Search

Reading primary research literature is an essential skill for all scientists and students on science degree programmes, however little is known about how researchers at different career stages interact with and interpret scientific papers. To explore this, we conducted a survey of 260 undergraduate students and researchers in Biological Sciences at a research intensive UK university. Responses to Likert scale questions demonstrated increases in confidence and skill with reading the literature between individuals at each career stage, including between postdoctoral researchers and faculty academics. The survey indicated that individuals at different career stages valued different sections of scientific papers, and skill in reading the results section develops slowly over the course of an academic career. Inexperienced readers found the methods and results sections of research papers the most difficult to read, and undervalued the importance of the results section and critical interpretation of data. These data highlight a need for structured support with reading scientific literature at multiple career stages, and for senior academics to be aware that junior colleagues may prioritise their reading differently. We propose a model for the development of literature processing skills, and consider the need for training strategies to help inexperienced readers engage with primary literature, and therefore develop important skills that underpin scientific careers. We also encourage researchers to be mindful of language used when writing papers, and to be more inclusive of diverse audiences when disseminating their work. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents several rules for restructuring papers to avoid losing readers. Authors are instructed to focus their papers on a central contribution and to concentrate on the context-content-conclusion (C-C-C) scheme. They are also advised to optimize a paper's logical flow by avoiding zig-zag and using parallelism and to include complete story in the abstract.

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]

Do highly productive researchers have significantly higher probability to produce top cited papers? Or do high productive researchers mainly produce a sea of irrelevant papers—in other words do we find a diminishing marginal result from productivity? The answer on these questions is important, as it may help to answer the question of whether the increased competition and increased use of indicators for research evaluation and accountability focus has perverse effects or not. We use a Swedish author disambiguated dataset consisting of 48.000 researchers and their WoS-publications during the period of 2008–2011 with citations until 2014 to investigate the relation between productivity and production of highly cited papers. As the analysis shows, quantity does make a difference. [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]

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]

When young children do not receive adequate amounts of the micronutrient iodine in their diet, their growth and cognitive development can be impaired. Nearly every country in the world has programs in place to track iodine intake and provide supplemental iodine if needed, usually in the form of fortified salt. The iodine nutrition status of a population can be tracked by monitoring iodine levels in urine samples to see if the median value falls in the range of 100–300 micrograms of iodine per liter of urine (μg I/L), which indicates adequate or more than adequate iodine nutrition. Many low and middle-income countries (LMIC) do not have a laboratory capable of carrying out this challenging assay, so samples must be sent out for assay in external labs, which is expensive and time-consuming. In most LMIC, population iodine surveys are carried out every 5–10 years, which limits the utility of the data for program monitoring and evaluation. To solve this problem, we developed a field-friendly paper test card that uses the Sandell-Kolthoff reaction to measure urinary iodine levels. A blind internal validation study showed that 93% of samples (n = 60) of iodide in an artificial urine matrix were categorized correctly by visual analysis as deficient, adequate, or excessive for levels set forth by the World Health Organization. Quantitative measurements based on computer image analysis had an error of 40 ± 20 μg I/L (n = 35 for samples in the calibration range) and these results categorized 88% of the samples (n = 60) correctly. We employed lifecycle analysis principles to address the known toxicity of arsenic, which is an obligatory reagent in the Sandell-Kolthoff reaction. Disposal of the cards in a landfill (their most likely destination after use) could let arsenic leach into groundwater; toxicity characteristic leaching procedure (TCLP) tests showed that the level of arsenic leached from the cards was 28.78 ppm, which is above the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s limit of 5 parts per million for solid waste. We integrated a remediation module into the card. This module contains oxone, to oxidize As(III) to As(V) oxyacids, and the iron oxide goethite. TCLP testing showed that the leachable amount of arsenic was reduced by at least 97.6%—from 28.8 ppm to lower than 0.7 ± 0.7 ppm (n = 20). This upstream intervention rendered the test card suitable for landfilling while retaining its functionality to perform a critical public health evaluation. [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]

Background: Despite malaria, malnutrition and anaemia being major public-health challenges in Cameroon, very little has been reported on the interaction between these interconnected health determinants. This study therefore sought to investigate the relationship between malaria, anaemia, nutritional and socio-economic status amongst under—ten children living in six localities within two health districts in the North Region of Cameroon. Methods: Accordingly, a cross- sectional survey was conducted during the peak malaria season in November 2014, in Pitoa and Mayo-Oulo Health Districts. Three hundred and sixty eight children aged 6months—10 years were enrolled. Structured questionnaires were used to assess socio-economic status. Anthropometric indices were taken using standard methods and nutritional status assessed by calculating Height for Age (HA), Weight for Age (WA) and Weight for Height (WH) z-scores to determine stunting, underweight and wasting respectively. Finger-prick blood samples were used to prepare thin and thick blood smears for microscopy. Whole blood was collected to determine the PCV and blood spots on filter paper were used to extract plasmodium DNA for speciation by PCR. Results: Overall prevalence rates of malaria, malnutrition and anaemia were 32.9%, 54.1% and 20.6% respectively. Stunting, underweight and wasting were detected in 56.9%, 63.5% and 34.8% of the children respectively. There was a significant association between malaria and malnutrition [OR = 1.89, (95% CI: 1.12–3.19); (p = 0.017)]. Malnutrition was also strongly associated with malaria status [OR = 2.07, (95% CI: 1.22–3.53); (p = 0.007)]. The prevalence rates of mild, moderate and severe anaemia were 8.1%, 9.2% and 3.3% respectively. Both malaria status and anaemia correlated with development index [OR = 0.75, (95% CI: 0.58–0.99); (p = 0.042)] and [OR = 1.45, (95% CI: 1.05–2.00); (p = 0.023)] respectively. Conclusion: Our findings show a synergistic relationship between malaria and malnutrition. Effective collaboration between malaria control and nutrition intervention programmes is essential for proper case management and improved socio-economic status. [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]

Evaluating the impact of a scholarly article is of great significance and has attracted great attentions. Although citation-based evaluation approaches have been widely used, these approaches face limitations e.g. in identifying anomalous citations patterns. This negligence would inevitably cause unfairness and inaccuracy to the article impact evaluation. In this study, in order to discover the anomalous citations and ensure the fairness and accuracy of research outcome evaluation, we investigate the citation relationships between articles using the following factors: collaboration times, the time span of collaboration, citing times and the time span of citing to weaken the relationship of Conflict of Interest (COI) in the citation network. Meanwhile, we study a special kind of COI, namely suspected COI relationship. Based on the COI relationship, we further bring forward the COIRank algorithm, an innovative scheme for accurately assessing the impact of an article. Our method distinguishes the citation strength, and utilizes PageRank and HITS algorithms to rank scholarly articles comprehensively. The experiments are conducted on the American Physical Society (APS) dataset. We find that about 80.88% articles contain contributed citations by co-authors in 26,366 articles and 75.55% articles among these articles are cited by the authors belonging to the same affiliation, indicating COI and suspected COI should not be ignored for evaluating impact of scientific papers objectively. Moreover, our experimental results demonstrate COIRank algorithm significantly outperforms the state-of-art solutions. The validity of our approach is verified by using the probability of Recommendation Intensity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although interdisciplinarity is often touted as a necessity for modern research, the evidence on the relative impact of sectorial versus to interdisciplinary science is qualitative at best. In this paper we leverage the bibliographic data set of the American Physical Society to quantify the role of interdisciplinarity in physics, and that of talent and luck in achieving success in scientific careers. We analyze a period of 30 years (1980-2009) tagging papers and their authors by means of the Physics and Astronomy Classification Scheme (PACS), to show that some degree of interdisciplinarity is quite helpful to reach success, measured as a proxy of either the number of articles or the citations score. We also propose an agent-based model of the publication-reputation-citation dynamics which reproduces the trends observed in the APS data set. On the one hand, the results highlight the crucial role of randomness and serendipity in real scientific research; on the other, they shed light on a counterintuitive effect indicating that the most talented authors are not necessarily the most successful ones. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

International collaboration is becoming increasingly important for the advancement of science. To gain a more precise understanding of how factors such as international collaboration influence publication success, we divide publication success into two categories: journal placement and citation performance. Analyzing all papers published between 1996 and 2012 in eight disciplines, we find that those with more countries in their affiliations performed better in both categories. Furthermore, specific countries vary in their effects both individually and in combination. Finally, we look at the relationship between national output (in papers published) and input (in citations received) over the 17 years, expanding upon prior depictions by also plotting an expected proportion of citations based on Journal Placement. Discrepancies between this expectation and the realized proportion of citations illuminate trends in performance, such as the decline of the Global North in response to rapidly developing countries, especially China. Yet, most countries' show little to no discrepancy, meaning that, in most cases, citation proportion can be predicted by Journal Placement alone. This reveals an extreme asymmetry between the opinions of a few reviewers and the degree to which paper acceptance and citation rates influence career advancement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Scholars (n = 580) from 69 countries who had contributed articles in the field of Economics during the year 2015 participated in a survey that gauged their perceptions of various aspects of co-authorship, including its benefits, motivations, working relationships, order of authorship and association preferences. Among the main findings, significant differences emerged in the proportion of co-authored papers based on age, gender and number of years the researchers had spent in their present institution. Female scholars had a greater proportion of co-authored papers than male scholars. Respondents considered improved quality of paper, contribution of mutual expertise, and division of labor as the biggest benefits of and motivation for co-authorship. Contrary to common perceptions that Economics researchers used a predominantly alphabetical order of authorship, our study found that a considerable percentage of respondents (34.5%) had practiced an order of authorship based on the significance of the authors’ contribution to the work. The relative importance of tasks differed significantly according to whether researchers co-authored as mentors or co-authored as colleagues. Lastly, researchers were found to associate, to varying degrees, with other researchers based on socio-academic parameters, such as nationality, ethnicity, gender, professional position and friendship. The study indicates that Economics authors perceive co-authorship as a rewarding endeavor. Nonetheless, the level of contribution and even the choice of association itself as a co-author depends to a great extent on the type of working relationship and socio-academic factors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

How does scientific research affect the world around us? Being able to answer this question is of great importance in order to appropriately channel efforts and resources in science. The impact by scientists in academia is currently measured by citation based metrics such as h-index, i-index and citation counts. These academic metrics aim to represent the dissemination of knowledge among scientists rather than the impact of the research on the wider world. In this work we are interested in measuring scientific impact beyond academia, on the economy, society, health and legislation (comprehensive impact). Indeed scientists are asked to demonstrate evidence of such comprehensive impact by authoring case studies in the context of the Research Excellence Framework (REF). We first investigate the extent to which existing citation based metrics can be indicative of comprehensive impact. We have collected all recent REF impact case studies from 2014 and we have linked these to papers in citation networks that we constructed and derived from CiteSeerX, arXiv and PubMed Central using a number of text processing and information retrieval techniques. We have demonstrated that existing citation-based metrics for impact measurement do not correlate well with REF impact results. We also consider metrics of online attention surrounding scientific works, such as those provided by the Altmetric API. We argue that in order to be able to evaluate wider non-academic impact we need to mine information from a much wider set of resources, including social media posts, press releases, news articles and political debates stemming from academic work. We also provide our data as a free and reusable collection for further analysis, including the PubMed citation network and the correspondence between REF case studies, grant applications and the academic literature. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The main drawback of ranking of researchers by the number of papers, citations or by the Hirsch index is ignoring the problem of distributing authorship among authors in multi-author publications. So far, the single-author or multi-author publications contribute to the publication record of a researcher equally. This full counting scheme is apparently unfair and causes unjust disproportions, in particular, if ranked researchers have distinctly different collaboration profiles. These disproportions are removed by less common fractional or authorship-weighted counting schemes, which can distribute the authorship credit more properly and suppress a tendency to unjustified inflation of co-authors. The urgent need of widely adopting a fair ranking scheme in practise is exemplified by analysing citation profiles of several highly-cited astronomers and astrophysicists. While the full counting scheme often leads to completely incorrect and misleading ranking, the fractional or authorship-weighted schemes are more accurate and applicable to ranking of researchers as well as research teams. In addition, they suppress differences in ranking among scientific disciplines. These more appropriate schemes should urgently be adopted by scientific publication databases as the Web of Science (Thomson Reuters) or the Scopus (Elsevier). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Even as we advance the frontiers of physics knowledge, our understanding of how this knowledge evolves remains at the descriptive levels of Popper and Kuhn. Using the American Physical Society (APS) publications data sets, we ask in this paper how new knowledge is built upon old knowledge. We do so by constructing year-to-year bibliographic coupling networks, and identify in them validated communities that represent different research fields. We then visualize their evolutionary relationships in the form of alluvial diagrams, and show how they remain intact through APS journal splits. Quantitatively, we see that most fields undergo weak Popperian mixing, and it is rare for a field to remain isolated/undergo strong mixing. The sizes of fields obey a simple linear growth with recombination. We can also reliably predict the merging between two fields, but not for the considerably more complex splitting. Finally, we report a case study of two fields that underwent repeated merging and splitting around 1995, and how these Kuhnian events are correlated with breakthroughs on Bose-Einstein condensation (BEC), quantum teleportation, and slow light. This impact showed up quantitatively in the citations of the BEC field as a larger proportion of references from during and shortly after these events. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In recent years there has been increased attention to child neurodevelopment in studies on medication safety in pregnancy. Neurodevelopment is a multifactorial outcome that can be assessed by various assessors, using different measures. This has given rise to a debate on the validity of various measures of neurodevelopment. The aim of this review was twofold. Firstly we aimed to give an overview of studies on child neurodevelopment after prenatal exposure to central nervous system acting medications using psychotropics and analgesics as examples, giving special focus on the use and validity of outcome measures. Secondly, we aimed to give guidance on how to conduct and interpret medication safety studies with neurodevelopment outcomes. We conducted a systematic review in the MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Scopus, and Cochrane databases from inception to April 2019, including controlled studies on prenatal exposure to psychotropics or analgesics and child neurodevelopment, measured with standardised psychometric instruments or by diagnosis of neurodevelopmental disorder. The review management tool Covidence was used for data-extraction. Outcomes were grouped as motor skills, cognition, behaviour, emotionality, or “other”. We identified 110 eligible papers (psychotropics, 82 papers, analgesics, 29 papers). A variety of neurodevelopmental outcome measures were used, including 27 different psychometric instruments administered by health care professionals, 15 different instruments completed by parents, and 13 different diagnostic categories. In 23 papers, no comments were made on the validity of the outcome measure. In conclusion, establishing neurodevelopmental safety includes assessing a wide variety of outcomes important for the child’s daily functioning including motor skills, cognition, behaviour, and emotionality, with valid and reliable measures from infancy through to adolescence. Consensus is needed in the scientific community on how neurodevelopment should be assessed in medication safety in pregnancy studies. Review registration number: CRD42018086101 in the PROSPERO database. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Tuberculosis (TB) incidence in South Africa is among the highest globally. Initial loss to follow-up (ILFU), defined as not starting on TB treatment within 28 days of testing positive, is undermining control efforts. We assessed the feasibility, acceptability, and potential of a mHealth application to reduce ILFU. Methods: An mHealth application was developed to capture patients TB investigation data, provide results and monitor treatment initiation. This was implemented in two primary health clinics (PHC) in inner-city Johannesburg. Feasibility was assessed by comparing documentation of personal details, specimen results for same individuals during implementation period (paper register and Mhealth application). Effectiveness was assessed by comparing proportion of patients with results within 48 hours, and proportion started on treatment within 28 days of testing TB positive during pre- implementation (paper register) and implementation (mHealth application) periods. In-depth interviews with patients and providers were conducted to assess acceptability of application. Results: Pre-implementation, 457 patients were recorded in paper registers [195 (42.7%) male, median age 34 years (interquartile range IQR (28–40), 45 (10.5%) sputum Xpert positive]. During implementation, 319 patients were recorded in paper register and the mHealth application [131 (41.1%) male, median age 32 years (IQR 27–38), 33 (10.3%) sputum Xpert positive]. The proportion with complete personal details: [mHealth 95.0% versus paper register 94.0%, (p = 0.54)] and proportion with documented results: [mHealth 97.4% versus paper register 97.8%, (p = 0.79)] were not different in the two methods. The proportion of results available within 48 hours: [mHealth 96.8% versus paper register 68.6%), (p <0.001)], and the proportion on treatment within 28 days [mHealth 28/33 (84.8%) versus paper register 30/44 (68.2%), (p = 0.08)] increased during implementation but was not statistically significant. In-depth interviews showed that providers easily integrated the mHealth application into routine TB investigation and patients positively received the delivery of results via text message. Time from sputum collection to TB treatment initiation decreased from 4 days (pre-implementation) to 3 days but was not statistically significant. Conclusions: We demonstrated that implementation of the mHealth application was feasible, acceptable to health care providers and patients, and has potential to reduce the time to TB treatment initiation and ILFU in PHC settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Despite their recognized limitations, bibliometric assessments of scientific productivity have been widely adopted. We describe here an improved method to quantify the influence of a research article by making novel use of its co-citation network to field-normalize the number of citations it has received. Article citation rates are divided by an expected citation rate that is derived from performance of articles in the same field and benchmarked to a peer comparison group. The resulting Relative Citation Ratio is article level and field independent and provides an alternative to the invalid practice of using journal impact factors to identify influential papers. To illustrate one application of our method, we analyzed 88,835 articles published between 2003 and 2010 and found that the National Institutes of Health awardees who authored those papers occupy relatively stable positions of influence across all disciplines. We demonstrate that the values generated by this method strongly correlate with the opinions of subject matter experts in biomedical research and suggest that the same approach should be generally applicable to articles published in all areas of science. A beta version of iCite, our web tool for calculating Relative Citation Ratios of articles listed in PubMed, is available at . [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Collaboration among scientists has a major influence on scientific progress. Such collaboration often results from scientific meetings, where scientists gather to present and discuss their research and to meet potential collaborators. However, most scientific meetings have inherent biases, such as the availability of research funding or the selection bias of professional societies that make it difficult to study the effect of the meeting per se on scientific productivity. To evaluate the effects of scientific meetings on collaboration and progress independent of these biases, we conducted a study of the annual symposia held by the International Milk Genomics Consortium (IMGC) over a 12-year period. In our study, we conducted permutation testing to analyze the effectiveness of the IMGC in facilitating collaboration and productivity in a community of milk scientists who were meeting attendees relative to non-attendees. Using the number of co-authorships on published papers as a measure of collaboration, our analysis revealed that scientists who attended the symposium were associated with more collaboration than were scientists who did not attend. Furthermore, we evaluated the scientific progress of consortium attendees by analyzing publication rate and article impact. We found that IMGC attendees, in addition to being more collaborative, were also more productive and influential than were non-attendees who published in the same field. The results of our study suggest that the annual symposium encouraged interactions among disparate scientists and increased research productivity, exemplifying the positive effect of scientific meetings on both collaboration and progress. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper analyzes the patterns of health biotechnology publications in six Latin American countries from 2001 to 2015. The countries studied were Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Cuba and Mexico. Before our study, there were no data available on HBT development in half of the Latin-American countries we studied, i.e., Argentina, Colombia and Chile. To include these countries in a scientometric analysis of HBT provides fuller coverage of HBT development in Latin America. The scientometric study used the Web of Science database to identify health biotechnology publications. The total amount of health biotechnology production in the world during the period studied was about 400,000 papers. A total of 1.2% of these papers, were authored by the six Latin American countries in this study. The results show a significant growth in health biotechnology publications in Latin America despite some of the countries having social and political instability, fluctuations in their gross domestic expenditure in research and development or a trade embargo that limits opportunities for scientific development. The growth in the field of some of the Latin American countries studied was larger than the growth of most industrialized nations. Still, the visibility of the Latin American research (measured in the number of citations) did not reach the world average, with the exception of Colombia. The main producers of health biotechnology papers in Latin America were universities, except in Cuba were governmental institutions were the most frequent producers. The countries studied were active in international research collaboration with Colombia being the most active (64% of papers co-authored internationally), whereas Brazil was the least active (35% of papers). Still, the domestic collaboration was even more prevalent, with Chile being the most active in such collaboration (85% of papers co-authored domestically) and Argentina the least active (49% of papers). We conclude that the Latin American countries studied are increasing their health biotechnology publishing. This strategy could contribute to the development of innovations that may solve local health problems in the region. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Prior studies showed that scientists’ professional networks contribute to research productivity, but little work has examined what factors predict the formation of professional networks. This study sought to 1) examine what factors predict the formation of international ties between faculty and graduate students and 2) identify how these international ties would affect publication productivity in three East Asian countries. Face-to-face surveys and in-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted with a sample of faculty and doctoral students in life sciences at 10 research institutions in Japan, Singapore, and Taiwan. Our final sample consisted of 290 respondents (84 faculty and 206 doctoral students) and 1,435 network members. We used egocentric social network analysis to examine the structure of international ties and how they relate to research productivity. Our findings suggest that overseas graduate training can be a key factor in graduate students’ development of international ties in these countries. Those with a higher proportion of international ties in their professional networks were likely to have published more papers and written more manuscripts. For faculty, international ties did not affect the number of manuscripts written or of papers published, but did correlate with an increase in publishing in top journals. The networks we examined were identified by asking study participants with whom they discuss their research. Because the relationships may not appear in explicit co-authorship networks, these networks were not officially recorded elsewhere. This study sheds light on the relationships of these invisible support networks to researcher productivity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

While women are generally underrepresented in STEM fields, there are noticeable differences between fields. For instance, the gender ratio in biology is more balanced than in computer science. We were interested in how this difference is reflected in the interdisciplinary field of computational/quantitative biology. To this end, we examined the proportion of female authors in publications from the PubMed and arXiv databases. There are fewer female authors on research papers in computational biology, as compared to biology in general. This is true across authorship position, year, and journal impact factor. A comparison with arXiv shows that quantitative biology papers have a higher ratio of female authors than computer science papers, placing computational biology in between its two parent fields in terms of gender representation. Both in biology and in computational biology, a female last author increases the probability of other authors on the paper being female, pointing to a potential role of female PIs in influencing the gender balance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Virtual Reality (VR) has emerged as a promising tool in many domains of therapy and rehabilitation, and has recently attracted the attention of researchers and clinicians working with elderly people with MCI, Alzheimer’s disease and related disorders. Here we present a study testing the feasibility of using highly realistic image-based rendered VR with patients with MCI and dementia. We designed an attentional task to train selective and sustained attention, and we tested a VR and a paper version of this task in a single-session within-subjects design. Results showed that participants with MCI and dementia reported to be highly satisfied and interested in the task, and they reported high feelings of security, low discomfort, anxiety and fatigue. In addition, participants reported a preference for the VR condition compared to the paper condition, even if the task was more difficult. Interestingly, apathetic participants showed a preference for the VR condition stronger than that of non-apathetic participants. These findings suggest that VR-based training can be considered as an interesting tool to improve adherence to cognitive training in elderly people with cognitive impairment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This Editorial describes PLOS Biology's experiment with contextualised publication, whereby potentially controversial studies are published with an Editor’s Note and an accompanying Primer in which the Academic Editor guides the reader, dissects the study, and lays out the thinking behind the decision to publish. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Bibliometric indicators are increasingly used to evaluate individual scientists–as is exemplified by the popularity of the many other publication and citation-based indicators used in evaluation. These indicators, however, cover at best some of the quality dimensions relevant for assessing a researcher: productivity and impact. At the same time, research quality has more dimensions than productivity and impact alone. As current bibliometric indicators are not covering various important quality dimensions, we here contribute to developing better indicators for those quality dimensions not yet addressed. One of the quality dimensions lacking valid indicators is an individual researcher’s independence. We propose indicators to measure different aspects of independence: two assessing whether a researcher has developed an own collaboration network and two others assessing the level of thematic independence. Taken together they form an independence indicator. We illustrate how these indicators distinguish between researchers that are equally productive and have a considerable impact. The independence indicator is a step forward in evaluating individual scholarly quality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Recent years have seen a surge of studies in machine learning in health and biomedicine, driven by digitalization of healthcare environments and increasingly accessible computer systems for conducting analyses. Many of us believe that these developments will lead to significant improvements in patient care. Like many academic disciplines, however, progress is hampered by lack of code and data sharing. In bringing together this PLOS ONE collection on machine learning in health and biomedicine, we sought to focus on the importance of reproducibility, making it a requirement, as far as possible, for authors to share data and code alongside their papers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper describes how Atomic Layer Deposition (ALD) has evolved over time using a combination of bibliometric, social network, and text analysis. We examined the rate of knowledge production as well as changes in authors, journals, and collaborators, showing a steady growth of ALD research. The study of the collaboration network of ALD scientists over time points out that the ALD research community is becoming larger and more interconnected, with a largest connected component that spans 90% of the authors in 2015. In addition, the evolution of network centrality measures (degree and betweenness centrality) and author productivity revealed the central figures in ALD over time, including new “stars” appearing in the last decade. Finally, the study of the title words in our dataset is consistent with a shift in focus on research topics towards energy applications and nanotechnology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]