Search

Many published resources on the topic can trace the research community's increasing interest in medicinal plant research. However, there is no systematic bibliometric review in the field of medicinal plants. This research's primary purpose was to analyze research output on the medicinal plant by the Indian researcher from 1977 to 2020 through a bibliometric perspective. To analyze and present the results based on bibliometrics indicators, namely yearly research trends, relevant journals, productive organization, prolific authors, authorship pattern, country collaboration level, and funding agencies. A total of 3911 quality research papers have been downloaded from the web of science. Data was analyzed with Microsoft excel, bibliometrics, and scientometric software, namely Bibexcel, VOSviewer, and Biblioshiny (RStudio). The study reveals that the year 2020 has the highest number of research papers (NP=376) in the medicinal plant, Journal of Ethnopharmacology (NP=125) found the leading contributed sources in the medicinal plant. Kumar A was the prolific author among Indian authors. Most of the researchers published their papers in the form of articles (89.70%), CSIR (NP=143) was the highest contributed organization in the field, and University Grants Commission India (NP=421) was the most influential funding agency on medicinal plant research in India. This bibliometrics analysis not providing the researchers' direction, but it extends helps to the policymaker and funding agencies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The UK is one of the largest funders of health research in the world, but little is known about how health funding is spent. Our study explores whether major UK public and charitable health research funders support the research of UK-based scientists producing the most highly-cited research. To address this question, we searched for UK-based authors of peer-reviewed papers that were published between January 2006 and February 2018 and received over 1000 citations in Scopus. We explored whether these authors have held a grant from the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), the Medical Research Council (MRC) and the Wellcome Trust and compared the results with UK-based researchers who serve currently on the boards of these bodies. From the 1,370 papers relevant to medical, biomedical, life and health sciences with more than 1000 citations in the period examined, we identified 223 individuals from a UK institution at the time of publication who were either first/last or single authors. Of those, 164 are still in UK academic institutions, while 59 are not currently in UK academia (have left the country, are retired, or work in other sectors). Of the 164 individuals, only 59 (36%; 95% CI: 29–43%) currently hold an active grant from one of the three funders. Only 79 (48%; 95% CI: 41–56%) have held an active grant from any of the three funders between 2006–2017. Conversely, 457 of the 664 board members of MRC, Wellcome Trust, and NIHR (69%; 95% CI: 65–72%) have held an active grant in the same period by any of these funders. Only 7 out of 655 board members (1.1%) were first, last or single authors of an extremely highly-cited paper. There are many reasons why the majority of the most influential UK authors do not hold a grant from the country’s major public and charitable funding bodies. Nevertheless, the results are worrisome and subscribe to similar patterns shown in the US. We discuss possible implications and suggest ways forward. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The European & Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership (EDCTP), like many other research funders, requires its grantees to make papers available via open access (OA). This article investigates the effect of publishing in OA journals and international collaboration within and between European and sub-Saharan African countries on citation impact and likelihood of falling into the top 1% and top 10% most cited papers in poverty-related disease (PRD) research. Methods: Disease-specific research publications were identified in the Web of Science™ and MEDLINE using Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) terms. Data on the open accessibility of scientific literature were derived from 1science oaFindr. Publication data, including relative citation counts, were extracted for 2003–2015. Regression models were applied to quantify the relationship between relative citations and presence in the 1% and top 10% most cited papers versus OA and international collaboration. Results: The results show that since 2003 papers on PRDs have become increasingly available in OA. Among all PRD areas, malaria research is most frequently published in OA and in international collaboration. The adjusted regression analyses show that holding other factors constant, publishing research in OA and in international collaboration has a significant and meaningful citation advantage over non-OA or non-international collaborative research. Publishing papers as part of a European-wide or European- sub-Saharan African collaboration increases research impact. In contrast, such collaboration advantage is not observed for research output involving sub-Saharan Africa only which seems to decrease research impact. Conclusions: Our results indicate that there is a real, measurable citation advantage for publishing PRD research in OA and international collaboration. However, the international collaboration advantage seems to be region-specific with increased research impact for European-wide and European-sub-Saharan African collaborations but a decrease in research impact of collaborations confined to sub-Saharan African research institutions. Further research is required to further verify this finding and to understand the underlying factors related to this observed decrease in research impact. To target future research capacity building activities in sub-Saharan Africa it is important to assess whether the observed decreased impact reflects the scientific competencies and geographic distribution of individual researchers or institutional-, national- or funder-specific research requirements. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Poor research reporting is a major contributing factor to low study reproducibility, financial and animal waste. The ARRIVE (Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments) guidelines were developed to improve reporting quality and many journals support these guidelines. The influence of this support is unknown. We hypothesized that papers published in journals supporting the ARRIVE guidelines would show improved reporting compared with those in non-supporting journals. In a retrospective, observational cohort study, papers from 5 ARRIVE supporting (SUPP) and 2 non-supporting (nonSUPP) journals, published before (2009) and 5 years after (2015) the ARRIVE guidelines, were selected. Adherence to the ARRIVE checklist of 20 items was independently evaluated by two reviewers and items assessed as fully, partially or not reported. Mean percentages of items reported were compared between journal types and years with an unequal variance t-test. Individual items and sub-items were compared with a chi-square test. From an initial cohort of 956, 236 papers were included: 120 from 2009 (SUPP; n = 52, nonSUPP; n = 68), 116 from 2015 (SUPP; n = 61, nonSUPP; n = 55). The percentage of fully reported items was similar between journal types in 2009 (SUPP: 55.3 ± 11.5% [SD]; nonSUPP: 51.8 ± 9.0%; p = 0.07, 95% CI of mean difference -0.3–7.3%) and 2015 (SUPP: 60.5 ± 11.2%; nonSUPP; 60.2 ± 10.0%; p = 0.89, 95%CI -3.6–4.2%). The small increase in fully reported items between years was similar for both journal types (p = 0.09, 95% CI -0.5–4.3%). No paper fully reported 100% of items on the ARRIVE checklist and measures associated with bias were poorly reported. These results suggest that journal support for the ARRIVE guidelines has not resulted in a meaningful improvement in reporting quality, contributing to ongoing waste in animal research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this study, we address the question whether (and to what extent, respectively) altmetrics are related to the scientific quality of papers (as measured by peer assessments). Only a few studies have previously investigated the relationship between altmetrics and assessments by peers. In the first step, we analyse the underlying dimensions of measurement for traditional metrics (citation counts) and altmetrics–by using principal component analysis (PCA) and factor analysis (FA). In the second step, we test the relationship between the dimensions and quality of papers (as measured by the post-publication peer-review system of F1000Prime assessments)–using regression analysis. The results of the PCA and FA show that altmetrics operate along different dimensions, whereas Mendeley counts are related to citation counts, and tweets form a separate dimension. The results of the regression analysis indicate that citation-based metrics and readership counts are significantly more related to quality, than tweets. This result on the one hand questions the use of Twitter counts for research evaluation purposes and on the other hand indicates potential use of Mendeley reader counts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Quantifying the impact of a scholarly paper is of great significance, yet the effect of geographical distance of cited papers has not been explored. In this paper, we examine 30,596 papers published in Physical Review C, and identify the relationship between citations and geographical distances between author affiliations. Subsequently, a relative citation weight is applied to assess the impact of a scholarly paper. A higher-order weighted quantum PageRank algorithm is also developed to address the behavior of multiple step citation flow. Capturing the citation dynamics with higher-order dependencies reveals the actual impact of papers, including necessary self-citations that are sometimes excluded in prior studies. Quantum PageRank is utilized in this paper to help differentiating nodes whose PageRank values are identical. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Chemistry researchers are frequently evaluated on the perceived significance of their work with the citation count as the most commonly-used metric for gauging this property. Recent studies have called for a broader evaluation of significance that includes more nuanced bibliometrics as well as altmetrics to more completely evaluate scientific research. To better understand the relationship between metrics and peer judgements of significance in chemistry, we have conducted a survey of chemists to investigate their perceptions of previously published research. Focusing on a specific issue of the Journal of the American Chemical Society published in 2003, respondents were asked to select which articles they thought best matched importance and significance given several contexts: highest number of citations, most significant (subjectively defined), most likely to share among chemists, and most likely to share with a broader audience. The answers to the survey can be summed up in several observations. The ability of respondents to predict the citation counts of established research is markedly lower than the ability of those counts to be predicted by the h-index of the corresponding author of each article. This observation is conserved even when only considering responses from chemists whose expertise falls within the subdiscipline that best describes the work performed in an article. Respondents view both cited papers and significant papers differently than papers that should be shared with chemists. We conclude from our results that peer judgements of importance and significance differ from metrics-based measurements, and that chemists should work with bibliometricians to develop metrics that better capture the nuance of opinions on the importance of a given piece of research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There is widespread evidence that statistical methods play an important role in original research articles, especially in medical research. The evaluation of statistical methods and reporting in journals suffers from a lack of standardized methods for assessing the use of statistics. The objective of this study was to develop and evaluate an instrument to assess the statistical intensity in research articles in a standardized way. Methods: A checklist-type measure scale was developed by selecting and refining items from previous reports about the statistical contents of medical journal articles and from published guidelines for statistical reporting. A total of 840 original medical research articles that were published between 2007–2015 in 16 journals were evaluated to test the scoring instrument. The total sum of all items was used to assess the intensity between sub-fields and journals. Inter-rater agreement was examined using a random sample of 40 articles. Four raters read and evaluated the selected articles using the developed instrument. Results: The scale consisted of 66 items. The total summary score adequately discriminated between research articles according to their study design characteristics. The new instrument could also discriminate between journals according to their statistical intensity. The inter-observer agreement measured by the ICC was 0.88 between all four raters. Individual item analysis showed very high agreement between the rater pairs, the percentage agreement ranged from 91.7% to 95.2%. Conclusions: A reliable and applicable instrument for evaluating the statistical intensity in research papers was developed. It is a helpful tool for comparing the statistical intensity between sub-fields and journals. The novel instrument may be applied in manuscript peer review to identify papers in need of additional statistical review. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Research paper recommenders emerged over the last decade to ease finding publications relating to researchers’ area of interest. The challenge was not just to provide researchers with very rich publications at any time, any place and in any form but to also offer the right publication to the right researcher in the right way. Several approaches exist in handling paper recommender systems. However, these approaches assumed the availability of the whole contents of the recommending papers to be freely accessible, which is not always true due to factors such as copyright restrictions. This paper presents a collaborative approach for research paper recommender system. By leveraging the advantages of collaborative filtering approach, we utilize the publicly available contextual metadata to infer the hidden associations that exist between research papers in order to personalize recommendations. The novelty of our proposed approach is that it provides personalized recommendations regardless of the research field and regardless of the user’s expertise. Using a publicly available dataset, our proposed approach has recorded a significant improvement over other baseline methods in measuring both the overall performance and the ability to return relevant and useful publications at the top of the recommendation list. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Moderate-to-severe psoriasis is associated with significant comorbidity, an impaired quality of life, and increased medical costs, including those associated with treatments. Systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs) of randomized clinical trials are considered two of the best approaches to the summarization of high-quality evidence. However, methodological bias can reduce the validity of conclusions from these types of studies and subsequently impair the quality of decision making. As co-authorship is among the most well-documented forms of research collaboration, the present study aimed to explore whether authors’ collaboration methods might influence the methodological quality of SRs and MAs of psoriasis. Methodological quality was assessed by two raters who extracted information from full articles. After calculating total and per-item Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) scores, reviews were classified as low (0-4), medium (5-8), or high (9-11) quality. Article metadata and journal-related bibliometric indices were also obtained. A total of 741 authors from 520 different institutions and 32 countries published 220 reviews that were classified as high (17.2%), moderate (55%), or low (27.7%) methodological quality. The high methodological quality subnetwork was larger but had a lower connection density than the low and moderate methodological quality subnetworks; specifically, the former contained relatively fewer nodes (authors and reviews), reviews by authors, and collaborators per author. Furthermore, the high methodological quality subnetwork was highly compartmentalized, with several modules representing few poorly interconnected communities. In conclusion, structural differences in author-paper affiliation network may influence the methodological quality of SRs and MAs on psoriasis. As the author-paper affiliation network structure affects study quality in this research field, authors who maintain an appropriate balance between scientific quality and productivity are more likely to develop higher quality reviews. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

University scientific research ability is an important indicator to express the strength of universities. In this paper, the evaluation of university scientific research ability is investigated based on the output of sci-tech papers. Four university alliances from North America, UK, Australia, and China, are selected as the case study of the university scientific research evaluation. Data coming from Thomson Reuters InCites are collected to support the evaluation. The work has contributed new framework to the issue of university scientific research ability evaluation. At first, we have established a hierarchical structure to show the factors that impact the evaluation of university scientific research ability. Then, a new MCDM method called D-AHP model is used to implement the evaluation and ranking of different university alliances, in which a data-driven approach is proposed to automatically generate the D numbers preference relations. Next, a sensitivity analysis has been given to show the impact of weights of factors and sub-factors on the evaluation result. At last, the results obtained by using different methods are compared and discussed to verify the effectiveness and reasonability of this study, and some suggestions are given to promote China’s scientific research ability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The European Union (EU) seems to presume that the mass production of European research papers indicates that Europe is a leading scientific power, and the so-called European paradox of strong science but weak technology is due to inefficiencies in the utilization of this top level European science by European industry. We fundamentally disagree, and will show that Europe lags far behind the USA in the production of important, highly cited research. We will show that there is a consistent weakening of European science as one ascends the citation scale, with the EU almost twice as effective in the production of minimal impact papers, while the USA is at least twice as effective in the production of very highly cited scientific papers, and garnering Nobel prizes. Only in the highly multinational, collaborative fields of Physics and Clinical Medicine does the EU seem to approach the USA in top scale impact. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Authorship of peer-reviewed journal articles and abstracts has become the primary currency and reward unit in academia. Such a reward is crucial for students and postdocs who are often under-compensated and thus highly value authorship as an incentive. While numerous scientific and publishing organizations have written guidelines for determining author qualifications and author order, there remains much ambiguity when it comes to how these criteria are weighed by research faculty. Here, we sought to provide some initial insight on how faculty view the relative importance of 11 criteria for scientific authorship. We distributed an online survey to 564 biomedical engineering, biology, and bioengineering faculty members at 10 research institutions across the United States. The response rate was approximately 18%, resulting in a final sample of 102 respondents. Results revealed an agreement on some criteria, such as time spent conducting experiments, but there was a lack of agreement regarding the role of funding procurement. This study provides quantitative assessments of how faculty members in the biosciences evaluate authorship criteria. We discuss the implications of these findings for researchers, especially new graduate students, to help navigate the discrepancy between official policies for authorship and the contributions that faculty truly value. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Some scholars add authors to their research papers or grant proposals even when those individuals contribute nothing to the research effort. Some journal editors coerce authors to add citations that are not pertinent to their work and some authors pad their reference lists with superfluous citations. How prevalent are these types of manipulation, why do scholars stoop to such practices, and who among us is most susceptible to such ethical lapses? This study builds a framework around how intense competition for limited journal space and research funding can encourage manipulation and then uses that framework to develop hypotheses about who manipulates and why they do so. We test those hypotheses using data from over 12,000 responses to a series of surveys sent to more than 110,000 scholars from eighteen different disciplines spread across science, engineering, social science, business, and health care. We find widespread misattribution in publications and in research proposals with significant variation by academic rank, discipline, sex, publication history, co-authors, etc. Even though the majority of scholars disapprove of such tactics, many feel pressured to make such additions while others suggest that it is just the way the game is played. The findings suggest that certain changes in the review process might help to stem this ethical decline, but progress could be slow. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Researchers with different scientific career durations vary in their scientific productivity. Therefore, it is necessary to normalize their publication numbers by their scientific career durations in order to have a more objective comparison among researchers. The present study attempts to verify the impact of scientific career duration on research evaluation using scientometrics method. To do so, it compares Iranian researchers' publication rates in various disciplines covered in the Science Citation Index (SCI) during the period of 1991-2011. The analysis concentrates on those Iranian, who are corresponding authors, with long scientific career durations. The results show that the disciplines significantly vary in their researchers' scientific career durations and their crude number of papers. However, no significant difference was observed in the researchers' publication rates when the comparisons are limited to 21- year SCD researchers, the dominant group of the sample. In other words, the differences observed between many disciplines in their scientific productivity would disappear after normalizing the publication counts by authors' scientific career duration. This implies that comparison among scientists would be reasonable only if they are of the same area of expertise and in similar phases of their scientific lives. It is of special importance to those studies on research assessment that concentrate on a single year or a limited time period. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper summarizes the 18th Academic Publishing in Europe (APE) Conference: Berlin Re-Visited: Building Technological Support for Scholarship and Scientific Publishing, held as a hybrid event 10 and 11 January 2023, and organized by the Berlin Institute of Scholarly Publishing (BISP), a not-for-profit organization dedicated to bringing publishers, researchers, funders, and policymakers together. This year's conference theme "Out with the old, in with the new!" was discussed and presented in keynote speeches, the APE lecture, and several panel discussions. Current challenges within scholarly publishing, e.g., with research integrity, trust, and research assessment, have much to do with the old ways of doing things. To move science forward, new technologies and innovations, like the decentralized web, FAIR digital objects, and blockchain technology are needed to shape new paradigms. In many sessions it was stressed that not just new technologies are needed to move science forward, but human collaboration and partnerships as well. The changing role of the journal and the importance to recognize more diverse research outputs, beyond the journal article, was a topic of importance. Not only research assessment reforms and improved collaboration amongst different stakeholder groups are needed to address this, new publishing systems, better metadata, and open infrastructures as well. A session presenting different start-ups showcased how Artificial Intelligence, Natural Language Processing and software technology can be used to tackle problems in e.g., finding relevant funders and peer reviewers, and detecting image plagiarism. It was also discussed what publishers can do to help achieve the Sustainable Development Goals. Collaboration, data transparency and sharing best practices amongst researchers, funders, and policy makers are key. Another important topic during this year's APE was how publishers can support Early Career Researchers: establishing new workflows and infrastructures that enable publication of a wider range of research outputs, and broader recognition of these outputs, will incentivize ECRs. This year's APE was concluded with the APE Award Ceremony. The winner - Vsevolod Solovyov from Prophy - has used AI to enhance the current peer review system and made a very important contribution to improving the scholarly communication system. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

For several decades, a leading paradigm of how to quantitatively assess scientific research has been the analysis of the aggregated citation information in a set of scientific publications. Although the representation of this information as a citation network has already been coined in the 1960s, it needed the systematic indexing of scientific literature to allow for impact metrics that actually made use of this network as a whole, improving on the then prevailing metrics that were almost exclusively based on the number of direct citations. However, besides focusing on the assignment of credit, the paper citation network can also be studied in terms of the proliferation of scientific ideas. Here we introduce a simple measure based on the shortest-paths in the paper's in-component or, simply speaking, on the shape and size of the wake of a paper within the citation network. Applied to a citation network containing Physical Review publications from more than a century, our approach is able to detect seminal articles which have introduced concepts of obvious importance to the further development of physics. We observe a large fraction of papers co-authored by Nobel Prize laureates in physics among the top-ranked publications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: To evaluate the relative efficiencies of five Internet-based digital and three paper-based scientific surveys and to estimate the costs for different-sized cohorts. Methods: Invitations to participate in a survey were distributed via e-mail to employees of two university hospitals (E1 and E2) and to members of a medical association (E3), as a link placed in a special text on the municipal homepage regularly read by the administrative employees of two cities (H1 and H2), and paper-based to workers at an automobile enterprise (P1) and college (P2) and senior (P3) students. The main parameters analyzed included the numbers of invited and actual participants, and the time and cost to complete the survey. Statistical analysis was descriptive, except for the Kruskal-Wallis-H-test, which was used to compare the three recruitment methods. Cost efficiencies were compared and extrapolated to different-sized cohorts. Results: The ratios of completely answered questionnaires to distributed questionnaires were between 81.5% (E1) and 97.4% (P2). Between 6.4% (P1) and 57.0% (P2) of the invited participants completely answered the questionnaires. The costs per completely answered questionnaire were $0.57–$1.41 (E1–3), $1.70 and $0.80 for H1 and H2, respectively, and $3.36–$4.21 (P1–3). Based on our results, electronic surveys with 10, 20, 30, or 42 questions would be estimated to be most cost (and time) efficient if more than 101.6–225.9 (128.2–391.7), 139.8–229.2 (93.8–193.6), 165.8–230.6 (68.7–115.7), or 188.2–231.5 (44.4–72.7) participants were required, respectively. Conclusions: The study efficiency depended on the technical modalities of the survey methods and engagement of the participants. Depending on our study design, our results suggest that in similar projects that will certainly have more than two to three hundred required participants, the most efficient way of conducting a questionnaire-based survey is likely via the Internet with a digital questionnaire, specifically via a centralized e-mail. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Sponsors that seek to commercialize new drugs apply to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) which independently analyzes the raw data and reports the results on its website. Objectives: This study sought to determine if there are differences between the FDA assessments and journal reports on biologic agents developed for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. Methods: Available data on FDA-approved drugs were extracted from the website, and a systematic literature search was conducted to identify matching studies in peer-reviewed medical journals. Outcome measures were the American College of Rheumatology response criteria ACR20 (efficacy) and withdrawal due to adverse events (safety). As effect size odds ratios were estimated for each active trial arm vs. control arm (i.e. for both sources: FDA and journal report), followed by calculation of the ratios of the FDA and journal report odds ratios. A ratio of odds ratios not equal to 1 was categorized as a discrepancy. Results: FDA reports were available for 8 of 9 FDA-approved biologic agents for rheumatoid arthritis; all identified trials (34) except one were published in peer-reviewed journals. Overall, discrepancies were noted for 20 of the 33 evaluated trials. Differences in the apparent benefit reporting were found in 39% (24/61) pairwise comparisons and in 11 cases these were statistically significant; the FDA report showed greater benefit than the journal publication in 15 comparisons and lesser benefit in 9. Differences in the reported harms were found in 51% (28/55) pairwise comparisons and were statistically significant in 5. The “signal” in FDA reports showed a less harmful effect than the journal publication in 17 comparisons whereas a more harmful effect in 11. The differences were attributed to differences in analytic approach, patient inclusion, rounding effect, and counting discrepancies. However, no differences were categorized as critical. Conclusion: There was no empirical evidence to suggest biased estimates between the two sources. Increased and detailed transparency in publications would improve the understanding and credibility of published results. Further, the FDA report was found to be a useful source when data are missing in the published report (i.e. reporting bias). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Background: There has been a rapid expansion in the number of research papers published on clinical epilepsy topics and the number of journals in the medical field. In this expanding publishing environment, the question arises as to how much of the published medical literature has ‘enduring value’ in terms of advancing knowledge in any significant way. Methods: We developed a methodology to assess the enduring value of papers published in the field of clinical epilepsy and established its internal validity. We studied 300 research papers published in 1981, 1991, and 2001 (100 in each year) and assessed their enduring value in four domains: citations in the last year, citations in the last 10years, citations in the standard epilepsy textbook, and a subjective assessment by an experienced epileptologist. Results: Of the 300 papers, 214 (71%) were categorized as having ‘no enduring value’, and only 11 (4%) were identified as having ‘high enduring value’. The ‘high enduring value’ papers could generally be identified immediately on publication, by high initial citation values, and were also more likely to be published in journals with a high impact factor. The commonest characteristics of a paper with no enduring value were that they reported research that was inherently unimportant (55.6%), not novel (38.8%), or had significant methodological flaws (22.0%). Conclusions: Although there are other reasons for publishing papers, the fact that the great majority of published papers lack enduring value in terms of advancing knowledge should be a concern to the medical and scientific community. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Assess whether ChatGPT 4.0 is accurate enough to perform research evaluations on journal articles to automate this time-consuming task. Test the extent to which ChatGPT-4 can assess the quality of journal articles using a case study of the published scoring guidelines of the UK Research Excellence Framework (REF) 2021 to create a research evaluation ChatGPT. This was applied to 51 of my own articles and compared against my own quality judgements. ChatGPT-4 can produce plausible document summaries and quality evaluation rationales that match the REF criteria. Its overall scores have weak correlations with my self-evaluation scores of the same documents (averaging r=0.281 over 15 iterations, with 8 being statistically significantly different from 0). In contrast, the average scores from the 15 iterations produced a statistically significant positive correlation of 0.509. Thus, averaging scores from multiple ChatGPT-4 rounds seems more effective than individual scores. The positive correlation may be due to ChatGPT being able to extract the author's significance, rigour, and originality claims from inside each paper. If my weakest articles are removed, then the correlation with average scores (r=0.200) falls below statistical significance, suggesting that ChatGPT struggles to make fine-grained evaluations. The data is self-evaluations of a convenience sample of articles from one academic in one field. Overall, ChatGPT does not yet seem to be accurate enough to be trusted for any formal or informal research quality evaluation tasks. Research evaluators, including journal editors, should therefore take steps to control its use. This is the first published attempt at post-publication expert review accuracy testing for ChatGPT. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Liposome is a spherical-shaped vesicle composed of one or more phospholipid bilayers, closely resembling cell membranes' structure. It has a novel drug delivery system (NDDS); the lipid bilayer can fuse with other bilayers, such as the cell membrane, thus delivering the liposome contents. The present study has been conducted to map the research productivity of 'liposomes as drug delivery' between 1980 and 2021. This study employed the scientometric method to analyze 629 research papers indexed in the Web of Science database. Different bibliometrics indicators were used to assess the annual research growth, prolific authors, authorship pattern, funding agencies, productive source, organization, country, author keywords, cited paper and cited references, etc. Biblioshiny, Bibexcel, VOSviewer, and MS Office were used to analyze the 629 published papers. The findings show that 629 publications were published between 1980 and 2001, with 24674 citations. 2018 and 2019 recorded the highest research with 49 publications and 758 and 471 citations, respectively. Journal of Controlled Release was the most relevant source in the field, with 45 publications and 3063 citations. LIU Y was the most productive author, with 15 publications and 342 citations. Northwestern University USA has the highest record with 11 publications, and the USA was the most productive country with 181 publications, while China emerged as a leading collaborator with the USA (19 publications). Liposomes and cationic liposomes were identified as the most important research themes. Permeability, ocular drug delivery, Chemotherapy, Cancer therapy, Hypoxia, Combination therapy, and hyaluronic acid were research topics that have gained recent popularity. At the same time, Vesicles targeted drug delivery, cellular uptake, ultrasound, Chitosan, and Pegylation were identified as the research areas that require further attention in the field of liposomes as drug delivery research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Informed consent is the cornerstone of human research subject protection. Many subjects sign consent documents without understanding the study purpose, procedures, risks, benefits, and their rights. Proof of comprehension is not required and rarely obtained. Understanding might improve by using an interactive system with multiple options for hearing, viewing and reading about the study and the consent form at the subject’s own pace with testing and immediate feedback. This prospective randomized study compared the IRB-approved paper ICF for an actual clinical research study with an interactive presentation of the same study and its associated consent form using an iPad device in two populations: clinical research professionals, and patients drawn from a variety of outpatient practice settings. Of the 90 participants, 69 completed the online test and survey questions the day after the session (maximum 36 hours post-session). Among research professionals (n = 14), there was a trend (p  = .07) in the direction of iPad subjects testing better on the online test (mean correct  =  77%) compared with paper subjects (mean correct  =  57%). Among patients (n = 55), iPad subjects had significantly higher test scores than standard paper consent subjects (mean correct  =  75% vs 58%, p < .001). For all subjects, the total time spent reviewing the paper consent was 13.2 minutes, significantly less than the average of 22.7 minutes total on the three components to be reviewed using the iPad (introductory video, consent form, interactive quiz). Overall satisfaction and overall enjoyment slightly favored the interactive iPad presentation. This study demonstrates that combining an introductory video, standard consent language, and an interactive quiz on a tablet-based system improves comprehension of research study procedures and risks. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Citation patterns were examined for Worm et al. 2006 (Science 314∶787–790), a high-impact paper that focused on relationships between marine biodiversity and ecosystem services. This paper sparked much controversy through its projection, highlighted in the press release, that all marine fisheries would be collapsed by 2048. Analysis of 664 citing papers revealed that only a small percentage (11%) referred to the 2048 projection, while 39% referred to fisheries collapse in general, and 40% to biodiversity and ecosystem services. The 2048 projection was mentioned more often in papers published soon after the original paper, in low-impact journals, and in journals outside of fields that would be expected to focus on biodiversity. Citing papers also mentioned the 2048 projection more often if they had few authors (28% of single-author papers vs. 2% of papers with 10 or more authors). These factors suggest that the more knowledgeable the authors of citing papers were about the controversy over the 2048 projection, the less likely they were to refer to it. A noteworthy finding was that if the original authors were also involved in the citing papers, they rarely (1 of 55 papers, 2%) mentioned the 2048 projection. Thus the original authors have emphasized the broader concerns about biodiversity loss, rather than the 2048 projection, as the key result of their study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper is based on a presentation from a panel discussion on Innovation, Technology and Infrastructure at the 2023 APE Conference. It provides an overview of the use, misuse and value of bibliometrics in research assessment, examines the responsible use of metrics and the importance of going beyond existing bibliometric indicators of scholarly impact. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aims of this research is to evaluate the literature on Environmentalism indexed on the Web of Science between 1941 to 2020. The analysis is based on bibliometric methods to evaluate global research performance in environmental publications. Bibliometric software, namely Bibexcel, VOSviewer, Biblioshiny, and Microsoft Excel, was used to analyze the data. The result shows 4095 publications with 73829 citations between 1941 and 2020. The maximum number of papers, i.e., 295 published in 2020. The Journal Environmental Politics published the highest research paper with 114 publications. Milfont TL was the most prolific author with 10 papers. The USA is the leading contributed country with 1620 publications, and Michigan State University emerged as a top-performing organization. The USA and China together collaborated maximum research paper on Environmentalism. The study concludes that there is a need for further bibliometric study of related topics in Environmentalism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper investigates how the emotional responses towards research assessment reflect both social position and strategy in the struggle for scientific authority. This is examined through interviews with humanities researchers conducted as a part of a study on the implications for research practice of the Danish Bibliometric Research Indicator (BFI). Drawing on Bourdieu's theory of practice and Scheer and Matthäus' conceptualisation of the affective habitus and emotional practices, our research suggests that emotions can be conceptualized as strategic practices closely tied to the hierarchical position of the researchers. Established researchers deployed emotional practices as a form of resistance against compliance-based research assessment to retain their scientific authority and autonomy, while early-career researchers generally wanted to resist but their precarious positions did not afford them the possibility to do so. The study thus highlights the potential of studying emotions in relation to resistance and reproduction of dominance in higher education. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Scientists often perceive a trade-off between quantity and quality in scientific publishing: finite amounts of time and effort can be spent to produce few high-quality papers or subdivided to produce many papers of lower quality. Despite this perception, previous studies have indicated the opposite relationship, in which productivity (publishing more papers) is associated with increased paper quality (usually measured by citation accumulation). We examine this question in a novel way, comparing members of the National Academy of Sciences with themselves across years, and using a much larger dataset than previously analyzed. We find that a member’s most highly cited paper in a given year has more citations in more productive years than in in less productive years. Their lowest cited paper each year, on the other hand, has fewer citations in more productive years. To disentangle the effect of the underlying distributions of citations and productivities, we repeat the analysis for hypothetical publication records generated by scrambling each author’s citation counts among their publications. Surprisingly, these artificial histories re-create the above trends almost exactly. Put another way, the observed positive relationship between quantity and quality can be interpreted as a consequence of randomly drawing citation counts for each publication: more productive years yield higher-cited papers because they have more chances to draw a large value. This suggests that citation counts, and the rewards that have come to be associated with them, may be more stochastic than previously appreciated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In Ukraine, Scopus data are used to evaluate academics. Existing shortcomings in the Ukrainian evaluation system allow them to publish in titles that have been delisted from Scopus, and continue to use those papers as credible research output for evaluation. The purpose of this study was to analyse the publishing activity of Ukrainian institutions in Scopus‐delisted titles (as of September 2021) in different fields between 2011 and 2020 and to attempt to appreciate how common this practice is among Ukrainian authors. Scopus was sourced to collect bibliographic and citations‐related data, while SciVal was used to analyse these data. The findings suggest that for 17 Ukrainian institutions, papers from titles that have been delisted from Scopus still play an important part of the publication achievement of their employees. In particular, in the field of economics, econometrics and finance, 46.92% of Ukrainian papers were published in a title that was excluded from Scopus. Moreover, the analysis indicated that in two Ukrainian institutions, the level of citation of such papers significantly exceeds the average number of citations to Scopus‐indexed papers in the same year and in the same field. Given that bibliometric indicators are also used for research assessment in other Eastern European countries, the results of this paper are applicable to a wider geographic context. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: The article studies the research output on sheep and goats from Greece; a country where small ruminant farming is the most important terrestrial animal farming business. Milk production from sheep and goats exceeds that from cattle and over 90% of total milk produced from sheep and goats is used for dairy products. Research output on sheep and goats have increased significantly from 1997 to 2022. The bulk of publications, 87.5% of relevant papers, has originated from four establishments: Aristotle University of Thessaloniki; University of Thessaly; Agricultural University of Athens and Hellenic Agricultural Organization—Dimitra. Papers were published most frequently in the journals Small Ruminant Research and Journal of the Hellenic Veterinary Medical Society. The most frequent general topics of study were animal health-welfare and animal products. The findings have indicated that research has focused on milk production and diseases of the udder of small ruminants; moreover, there was accumulation of relevant research in Greece in some establishments only. The findings of the study can be used by researchers; stakeholders and Government entities to improve relevant research and to better allocate resources in the country. The study is a scientometrics evaluation of published articles performed in Greece on sheep and goats during the last 25 years, a period coinciding with implementation of reforms to shape and consolidate tertiary education and research establishments in the country. Objectives were: evaluation of the relevant publications and presentation of quantitative characteristics regarding scientific content and bibliometric details. The Web of Science platform was used (search terms: [[sheep OR goat*] OR [Ovis aries OR Capra hircus]] (1997–2022)) and 1080 papers were considered in detail. Throughout the study period, there was a clear progressive increase in numbers of papers published. The papers originated from 39 different entities, most from Aristotle University of Thessaloniki (34.0%), University of Thessaly (28.0%), Agricultural University of Athens (21.2%) and Hellenic Agricultural Organization—Dimitra (13.6%). Papers were published in 318 different journals. Journals with more published papers were Small Ruminant Research and Journal of the Hellenic Veterinary Medical Society. The most frequent general topic of study in the papers was health and welfare (46.7% of papers); second most frequent topic was animal products (18.6%). The papers have received 16,558 citations, i.e., οn average 15.4 citations per paper; the h-index was 56, the i10-index was 518 and the yearly citations per paper were 1.71. Papers on goats had higher impact than papers on sheep. There were 1711 individual authors, of which 728 were first or last authors. In total, 24 authors have each co-authored ≥2.5% of all papers; five authors were each first or last in that proportion of all papers. The findings have indicated that relevant research has focused on milk production and diseases of the udder of small ruminants; moreover, there was accumulation of relevant research in Greece in some establishments only. The findings of the study can be employed to initiate improved relevant research approaches in the country. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Solid waste management refers to collecting, treating, and disposing of solid waste that has served its purpose or is no longer useful. The primary purpose of this research is to map and visualize the solid waste management literature indexed on the Web of science between 1966 and 2021 based on bibliometrics analysis. This study also identified the most productive authors, sources, organizations, countries, research areas, funding agencies etc. This study employed the bibliometric method to analyze global research productivity on solid waste management literature. A total of 4444 research papers downloaded from the Web of science during the study period. Bibliometrics software, namely Bibexcel, VOSviewer, Biblioshiny, and Microsoft Excel, used to analyze the data. The results show that there was 4444 publication with 78759 citations between 1966 and 2021. The maximum number of papers, i.e., 424 published in 2020, in 1966 single paper published and received one citation. The journal Waste management published 382 papers and became the most relevant source of the topic, whereas Huang GH recognized as the most prolific author with 214 papers. China contributed a significant number of research papers in the field, while the University of Regina, Canada, emerged as a top-performing institution. China and Canada together collaborated more in producing literature in solid waste management. The study concludes that there is a need for further bibliometric study of other related topics in waste management, such as liquid waste management and gasses waste management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The field of Communication in Spain is analyzed, contextualizing Spanish output at a global and local level between the years 2000 and 2020. Based on a descriptive bibliometric analysis of the Communication category of the Social Sciences Citation Index database, part of Web of Science, the impact of the main countries is identified. The weight of the output in the Emerging Sources Citation Index (ESCI) database between 2015 and 2020 is also studied. An analysis of the output by universities in Spain for the period 2010–2020 is also carried out, comparing it with the impact and the works in the first quartile. The results reveal that Spain has been the fourth country in terms of output in Communication in the last decade and that Austria stands out as the country whose works have the greatest impact. It is also observed that 67% of Spain’s works in Communication are published in journals that are indexed in ESCI. The impact of Spanish universities is very close to the world average. The Universitat Pompeu Fabra stands out, publishing the most articles and, furthermore, being the Spanish university with most papers in the first quartile of the JCR in Communication between 2010 and 2020. The study of the Shanghai Ranking by area includes eight Spanish universities, only three of which have output in Communication that comes mainly from professors in this area. The role of the Spanish journals Comunicar and Profesional de la información is notable, as they publish a large fraction of the output by Spanish universities in the Communication field. Finally, this paper presents the challenges of research in Communication, as well as those related to its bibliometric analysis, and a reflection on the problems that affect scientific production and research in this subject area. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering (AJSE) is a rapidly growing multidisciplinary academic journal that publishes original contributions in the Science disciplines of Biological sciences, Chemistry, Earth Sciences, and Physics, and in the Engineering disciplines of Civil, Chemical, Electrical, Mechanical, Petroleum Engineering, Computer Science and Engineering, Systems Engineering, and along with a Theme Issue on specific topic. This study uses bibliometric tools to present a retrospective analysis of research productivity during 1977–2021. The bibliometric method used to analyze AJSE's published papers based on annual growth, citation pattern, prolific authors, country, organization, funding agencies, author keyword, authorship patterns, theme analysis, most cited papers, cited references, and international collaborations. The result shows that AJSE has grown noticeably from 1977 to 2021 in total publications and citations, reaching 7658 papers and 33,846 citations. India (TP: 1324) is the country with the more number of papers contributed. King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals (TP: 838) found as the most contributing organization to the AJSE publications. Zhang L identified as the most prolific author with 28 publications. The most important author keywords are Optimization, Adsorption, Genetic algorithm, and Mechanical properties. Saudi Arabia and Egypt collaborated in the maximum number of AJSE research papers. This is the first bibliometric investigation of AJSE scientific literature since its establishment. Overall, the findings provide useful information to the AJSE editorial board. Its retrospective review will likely encourage readers of the journal and help the editorial team formulate research agendas and inform research strategies that will enable research scientists to contribute high-quality research papers to the AJSE. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

University Rankings and impact factor indicators were critical in the extension of the global belief in the intrinsic academic value of "World Class Institutions," along with the international recognition of successful individuals forged through mainstream journals. However, these supposedly global standards were not adopted passively, nor massively, in the so-called periphery. Drawing from quantitative and qualitative studies of evaluative cultures in Latin America, particularly in Argentina, this paper observes various circuits of recognition and different paths for prestige-building. First, it discusses a multi-scale approach to national scientific fields highlighting heterogeneity in terms of the orientation of research agendas and styles of academic publishing. Evaluative cultures are examined as a complex set of instances of legitimation that provide room for maneuvering between global standards and local orders. Second, the paper delves into the role played by Latin America in forging an open access, non-commercial, regional publishing circuit with a dominant, but not exclusive, composition of journals from the social sciences and humanities. Finally, it argue that facing this dynamical publishing ecosystem developed in the public domain, national research assessment systems are alienated by incentives directed only to performance in mainstream publishing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: King Fahd University of petroleum and minerals is one of the best universities in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf region. The primary goal of this study is to analyze research output and mapping knowledge of King Fahd University of petroleum and minerals, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, between 2011 and 2020. Methodology: The present study employed the bibliometric method to explore the research performance of the King Fahd University Petroleum and Minerals between 2011 and 2020. The study focused on bibliometric parameters such as annual research growth and its citation impact over the years, the prolific researcher, authorship pattern, relevant sources, subjects-wise research and level of collaborations by authors and countries, etc. Results: The results show that out of 12494 papers, the highest research was 928 papers published in 2020. The majority of the 9906 publications were published as journal articles, and the "Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering" ranked first with 256 articles. B.S. Yilbas identified the most prolific author with 342 papers, and the three authorship (3509) papers were the most preferred authorship pattern. Moreover, the subject 'Engineering' has the highest number of published papers. Furthermore, the most commonly used author's keywords are adsorption, Corrosion, Laser, Laser, Solar, corrosion inhibition, and nanoparticles between 2011 and 2020. The results also show Saudi Arabia vs. the United States was most the collaborative country for KFUPM research with 1365 publications, followed by Pakistan and India, and the collaboration index noted as 1.42. The study also recommends some valuable suggestions to accelerate and produce more research in KFUPM. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The present study analysed around 96 articles, i.e. 51 from the DESIDOC journal and 45 from Library Hi Tech. This study tried to reveal the involvement of contents and their representation in the articles in the DESIDOC and Library Hi Tech journals. Design/Methodology/Approach: MS Excel was used for sorting different parameters, arrangements, tabulation, collection, and so on. To identify the differences and similarities of publication standards at the national and international levels, content analysis of full-text journal articles from the years 2017-2018 was conducted. The goal of the analysis was to infer the qualitative and quantitative aspects of the articles for comparison and correlation. Findings: This study revealed that the structure of the foreign journal, in comparison to the Indian journal, is technically sound, with the use of structurally advanced tools and techniques. Most of the aspects of the foreign journal articles had an edge over the articles in the Indian journal. Research Limitations/Practical Implications: The main limitation of the paper is that it covered only one article each in the Indian and foreign context, which limits its capacity to give a more generalised outcome. Originality/ Value: This analysis has provided an insight that the foreign journal articles have more citations compared to the Indian journal, because of their theoretically and statistically sound structure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Research misconduct and questionable research practices have been the subject of increasing attention in the past few years. But despite the rich body of research available, few empirical works also include the perspectives of non-researcher stakeholders. Methods: We conducted semi-structured interviews and focus groups with policy makers, funders, institution leaders, editors or publishers, research integrity office members, research integrity community members, laboratory technicians, researchers, research students, and former-researchers who changed career to inquire on the topics of success, integrity, and responsibilities in science. We used the Flemish biomedical landscape as a baseline to be able to grasp the views of interacting and complementary actors in a system setting. Results: Given the breadth of our results, we divided our findings in a two-paper series with the current paper focusing on the problems that affect the integrity and research culture. We first found that different actors have different perspectives on the problems that affect the integrity and culture of research. Problems were either linked to personalities and attitudes, or to the climates in which researchers operate. Elements that were described as essential for success (in the associate paper) were often thought to accentuate the problems of research climates by disrupting research culture and research integrity. Even though all participants agreed that current research climates need to be addressed, participants generally did not feel responsible nor capable of initiating change. Instead, respondents revealed a circle of blame and mistrust between actor groups. Conclusions: Our findings resonate with recent debates, and extrapolate a few action points which might help advance the discussion. First, the research integrity debate must revisit and tackle the way in which researchers are assessed. Second, approaches to promote better science need to address the impact that research climates have on research integrity and research culture rather than to capitalize on individual researchers' compliance. Finally, inter-actor dialogues and shared decision making must be given priority to ensure that the perspectives of the full research system are captured. Understanding the relations and interdependency between these perspectives is key to be able to address the problems of science. Study registration: https://osf.io/33v3m [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Success shapes the lives and careers of scientists. But success in science is difficult to define, let alone to translate in indicators that can be used for assessment. In the past few years, several groups expressed their dissatisfaction with the indicators currently used for assessing researchers. But given the lack of agreement on what should constitute success in science, most propositions remain unanswered. This paper aims to complement our understanding of success in science and to document areas of tension and conflict in research assessments. Methods: We conducted semi-structured interviews and focus groups with policy makers, funders, institution leaders, editors or publishers, research integrity office members, research integrity community members, laboratory technicians, researchers, research students, and former-researchers who changed career to inquire on the topics of success, integrity, and responsibilities in science. We used the Flemish biomedical landscape as a baseline to be able to grasp the views of interacting and complementary actors in a system setting. Results: Given the breadth of our results, we divided our findings in a two-paper series, with the current paper focusing on what defines and determines success in science. Respondents depicted success as a multi-factorial, context-dependent, and mutable construct. Success appeared to be an interaction between characteristics from the researcher (Who), research outputs (What), processes (How), and luck. Interviewees noted that current research assessments overvalued outputs but largely ignored the processes deemed essential for research quality and integrity. Interviewees suggested that science needs a diversity of indicators that are transparent, robust, and valid, and that also allow a balanced and diverse view of success; that assessment of scientists should not blindly depend on metrics but also value human input; and that quality should be valued over quantity. Conclusions: The objective of research assessments may be to encourage good researchers, to benefit society, or simply to advance science. Yet we show that current assessments fall short on each of these objectives. Open and transparent inter-actor dialogue is needed to understand what research assessments aim for and how they can best achieve their objective. Study Registration: osf.io/33v3m. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper presents the results of a research study whose objective was to identify the facilitating factors and barriers that, in the opinion of representatives of the Spanish scientific community, impact the implementation of the new open science model in four areas: open access, open research data, research assessment and open peer review. A qualitative study was designed in which information was obtained through interviews with researchers, editors of scientific journals, representatives of assessment agencies and vice-chancellors, and through a focus group of librarians with expertise in aspects of open science. The enabling factors and barriers identified were related to the researcher and the fruit of their research, as well as to the scientific ecosystem, which provides direct institutional support and backing (universities/research centres), the regulatory framework (management of the science system) and the science communication system (media). The results indicate that a shift in scientific practices toward the open science model can only be achieved if there is a policy framework that integrates all initiatives and links into the scientific assessment and reward system, and if the necessary funding is in place to support this transition. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The use of bibliometric indicators would simplify research assessments. The 2014 Research Excellence Framework (REF) is a peer review assessment of UK universities, whose results can be taken as benchmarks for bibliometric indicators. In this study, we use the REF results to investigate whether the e p index and a top percentile of most cited papers could substitute for peer review. The probability that a random university's paper reaches a certain top percentile in the global distribution of papers is a power of the e p index, which can be calculated from the citation-based distribution of university's papers in global top percentiles. Making use of the e p index in each university and research area, we calculated the ratios between the percentage of 4-star-rated outputs in REF and the percentages of papers in global top percentiles. Then, we fixed the assessment percentile so that the mean ratio between these two indicators across universities is 1.0. This method was applied to four units of assessment in REF: Chemistry, Economics and Econometrics joined to Business and Management Studies, and Physics. Some relevant deviations from the 1.0 ratio could be explained by the evaluation procedure in REF or by the characteristics of the research field; other deviations need specific studies by experts in the research area. These results indicate that in many research areas the substitution of a top percentile indicator for peer review is possible. However, this substitution cannot be made straightforwardly; more research is needed to establish the conditions of the bibliometric assessment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper first examines the constitutional provisions that must guide public research assessment procedures. Freedom of research (Art. 20(1)(b) CE) requires these procedures to be «suitable» for science as well as for science to be involved therein. After presenting the concepts and notions used in the international debate on research assessment (bibliometrics, quantitative or qualitative assessment criteria, peer review, etc.), there is an outline of the various types of research assessment procedures in place under Spanish law according to the subject of assessment (research works, researchers' CVs, research projects and institutional assessments). The paper then looks into the characteristics of legal science that are relevant from the perspective of legal research assessment. The closing remarks include a set of proposals revolving around the idea that public authorities must create organizational structures and procedures allowing every scientific community to set the criteria to be applied to research assessment within each scholarly field. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Fundamental scientific advances can take decades to translate into improvements in human health. Shortening this interval would increase the rate at which scientific discoveries lead to successful treatment of human disease. One way to accomplish this would be to identify which advances in knowledge are most likely to translate into clinical research. Toward that end, we built a machine learning system that detects whether a paper is likely to be cited by a future clinical trial or guideline. Despite the noisiness of citation dynamics, as little as 2 years of postpublication data yield accurate predictions about a paper's eventual citation by a clinical article (accuracy = 84%, F1 score = 0.56; compared to 19% accuracy by chance). We found that distinct knowledge flow trajectories are linked to papers that either succeed or fail to influence clinical research. Translational progress in biomedicine can therefore be assessed and predicted in real time based on information conveyed by the scientific community's early reaction to a paper. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Internet and social media participation open doors to a plethora of positive opportunities for the general public. However, in addition to these positive aspects, digital technology also provides an effective medium for spreading hateful content in the form of cyberbullying, bigotry, hateful ideologies, and harassment of individuals and groups. This research aims to investigate the growing body of online hate research (OHR) by mapping general research indices, prevalent themes of research, research hotspots, and influential stakeholders such as organizations and contributing regions. For this, we use scientometric techniques and collect research papers from the Web of Science core database published through March 2019. We apply a predefined search strategy to retrieve peer-reviewed OHR and analyze the data using CiteSpace software by identifying influential papers, themes of research, and collaborating institutions. Our results show that higher-income countries contribute most to OHR, with Western countries accounting for most of the publications, funded by North American and European funding agencies. We also observed increased research activity post-2005, starting from more than 50 publications to more than 550 in 2018. This applies to a number of publications as well as citations. The hotbeds of OHR focus on cyberbullying, social media platforms, co-morbid mental disorders, and profiling of aggressors and victims. Moreover, we identified four main clusters of OHR: (1) Cyberbullying, (2) Sexual solicitation and intimate partner violence, (3) Deep learning and automation, and (4) Extremist and online hate groups, which highlight the cross-disciplinary and multifaceted nature of OHR as a field of research. The research has implications for researchers and policymakers engaged in OHR and its associated problems for individuals and society. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper, we reexamined the typical analysis methods of a visuomotor sequence learning task, namely the ASRT task (J. H. Howard & Howard, 1997). We pointed out that the current analysis of data could be improved by paying more attention to pre-existing biases (i.e. by eliminating artifacts by using new filters) and by introducing a new data grouping that is more in line with the task’s inherent statistical structure. These suggestions result in more types of learning scores that can be quantified and also in purer measures. Importantly, the filtering method proposed in this paper also results in higher individual variability, possibly indicating that it had been masked previously with the usual methods. The implications of our findings relate to other sequence learning tasks as well, and opens up opportunities to study different types of implicit learning phenomena. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose - Despite the general recommendation of using a combination of multiple criteria for research assessment and faculty promotion decisions, the raise of quantitative indicators is generating an emerging trend in Business Schools to use single journal impact factors (IFs) as key (unique) drivers for those relevant school decisions. This paper aims to investigate the effects of using single Web of Science (WoS)-based journal impact metrics when assessing research from two related disciplines: Business and Economics, and its potential impact for the strategic sustainability of a Business School. Design/methodology/approach - This study collected impact indicators data for Business and Economics journals from the Clarivate Web of Science database. We concentrated on the IF indicators, the Eigenfactor and the article influence score (AIS). This study examined the correlations between these indicators and then ranked disciplines and journals using these different impact metrics. Findings - Consistent with previous findings, this study finds positive correlations among these metrics. Then this study ranks the disciplines and journals using each impact metric, finding relevant and substantial differences, depending on the metric used. It is found that using AIS instead of the IF raises the relative ranking of Economics, while Business remains basically with the same rank. Research limitations/implications - This study contributes to the research assessment literature by adding substantial evidence that given the sensitivity of journal rankings to particular indicators, the selection of a single impact metric for assessing research and hiring/promotion and tenure decisions is risky and too simplistic. This research shows that biases may be larger when assessment involves researchers from related disciplines - like Business and Economics - but with different research foundations and traditions. Practical implications - Consistent with the literature, given the sensibility of journal rankings to particular indicators, the selection of a single impact metric for assessing research, assigning research funds and hiring/promotion and tenure decisions is risky and simplistic. However, this research shows that risks and biases may be larger when assessment involves researchers from related disciplines - like Business and Economics - but with different research foundations and trajectories. The use of multiple criteria is advised for such purposes. Originality/value - This is an applied work using real data from WoS that addresses a practical case of comparing the use of different journal IFs to rank-related disciplines like Business and Economics, with important implications for faculty tenure and promotion committees and for research funds granting institutions and decision-makers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper analyses the effects of research assessment on the overall research practices of academics. Case study research was conducted in departments from two contrasting disciplines – the natural sciences and the humanities – in one research intensive Danish university. The case studies examined academics' and administrators' experiences of a national bibliometric indicator (BFI) used for research assessment. PhD students and early career researchers reported that the greatest effects of research assessment were on their publishing practices. Prompted by further questions, many interviewees reflected on the relationship between research assessment and changes in their overall research practice about which they were previously unaware. We drew on Bourdieu's theory of practice to theorise why there was so little reflexivity, especially among senior researchers, about the relationship between actions to comply with research assessment and changes in research practice itself. We conclude by highlighting some potential implications, especially for mentorship of early career academics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Euclidean length of a citation list is "depth relevant": the metric increases when citations are transferred from less to more cited papers. We introduce "breadth relevance," which favors consistent achievers over one‐hit wonders. The exponent of the CES aggregator then is less than unity rather than greater than unity, as for depth relevance. Using two datasets on citations of economists for the top 50 US and global universities, simply counting citations maximizes the correlation between the citation metrics of researchers and the peer‐reviewed rank of their department. However, citation depth may explain the allocation of researchers across lower‐ranked departments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Physical inactivity has been identified as a leading risk factor for premature mortality globally, and adolescents, in particular, have low physical activity levels. Schools have been identified as a setting to tackle physical inactivity. Economic evidence of school-based physical activity programmes is limited, and the costs of these programmes are not always collected in full. This paper describes a micro-costing and cost-consequence analysis of the ‘Girls Active’ secondary school-based programme as part of a cluster randomised controlled trial (RCT). Micro-costing and cost-consequence analyses were conducted using bespoke cost diaries and questionnaires to collect programme delivery information. Outcomes for the cost-consequence analysis included health-related quality of life measured by the Child Health Utility-9D (CHU-9D), primary care General Practitioner (GP) and school-based (school nurse and school counsellor) service use as part of a cluster RCT of the ‘Girls Active’ programme. Overall, 1,752 secondary pupils were recruited and a complete case sample of 997 participants (Intervention n = 570, Control n = 427) was used for the cost-consequence analysis. The micro-costing analysis demonstrated that, depending upon how the programme was delivered, ‘Girls Active’ costs ranged from £1,054 (£2 per pupil, per school year) to £3,489 (£7 per pupil, per school year). The least costly option was to absorb ‘Girls Active’ strictly within curriculum hours. The analysis demonstrated no effect for the programme for the three main outcomes of interest (health-related quality of life, physical activity and service use).Micro-costing analyses demonstrated the costs of delivering the ‘Girls Active’ programme, addressing a gap in the United Kingdom (UK) literature regarding economic evidence from school-based physical activity programmes. This paper provides recommendations for those gathering cost and service use data in school settings to supplement validated and objective measures, furthering economic research in this field. Trial registration: -ISRCTN, . [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Citation metrics are widely used and misused. We have created a publicly available database of 100,000 top scientists that provides standardized information on citations, h-index, coauthorship-adjusted hm-index, citations to papers in different authorship positions, and a composite indicator. Separate data are shown for career-long and single-year impact. Metrics with and without self-citations and ratio of citations to citing papers are given. Scientists are classified into 22 scientific fields and 176 subfields. Field- and subfield-specific percentiles are also provided for all scientists who have published at least five papers. Career-long data are updated to end of 2017 and to end of 2018 for comparison. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Rationale, aims and objective: Substituting outpatient hospital care with primary care is seen as a solution to decrease unnecessary referrals to outpatient hospital care and decrease rising healthcare costs. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the effects on quality of care, health and costs outcomes of substituting outpatient hospital care with primary care-based interventions, which are performed by medical specialists in face-to-face consultations in a primary care setting. Method: The systematic review was performed using the PICO framework. Original papers in which the premise of the intervention was to substitute outpatient hospital care with primary care through the involvement of a medical specialist in a primary care setting were eligible. Results: A total of 14 papers were included. A substitution intervention in general practitioner (GP) practices was described in 11 papers, three described a joint consultation intervention in which GPs see patients together with a medical specialist. This study showed that substitution initiatives result mostly in favourable outcomes compared to outpatient hospital care. The initiatives resulted mostly in shorter waiting lists, shorter clinic waiting times and higher patient satisfaction. Costs for treating one extra patient seemed to be higher in the intervention settings. This was mainly caused by inefficient planning of consultation hours and lower patient numbers. Conclusions: Despite the fact that internationally a lot has been written about the importance of performing substitution interventions in which preventing unnecessary referrals to outpatient hospital care was the aim, only 14 papers were included. Future systematic reviews should focus on the effects on the Triple Aim of substitution initiatives in which other healthcare professions than medical specialists are involved along with new technologies, such as e-consults. Additionally, to gain more insight into the effects of substitution initiatives operating in a dynamic healthcare context, it is important to keep evaluating the interventions in a longitudinal study design. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]