centage of exhibits with one or two authors decreased from 42% to as low as 13% in the late 1980s. From the early 1970s to the late 1980s, the percentage of exhibits with five or more au thors increased from 20% to 50%; 30% had six or more authors, 1 1% had seven or more, and 5% had eight or more. The total
percentage of exhibits with three to five authors has remained between 55% and 65% over the past 18 years. There are several possible explanations for this trend. The increased complexity of modern research may require input from more
people,
thus necessitating
to properly acknowledge on a exhibit means the RSNA scientific
increased
coauthorship
all involved. For some, coauthorship
departmental reimbursement for a trip to assembly, and multiple coauthoms can
mean less work for all involved. Although abstracts carry less prestige on an individual's curriculum vitae than articles, the pressure to publish in the academic environment is, neverthe less, ever present. In light of this, there may be a trend to try
to increase the length of your curriculum vitae by including several only minimally involved individuals with the hope that they will, likewise,
include
you in the publication
of
their projects. It is difficult to believe that 50% of current scientific exhib its are complex enough to require the input of five or more authors. In general, it is likely that a single individual bears the burden for most of the work. I believe that more strict cri
teria, such as those recommended by Edward Huth (2), should be encouraged to limit coauthorship of abstracts to those who significantly
contributed
to the work.
Perhaps
an acknowl
edgment section could be added and justification
for inclu
sion of each coauthor required. The problem of increasing coauthorship is not limited to scientific exhibits; similar
trends are seen in scientific articles and, likely, papers pre sented at scientific meetings. References 1.
Chew
FS.
The scientific
literature
in diagnostic
radiology
for
American readers: a survey and analysis of journals, papers, and authors. AJR 1986;147:1055-1061. 2.
Huth
EJ.
Irresponsible
authorship
and wasteful
publication.
Ann
Intern Med 1986; 104:257-259.
U
And
What
Is Your
Sign?
From: Marilyn
M. Walkey,
Head of Computed Center 71 Prospect
MD
Tomography,
Avenue,
Hudson,
Columbia-Greene
Medical
NY 12534
Editor:
In the September 1990 issue of Radiology, Im et al (1) describe a new sign of bronchioloalveolar cancer observed on dynamic computed
tomogmaphic
(CT) scans obtained
after intravenous
injection of contrast material. They observed enhanced branching pulmonary vessels within consolidated lung, and they called this the “¿CT angiogmam sign.― The authors were able to demonstrate this pattern in nearly all patients with
bronchioloalveolar lobam consolidation berculous
cancer, but not in 23 of 26 patients with of another cause. There is one case of tu
pneumonia
illustrated
in the article
in which
the
CT angiogram sign is absent. I use dynamic CT frequently to evaluate chest disease and have an excellent example of the CT angiogram sign in a pa tient with acute pneumococcal pneumonia (Figure). I use this as a trick case when teaching radiology residents; they usually mistake
the enhancing
pulmonary
vessels
within
consohidat
ed lung as a fatty liver, since it occurs in the might lower lobe in this case. I suggest to Dr Im and colleagues that this sign may be common in bronchioloalveolar cancer, but acute lobam consolidation
appearance.
from bacterial
pneumonia
has an identical
CT
Perhaps they have not seen examples of this since
_____894•¿Radiology
branching pulmonary vessels within consolidated lung. (The ex amination was done to exclude a central malignancy.) The infil trate cleared after antibiotic therapy.
CT is not the usual modality used in the diagnosis of acute pneumonia. I would be extremely hesitant in my own practice to diag nose bmonchioloalveolar
cancer
by means
of the CT angio
gram sign in a patient with high fever, shaking chills, and an elevated white blood cell count! Reference 1. Im J, Han MC, Yu EJ, et al.
Lobar bronchioloalveolar
“¿angiogram sign― on CT scans.
Radiology
carcinoma:
1990; 176:749-753.
March 1991
percentage of exhibits with three to five authors has remained between 55% and 65% over the past 18 years. There are several possible explanations for this trend. The increased complexity of modern research may require input from more
people,
thus necessitating
to properly acknowledge on a exhibit means the RSNA scientific
increased
coauthorship
all involved. For some, coauthorship
departmental reimbursement for a trip to assembly, and multiple coauthoms can
mean less work for all involved. Although abstracts carry less prestige on an individual's curriculum vitae than articles, the pressure to publish in the academic environment is, neverthe less, ever present. In light of this, there may be a trend to try
to increase the length of your curriculum vitae by including several only minimally involved individuals with the hope that they will, likewise,
include
you in the publication
of
their projects. It is difficult to believe that 50% of current scientific exhib its are complex enough to require the input of five or more authors. In general, it is likely that a single individual bears the burden for most of the work. I believe that more strict cri
teria, such as those recommended by Edward Huth (2), should be encouraged to limit coauthorship of abstracts to those who significantly
contributed
to the work.
Perhaps
an acknowl
edgment section could be added and justification
for inclu
sion of each coauthor required. The problem of increasing coauthorship is not limited to scientific exhibits; similar
trends are seen in scientific articles and, likely, papers pre sented at scientific meetings. References 1.
Chew
FS.
The scientific
literature
in diagnostic
radiology
for
American readers: a survey and analysis of journals, papers, and authors. AJR 1986;147:1055-1061. 2.
Huth
EJ.
Irresponsible
authorship
and wasteful
publication.
Ann
Intern Med 1986; 104:257-259.
U
And
What
Is Your
Sign?
From: Marilyn
M. Walkey,
Head of Computed Center 71 Prospect
MD
Tomography,
Avenue,
Hudson,
Columbia-Greene
Medical
NY 12534
Editor:
In the September 1990 issue of Radiology, Im et al (1) describe a new sign of bronchioloalveolar cancer observed on dynamic computed
tomogmaphic
(CT) scans obtained
after intravenous
injection of contrast material. They observed enhanced branching pulmonary vessels within consolidated lung, and they called this the “¿CT angiogmam sign.― The authors were able to demonstrate this pattern in nearly all patients with
bronchioloalveolar lobam consolidation berculous
cancer, but not in 23 of 26 patients with of another cause. There is one case of tu
pneumonia
illustrated
in the article
in which
the
CT angiogram sign is absent. I use dynamic CT frequently to evaluate chest disease and have an excellent example of the CT angiogram sign in a pa tient with acute pneumococcal pneumonia (Figure). I use this as a trick case when teaching radiology residents; they usually mistake
the enhancing
pulmonary
vessels
within
consohidat
ed lung as a fatty liver, since it occurs in the might lower lobe in this case. I suggest to Dr Im and colleagues that this sign may be common in bronchioloalveolar cancer, but acute lobam consolidation
appearance.
from bacterial
pneumonia
has an identical
CT
Perhaps they have not seen examples of this since
_____894•¿Radiology
branching pulmonary vessels within consolidated lung. (The ex amination was done to exclude a central malignancy.) The infil trate cleared after antibiotic therapy.
CT is not the usual modality used in the diagnosis of acute pneumonia. I would be extremely hesitant in my own practice to diag nose bmonchioloalveolar
cancer
by means
of the CT angio
gram sign in a patient with high fever, shaking chills, and an elevated white blood cell count! Reference 1. Im J, Han MC, Yu EJ, et al.
Lobar bronchioloalveolar
“¿angiogram sign― on CT scans.
Radiology
carcinoma:
1990; 176:749-753.
March 1991
