At were originally generated may still be clinically relevant, and the

At were originally generated may still be clinically relevant, and the open-ended question included in the instrument may in the future reveal other items that are of interest.ConclusionsThe current study tested an instrument for measuring adverse and unwanted events of psychological treatments, the NEQ, and was evaluated using EFA. The results revealed a six-factor solution with 32 items, defined as: symptoms, quality, dependency, stigma, hopelessness, and failure, accounting for 57.64 of the variance. Unpleasant memories, stress, and anxiety were experienced by more than one-third of the participants, and the highest self-rated negativePLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0157503 June 22,17 /The Negative Effects Questionnaireimpact was linked to Mitochondrial division inhibitor 1 manufacturer increased or novel symptoms, as well as lack of quality in the treatment and therapeutic relationship.AvailabilityThe NEQ is freely available for use in research and clinical practice At time of writing, the instrument has been translated by professional translators into the following languages, available for download via the website www.neqscale.com: Danish, Dutch, English, Finnish, French, German, Italian, Japanese, Norwegian, Spanish, and Swedish.AcknowledgmentsThe authors of the current study would like to thank Swedish Research Council for purchase FPS-ZM1 Health, Working Life, and Welfare (FORTE 2013?107) for their generous grant that allowed the development and testing of the instrument for measuring adverse and unwanted events of psychological treatments. Peter Alhashwa and Angelica Norstr are also thanked for the help with collecting the data.Author ContributionsConceived and designed the experiments: AR PC. Performed the experiments: AR PC. Analyzed the data: AR AK PC. Wrote the paper: AR AK JB GA PC.
In recent years, a large body of literature has used secondary data obtained from international databases to understand co-authorship behavior among scholars. In contrast, comparatively fewer studies have directly assessed scholars’ perceptions of co-authorship associations. Using an online questionnaire, we surveyed researchers in the field of Economics on four aspects of co-authorship: (1) benefits and motivations of co-authorship; (2) sharing of work when writing papers in relation to two distinct working relationships, that of a mentor and of a colleague; (3)PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0157633 June 20,1 /Perceptions of Scholars in the Field of Economics on Co-Authorship Associationsorder of authorship; and (4) preference of association with co-authors based on socio- academic factors. The results of the survey are presented in this study. Co-authorship in research articles, considered a reliable proxy for research collaboration, has been extensively investigated [1?]. Scientists communicate with one another to exchange opinions, share research results and write research papers [4]. On the one hand, communication among scientists could start with a simple discussion that leads to collaboration on a research project. On the other hand, scientists may decide to collaborate with scientists with whom they are already acquainted, knowing well their ability to carry out a particular research project. In another scenario, prospective collaborators can meet at conferences or at other forums and form an “invisible college” [5]. These informal exchanges may lead scholars to find a shared interest in a topic and to make a decision to collaborate on a research paper. Hence, various reasons could bring a.At were originally generated may still be clinically relevant, and the open-ended question included in the instrument may in the future reveal other items that are of interest.ConclusionsThe current study tested an instrument for measuring adverse and unwanted events of psychological treatments, the NEQ, and was evaluated using EFA. The results revealed a six-factor solution with 32 items, defined as: symptoms, quality, dependency, stigma, hopelessness, and failure, accounting for 57.64 of the variance. Unpleasant memories, stress, and anxiety were experienced by more than one-third of the participants, and the highest self-rated negativePLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0157503 June 22,17 /The Negative Effects Questionnaireimpact was linked to increased or novel symptoms, as well as lack of quality in the treatment and therapeutic relationship.AvailabilityThe NEQ is freely available for use in research and clinical practice At time of writing, the instrument has been translated by professional translators into the following languages, available for download via the website www.neqscale.com: Danish, Dutch, English, Finnish, French, German, Italian, Japanese, Norwegian, Spanish, and Swedish.AcknowledgmentsThe authors of the current study would like to thank Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life, and Welfare (FORTE 2013?107) for their generous grant that allowed the development and testing of the instrument for measuring adverse and unwanted events of psychological treatments. Peter Alhashwa and Angelica Norstr are also thanked for the help with collecting the data.Author ContributionsConceived and designed the experiments: AR PC. Performed the experiments: AR PC. Analyzed the data: AR AK PC. Wrote the paper: AR AK JB GA PC.
In recent years, a large body of literature has used secondary data obtained from international databases to understand co-authorship behavior among scholars. In contrast, comparatively fewer studies have directly assessed scholars’ perceptions of co-authorship associations. Using an online questionnaire, we surveyed researchers in the field of Economics on four aspects of co-authorship: (1) benefits and motivations of co-authorship; (2) sharing of work when writing papers in relation to two distinct working relationships, that of a mentor and of a colleague; (3)PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0157633 June 20,1 /Perceptions of Scholars in the Field of Economics on Co-Authorship Associationsorder of authorship; and (4) preference of association with co-authors based on socio- academic factors. The results of the survey are presented in this study. Co-authorship in research articles, considered a reliable proxy for research collaboration, has been extensively investigated [1?]. Scientists communicate with one another to exchange opinions, share research results and write research papers [4]. On the one hand, communication among scientists could start with a simple discussion that leads to collaboration on a research project. On the other hand, scientists may decide to collaborate with scientists with whom they are already acquainted, knowing well their ability to carry out a particular research project. In another scenario, prospective collaborators can meet at conferences or at other forums and form an “invisible college” [5]. These informal exchanges may lead scholars to find a shared interest in a topic and to make a decision to collaborate on a research paper. Hence, various reasons could bring a.