmine F. Palermo, Marie C. Hasselluhn, Amanda R. Decker-Farrell, Basil Bakir, Gulam A. Manji, Andrea Califano, Michael A. Badgley & Kenneth P. Olive

Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, NY, USA

Urszula N. Wasko, Tanner C. Dalton, Alvaro Curiel-Garcia, Stephen A. Sastra, Carmine F. Palermo, Marie C. Hasselluhn, Amanda R. Decker-Farrell, Lorenzo Tomassoni, Basil Bakir, Gulam A. Manji, Andrea Califano, Michael A. Badgley & Kenneth P. Olive

Revolution Medicines, Inc., Redwood City, CA, USA

Jingjing Jiang, Yingyun Wang, Bianca Lee, Marie Menard, Stephanie Chang, Lingyan Jiang, Xing Wei, Yu C. Yang, Ciara Helland, Haley Courtney, Yevgeniy Gindin, Karl Muonio, Ruiping Zhao, Jens Brodbeck, Elsa Quintana, Zhengping Wang, Jacqueline A. M. Smith, Matthew Holderfield, David Wildes & Mallika Singh

Department of Cell Biology and Physiology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA

A. Cole Edwards & Priya S. Hibshman

University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Department of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, USA

Margo Orlen, Samantha B. Kemp, William P. Vostrejs, Robert H. Vonderheide & Ben Z. Stanger

Cancer Biology & Genetics Program, Sloan Kettering Institute, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA

Sha Tian & Scott W. Lowe

Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA

Clint A. Stalnecker, Kristina Drizyte-Miller, Amber M. Amparo & Channing J. Der

Department of Pharmacology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA

Clint A. Stalnecker & Channing J. Der

Department of Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, USA

Julien Dilly, Connor Hennessey, Junning Wang, James M. Cleary, Brian M. Wolpin & Andrew J. Aguirre

Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA

University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Abramson Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA

Cynthia Clendenin, Rina Sor, Robert H. Vonderheide & Ben Z. Stanger

The Broad Institute of Harvard and MIT, Cambridge, MA, USA

Matthew G. Rees, Melissa M. Ronan, Jennifer A. Roth & Andrew J. Aguirre

Department of Systems Biology, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, NY, USA

Lorenzo Tomassoni & Andrea Califano

Bioinformatics Core, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA

Nicholas D. Socci

UNC Michael Hooker Proteomics Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA

Laura E. Herring & Natalie K. Barker

Department of Surgery, Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, NY, USA

John A. Chabot & Michael D. Kluger

Departments of Pathology, Tumor Microenvironment and Metastasis; H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center & Research Institute, Tampa, FL, USA

Kenneth Y. Tsai

Department of Pathology and Cell Biology, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, NY, USA

Miroslav Sekulic & Stephen M. Lagana

Department of Oncology, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA

Andrea Califano

J.P. Sulzberger Columbia Genome Center, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA

Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biophysics, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, NY, USA

Department of Biomedical Informatics, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, NY, USA

Chan Zuckerberg Biohub New York, New York, NY, USA

Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Chevy Chase, MD, USA

Scott W. Lowe

Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, MA, USA

Andrew J. Aguirre

Parker Institute for Cancer Immunotherapy, San Francisco, CA, USA

Robert H. Vonderheide

Department of Biomedical Sciences, School of Veterinary Medicine, The University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA

Timour Baslan

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Mallika Singh or Kenneth P. Olive .

Supplementary information

Supplementary figure 1.

uncropped Western Blot images with marked areas of interest, and target molecular weight.

Reporting Summary

Supplementary tables.

This file contains Supplementary Tables 1-10.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Wasko, U.N., Jiang, J., Dalton, T.C. et al. Tumor-selective activity of RAS-GTP inhibition in pancreatic cancer. Nature (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-024-07379-z

Download citation

Received : 18 July 2023

Accepted : 02 April 2024

Published : 08 April 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-024-07379-z

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines . If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.