Search

The breakthrough potentials of research papers can be explained by their boundary-spanning qualities. Here, for the first time, we apply the structural variation analysis (SVA) model and its affiliated metrics to investigate the extent to which such qualities characterize a group of Nobel Prize winning papers. We find that these papers share remarkable boundary-spanning traits, marked by exceptional abilities to connect disparate and topically-diverse clusters of research papers. Further, their publications exert structural variations on the scale that significantly alters the betweenness centrality distributions of existing intellectual space. Overall, SVA not only provides a set of leading indicators for describing future Nobel Prize winning papers, but also broadens our understanding of the similar prize-winning properties that may have been overlooked among other regular publications., 27 pages, 8 figures, 9 tables. Submitted to Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics

In our planned study, we shall empirically study the assessment of cited papers within the framework of the anchoring-and-adjustment heuristic. We are interested in the question whether citation decisions are (mainly) driven by the quality of cited references. The design of our study is oriented towards the study by Teplitskiy, Duede [10]. We shall undertake a survey of corresponding authors with an available email address in the Web of Science database. The authors are asked to assess the quality of papers that they cited in previous papers. Some authors will be assigned to three treatment groups that receive further information alongside the cited paper: citation information, information on the publishing journal (journal impact factor), or a numerical access code to enter the survey. The control group will not receive any further numerical information. In the statistical analyses, we estimate how (strongly) the quality assessments of the cited papers are adjusted by the respondents to the anchor value (citation, journal, or access code). Thus, we are interested in whether possible adjustments in the assessments can not only be produced by quality-related information (citation or journal), but also by numbers that are not related to quality, i.e. the access code. The results of the study may have important implications for quality assessments of papers by researchers and the role of numbers, citations, and journal metrics in assessment processes.

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.\ud \ud 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.

Papers describing software are an important part of computational fields of scientific research. These “software papers” are unique in a number of ways, and they require special consideration to improve their impact on the scientific community and their efficacy at conveying important information. Here, we discuss 10 specific rules for writing software papers, covering some of the different scenarios and publication types that might be encountered, and important questions from which all computational researchers would benefit by asking along the way., Author summary Computational researchers have a responsibility to ensure that the software they write stands up to the same scientific scrutiny as traditional research studies. These 10 simple rules make doing so easier by enhancing usability, reproducibility, transparency, and other crucial characteristics that aren’t taught in most computer science or research methods curricula.

There is demand from science funders, industry, and the public that science should become more risk-taking, more out-of-the-box, and more interdisciplinary. Is it possible to tell how interdisciplinary and out-of-the-box scientific papers are, or which papers are mainstream? Here we use the bibliographic coupling network, derived from all physics papers that were published in the Physical Review journals in the past century, to try to identify them as mainstream, out-of-the-box, or interdisciplinary. We show that the network clusters into scientific fields. The position of individual papers with respect to these clusters allows us to estimate their degree of mainstreamness or interdisciplinary. We show that over the past decades the fraction of mainstream papers increases, the fraction of out-of-the-box decreases, and the fraction of interdisciplinary papers remains constant. Studying the rewards of papers, we find that in terms of absolute citations, both, mainstream and interdisciplinary papers are rewarded. In the long run, mainstream papers perform less than interdisciplinary ones in terms of citation rates. We conclude that to avoid a trend towards mainstreamness a new incentive scheme is necessary., 12 pages, 9 figures

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.

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.

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.

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., 11 pages, 3 figures

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.

Many results have been obtained when studying scientific papers citations databases in a network perspective. Articles can be ranked according to their current in-degree and their future popularity or citation counts can even be predicted. The dynamical properties of such networks and the observation of the time evolution of their nodes started more recently. This work adopts an evolutionary perspective and proposes an original algorithm for the construction of genealogical trees of scientific papers on the basis of their citation count evolution in time. The fitness of a paper now amounts to its in-degree growing trend and a "dying" paper will suddenly see this trend declining in time. It will give birth and be taken over by some of its most prevalent citing "offspring". Practically, this might be used to trace the successive published milestones of a research field., SCOPUS: ar.j, info:eu-repo/semantics/published

Background The CONSORT Statement is a reporting guideline for authors when reporting randomized controlled trials (RCTs). It offers a standard way for authors to prepare RCT reports. It has been endorsed by many high-impact medical journals and by international editorial groups. This study was conducted to assess the endorsement of the CONSORT Statement by high-impact medical journals in China by reviewing their instructions for authors. Methodology/Principal Findings A total of 200 medical journals were selected according to the Chinese Science and Technology Journal Citation Reports, 195 of which publish clinical research papers. Their instructions for authors were reviewed and all texts mentioning the CONSORT Statement or CONSORT extension papers were extracted. Any mention of the Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals (URM) developed by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) or ‘clinical trial registration’ was also extracted. For journals endorsing the CONSORT Statement, their most recently published RCT reports were retrieved and evaluated to assess whether the journals have followed what the CONSORT Statement required. Out of the 195 medical journals publishing clinical research papers, only six (6/195, 3.08%) mentioned ‘CONSORT’ in their instructions for authors; out of the 200 medical journals surveyed, only 14 (14/200, 7.00%) mentioned ‘ICMJE’ or ‘URM’ in their instructions for authors, and another five journals stated in their instructions for authors that clinical trials should have trial registration numbers and that priority would be given to clinical trials which had been registered. Among the 62 RCT reports published in the six journals endorsing the CONSORT Statement, 20 (20/62, 32.26%) contained flow diagrams and only three (3/62, 4.84%) provided trial registration information. Conclusions/Significance Medical journals in China endorsing either the CONSORT Statement or the ICMJE's URM constituted a small percentage of the total; all of these journals used ambiguous language regarding what was expected of authors.

We implemented three recently proposed approaches to the identification of overlapping and hierarchical substructures in graphs and applied the corresponding algorithms to a network of 492 information-science papers coupled via their cited sources. The thematic substructures obtained and overlaps produced by the three hierarchical cluster algorithms were compared to a content-based categorisation, which we based on the interpretation of titles and keywords. We defined sets of papers dealing with three topics located on different levels of aggregation: h-index, webometrics, and bibliometrics. We identified these topics with branches in the dendrograms produced by the three cluster algorithms and compared the overlapping topics they detected with one another and with the three pre-defined paper sets. We discuss the advantages and drawbacks of applying the three approaches to paper networks in research fields., Comment: 18 pages, 9 figures

The microbiome is a matter of interest for science, consumers and business. Our objective is to quantify that interest in academic journals and newspapers, both quantitatively and by study design. We calculated the number of articles on the microbiome from the total number of biomedicine articles featured in both PubMed and Spanish science news agency SINC, from 2008 to 2018. We used the Factiva database to identify news stories on microbiome papers in three general newspapers (The New York Times, The Times and El País) and three business newspapers (The Wall Street Journal, the Financial Times and Expansión), from 2007 to 2019. Then, we compared news stories with microbiome papers in PubMed, while also analyzing the frequencies of five study design types, both in the newspapers and in the papers themselves. Microbiome papers represented 0.8% of biomedicine papers in PubMed from 2008 to 2018 (increasing from 0.4% to 1.4%), while microbiome news published by SINC represented 1.6% of total biomedical news stories during the same period (increasing from 0.2% to 2.2%). The number of news stories on microbiome papers correlated with the number of microbiome papers (0.91, p < 0.001) featured in general newspapers, but not in business ones. News stories on microbiome papers represented 78.9% and 42.7% of all microbiome articles in general and business newspapers, respectively. Both media outlet types tended to over-report observational studies in humans while under-reporting environmental studies, while the representation of systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials, randomized controlled trials and animal/laboratory studies was similar when comparing newspapers and PubMed. The microbiome is receiving increasing attention in academic journals and newspapers. News stories on the microbiome in general and business newspapers are mostly based on research findings and are more interested in observational studies in humans and less in environmental studies compared to PubMed.

The 57 countries of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation are suffering from an increasing burden from mental health disorders. We investigated their research outputs during 2008–17 in the Web of Science in order to compare them with the burden from different mental health disorders and in different countries. The papers were identified with a complex filter based on title words and journals. Their addresses were parsed to give fractional country counts, show international collaboration, and also reveal country concentration on individual disorders and types of research. We found 17,920 papers in the decade, with output quadrupling. Foreign contributions accounted for 15% of addresses; they were from Europe (7%), Canada + USA (5%) and elsewhere (3%). They were much greater for Qatar and Uganda (> 60%), but less than 10% for Iran and Turkey. Schizophrenia and bipolar disorder were over-researched, but suicide and self-harm were seriously neglected, relative to their mental health disorder burdens. Although OIC research has been expanding rapidly, some countries have published little on this subject, perhaps because of stigma. Turkey collaborates relatively little internationally and as a result its papers received few citations. Among the large OIC countries, it has almost the highest relative mental health disorders burden, which is also growing rapidly.

Patent Citation Analysis has been gaining considerable traction over the past few decades. In this paper, we collect extensive information on patents and citations and provide a perspective of citation network analysis of patents from a statistical viewpoint. We identify and analyze the most cited patents, the most innovative and the highly cited companies along with the structural properties of the network by providing in-depth descriptive analysis. Furthermore, we employ Exponential Random Graph Models (ERGMs) to analyze the citation networks. ERGMs enables understanding the social perspectives of a patent citation network which has not been studied earlier. We demonstrate that social properties such as homophily (the inclination to cite patents from the same country or in the same language) and transitivity (the inclination to cite references’ references) together with the technicalities of the patents (e.g., language, categories), has a significant effect on citations. We also provide an in-depth analysis of citations for sectors in patents and how it is affected by the size of the same. Overall, our paper delves into European patents with the aim of providing new insights and serves as an account for fitting ERGMs on large networks and analyzing them. ERGMs help us model network mechanisms directly, instead of acting as a proxy for unspecified dependence and relationships among the observations.

This study provides an overview of science from the Wikipedia perspective. A methodology has been established for the analysis of how Wikipedia editors regard science through their references to scientific papers. The method of co-citation has been adapted to this context in order to generate Pathfinder networks (PFNET) that highlight the most relevant scientific journals and categories, and their interactions in order to find out how scientific literature is consumed through this open encyclopaedia. In addition to this, their obsolescence has been studied through Price index. A total of 1 433 457 references available at Altmetric.com have been initially taken into account. After pre-processing and linking them to the data from Elsevier's CiteScore Metrics the sample was reduced to 847 512 references made by 193 802 Wikipedia articles to 598 746 scientific articles belonging to 14 149 journals indexed in Scopus. As highlighted results we found a significative presence of "Medicine" and "Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology" papers and that the most important journals are multidisciplinary in nature, suggesting also that high-impact factor journals were more likely to be cited. Furthermore, only 13.44% of Wikipedia citations are to Open Access journals., Comment: Preprint paper published in PLOS ONE

In this study, it was investigated whether early tweets counts could differentially benefit female and male (first, last) authors in terms of the later citation counts received. The data for this study comprised 47,961 articles in the research area of Life Sciences & Biomedicine from 2014-2016, retrieved from Web of Science's Medline. For each article, the number of received citations per year was downloaded from WOS, while the number of received tweets per year was obtained from PlumX. Using the hurdle regression model, I compared the number of received citations by female and male (first, last) authored papers and then I investigated whether early tweet counts could predict the later citation counts received by female and male (first, last) authored papers. In the regression models, I controlled for several important factors that were investigated in previous research in relation to citation counts, gender or Altmetrics. These included journal impact (SNIP), number of authors, open access, research funding, topic of an article, international collaboration, lay summary, F1000 Score and mega journal. The findings showed that the percentage of papers with male authors in first or last authorship positions was higher than that for female authors. However, female first and last-authored papers had a small but significant citation advantage of 4.7% and 5.5% compared to male-authored papers. The findings also showed that irrespective of whether the factors were included in regression models or not, early tweet counts had a weak positive and significant association with the later citations counts (3.3%) and the probability of a paper being cited (21.1%). Regarding gender, the findings showed that when all variables were controlled, female (first, last) authored papers had a small citation advantage of 3.7% and 4.2% in comparison to the male authored papers for the same number of tweets.

Scientific research is often thought of as being conducted by individuals and small teams striving for disciplinary advances. Yet as a whole, this endeavor more closely resembles a complex and integrated system of people, papers, and ideas. Studies of co-authorship and citation networks have revealed important structural properties of researchers and articles, but currently the structure of scientific ideas themselves is not well understood. In this study, we posit that topic networks may be a useful framework for revealing the nature of conceptual relationships. Using this framework, we map the landscape of interconnected research topics covered in the multidisciplinary journal PNAS since 2000, constructing networks in which nodes represent topics of study and edges give the extent to which topics occur in the same papers. The network displays small-world architecture, characterized by regions of dense local connectivity with sparse connectivity between them. In this network, dense local connectivity additionally gives rise to distinct clusters of related topics. Yet notably, these clusters tend not to align with assigned article classifications, and instead contain topics from various disciplines. Using a temporal graph, we find that small-worldness has increased over time, suggesting growing efficiency and integration of ideas. Finally, we define two measures of interdisciplinarity, one of which is found to be positively associated with PNAS's impact factor. Broadly, this work suggests that complex and dynamic patterns of knowledge emerge from scientific research, and that structures reflecting intellectual integration may be beneficial for obtaining scientific insight.

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.

The Ministry of Industry and Information Technology (MIIT) universities are important bases for science and technology research and play a critical role in China’s National Innovation System. Based on the Web of Science (WoS), this article analyzes the statistics of paper published by MIIT universities and universities from across China including MIIT universities. The results are as follows: (1) Both the MIIT universities and universities nationwide in China have increased their international academic publications, and MIIT have shown a greater increase for the past decade. (2) In terms of U-I-G interaction, for UG relations, the Tug value of MIIT universities has remained stable, while that of universities in China has become declined. For UI relations, the Tui value of both MIIT universities and universities in China has shown steady growth. For UIG relations, MIIT universities have a greater synergistic effect of Triple Helix relationship than universities in China. (3) For more details in seven MIIT universities, universities elected into “Project 985”, including HIT, BUAA, BIT and NPU, have published more papers, and been more synergistic with government and industry (UIG relations) than other three universities, including NUAA, NUST and HEU. Based on the empirical results, we discuss our findings, and make certain suggestions regarding policy incentives, reasonable administrative system and U-I-G interaction mode, which is significant not only for Chinese universities but also for universities in other developing countries.

We aimed to assess whether Nobel prizes (widely considered the most prestigious award in science) are clustering in work done in a few specific disciplines. We mapped the key Nobel prize-related publication of each laureate awarded the Nobel Prize in Medicine, Physics, and Chemistry (1995-2017). These key papers mapped in only narrow sub-regions of a 91,726-cluster map of science created from 63 million Scopus-indexed published items. For each key Nobel paper, a median of 435 (range 0 to 88383) other Scopus-indexed items were published within one year and were more heavily cited than the Nobel paper. Of the 114 high-level domains that science can be divided into, only 36 have had a Nobel prize. Five of the 114 domains (particle physics [14%], cell biology [12.1%], atomic physics [10.9%], neuroscience [10.1%], molecular chemistry [5.3%]) have the lion's share, accounting in total for 52.4% of the Nobel prizes. Using a more granular classification with 849 sub-domains shows that only 71 of these sub-domains (8.3%) have at least one Nobel-related paper. Similar clustering was seen when we mapped all the 40,819 Scopus-indexed publications representing the career-long output of all the Nobel laureates. In conclusion, work resulting in Nobel prizes is concentrated in a small minority of scientific disciplines.

Background\ud Health care workers (HCWs) are essential for the delivery of health care services in conflict areas and in rebuilding health systems post-conflict.\ud Objective\ud The aim of this study was to systematically identify and map the published evidence on HCWs in conflict and post-conflict settings. Our ultimate aim is to inform researchers and funders on research gap on this subject and support relevant stakeholders by providing them with a comprehensive resource of evidence about HCWs in conflict and post-conflict settings on a global scale.\ud Methods\ud We conducted a systematic mapping of the literature. We included a wide range of study designs, addressing any type of personnel providing health services in either conflict or post-conflict settings. We conducted a descriptive analysis of the general characteristics of the included papers and built two interactive systematic maps organized by country, study design and theme.\ud Results\ud Out of 13,863 identified citations, we included a total of 474 studies: 304 on conflict settings, 149 on post-conflict settings, and 21 on both conflict and post-conflict settings. For conflict settings, the most studied counties were Iraq (15%), Syria (15%), Israel (10%), and the State of Palestine (9%). The most common types of publication were opinion pieces in conflict settings (39%), and primary studies (33%) in post-conflict settings. In addition, most of the first and corresponding authors were affiliated with countries different from the country focus of the paper. Violence against health workers was the most tackled theme of papers reporting on conflict settings, while workforce performance was the most addressed theme by papers reporting on post-conflict settings. The majority of papers in both conflict and post-conflict settings did not report funding sources (81% and 53%) or conflicts of interest of authors (73% and 62%), and around half of primary studies did not report on ethical approvals (45% and 41%).\ud Conclusions\ud This systematic mapping provides a comprehensive database of evidence about HCWs in conflict and post-conflict settings on a global scale that is often needed to inform policies and strategies on effective workforce planning and management and in reducing emigration. It can also be used to identify evidence for policy-relevant questions, knowledge gaps to direct future primary research, and knowledge clusters.

ObjectivesDespite the rising risk factor exposure and non-communicable disease (NCD) mortality across the Middle East and the North African (MENA) region, public health policy responses have been slow and appear discordant with the social, economic and political circumstances in each country. Good health policy and outcomes are intimately linked to a research-active culture, particularly in NCD. In this study we present the results of a comprehensive analysis of NCD research with particular a focus on cancer, diabetes and cardiovascular disease in 10 key countries that represent a spectrum across MENA between 1991 and 2018.MethodsThe study uses a well validated bibliometric approach to undertake a quantitative analysis of research output in the ten leading countries in biomedical research in the MENA region on the basis of articles and reviews in the Web of Science database. We used filters for each of the three NCDs and biomedical research to identify relevant papers in the WoS. The countries selected for the analyses were based on the volume of research outputs during the period of analysis and stability, included Egypt, Iran, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the United Arab Emirates.ResultsA total of 495,108 biomedical papers were found in 12,341 journals for the ten MENA countries (here we consider Turkey in the context of MENA). For all three NCDs, Turkey's output is consistently the highest. Iran has had considerable growth in research output to occupy second place across all three NCDs. It appears that, relative to their wealth (measured by GDP), some MENA countries, particularly Oman, Qatar, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates, are substantially under-investing in biomedical research. In terms of investment on particular NCDs, we note the relatively greater commitment on cancer research compared with diabetes or cardiovascular disease in most MENA countries, despite cardiovascular disease causing the greatest health-related burden. When considering the citation impact of research outputs, there have been marked rises in citation scores in Qatar, Lebanon, United Arab Emirates and Oman. However, Turkey, which has the largest biomedical research output in the Middle East has the lowest citation scores overall. The level of intra-regional collaboration in NCD research is highly variable. Saudi Arabia and Egypt are the dominant research collaborators across the MENA region. However, Turkey and Iran, which are amongst the leading research-active countries in the area, show little evidence of collaboration. With respect to international collaboration, the United States and United Kingdom are the dominant research partners across the region followed by Germany and France.ConclusionThe increase in research activity in NCDs across the MENA region countries during the time period of analysis may signal both an increasing focus on NCDs which reflects general global trends, and greater investment in research in some countries. However, there are several risks to the sustainability of these improvements that have been identified in particular countries within the region. For example, a lack of suitably trained researchers, low political commitment and poor financial support, and minimal international collaboration which is essential for wider global impact.

This paper assesses the extent to which patent renewal data is associated with government funding in a university context by focusing on the relationship between the funded patentees and renewal decisions of their patents. The aim of this paper is to show whether receiving funding from government contributes to high-value patents as measured by the patent renewal decisions made by their owners. Our observations of academic nanotechnology patents in Canada discovered a positive relationship between funded researchers and the rate of patent renewal after 4 years. Further analysis is also undertaken into the relative impact on patent renewal after 8 years and 12 years. Our results suggest that the length of patent renewal in numbers of years can be related to levels of government funding received by their inventors.

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.

It is often argued that female researchers publish on average less than male researchers do, but male and female authored papers have an equal impact. In this paper we try to better understand this phenomenon by (i) comparing the share of male and female researchers within different productivity classes, and (ii) by comparing productivity whereas controlling for a series of relevant covariates. The study is based on a disambiguated Swedish author dataset, consisting of 47,000 researchers and their WoS-publications during the period of 2008-2011 with citations until 2015. As the analysis shows, in order to have impact quantity does make a difference for male and female researchers alike—but women are vastly underrepresented in the group of most productive researchers. We discuss and test several possible explanations of this finding, using a data on personal characteristics from several Swedish universities. Gender differences in age, authorship position, and academic rank do explain quite a part of the productivity differences. QC 20170926

While problems with cell line misidentification have been known for decades, an unknown number of published papers remains in circulation reporting on the wrong cells without warning or correction. Here we attempt to make a conservative estimate of this 'contaminated' literature. We found 32,755 articles reporting on research with misidentified cells, in turn cited by an estimated half a million other papers. The contamination of the literature is not decreasing over time and is anything but restricted to countries in the periphery of global science. The decades-old and often contentious attempts to stop misidentification of cell lines have proven to be insufficient. The contamination of the literature calls for a fair and reasonable notification system, warning users and readers to interpret these papers with appropriate care.

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., Citation metrics are very influential and their normalization is a contentious issue. Each normalization approach has advantages and disadvantages that need to be understood for proper use of these metrics.

We used a retrospective cohort study to measure the impact of caring for children on female Australian researchers. Our aim was to see whether caring for children was associated with reduced outputs and collaboration. Women were randomly selected for inclusion if they published a first author paper in one of three Australian journals during 2007 to 2015, women who did not publish during this time were not included. One-hundred and sixty women were approached and 95 (59%) completed a survey on their history of caring for children. Two key outcomes were the women’s publication and citation counts, which were accessed from Scopus. We also examined the number of authors, affiliations and countries on their published papers, as a reduction in these numbers could indicate an impaired ability to collaborate. We examined the probability of being first or last author as a measure of esteem. There was a small increase in publication counts after the first child that was reversed after the second child. Average citations counts declined after children, particularly after the second child. There was some evidence of a reduced collaboration with overseas collaborators after the first child. The probability of being the last author increased after the second child. Three women were identified as statistically influential and all three had children and were in the top 10% of overall publications and citations. After removing these women the estimated changes in outcomes were noticeably different for most of the outcomes. The repeated presence of statistically influential women shows that it may be impossible to find an “average impact” of caring for children when considering research output. Adjustments may need to be made individually, with women explaining how caring for children has altered their career.

In recent decades, we have observed an intensification of science, technology and innovation activities in Brazil. The increase in production of scientific papers indexed in international databases, however, has not been accompanied by an equivalent increase in the impact of publications. This paper presents a methodology for analyzing production and the impact of certain research areas in Brazil related to two aspects: the origin of the journals (national or foreign) and international collaboration. These two variables were selected for being of particular importance in understanding the context of scientific production and communication in countries with emerging economies. The sample consisted of papers written by Brazilian researchers in 19 subfields of knowledge published from 2002 to 2011, totaling 85,082 papers. To calculate the impact, we adopted a normalized indicator called the relative subfield citedness (Rw) using a window of 5 years to obtain measurements evaluated in 2 different years: 2007 and 2012. The data on papers and citations were collected from the Web of Science database. From the results, we note that most of the subfields have presented, from one quinquennium to another, improved performance in the world production rankings. Regarding publication in national and foreign journals, we observed a trend in the distribution maintenance of production of the subfields based on the origin of the journal. Specifically, for impact, we identified a lower Rw pattern for Brazilian papers when they were published in national journals in all subfields. When Brazilian products are published in foreign journals, we observed a higher impact for those papers, even surpassing the average global impact in some subfields. For international collaboration, we analyzed the percentage of participation of foreign researchers and the connection between collaboration and the impact of papers, especially emphasizing the distinction of hyperauthorship papers in terms of production and impact.

Debates over the pros and cons of a "publish or perish" philosophy have inflamed academia for at least half a century. Growing concerns, in particular, are expressed for policies that reward "quantity" at the expense of "quality," because these might prompt scientists to unduly multiply their publications by fractioning ("salami slicing"), duplicating, rushing, simplifying, or even fabricating their results. To assess the reasonableness of these concerns, we analyzed publication patterns of over 40,000 researchers that, between the years 1900 and 2013, have published two or more papers within 15 years, in any of the disciplines covered by the Web of Science. The total number of papers published by researchers during their early career period (first fifteen years) has increased in recent decades, but so has their average number of co-authors. If we take the latter factor into account, by measuring productivity fractionally or by only counting papers published as first author, we observe no increase in productivity throughout the century. Even after the 1980s, adjusted productivity has not increased for most disciplines and countries. These results are robust to methodological choices and are actually conservative with respect to the hypothesis that publication rates are growing. Therefore, the widespread belief that pressures to publish are causing the scientific literature to be flooded with salami-sliced, trivial, incomplete, duplicated, plagiarized and false results is likely to be incorrect or at least exaggerated.

Articles from open access and local journals are important resources for research in Korea and the usage trends of these articles are important indicators for the assessment of the current research practice. We analyzed an institutional collection of published papers from 1998 to 2014 authored by researchers from Seoul National University, and their references from papers published between 1998 and 2011. The published papers were collected from Web of Science or Scopus and were analyzed according to the proportion of articles from open access journals. Their cited references from published papers in Web of Science were analyzed according to the proportion of local (South Korean) or open access journals. The proportion of open access papers was relatively stable until 2006 (2.5 ~ 5.2% in Web of Science and 2.7 ~ 4.2% in Scopus), but then increased to 15.9% (Web of Science) or 18.5% (Scopus) in 2014. We analyzed 2,750,485 cited references from 52,295 published papers. We found that the overall proportion of cited articles from local journals was 1.8% and that for open access journals was 3.0%. Citations of open access articles have increased since 2006 to 4.1% in 2011, although the increase in open access article citations was less than for open access publications. The proportion of citations from local journals was even lower. We think that the publishing / citing mismatch is a term to describe this difference, which is an issue at Seoul National University, where the number of published papers at open access or local journals is increasing but the number of citations is not. The cause of this discrepancy is multi-factorial but the governmental / institutional policies, social / cultural issues and authors' citing behaviors will explain the mismatch. However, additional measures are also necessary, such as the development of an institutional citation database and improved search capabilities with respect to local and open access documents.

The exposure to Non-Ionizing-Electromagnetic Fields (NI-EMFs) is often indicated as a cofactor responsible for the fertility reduction, which has been described in recent years. Despite the great interest in this topic and the research effort in exploring it, to date, there are no reliable data. Therefore, we carried out a scientometric analysis of the scientific literature published in peer reviewed Journals concerning this topic to better understand the reasons of this partial failure. To this aim, we identified and analysed 104 papers, published in last 26 years in peer-reviewed Journals, present in ISI Web of Knowledge Core Collection. Then, we analysed the impact of the Journals in which the papers were published as well as that of the single papers, the paper citation dynamics, the keywords citation busts, the geographical localization of citations and the co-authorship dynamics of the Authors. As a result, we found that different animal models (rodent, rabbit, guinea pig, and swine) and different experimental approaches (epidemiological vs. experimental studies) have the same impact, highlighting the lack of universally adopted standard in research activity. The analysis of the temporal trend in keywords and the high differences in citations between the different countries (also in those belonging to the same geographical and socio-economical area) pointed out the difficulties in approaching this branch of study. Lastly, it was evident that the Authors did not behave as a connected community, but as unconnected clusters of very small size. In conclusion, based on the results of our analysis, we think that important efforts must be undertaken to adopt more standardized models and to improve the research quality and the information exchange within the scientific community, with the aim of improving the reliability and usefulness of the results of research regarding the effect of NI-EMFs on fertility.

Background The European & Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership (EDCTP) is a partnership of European and sub-Saharan African countries that aims to accelerate the development of medical interventions against poverty-related diseases (PRDs). A bibliometric analysis was conducted to 1) measure research output from European and African researchers on PRDs, 2) describe collaboration patterns, and 3) assess the citation impact of clinical research funded by EDCTP. Methodology/Principal Findings Disease-specific research publications were identified in Thomson Reuters Web of Science using search terms in titles, abstracts and keywords. Publication data, including citation counts, were extracted for 2003–2011. Analyses including output, share of global papers, normalised citation impact (NCI), and geographical distribution are presented. Data are presented as five-year moving averages. European EDCTP member countries accounted for ~33% of global research output in PRDs and sub-Saharan African countries for ~10% (2007–2011). Both regions contributed more to the global research output in malaria (43.4% and 22.2%, respectively). The overall number of PRD papers from sub-Saharan Africa increased markedly (>47%) since 2003, particularly for HIV/AIDS (102%) and tuberculosis (TB) (81%), and principally involving Southern and East Africa. For 2007–2011, European and sub-Saharan African research collaboration on PRDs was highly cited compared with the world average (NCI in brackets): HIV/AIDS 1.62 (NCI: 1.16), TB 2.11 (NCI: 1.06), malaria 1.81 (NCI: 1.22), and neglected infectious diseases 1.34 (NCI: 0.97). The NCI of EDCTP-funded papers for 2003–2011 was exceptionally high for HIV/AIDS (3.24), TB (4.08) and HIV/TB co-infection (5.10) compared with global research benchmarks (1.14, 1.05 and 1.35, respectively). Conclusions The volume and citation impact of papers from sub-Saharan Africa has increased since 2003, as has collaborative research between Europe and sub-Saharan Africa. >90% of publications from EDCTP-funded research were published in high-impact journals and are highly cited. These findings corroborate the benefit of collaborative research on PRDs., Author Summary The European & Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership (EDCTP) was created in 2003 as a European response to the global health crisis caused by the three main poverty-related diseases (PRDs) of HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria. EDCTP funds research focusing on clinical trials for diagnosing, preventing and treating these diseases. We conducted a bibliometric analysis to 1) measure research output and citation impact from European and African researchers working on PRDs, 2) describe collaboration patterns, and 3) assess the citation impact of research funded by EDCTP. Citation analysis is a commonly used bibliometric tool to analyse scientific literature. Overall, the volume and citation impact of papers from sub-Saharan Africa has increased since 2003, as has collaborative research between Europe and sub-Saharan Africa. Papers arising from collaborative research had a higher citation impact than non-collaborative research and >90% of publications from EDCTP-funded research projects were published in high-impact journals. These results suggest that research on PRDs in sub-Saharan Africa is growing and that the EDCTP partnership contributes to high-impact, collaborative research published in high-impact journals. By providing research funds and supporting activities to strengthen the research environment, the partnership contributes to sub-Saharan African researchers taking the lead in PRD research.

The number of citations that papers receive has become significant in measuring researchers' scientific productivity, and such measurements are important when one seeks career opportunities and research funding. Skewed citation practices can thus have profound effects on academic careers. We investigated (i) how frequently authors misinterpret original information and (ii) how frequently authors inappropriately cite reviews instead of the articles upon which the reviews are based. To reach this aim, we carried a survey of ecology journals indexed in the Web of Science and assessed the appropriateness of citations of review papers. Reviews were significantly more often cited than regular articles. In addition, 22% of citations were inaccurate, and another 15% unfairly gave credit to the review authors for other scientists' ideas. These practices should be stopped, mainly through more open discussion among mentors, researchers and students.

The authors would like to thank Rodrigo Costas and Antonio Callaba de Roa for their helpful comments in previous version of this paper as well as the two anonymous reviewers for the constructive comments. We would also like to thank Bryan J. Robinson for revising the text. Nicolas Robinson-García is currently supported with a FPU grant from the Spanish government, Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad., Background: The peer review system has been traditionally challenged due to its many limitations especially for allocating funding. Bibliometric indicators may well present themselves as a complement. Objective: We analyze the relationship between peers' ratings and bibliometric indicators for Spanish researchers in the 2007 National R&D Plan for 23 research fields. Methods and materials: We analyze peers' ratings for 2333 applications. We also gathered principal investigators' research output and impact and studied the differences between accepted and rejected applications. We used the Web of Science database and focused on the 2002-2006 period. First, we analyzed the distribution of granted and rejected proposals considering a given set of bibliometric indicators to test if there are significant differences. Then, we applied a multiple logistic regression analysis to determine if bibliometric indicators can explain by themselves the concession of grant proposals. Results: 63.4% of the applications were funded. Bibliometric indicators for accepted proposals showed a better previous performance than for those rejected; however the correlation between peer review and bibliometric indicators is very heterogeneous among most areas. The logistic regression analysis showed that the main bibliometric indicators that explain the granting of research proposals in most cases are the output (number of published articles) and the number of papers published in journals that belong to the first quartile ranking of the Journal Citations Report. Discussion: Bibliometric indicators predict the concession of grant proposals at least as well as peer ratings. Social Sciences and Education are the only areas where no relation was found, although this may be due to the limitations of the Web of Science's coverage. These findings encourage the use of bibliometric indicators as a complement to peer review in most of the analyzed areas

On 5th December 2012, a scientific article reviewing a change in the feeding behaviour of the European catfish, one of the largest freshwater fish, was published in the American scientific journal, PLOS ONE, an open access journal, which also allows the mass publication of pictures and videos. Within a few days following the publication of this article, it was relayed by numerous web sites and generated a media craze. In this paper, we analyse the circulation of this scientific information in the sphere of Web-based media during the two months following its publication, by revealing the citation mechanisms of the original article and the logic of the Internet users participating in its diffusion. In addition, since the circulation of its informational content travelled beyond linguistic and geographical boundaries, we chose to compare the citation modalities and intertextual relationships of documents in the three countries where the article spread the most widely, namely: France, the United States and Great Britain. Even though our study shows that the media circulation of scientific papers operates in a traditional way, the intertextual analysis underlines the grand variety of participants (such as journalists, non-scientists, fishermen, technology enthusiasts and Internet users) involved in the diffusion of this information, each of them mobilizing different intertextual strategies, according to their various targets. They all transformed, reformulated and appropriated the scientific information according to their own, unique interests. This study also emphasizes the importance of journalistic websites as opinion relays. They were the first diffusers involved in spreading the information but this role was rarely acknowledged by the Internet users - through citations, for example. In contrast, we observed that amateurs' communities (communities of practices and communities of interest of fishermen or of buzz fans), which only became involved in a second temporal phase of the spreading, preferred to build up their credibility through citations of the original article. Finally, this research helps to rethink the mechanisms of the circulation of scientific information in the Web-based media, highlighting both the variety and the inventiveness of the interactions between the academic and public spheres.

Many fields face an increasing prevalence of multi-authorship, and this poses challenges in assessing citation metrics. Here, we explore multiple citation indicators that address total impact (number of citations, Hirsch H index [H]), co-authorship adjustment (Schreiber Hm index [Hm]), and author order (total citations to papers as single; single or first; or single, first, or last author). We demonstrate the correlation patterns between these indicators across 84,116 scientists (those among the top 30,000 for impact in a single year [2013] in at least one of these indicators) and separately across 12 scientific fields. Correlation patterns vary across these 12 fields. In physics, total citations are highly negatively correlated with indicators of co-authorship adjustment and of author order, while in other sciences the negative correlation is seen only for total citation impact and citations to papers as single author. We propose a composite score that sums standardized values of these six log-transformed indicators. Of the 1,000 top-ranked scientists with the composite score, only 322 are in the top 1,000 based on total citations. Many Nobel laureates and other extremely influential scientists rank among the top-1,000 with the composite indicator, but would rank much lower based on total citations. Conversely, many of the top 1,000 authors on total citations have had no single/first/last-authored cited paper. More Nobel laureates of 2011–2015 are among the top authors when authors are ranked by the composite score than by total citations, H index, or Hm index; 40/47 of these laureates are among the top 30,000 by at least one of the six indicators. We also explore the sensitivity of indicators to self-citation and alphabetic ordering of authors in papers across different scientific fields. Multiple indicators and their composite may give a more comprehensive picture of impact, although no citation indicator, single or composite, can be expected to select all the best scientists., Citation indicators addressing total impact, co-authorship, and author positions offer complementary insights about impact. This article shows that a composite score including six citation indicators identifies extremely influential scientists better than single indicators., Author Summary Multiple citation indicators are used in science and scientific evaluation. With an increasing proportion of papers co-authored by many researchers, it is important to account for the relative contributions of different co-authors. We explored multiple citation indicators that address total impact, co-authorship adjustment, and author order (in particular, single, first, or last position authorships, since these positions suggest pivotal contributions to the work). We evaluated the top 30,000 scientists in 2013 based on each of six citation indicators (84,116 total scientists assessed) and also developed a composite score that combines the six indicators. Different scientists populated the top ranks when different indicators were used. Many Nobel laureates and other influential scientists rank among the top 1,000 with the composite indicator, but rank much lower based on total citations. Conversely, many of the top 1,000 authors on total citations had no single/first/last-authored cited paper. More Nobel laureates are among the top authors when authors are ranked by the composite score than by single indicators. Multiple indicators and their composite give a more comprehensive picture of impact, although no method can pick all the best scientists.

The presence of web-based communities is a distinctive signature of Web 2.0. The web-based feature means that information propagation within each community is highly facilitated, promoting complex collective dynamics in view of information exchange. In this work, we focus on a community of scientists and study, in particular, how the awareness of a scientific paper is spread. Our work is based on the web usage statistics obtained from the PLoS Article Level Metrics dataset compiled by PLoS. The cumulative number of HTML views was found to follow a long tail distribution which is reasonably well-fitted by a lognormal one. We modeled the diffusion of information by a random multiplicative process, and thus extracted the rates of information spread at different stages after the publication of a paper. We found that the spread of information displays two distinct decay regimes: a rapid downfall in the first month after publication, and a gradual power law decay afterwards. We identified these two regimes with two distinct driving processes: a short-term behavior driven by the fame of a paper, and a long-term behavior consistent with citation statistics. The patterns of information spread were found to be remarkably similar in data from different journals, but there are intrinsic differences for different types of web usage (HTML views and PDF downloads versus XML). These similarities and differences shed light on the theoretical understanding of different complex systems, as well as a better design of the corresponding web applications that is of high potential marketing impact.

Assessing an individual's research impact on the basis of a transparent algorithm is an important task for evaluation and comparison purposes. Besides simple but also inaccurate indices such as counting the mere number of publications or the accumulation of overall citations, and highly complex but also overwhelming full-range publication lists in their raw format, Hirsch (2005) introduced a single figure cleverly combining different approaches. The so-called h-index has undoubtedly become the standard in scientometrics of individuals' research impact (note: in the present paper I will always use the term “research impact” to describe the research performance as the logic of the paper is based on the h-index, which quantifies the specific “impact” of, e.g., researchers, but also because the genuine meaning of impact refers to quality as well). As the h-index reflects the number h of papers a researcher has published with at least h citations, the index is inherently positively biased towards senior level researchers. This might sometimes be problematic when predictive tools are needed for assessing young scientists' potential, especially when recruiting early career positions or equipping young scientists' labs. To be compatible with the standard h-index, the proposed index integrates the scientist's research age (Carbon_h-factor) into the h-index, thus reporting the average gain of h-index per year. Comprehensive calculations of the Carbon_h-factor were made for a broad variety of four research-disciplines (economics, neuroscience, physics and psychology) and for researchers performing on three high levels of research impact (substantial, outstanding and epochal) with ten researchers per category. For all research areas and output levels we obtained linear developments of the h-index demonstrating the validity of predicting one's later impact in terms of research impact already at an early stage of their career with the Carbon_h-factor being approx. 0.4, 0.8, and 1.5 for substantial, outstanding and epochal researchers, respectively.

Background: Citation data can be used to evaluate the editorial policies and procedures of scientific journals. Here we investigate citation counts for the three different publication tracks of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS). This analysis explores the consequences of differences in editor and referee selection, while controlling for the prestige of the journal in which the papers appear. Methodology/Principal Findings: We find that papers authored and ‘‘Contributed’’ by NAS members (Track III) are on average cited less often than papers that are ‘‘Communicated’’ for others by NAS members (Track I) or submitted directly via the standard peer review process (Track II). However, we also find that the variance in the citation count of Contributed papers, and to a lesser extent Communicated papers, is larger than for direct submissions. Therefore when examining the 10% most-cited papers from each track, Contributed papers receive the most citations, followed by Communicated papers, while Direct submissions receive the least citations. Conclusion/Significance: Our findings suggest that PNAS ‘‘Contributed’’ papers, in which NAS–member authors select their own reviewers, balance an overall lower impact with an increased probability of publishing exceptional papers. This analysis demonstrates that different editorial procedures are associated with different levels of impact, even within the same prominent journal, and raises interesting questions about the most appropriate metrics for judging an editorial policy’s success.

Background The rise of electronic publishing [1], preprint archives, blogs, and wikis is raising concerns among publishers, editors, and scientists about the present day relevance of academic journals and traditional peer review [2]. These concerns are especially fuelled by the ability of search engines to automatically identify and sort information [1]. It appears that academic journals can only remain relevant if acceptance of research for publication within a journal allows readers to infer immediate, reliable information on the value of that research. Methodology/Principal Findings Here, we systematically evaluate the effectiveness of journals, through the work of editors and reviewers, at evaluating unpublished research. We find that the distribution of the number of citations to a paper published in a given journal in a specific year converges to a steady state after a journal-specific transient time, and demonstrate that in the steady state the logarithm of the number of citations has a journal-specific typical value. We then develop a model for the asymptotic number of citations accrued by papers published in a journal that closely matches the data. Conclusions/Significance Our model enables us to quantify both the typical impact and the range of impacts of papers published in a journal. Finally, we propose a journal-ranking scheme that maximizes the efficiency of locating high impact research.

The average age at which U.S. researchers receive their first grant from NIH has increased from 34.3 in 1970, to 41.7 in 2004. These data raise the crucial question of the effects of aging on the scientific productivity and impact of researchers. Drawing on a sizeable sample of 6,388 university professors in Quebec who have published at least one paper between 2000 and 2007, our results identify two turning points in the professors' careers. A first turning point is visible at age 40 years, where researchers start to rely on older literature and where their productivity increases at a slower pace--after having increased sharply since the beginning of their career. A second turning point can be seen around age 50, when researchers are the most productive whereas their average scientific impact is at its lowest. Our results also show that older professors publish fewer first-authored papers and move closer to the end of the list of co-authors. Although average scientific impact per paper decreases linearly until about age 50, the average number of papers in highly cited journals and among highly cited papers rises continuously until retirement. Our results show clearly that productivity and impact are not a simple and declining function of age and that we must take into account the collaborative aspects of scientific research. Science is a collective endeavor and, as our data shows, researchers of all ages play a significant role in its dynamic.

Reviewer assignment is critical to peer review systems, such as peer-reviewed research conferences or peer-reviewed funding applications, and its effectiveness is a deep concern of all academics. However, there are some problems in existing peer review systems during reviewer assignment. For example, some of the reviewers are much more stringent than others, leading to an unfair final decision, i.e., some submissions (i.e., papers or applications) with better quality are rejected. In this paper, we propose a context-aware reviewer assignment for trust enhanced peer review. More specifically, in our approach, we first consider the research area specific expertise of reviewers, and the institution relevance and co-authorship between reviewers and authors, so that reviewers with the right expertise are assigned to the corresponding submissions without potential conflict of interest. In addition, we propose a novel cross-assignment paradigm, and reviewers are cross-assigned in order to avoid assigning a group of stringent reviewers or a group of lenient reviewers to the same submission. More importantly, on top of them, we propose an academic CONtext-aware expertise relevanCe oriEnted Reviewer cross-assignmenT approach (CONCERT), which aims to effectively estimate the "true" ratings of submissions based on the ratings from all reviewers, even though no prior knowledge exists about the distribution of stringent reviewers and lenient reviewers. The experiments illustrate that compared with existing approaches, our proposed CONCERT approach can less likely assign more than one stringent reviewers or lenient reviewers to a submission simultaneously and significantly reduce the influence of ratings from stringent reviewers and lenient reviewers, leading to trust enhanced peer review and selection, no matter what kind of distributions of stringent reviewers and lenient reviewers are.

The consolidation of the scientific publishing industry has been the topic of much debate within and outside the scientific community, especially in relation to major publishers’ high profit margins. However, the share of scientific output published in the journals of these major publishers, as well as its evolution over time and across various disciplines, has not yet been analyzed. This paper provides such analysis, based on 45 million documents indexed in the Web of Science over the period 1973-2013. It shows that in both natural and medical sciences (NMS) and social sciences and humanities (SSH), Reed-Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Springer, and Taylor & Francis increased their share of the published output, especially since the advent of the digital era (mid-1990s). Combined, the top five most prolific publishers account for more than 50% of all papers published in 2013. Disciplines of the social sciences have the highest level of concentration (70% of papers from the top five publishers), while the humanities have remained relatively independent (20% from top five publishers). NMS disciplines are in between, mainly because of the strength of their scientific societies, such as the ACS in chemistry or APS in physics. The paper also examines the migration of journals between small and big publishing houses and explores the effect of publisher change on citation impact. It concludes with a discussion on the economics of scholarly publishing.

I wish to comment on a paper recently published in the Journal of Neuroscience [1] and relate this paper to one previously published in PLOS Computational Biology [2]. In [1] and [2] among other results, a power law relationship was discovered in a measure of magnetoencephalography (MEG) intra-areal synchronization: the distribution of phase-locking intervals (PLI). However, in [1] the authors also show that the same PLI power law measure cannot distinguish between human MEG and empty MEG scanner data, suggesting that the measure is vulnerable to artefact. This is important because the first description of the PLI power law methodology, as well as its application to MEG and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) data, was published in PLOS Computational Biology [2]. The senior author of [2] is also an author of [1]. The results obtained with the PLI methodology published in [2] were presented as evidence for broadband criticality of human brain network synchronization because the PLI method (which applies a threshold to MEG/fMRI data and returns a power law) will also return a power law distribution for PLIs when applied to a model system of Kuramoto oscillators tuned to a critical phase transition. However, it should be noted in this regard that a recent modelling study indicates that power laws also emerge when PLI is applied to noncritical Kuramoto oscillators, and caution is needed when interpreting power laws derived from time series data passed through a threshold [3]. The paper published in PLOS Computational Biology [2] has received multiple citations, and the PLI methodology has been further applied to human neurophysiological data in other studies. From its use, claims have been made about changes in broadband criticality during disease states, e.g., epilepsy [4]. I am concerned that the results presented in [1] indicate that the methodology described in [2] may be unsound and therefore should not be used for inferring criticality of human brain network synchronisation. The presentation of the empty MEG scanner results in [1] is not sufficiently explicit in this sense, and it should have been made much clearer that the influential PLI power law methodology presented in [2] might be problematic. Science of course moves forward through a process of exploration and correction, and the initial idea presented in PLOS Computational Biology [2] was exciting and innovative; however, the authors should reconsider the interpretation of their findings in light of the empty MEG scanner data. I feel it is therefore important to bring these papers and their conflicting results to the attention of the readers of PLOS Computational Biology and I would ask that the authors of [1,2] clarify the discrepancy in between their data sets and publish an erratum in PLOS Computational Biology if a conflict exists.

Scholarly collaborations across disparate scientific disciplines are challenging. Collaborators are likely to have their offices in another building, attend different conferences, and publish in other venues; they might speak a different scientific language and value an alien scientific culture. This paper presents a detailed analysis of success and failure of interdisciplinary papers--as manifested in the citations they receive. For 9.2 million interdisciplinary research papers published between 2000 and 2012 we show that the majority (69.9%) of co-cited interdisciplinary pairs are "win-win" relationships, i.e., papers that cite them have higher citation impact and there are as few as 3.3% "lose-lose" relationships. Papers citing references from subdisciplines positioned far apart (in the conceptual space of the UCSD map of science) attract the highest relative citation counts. The findings support the assumption that interdisciplinary research is more successful and leads to results greater than the sum of its disciplinary parts.

Last summer, the Student Council of the International Society for Computational Biology prompted an Editorial, “Ten Simple Rules for Getting Published” [1]. The interest in that piece (it has been downloaded 14,880 times thus far) prompted “Ten Simple Rules for Writing a Grant” [2]. With this third contribution, the “Ten Rules” series would seem to be established, and more rules for different audiences are in the making. Ten Simple Rules for Reviewers is based upon our years of experience as reviewers and as managers of the review process. Suggestions also came from PLoS staff and Editors and our research groups, the latter being new and fresh to the process of reviewing. The rules for getting articles published included advice on becoming a reviewer early in your career. If you followed that advice, by working through your mentors who will ask you to review, you will then hopefully find these Ten Rules for Reviewers helpful. There is no magic formula for what constitutes a good or a bad paper—the majority of papers fall in between—so what do you look for as a reviewer? We would suggest, above all else, you are looking for what the journal you are reviewing for prides itself on. Scientific novelty—there is just too much “me-too” in scientific papers—is often the prerequisite, but not always. There is certainly a place for papers that, for example, support existing hypotheses, or provide a new or modified interpretation of an existing finding. After journal scope, it comes down to a well-presented argument and everything else described in “Ten Simple Rules for Getting Published” [1]. Once you know what to look for in a paper, the following simple reviewer guidelines we hope will be useful. Certainly (as with all PLoS Computational Biology material) we invite readers to use the PLoS eLetters feature to suggest their own rules and comments on this important subject.

PLoS Biology publishes today a research article by Gunther Eysenbach that is not about biology. It is about citations. It provides robust evidence that open-access articles (OA articles) are more immediately recognized and cited than non-OA articles. As such, it adds objective support to the belief we have always held that open-access publication speeds up scientific dialog between researchers and, consequently, should be extended to the whole scientific literature as quickly as possible. It is therefore fitting that we publish such a paper. We have long argued that papers freely available in a journal will be more often read and cited than those behind a subscription barrier. However, solid evidence to support or refute such a claim has been surprisingly hard to find. Since most open-access journals are new, comparisons of the effects of open access with established subscription-based journals are easily confounded by age and reputation. In the current study, Eysenbach compared citations compiled by Thomson Scientific (formerly Thomson ISI) to individual articles published between June 2004 and December 2004 in the same journal—namely, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), which announced its open-access option for authors on June 8 of that year, with an associated publication charge of US$1,000. Non-OA articles in PNAS are subject to a six-month “toll-access” delay before the article becomes publicly available. The results of this natural experiment are clear: in the 4 to 16 months following publication, OA articles gained a significant citation advantage over non-OA articles during the same period. They are twice as likely to be cited 4 to 10 months after publication and almost three times as likely between 10 and 16 months. Given that PNAS delays open access for only six months, the disparity between OA and non-OA articles in journals where the delay is longer or where articles remain “toll-access” is likely to be even greater. Eysenbach also looked at the impact of self-archiving non-OA articles. One route to open access, it is argued, is for authors to archive their published articles on their own Web sites or in institutional repositories, although this does not include an explicit business model to cover the cost of peer-review and publishing. The analysis revealed that self-archived articles are also cited less often than OA articles from the same journal. Yes, you're right; we do have a strong and vested interest in publishing results that so obviously endorse our existence. Moreover, the author of the article is also an editor of an open-access journal. But sometimes a potential conflict of interest can actually help to ensure rigor. In this case, we have an acute interest in ensuring that the article meets the same, if not higher, standards as any other research article we publish. Not only must the conclusions provide a significant advance for the field, but the study must be technically sound, with appropriate evidence to support those conclusions. As with all our research articles, we consulted throughout the evaluation process with an academic editor with appropriate expertise—in this case, Carol Tenopir, professor of information sciences at the University of Tennessee (Knoxville, Tennessee, United States). The article was reviewed by two experts in bibliometric analyses and information science, and an experienced research biologist with expertise in statistics. They all enthusiastically supported publication, although one understandably questioned the suitability of PLoS Biology as the publication venue. We have no intention of making PLoS Biology a regular home for bibliometric studies (even when about open access). What makes this study worth publishing in PLoS Biology is not only the relative strength of evidence supporting the claim but also the extent to which many (especially other publishers) have anticipated such an analysis. As far as we are aware, no other study has compared OA and non-OA articles from the same journal and controlled for so many potentially confounding factors. Eysenbach's multivariate analysis took into account the number of days since publication, number of authors, article type, country of the corresponding author, funding type, subject area, submission track ( PNAS has three different ways that authors can submit a paper), and the previous citation record of the first and last authors. He even administered a supplementary questionnaire to assess whether authors choosing the OA option in PNAS chose to do so for only their most important research (they didn't). As Ian Rowlands from the Centre for Publishing at University College London—and one of the reviewers who agreed to be identified in this article—said at the start of his review: “Many (most) of the papers and presentations I have read/seen on this topic have completely failed to address the kinds of confounding issues that are so convincingly tackled here. For that reason alone, this paper deserves to be published and alerted to the widest possible audience.” In addition to providing evidence for the immediate advantage of open access, Eysenbach's analysis also highlights several potential challenges to its long-term future. Although a limited dataset, the citation history of the first and last authors differed between those who chose the open-access option and those who did not. In the group that chose open access, last authors tended to have a “stronger” previous citation record, whereas this situation was reversed among the group that declined the open-access option—here, it was the first authors who tended to be stronger. This may reflect varying attitudes of authors at different stages of their career, a stronger influence from the leader of a particular group, or an age- or career-related difference in the ability to pay the publication charge (e.g., [ 1]). Indeed, access to appropriate funds may also be a reason why a lower proportion of authors from European countries tended to choose the open-access option. In many of these countries, funds for page charges—and, by extension, open-access publication fees—are often not included within research grants. PNAS was one of the first journals to offer an open-access option to its authors. However, such hybrid journals are increasing: Blackwell, Springer, and Oxford University Press now provide this option as well. This means that similar experiments can be replicated. Moreover, although the evidence from the current analysis argues most strongly for a time advantage in citation for OA articles, a study over longer periods will reveal whether this translates into a sustained increase in the number of citations. In the meantime, open-access advocates should be emboldened by tangible evidence for what has seemed obvious all along.