Search

When deciding which submissions should be peer reviewed, eLife editors consider whether they will be able to find high-quality reviewers, and whether the reviews will be valuable to the scientific community.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Over the last few decades, the institutionalisation of quantitative research evaluations has created incentives for scholars to publish as many papers as possible. This paper assesses the effects of such incentives on individual researchers’ scientific impact, by analysing the relationship between their number of articles and their proportion of highly cited papers. In other words, does the share of an author’s top 1% most cited papers increase, remain stable, or decrease as his/her total number of papers increase? Using a large dataset of disambiguated researchers (N = 28,078,476) over the 1980–2013 period, this paper shows that, on average, the higher the number of papers a researcher publishes, the higher the proportion of these papers are amongst the most cited. This relationship is stronger for older cohorts of researchers, while decreasing returns to scale are observed for recent cohorts. On the whole, these results suggest that for established researchers, the strategy of publishing as many papers as possible did not yield lower shares of highly cited publications, but such a pattern is not always observed for younger scholars. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

While bibliometric analysis is normally able to rely on complete publication sets this is not universally the case. For example, Australia (in ERA) and the UK (in the RAE/REF) use institutional research assessment that may rely on small or fractional parts of researcher output. Using the Category Normalised Citation Impact (CNCI) for the publications of ten universities with similar output (21,000–28,000 articles and reviews) indexed in the Web of Science for 2014–2018, we explore the extent to which a 'sample' of institutional data can accurately represent the averages and/or the correct relative status of the population CNCIs. Starting with full institutional data, we find a high variance in average CNCI across 10,000 institutional samples of fewer than 200 papers, which we suggest may be an analytical minimum although smaller samples may be acceptable for qualitative review. When considering the 'top' CNCI paper in researcher sets represented by DAIS-ID clusters, we find that samples of 1000 papers provide a good guide to relative (but not absolute) institutional citation performance, which is driven by the abundance of high performing individuals. However, such samples may be perturbed by scarce 'highly cited' papers in smaller or less research-intensive units. We draw attention to the significance of this for assessment processes and the further evidence that university rankings are innately unstable and generally unreliable. [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]

This study analyzes USPTO patents in the period 1998–2017. The number of science-related patents has increased twice as fast as the number of patents and scientific publications, and the number of cited papers per patent has almost doubled. These results vary substantially from one scientific and technological field to another. The proportion of the research papers cited by a patent has doubled. It refers to papers that are mostly published by the countries that have developed both scientific and technological capability and, surprisingly, are mainly used by inventors abroad. However, a weak relationship between the number of citations received from patents and papers reveals that the assessment of research performance needs some changes as the percentage of papers related to the innovations has grown over time. • Over time, the number of science-related patents has increased twice as fast as the number of patents and publications. • The percentage of technology-oriented research has doubled over time. • The countries that are capable both in science and technology produce the main part of technology-oriented research. • The relationship between the number of citations received from patents and papers is weak. • Except for the US, countries utilize foreign science more than domestic ones. [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]

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]

Several network features and information retrieval methods have been proposed to elucidate the structure of citation networks and to detect important nodes. However, it is difficult to retrieve information related to trends in an academic field and to detect cutting-edge areas from the citation network. In this paper, we propose a novel framework that detects the trend as the growth direction of a citation network using network representation learning(NRL). We presume that the linear growth of citation network in latent space obtained by NRL is the result of the iterative edge additional process of a citation network. On APS datasets and papers of some domains of the Web of Science, we confirm the existence of trends by observing that an academic field grows in a specific direction linearly in latent space. Next, we calculate each node’s degree of trend-following as an indicator called the intrinsic publication year (IPY). As a result, there is a correlation between the indicator and the number of future citations. Furthermore, a word frequently used in the abstracts of cutting-edge papers (high-IPY paper) is likely to be used often in future publications. These results confirm the validity of the detected trend for predicting citation network growth. [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]

Open access publication rates have been steadily increasing over time. In spite of this growth, academics in low income settings struggle to gain access to the full canon of research literature. While the vast majority of open access repositories and funding organizations with open access policies are based in high income countries, the geographic patterns of open access publication itself are not well characterized. In this study, we developed a computational approach to better understand the topical and geographical landscape of open access publications in the biomedical research literature. Surprisingly, we found a strong negative correlation between country per capita income and the percentage of open access publication. Open access publication rates were particularly high in sub-Saharan Africa, but vastly lower in the Middle East and North Africa, South Asia, and East Asia and the Pacific. These effects persisted when considering papers only bearing authors from within each region and income group. However, papers resulting from international collaborations did have a higher percentage of OA than single-country papers, and inter-regional collaboration increased OA publication for all world regions. There was no clear relationship between the number of open access policies in a region and the percentage of open access publications in that region. To understand the distribution of open access across topics of biomedical research, we examined keywords that were most enriched and depleted in open access papers. Keywords related to genomics, computational biology, animal models, and infectious disease were enriched in open access publications, while keywords related to the environment, nursing, and surgery were depleted in open access publications. This work identifies geographic regions and fields of research that could be priority areas for open access advocacy. The finding that open access publication rates are highest in sub-Saharan Africa and low income countries suggests that factors other than open access policy strongly influence authors’ decisions to make their work openly accessible. The high proportion of OA resulting from international collaborations indicates yet another benefit of collaborative research. Certain applied fields of medical research, notably nursing, surgery, and environmental fields, appear to have a greater proportion of fee-for-access publications, which presumably creates barriers that prevent researchers and practitioners in low income settings from accessing the literature in those fields. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There is growing interest in assessing the societal impacts of research such as informing health policies and clinical practice, and contributing to improved health. Bibliometric approaches have long been used to assess knowledge outputs, but can they also help evaluate societal impacts? We aimed to see how far the societal impacts could be traced by identifying key research articles in the psychiatry/neuroscience area and exploring their societal impact through analysing several generations of citing papers. Informed by a literature review of citation categorisation, we developed a prototype template to qualitatively assess a reference's importance to the citing paper and tested it on 96 papers. We refined the template for a pilot study to assess the importance of citations, including self-cites, to four key research articles. We then similarly assessed citations to those citing papers for which the key article was Central i.e. it was very important to the message of the citing article. We applied a filter of three or more citation occasions in order to focus on the citing articles where the reference was most likely to be Central. We found the reference was Central for 4.4 % of citing research articles overall and ten times more frequently if the article contained three or more citation occasions. We created a citation stream of influence for each key paper across up to five generations of citations. We searched the Web of Science for citations to all Central papers and identified societal impacts, including international clinical guidelines citing papers across the generations. [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]

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]

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]

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]

Citation metrics are increasingly used to appraise published research. One challenge is whether and how to normalize these metrics to account for differences across scientific fields, age (year of publication), type of document, database coverage, and other factors. We discuss the pros and cons for normalizations using different approaches. Additional challenges emerge when citation metrics need to be combined across multiple papers to appraise the corpus of scientists, institutions, journals, or countries, as well as when trying to attribute credit in multiauthored papers. Different citation metrics may offer complementary insights, but one should carefully consider the assumptions that underlie their calculation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We studied the research performance of 69 countries by considering two different types of new knowledge: incremental (normal) and fundamental (radical). In principle, these two types of new knowledge should be assessed at two very different levels of citations, but we demonstrate that a simpler assessment can be performed based on the total number of papers (P) and the ratio of the number of papers in the global top 10% of most cited papers divided to the total number of papers (Ptop 10%/P). P represents the quantity, whereas the Ptop 10%/P ratio represents the efficiency. In ideal countries, P and the Ptop 10%/P ratio are linked to the gross domestic product (GDP) and GDP the per capita, respectively. Only countries with high Ptop 10%/P ratios participate actively in the creation of fundamental new knowledge and have Noble laureates. In real countries, the link between economic and scientific wealth can be modified by the technological activity and the research policy. We discuss how technological activity may decrease the Ptop 10%/P ratio while only slightly affecting the capacity to create fundamental new knowledge; in such countries, many papers may report incremental innovations that do not drive the advancement of knowledge. Japan is the clearest example of this, although there are many less extreme examples. Independently of technological activity, research policy has a strong influence on the Ptop 10%/P ratio, which may be higher or lower than expected from the GDP per capita depending on the success of the research policy. [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]

This bibliometric study of a large publication set dealing with research on climate change aims at mapping the relevant literature from a bibliometric perspective and presents a multitude of quantitative data: (1) The growth of the overall publication output as well as (2) of some major subfields, (3) the contributing journals and countries as well as their citation impact, and (4) a title word analysis aiming to illustrate the time evolution and relative importance of specific research topics. The study is based on 222,060 papers (articles and reviews only) published between 1980 and 2014. The total number of papers shows a strong increase with a doubling every 5–6 years. Continental biomass related research is the major subfield, closely followed by climate modeling. Research dealing with adaptation, mitigation, risks, and vulnerability of global warming is comparatively small, but their share of papers increased exponentially since 2005. Research on vulnerability and on adaptation published the largest proportion of very important papers (in terms of citation impact). Climate change research has become an issue also for disciplines beyond the natural sciences. The categories Engineering and Social Sciences show the strongest field-specific relative increase. The Journal of Geophysical Research, the Journal of Climate, the Geophysical Research Letters, and Climatic Change appear at the top positions in terms of the total number of papers published. Research on climate change is quantitatively dominated by the USA, followed by the UK, Germany, and Canada. The citation-based indicators exhibit consistently that the UK has produced the largest proportion of high impact papers compared to the other countries (having published more than 10,000 papers). Also, Switzerland, Denmark and also The Netherlands (with a publication output between around 3,000 and 6,000 papers) perform top—the impact of their contributions is on a high level. The title word analysis shows that the term climate change comes forward with time. Furthermore, the term impact arises and points to research dealing with the various effects of climate change. The discussion of the question of human induced climate change towards a clear fact (for the majority of the scientific community) stimulated research on future pathways for adaptation and mitigation. Finally, the term model and related terms prominently appear independent of time, indicating the high relevance of climate modeling. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Journal of Physiology and British Journal of Pharmacology jointly published an editorial series in 2011 to improve standards in statistical reporting and data analysis. It is not known whether reporting practices changed in response to the editorial advice. We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of reporting practices in a random sample of research papers published in these journals before (n = 202) and after (n = 199) publication of the editorial advice. Descriptive data are presented. There was no evidence that reporting practices improved following publication of the editorial advice. Overall, 76-84% of papers with written measures that summarized data variability used standard errors of the mean, and 90-96% of papers did not report exact p-values for primary analyses and post-hoc tests. 76-84% of papers that plotted measures to summarize data variability used standard errors of the mean, and only 2-4% of papers plotted raw data used to calculate variability. Of papers that reported p-values between 0.05 and 0.1, 56-63% interpreted these as trends or statistically significant. Implied or gross spin was noted incidentally in papers before (n = 10) and after (n = 9) the editorial advice was published. Overall, poor statistical reporting, inadequate data presentation and spin were present before and after the editorial advice was published. While the scientific community continues to implement strategies for improving reporting practices, our results indicate stronger incentives or enforcements are needed. [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]