Search

It is a matter of debate whether a shrinking proportion of scholarly literature is getting most of the citations over time. It is also less well understood how a narrowing use of literature would affect the circulation of ideas in the sciences. Here, I show that the utilization of scientific literature follows dual tendencies over time: while a larger proportion of literature is cited at least a few times, citations are also concentrated more at the top of the citation distribution. Parallel to the latter trend, a paper’s future importance increasingly depends on its past citation performance. A random network model shows that the citation concentration is directly related to the greater stability of citation performance. The presented evidence suggests that the growing heterogeneity of citation impact restricts the mobility of research articles that do not gain attention early on. While concentration grows from the beginning of the studied period in 1970, citation dispersion manifests itself significantly only from the mid-1990s, when the popularity of freshly published papers also increased. Most likely, advanced information technologies to disseminate papers are behind both of these latter trends.

The exponential increase in the number of submissions, further accelerated by generative AI, and the decline in the availability of experts are burdening the peer review process. This has led to high unethical desk rejection rates, a growing appeal for the publication of unreviewed preprints, and a worrying proliferation of predatory journals. The idea of monetarily compensating peer reviewers has been around for many years; maybe, it is time to take it seriously as one way to save the peer review process. Here, I argue that paying reviewers, when done in a fair and transparent way, is a viable solution. Like the case of professional language editors, part-time or full-time professional reviewers, managed by universities or for-profit companies, can be an integral part of modern peer review. Being a professional reviewer could be financially attractive to retired senior researchers and to researchers who enjoy evaluating papers but are not motivated to do so for free. Moreover, not all produced research needs to go through peer review, and thus persuading researchers to limit submissions to their most novel and useful research could also help bring submission volumes to manageable levels. Overall, this paper reckons that the problem is not the peer review process per se but rather its function within an academic ecosystem dominated by an unhealthy culture of ‘publish or perish’. Instead of reforming the peer review process, academia has to look for better science dissemination schemes that promote collaboration over competition, engagement over judgement, and research quality and sustainability over quantity.

One of the main goals of clinicians is to constantly improve the healthcare by spreading their expertise and by introducing innovations in medical science. Therefore, publishing is of utmost importance. Moreover, publishing helps authors in developing their academic carrier. Learning how to properly write and submit a manuscript should be a goal for all medical students, residents, clinicians and researchers. Everyone, from students to senior physicians and surgeons, advance in their carrier by publishing papers and by getting their work cited by others. The aim of this paper, published in three parts, is to enable the readers to write and publish their work effectively; the current part is addressing the actual writing workflow of a clinical paper and its submission process to a journal., (Celsius.)

Gender disparities in scientific publications have been identified in oncological research. Oral research presentations at major conferences enhance visibility of presenters. The share of women presenting at such podia is unknown. We aim to identify gender-based differences in contributions to presentations at two major oncological conferences. Abstracts presented at plenary sessions of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Annual Meetings and European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Congresses were collected. Trend analyses were used to analyze female contribution over time. The association between presenter's sex, study outcome (positive/negative) and journals' impact factors (IFs) of subsequently published papers was assessed using Chi-square and Mann-Whitney U tests. Of 166 consecutive abstracts presented at ASCO in 2011-2018 (n = 34) and ESMO in 2008-2018 (n = 132), 21% had female presenters, all originating from Northern America (n = 17) or Europe (n = 18). The distribution of presenter's sex was similar over time (p = 0.70). Of 2,425 contributing authors to these presented abstracts, 28% were women. The proportion of female abstract authors increased over time (p < 0.05) and was higher in abstracts with female (34%) compared to male presenters (26%; p < 0.01). Presenter's sex was not associated with study outcome (p = 0.82). Median journals' IFs were lower in papers with a female first author (p < 0.05). In conclusion, there is a clear gender disparity in research presentations at two major oncological conferences, with 28% of authors and 21% of presenters of these studies being female. Lack of visibility of female presenters could impair acknowledgement for their research, opportunities in their academic career and even hamper heterogeneity in research., (© 2019 The Authors. International Journal of Cancer published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of UICC.)

Academic writing is essential for scientific knowledge dissemination and the professional development of those working in various disciplines.Yet, however important this complex skill is, it is not usually taught systematically, a fact that can act as a barrier for researchers to communicate the results of their work. In this first part, we synthesize the main tips provided by experts in the field, adding some of our personal experiences that they consider relevant to facilitate the process of academic writing and develop this skill in a collaborative context. In a second article, we will go deeper into the problem of writing the different sections of a scientific article and offer advice on ways to optimize it and make it as effective as possible.

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., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Multidisciplinary approach to malaria research remain important to the national malaria control program in Benin. To unravel the mechanism underlying the establishment of research collaboration ties in malaria research in Benin, we model the complexity and dynamics of the malaria research co-authorship network of Benin using Exponential Random Graph models (ERGMs) and Temporal ERGMs (TERGMs). The network contains co-authorship information from January 1996 to December 2016. We fit ERGMs and TERGMs to the network as a function of nodal, dyadic and structural statistics terms, accounting for important principles of graph theory such as homophily and structural equivalence. The final ERGM and TERGM showed that the mechanistic phenomenon driving collaboration ties in malaria research in Benin is driven by homophily on the type of affiliation and by membership to a research group. Our study is one of a few to take a model-based approach to the study ofco-authorship networks.

An editorial is presented that discusses what constitutes a contribution at the "Journal of Management" ("JOM"). The authors note that the key requirement for impact at JOM is that a paper "substantively moves the field of management forward." The theoretical insights path, the phenomenon-driven path, the research methodology path, and the review paper path are all explored.

Discussion of the growth of scientific literature and the role of conference papers in scholarly communication focuses on information science literature. Highlights include the relationship of conference papers and journal articles; conferences as self-improvement, as group contributions, and as final products; and a new model for scientific communication. (LRW)

Academic scholarly communication is the predominant business of researchers, scientists, and scholars. It is the core element of promoting scientific thought, investigation, and building up solid knowledge. The development of preprint platform web interfaces, server repositories of electronic scholarly papers submitted by their authors and openly available to the scientific community proposed a new form of academic communication. The distribution of a preprint of a scientific manuscript allows the authors to claim the priority of discovery, in a manner similar to the conference proceedings output, but also creates an anteriority that prevents protection by a patent application. Herein, we review the scope and the role of preprint papers platforms in academia, we explore individual cases, arXiv, SSRN, OSF Preprints, HAL, bioRxiv, EconStor, RePEc, PhilArchive, Research Square, viXra, Cryptology ePrint Archive, Preprints.org, ChinaXiv, medRxiv, JMIR Preprints, Authorea, ChemRxiv, engrXiv, e-LiS, SciELO, PsyArXiv, F1000 Research, and Zenodo, and discuss their significance in promoting scientific discovery, the potential risks of scientific integrity, as well as the policies of data distribution and intellectual property rights, the plus and minus, for the stakeholders, authors, institutions, states, scientific journals, scientific community, and the public. In this review we explore the scope and policies of the existing preprint papers platforms in different academic research fields. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In each of 41 research journals in the physical, life, and social sciences there is a linear relationship between average number of references and paper lengths. Because papers of average lengths in various sciences have the same number of references, this article concludes that citation counts to them can be inter-compared within that accuracy, except in the case of review journals. (AEF)

Considers the need for reliable, scholarly access to the Web and suggests that the Association for Research Libraries, in partnership with OCLC and the Library of Congress, develop a so-called scholar's portal. Topics include quality content; enhanced library services; and gateway functions, including access to commercial databases and focused search engines. (LRW)

Presents and discusses a model policy regarding faculty publishing in scientific and technical journals that was developed by the Triangle Research Library Network (North Carolina). Highlights include the current scholarly communication system, including incompatibility between the goals of academic researchers and the goals of publishers; electronic publishing; and pricing. (Contains 21 references.) (LRW)

Discusses the influence of electronic publishing on communication of scientific research. Topics include subscription costs; lagtime between submission and publication; peer review; attitudes of librarians and publishers; value-added features of electronic journals; copyright and licensing issues; and author collaboration. (Author/LRW)

Introduction: The National Scientific Congress (NSC) is an annual event held in Peru in which medical students from all over the country present their research work. Objectives: To determine the publication rate in indexed scientific journals of research papers submitted to the NSCs held between 2010 and 2014, as well as the factors associated with their publication, and to describe the characteristics of the published papers. Materials and methods: Retrospective study in which 407 abstracts of research papers were reviewed. A publication time window of 6 years (from submission) was considered. A bivariate analysis was performed to assess differences between categorical and numerical variables using the chi-square and Mann-Whitney U tests, respectively. In addition, a multivariate analysis was performed using Poisson regression models (a crude and an adjusted model), calculating relative risk (RR) values with their respective 95% confidence intervals (95%CI) to determine the factors associated with the publication of papers. A significance level of p

The correction practice of scientific publications is usually used to correct publication errors by issuing correction notices, and it is less explored compared to retraction practice. The aim of this study is to present an overview of correction practice and to explore the citation situation of correction notices in library and information science (LIS) journals, using 720 correction notices in the Web of Science from 2001–2020. Through bibliometrics and content analysis, we found the correcting rate of LIS was relatively low. The main types of corrected errors occurred in authorship, figure or table, references, etc. Most corrected errors were trivial or minor. The citation situation of correction notices was more complex than expected and could be classified into five types. It was relatively rare to cite both the corrected paper and correction notice in a standardized manner. The remaining four types of citation were unreasonable, which could influence citation practice and reduce the citations of corrected papers. We concluded that the appearance of the correction notice had affected the citation of the corrected papers to some extent, and researchers and databases needed to pay attention to this problem. We also provided some suggestions for improving correction practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Scholarly journals, the electronic posting platform arXiv, and the open-access publishing platform F1000Research are three paper publishing systems currently available to researchers. These three systems all have their shortcomings. We introduce another option, a Paper Online Rating Platform (PORP), where all submissions are rated and none rejected. PORP has obvious advantages, we argue, over the other three paper publishing systems. We define PORP, describe its advantages, and discuss some challenges for its future development. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Peer review is a key gatekeeper for academic journals, attempting to block inadequate submissions or correcting them to a publishable standard, as well as improving those that are already satisfactory. The three key aspects of research quality are rigour, significance, and originality but no prior study has assessed whether journal reviewers are ever able to judge these effectively. In response, this article compares reviewer scores for these aspects for theoretical articles in the SciPost Physics journal. It also compares them with Italian research assessment exercise physics reviewer agreement scores. SciPost Physics theoretical articles give a nearly ideal case: a theoretical aspect of a mature science, for which suitable reviewers might comprehend the entire paper. Nevertheless, intraclass correlations between the first two reviewers for the three core quality scores were similar and moderate, 0.36 (originality), 0.39 (significance), and 0.40 (rigour), so there is no aspect that different reviewers are consistent about. Differences tended to be small, with 86% of scores agreeing or differing by 1 on a 6-point scale. Individual reviewers were most likely to give similar scores for significance and originality (Spearman 0.63), and least likely to for originality and validity (Spearman 0.38). Whilst a lack of norm referencing is probably the biggest reason for differences between reviewers, others include differing background knowledge, understanding, and beliefs about valid assumptions. The moderate agreement between reviewers on the core aspects of scientific quality, including rigour, in a nearly ideal case is concerning for the security of the wider academic record. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Since 1950, through 70 volumes, I Libri: International Journal of Libraries and Information Studies i has been a leader among scholarly journals in the international library and information science world. This competition supports I Libri i 's goal of publishing the best articles from the next generation of library and information science professionals. Footnotes 1 Exception: Senior information scholars returning to school for additional degrees outside the field of library and information science are not eligible for this award. [Extracted from the article]

The controversy over vaccines, which has recently intensified following the COVID-19 pandemic, provokes heated debates, with both advocates and opponents raising allegations of bias and fraud in research. Researchers whose work raises doubts about the safety of certain vaccines claim to be victims of discriminatory treatment aimed at suppressing dissent, including the unjustified retraction of their published research. Such practices have previously been discussed in other controversial fields in science (e.g., AIDS, the environment, and water fluoridation) but not in the field of vaccines. The purpose of this study was to analyze, for the first time, the subjective views of researchers whose papers were retracted. Study participants are active researchers, most with international reputations in their respective fields. They perceived retraction as a means of censoring and silencing critical voices with the aim of preserving the pro-vaccination agenda of interested parties. Participants also reported additional measures aimed at harming them personally and professionally. These findings point to the need for a fair, open, and honest discourse about the safety of vaccines for the benefit of public health and the restoration of trust in science and medicine. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As social issues like climate change become increasingly salient, digital traces left by scholarly documents can be used to assess their reach outside of academia. Our research examine who shared climate change research papers on Twitter by looking at the expressions used in profile descriptions. We categorized users in eight categories (academia, communication, political, professional, personal, organization, bots and publishers) associated to specific expressions. Results indicate how diverse publics may be represented in the communication of scholarly documents on Twitter. Supplementing our word detection analysis with qualitative assessments of the results, we highlight how the presence of unique or multiple categorizations in textual Twitter descriptions provides evidence of the publics of research in specific contexts. Our results show a more substantial communication by academics and organizations for papers published in 2016, whereas the general public comparatively participated more in 2015. Overall, there is significant participation of publics outside of academia in the communication of climate change research articles on Twitter, although the extent to which these publics participate varies between individual papers. This means that papers circulate in specific communities which need to be assessed to understand the reach of research on social media. Furthermore, the flexibility of our method provide means for research assessment that consider the contextuality and plurality of publics involved on Twitter. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A stylised fact in bibliometric research is that in the field of management studies, half or more of the papers published are never cited. If true, this implies that efforts and resources are considerably wasted because half of the academic work is not considered worthy by the same community that developed them. We studied a sample of 2777 papers published in 20 journals and representing different levels of quality. Of these, only 191 papers, representing 6.5% of the sample, were never cited, suggesting that the aforementioned stylised fact is a myth. We identified the factors that contribute to the level of citations, including the ranking of the journal in the quality list, time since last citation, and number of authors. The implications discussed suggest a need for reflection regarding the relevance of the factors that predict future citations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]