Abstract
Articles published in the Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin (RCB) from 2000 to 2019 were analyzed for trends in author characteristics (e.g., gender, work setting, country of domicile, leading contributors) and article content (e.g., research methodology, participants, research design, statistics used, reports of effect size). Fong Chan was the leading contributor scholar and the University of Memphis was the leading institutional contributor. Among other key results, greater author collaboration was noted, and international lead authorship increased significantly to nearly 14%. Research-based articles are being published at a counseling discipline-leading rate of 96%, and almost all research article variables were relatively stable over the 20 years assessed.
Keywords
From its inception in 1956, the Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin (Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin [RCB], 2022) has published scholarly contributions pertinent to rehabilitation counseling. In addition to evidence- and data-based research reports, RCB features peer-reviewed articles outlining intensive case studies, test reviews, comprehensive literature reviews, theoretical essays, media reviews, and research critiques. Throughout its history, RCB has worked in alliance with the American Rehabilitation Counseling Association (American Rehabilitation Counseling Association [ARCA], 2022) and is published quarterly, currently by SAGE (RCB, 2022). The journal’s current editors are Fong Chan and Timothy Tansey, who continue to ensure RCB publishes noteworthy and innovative issues.
The present study analyzed RCB’s publication trends across the past two decades from 2000 to 2019. It is important for association members, association leaders, journal readers, editors, editorial board members, and potential authors to understand not only where a journal has been, but also where the current trajectory is likely to lead in the future. This can be accomplished by studying various journal characteristics and analyzing these trends over time. Erford et al. (2010) outlined three processes to examine a journal’s historical development and trends. The initial process involves a content analysis of the special issues within the journal. Journals frequently publish specialized issues attending to relevant societal events or needs and professional matters distinct to a time period. Between 2000 and 2019, RCB published five special issues (see Table 1) in the important areas of ethics, race, international practice, credentialing, and research methodology—all relating to rehabilitation counseling. Gaining clarity about the range of topics covered within the publication creates a more robust understanding of the journal’s focus and how well the journal is meeting member and reader needs and important and timely societal issues.
Special Issue Topics Published in RCB From 2000 To 2019.
Note. RCB = Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin.
The second process for understanding journal trends requires a qualitative review, examination, and synthesis of published journal content within a specified time period (Erford et al., 2010). This procedure often identifies trends in content, methodologies, author characteristics, and statistical analyses of the studies. Collecting and classifying information in this manner yields a cohesive understanding of the journal’s evolution from the qualitative lens of the expert reviewer.
The third process is to conduct a meta-study or a quantitative synthesis of journal article characteristics. Using both descriptive and univariate statistical methods, meta-studies serve as prescient catalysts to counseling scholarship, as they pinpoint gaps in research, highlight growing trends, and bring attention to areas for further research. Importantly, meta-studies can function to follow the evolution of a single concept across multiple scientific journals, to analyze a single publication’s trends over time on multiple variables, or both. The present study employed the latter methodology to examine RCB’s evolution over the past two decades. Meta-studies were conducted in a variety of counseling journals, including the International Journal for the Advancement of Counseling (IJAC; Miller et al., in press), the Journal of Counseling & Development (JCD; Erford et al., 2011; Anderson et al., 2021), the Journal of Mental Health Counseling (JMHC; Menzies et al., 2020), Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development (MECD; Erford et al., 2010; Saks et al., 2020), Counseling Outcome Research and Evaluation (CORE: Johnson et al., 2022), the Journal of Career Development (JCareerD; Mehlhouse et al., 2022), and Professional School Counseling (PSC; Erford et al., 2015).
By facilitating a meta-study on the articles published within RCB, essential elements of the journal are clarified, such as signals of rigor, statistical testing preferences, the prevalence of research themes, trends in author characteristics, and preferences for research paradigms. This present meta-study expands upon the previous meta-study conducted by Lenz et al. (2014), which included the time period 2001 to 2012 and used 4-year time intervals to evenly divide the 12-year time period. The present meta-study analyzes 5-year time windows and aims to answer three primary questions: (a) Who publishes in RCB (author characteristics), (b) What is published in RCB, with a specific focus on research-based articles (article characteristics), and (c) What patterns are present in these author and article characteristics across the specified time frames (i.e., trends over time)?
Method
All articles published in the RCB from 2000 to 2019 were reviewed and coded for 20 diverse author and article attributes to examine trends. The first two authors coded each article independently before cross-checking against one another to identify and eliminate coding inconsistencies. The initial coding phase identified articles that would be accepted or rejected into the study. We identified articles with scholarly contributions to be accepted, and articles with less scholarly contributions (e.g., editorials, biographies, personal accounts, speeches, book reviews, columns, introductions to special issues, announcements, errata, Memoria, and test reviews) were rejected.
The secondary phase of coding identified author(s) and article characteristics from all accepted articles. Author variables coded were the number, name(s), gender(s) (binary coding), and place(s) of employment of all authors. Articles that did not indicate author gender(s) or place(s) of employment were determined through Google searches to locate author self-identification and affiliation of article submission. Articles containing author(s) with international employment and studies that were conducted internationally were coded as international articles. Additional coding for lead authors included institutional settings (e.g., collapsed into university or non-university). Characteristics of article topic (e.g., theory, treatment, intervention, historical overview, multicultural, ethics, education, supervision) and article focus (i.e., research or non-research) were also coded. The names of the authors who published the highest numbers of articles from 2000 to 2019 was included to recognize leading contributors to the scholarship of the rehabilitation counseling literature, and to the broader counseling literature (Erford et al., in press).
Research focused articles were further coded for intervention classification (i.e., intervention or nonintervention), research paradigm (i.e., qualitative, quantitative, or both), research design (i.e., qualitative, descriptive, comparative, correlational, survey, test development, quasi-experimental, and true-experimental design). Participants within research-focused articles were coded for identification characteristics (i.e., undergraduate students, graduate students, counselors, supervisors, adults, adolescents, and data [nonhuman]). Participant sample was additionally coded for selection characteristics (i.e., random selection, nonrandom selection, random sampling, random assignment), number of participants (sample size), and sample size characteristics (i.e., small [N = <30], medium [N = 30–99], large [N = 100–499], or very large [N = >499]).
Level of statistical sophistication and statistical analyses conducted by the authors to analyze the data collected ranged from basic (e.g., theme analysis/coding, frequency analysis, descriptive statistics, chi-square, correlation), intermediate (e.g., nonparametric, regression analysis, t test, analysis of variance [ANOVA]), and advanced (e.g., multivariate analysis of variance [MANOVA], multivariate analysis of covariance [MANCOVA], analysis of covariance [ANCOVA], path analysis, confirmatory factor analysis, exploratory factor analysis). Importantly, this study frequently used multi-coding to ensure inclusion of all data and was coded into a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet.
After all articles were coded for the 20 variables and cross-checked for consistency, the data were then aggregated, and analyses conducted. The RCB articles published from 2000 to 2019 were aggregated into 5-year clusters (i.e., 2000–2004, 2005–2009, 2010–2014, and 2015–2019) for trend analyses using SPSS descriptive and univariate ANOVA statistical procedures with weighted proportions. Type I error was set at α < .05 and Scheffe’s test was used during any post hoc analysis. Effect sizes (η2) used the following interpretive range: .01 for a small effect, .09 for a medium effect, and .25 for a large effect (Erford, 2014).
Results
From 2000 to 2019, RCB published 535 articles, of which 128 involved brief, less scholarly contributions, so they were excluded from the present analyses. Therefore, 407 articles (341 of which were research articles) were coded for author and article variables, then aggregated into 5-year time windows for trend analysis using ANOVA with weighted proportions. The following Results are grouped by author and then article characteristics.
Author Characteristics
Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin male lead authors composed a consistent majority at 55.8% compared with female lead authors at 44.2% from 2000 to 2019, F (3, 403) = 1.71, p = .16, η2 = .013. In contrast, among all authors, the proportion of women increased significantly from a minority proportion of 39.7% in 2000 to 2004 to a slight majority proportion of 52.7% of all authors publishing in RCB from 2010 to 2014, F (3, 1202) = 6.04, p < .001, η2 = .015. Thus, men hold a slight majority of lead author positions while women hold a slight majority among all authors publishing in RCB over the most recent 10-year period. At the same time, the average number of authors per article rose significantly over the past two decades, meaning RCB authors collaborated more substantially over time, F (3, 403) = 13.47; p < .001; η2 = .091, the largest effect size of this study. From 2000 to 2004, RCB averaged 2.47 authors per article; 2.83 from 2005 to 2009; 2.86 from 2010 to 2014; and then in 2015 to 2019 RCB increased author collaboration significantly to an average of 3.76 authors per article.
Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin lead author employment affiliation was very stable from 2000 to 2019 at 91.6% hailing from a university affiliated setting, F (3, 403) = 0.30, p = .82, η2 = .002. And lead author national versus international affiliation changed substantially over the past 20 years as only 0.9% claimed international affiliation in 2000 to 2004, increasing significantly to 13.9% in 2015 to 2019, F (3, 403) = 6.03, p < .001, η2 = .043.
The authors who contributed most frequently to RCB from 2000 to 2019 included: (a) Fong Chan (34 articles); (b) David R. Strauser (26 articles); (c) Michael J. Leahy (17 articles); (d) Daniel C. Lustig (16 articles); (5-tie) Stephen J. Leierer, Hanoch Livneh, Richard T. Roessler, Jodi L. Saunders, and Timothy N. Tansey (11 articles each); and (9-tie) Jill Bezyak and Brian T. McMahon (10 articles). From 2000 to 2019, the universities that supported the highest number of articles written by RCB lead authors included (a) University of Memphis (21 articles); (b) University of Wisconsin—Madison (20 articles); (c) Pennsylvania State University (18 articles); (d) Michigan State University (13 articles); (e) Louisiana State University (12 articles); (6-tie) Boston University and University of Arkansas (11 articles each); (8-tie) Florida State University and Portland State University (10 articles each); and (10) University of Iowa (9 articles).
Article Characteristics
Changes in RCB topical content exhibited a trend (p ≤ .10) but did not reach the level of statistical significance across 2000 to 2019, F (3, 688) = 2.07, p = .10, η2 = .009. Trends are identified when the probability of rejecting the hypothesis is ≤ .10 but does not reach the level of statistical significance (p < .05). So, while some movement among the categorical proportions was evident, it was not enough to constitute a significant shift in topical content. Table 2 shows that about 37.0% of all RCB articles published from 2000 to 2019 focused on rehabilitation theory, 28.5% on career applications, and 11.3% on multicultural issues. At the same time, the proportion of research (versus non-research) articles published increased significantly from 75.9% in 2000 to 2004 up to a discipline-leading 96.0% proportion in 2015 to 2019, F (3, 402) = 5.87, p < .001, η2 = .042. In the rest of this “Results” section, our focus will be on the analysis of the various characteristics of the 341 research articles published in RCB between 2000 and 2019.
Issue Categories in RCB Articles From 2000 To 2019.
Note. Many articles were coded to reflect multiple content issues. Thus, totals exceed the number of accepted articles. RCB = Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin.
All three research design variables showed stability over the past 20 years. The proportion of quantitative and qualitative research studies appearing in RCB was quite stable from 2000 to 2019 at 83.1% quantitative and 16.9% qualitative approaches observed, F (3, 358) = 1.12, p = .34, η2 = .009. Likewise, intervention studies were a very stable 8.8% proportion among RCB research articles, F (3, 337) = 0.18, p = .91, η2 = .002. Similarly, the results in Table 3 indicate that the proportions of types of research designs appearing in RCB research articles were unchanged over the past 20 years, F (3, 403) = 0.50, p = .68, η2 = .004. Over the past 20-year period, the proportion of descriptive/survey designs was 47.4%, qualitative designs and comparative designs comprised 14.5% each, and correlational designs comprised 9.3% of all research articles. The proportion of true/quasi-experimental designs was 7.6%, close to the 8.8% of intervention-focused articles mentioned above.
Proportion of Research Designs Used in RCB Research Studies.
Note. Many articles were coded to reflect multiple content issues. Thus, totals exceed the number of accepted articles. RCB = Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin.
All four sample-related variables showed stability over the past 20 years. RCB research article sample sizes were stable from 2000 to 2019, F(3, 333) = 0.93, p = .43, η2 = .008, with small sample sizes (<30 participants) occurring in 7.1% of articles, medium (30–99 participants) in 17.2%, large (100–499 participants) comprising 46.9%, and very large samples (500 or more participants) occurring in 28.8% of all research studies. Similarly, the median sample sizes were also stable, with an overall median sample size of 217 participants, composed of time window medians of 228 (2000–2004), 165 (2005–2009), 291 (2010–2014), and 206 (2015–2019). Simultaneously, proportions of types of participants remained steady in RCB research studies over the past two decades, F(3, 403) = 0.50, p = .68, η2 = .004. According to Table 4, adults composed 48.8% of all RCB research samples in 2000 to 2019, followed by the use of counselors/providers at 15.7%, and undergraduates at 13.9%. Finally, the proportions of use of randomization in selection or assignment procedures were also stable over the past 20 years, F (3, 336) = 1.65, p = .18, η2 = .014, as only about 12.6% of research studies used some form of randomization procedure compared with 87.4% which did not.
Types of Participants Used in RCB Research Articles.
Note. Many articles were coded to reflect multiple content issues. Thus, totals exceed the number of accepted articles. RCB = Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin.
Both statistic-related variables showed stability over the past 20 years. RCB research articles were categorized into basic, intermediate, and advanced designations to assess potential changes in statistical sophistication over the past two decades. Statistical sophistication remained unchanged over the past two decades, F (3, 624) = 0.15, p = .93, η2 = .001, as basic statistical procedures (e.g., descriptive, correlation) used in RCB research studies maintained a consistent 52.7% rate, intermediate (e.g., t/ANOVA, regression analysis) was 32.2%, and advanced (e.g., MANOVA, factor analysis) was 15.1%. Similarly, analysis of specific statistical procedures indicated no significant shifts over time occurred (see Table 5), F (3, 959) = 0.14, p = .94, η2 = .000. Descriptive statistics were used in 26.7%, correlation in 16.2%, and regression analyses in 14.3% of RCB research studies from 2000 to 2019.
Proportion of Various Statistical Procedures Used in RCB Research Studies.
Note. Many articles were coded to reflect multiple content issues. Thus, totals exceed the number of accepted articles. RCB = Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin; ANOVA = analysis of variance; MANOVA = multivariate analysis of variance.
Finally, three reporting standards were coded to determine whether authors provided study effect sizes, reliability, and validity results. All three sample-related variables showed stability over the past 20 years. The reporting of study effect sizes was a consistent 80.0% of RCB research studies from 2000 to 2019, F (3, 337) = 0.18; p = .91; η2 = .002. The reporting of study reliability (or dependability in the case of qualitative designs) remained stable at 57.2% of RCB research studies over the past two decades, F (1, 337) = 0.78; p = .51; η2 = .007, while a trending increase was noted in the reporting of study validity 56.1% of RCB research studies in 2000 to 2004 to 70.8% from 2015 to 2019, F (1, 337) = 2.27; p = .08; η2 = .020.
Discussion
The RCB disseminates scholarly information useful to professional counselors employed in rehabilitation counseling, researchers, and counselor educators on trends in population treatments and outcomes, as well as field direction and development. This meta-study of the RCB over two decades of publication patterns provides data to support evidence of stability and evolution within the field related to author and article characteristics.
Author Characteristics
When analyzing who published in the RCB, there were multiple characteristics identified by the trend analysis that remained stable over the time frame while several other characteristics significantly shifted. The percentage of women as lead authors overall increased slightly; however, most lead authors continued to be men across the 20-year period. During the 2010 to to-2014 time interval, women were the majority and then during the next time interval 2015 to 2019, men regained the majority. Lenz et al. (2014) also reported that during the 2009 to 2012 time interval most lead authors were women, but men were the majority during the other two reported time intervals (2001–2004; 2005–2008). Although men continue to be the majority of lead authors, women were the majority among all authors, showing a significant upward trend of women entering the rehabilitation counseling profession and rehabilitation counselor education programs. This trend in increased women authors is consistent with other meta-studies (e.g., Counseling & Values Journal, CVJ, Alder et al., 2021; Journal of Alcohol & Offenders Counseling, JAOC, MacInerney et al., 2020; MECD, Saks et al., 2020). We expect the number of women authors will continue to grow mirroring the majority composition of women within the counseling profession (LeViness et al., 2019; United States Census Bureau, 2016).
The average number of authors per article rose significantly over the past two decades, meaning RCB authors collaborated more substantially over time. This increase in collaboration was also reported in other counseling journals JCD (Anderson et al., 2021), Journal of LGBT Issues in Counseling (JLGBTIC; Gayowsky et al., 2021), CORE (Johnson et al., 2022), JCareerD (Mehlhouse et al., 2022), Journal of Mental Health Counseling, JMCH (Menzies et al., 2020), MECD (Saks et al., 2020), and The Professional Counselor, TPC (Williams et al., 2021).
While the RCB saw an increase in women authors, the lead author employment affiliation remained stable with the vast majority reporting university affiliation, a result that was also reported by Lenz et al. (2014). Lead authors affiliated with universities continue to be the vast majority across many counseling journals, including JCD (Anderson et al., 2021), JLGBTIC (Gayowsky et al., 2021), JCareerD (Mehlhouse et al., 2022), JMHC (Menzies et al., 2020), MECD (Saks et al., 2020), and the TPC (Williams et al., 2021). And, the proportion of non-university affiliated authors continues to decrease across nearly all counseling journals.
While the number of authors with international affiliation substantially increased over each of the 5-year time intervals and since Lenz et al.’s (2014) meta-study, the proportion of authors with international affiliation was 11.9% from 2010 to 2019. While this percentage is higher than other journals, including JMHC (Menzies et al., 2020), JLGBTIC (Gayowsky et al., 2021), TPC (Williams et al., 2021), and JCD (Anderson et al., 2021), it is still lower than about a third of other counseling journals. Editors may consider strategies for recruiting more international scholars.
Article Characteristics
The content of articles published in the RCB during the 20-year period saw some shifts in proportions, but theory, career, and multicultural issues were the top three, respectively, of the eight areas coded in each of the 5-year intervals and, thus, overall. Interestingly, Lenz et al. (2014) coded for 15 different content areas and only the category of multicultural issues was in both meta-studies, showing how different methodologies and decisions can lead to different interpretations. During the 2009 to 2012 time interval, Lenz et al. (2014) reported job placement and training, wellness, and social justice/advocacy as the top three content areas published in that 4-year window, respectively. Supervision was consistently the least covered topic in the RCB across the 20-years and was not even a content area coded in Lenz et al.’s meta-study. This is somewhat troublesome given the importance of supervision to training of mental health professionals. In fact, supervision has been described as the signature pedagogy of mental health professionals (Bernard & Goodyear, 2019). RCB editors may consider a special issue focused on best practices for rehabilitation counseling to address this gap in the content areas.
The proportion of research design studies to non-research studies grew steadily over the 20 years with 96% of articles published in the RCB being research articles during the final 2015 to 2019 time interval, making RCB the counseling journal with the highest percentage of research articles published among all counseling journals (Erford et al., in press). This high percentage of research studies is consistent with RCB’s stated aim of emphasizing data-based research design studies. The JCareerD was the second highest with a reported 87% of their articles being research based (Mehlhouse et al., 2022).
Between 2000 and 2019, RCB published 341 research articles. Most of these research articles employed quantitative methodology; the percentage of qualitative methodologies increased slightly, but not significantly. Intervention studies also remained stable across each time interval and only made up approximately 9% of all research designs making RCB’s publication of intervention studies below the median of counseling journals in proportion of intervention studies published (Erford et al., in press). Intervention studies provide important information regarding what works, how it works, and for what population it works leading to enhanced client care, counseling accountability, and advocacy efforts (Watson et al., 2021). Given the increased call for intervention studies, RCB editors will want to encourage and solicit more intervention studies.
The types of research designs employed by RCB remained stable with descriptive/survey designs being the highest proportion followed by comparative and qualitative designs (tied). These top three research designs were also reported by Lenz et al. (2014). Interestingly, Lenz et al. (2014) reported that during the 2009 to 2012, descriptive/survey designs studies accounted for 72% of all research studies published in the RCB. Following this high, we found that descriptive/survey studies accounted for 47% of all research articles during the 20-year period and about 43% during the 2010 to 2014 time interval which overlaps Lenz et al.’s (2014) period. Coding differences and the different time intervals may account for the difference in descriptive/survey design studies reported. Despite this, RCB does publish a high percentage of descriptive/survey design studies. Although descriptive designs can provide valuable information, they are limited and only provide modest data to inform evidence-supported and evidence-base practices. We re-emphasize Lenz et al.’s (2014) call for increased research designs that allow for causal inferences, such as randomized clinical trials, experimental/quasi-experimental designs, and single-case research designs.
Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin sample size (i.e., small, medium, large, and very large), types of participants (i.e., adults, counselors, undergraduates, nonhuman, children/adolescents, graduate students, and employers), and assignment randomization remained stable during the 20-year period. A majority of the research articles reported large samples and adult participants consistent with Lenz et al.’s (2014) meta-study. Although the use of randomization was greater in research articles published in the RCB compared with other journals (Erford et al., in press), researchers using randomization procedures within counseling research is still limited, thereby limiting the generalizability of the study results. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin editors should encourage and solicit more studies using randomization procedures.
Statistical sophistication and types of statistics used remained stable over the 20-year period. Most of the research articles published in the RCB used basic statistical designs, so it is not surprising that the top two types of statistics used in research articles published in RCB were descriptive statistics and correlations, which were also the most utilized statistical procedures reported by Lenz et al. (2014). The percentage of advanced statistical procedures is low across most counseling journals ranging from a low of 3.3% (Adultspan, Rippeto et al., 2021) to 42.8% (MECD, Saks et al., 2020). RCB editors and authors are encouraged to ask more complex research questions to provide more robust studies to inform evidence-based treatment.
Over the past 20-years, RCB researchers continued to report effect sizes, reliability, and validity results at a stable and consistent rate. Only researchers in CORE (73%; Erford et al., in press; Johnson et al., 2022) reported effect sizes at a higher percentage than researchers in RCB. Most researchers in RCB provided reliability and validity information, but there is still room for continued growth in this area. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin editors and reviewers are encouraged to require authors to report reliability and validity information in future articles. Reliability and validity information is essential in providing meaning to research studies and helps with the generalizability of results.
Limitations and Directions for Future Studies
The results of this meta-study must be considered with the following limitations. Meta-studies are descriptive in nature, provide information regarding trends across time, and provide valuable information to shape future journal practices; however, causal inferences about author and article characteristics cannot be made. We analyzed 20 distinct variables in 407 articles for 8,140 data points. There is the possibility that coding and classification errors occurred despite our systematic employment of the steps as outlined by Erford et al. (2010). We also only coded for readily accessible author demographics and coded gender as a binary variable. With the increased awareness of the importance of self-identification and the importance of recognizing the intersectionality of identities (O’Hara et al., 2021), editors may consider asking authors to self-identify and report on the multiple identities (e.g., gender identity, sexual identity, racial and ethnic identity). Editors may also want to request additional information regarding employment setting and primary job responsibilities (e.g., job title). Most of the lead authors were university affiliated, however, we do not know if they were faculty, administrators, or staff. A systematic process for reporting additional author characteristics would provide a richer description of the diversity of author characteristics.
To maintain an appropriate degree of statistical power, we used 5-year time windows. A shorter time window may have provided additional trends and yielded different results. However, with 407 articles and an average of 20 articles per year, shorter time intervals would have limited statistical power. The 5-year time window is consistent with other meta-studies which allowed for comparisons across meta-studies and also in line with Lenz et al.’s (2014) recommendation to explore different date range intervals, such as 5 years as opposed to their 4-year interval.
Conclusion
Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin publishes articles related to rehabilitation counseling with a special emphasis on data-based research designs. The purpose of this meta-study was to describe and highlight trends of articles published in the RCB over a 20-year period to determine who is publishing in the RCB, what topics are being published, and what empirical practices are being used. In describing author and article characteristics, our hope is that future researchers and editors can use this information to develop conceptual and empirical articles that highlight understudied populations, topics, and methodologies that advance the training and practice of rehabilitation counseling.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
