Search

Abstract Students often recruit digital devices to complete their classroom activities. To determine best practices for the classroom, the present study explored the use of tablets relative to laptops and paper in the understudied context of brief, in-person, small group academic tasks. One-hundred twenty small groups of two to three undergraduate students were randomly assigned to one device (paper, laptop, or tablet) and one set-up (a single shared device or multiple individual devices) in a 3 × 2 between-subjects design. Data were collected in 2019 –2021. Students completed one group task that culminated in a knowledge quiz and a second group task that culminated in writing their own quiz together. They then individually rated group members as well as reported their perceptions of satisfaction, effort, and difficulty. Open-ended questions further assessed their perceptions of technology and the three devices in question. Results showed equivalency in group outcomes and individual perceptions across devices and set-ups, with very few exceptions. Quantitative and qualitative data supported that students found advantages and drawbacks to each device and believed that all were effective tools in such a context. Educators must consider the affordances of different technologies when encouraging their use in the classroom but should be open to students using their device of choice for groupwork.

One of the tasks required of most statistics researchers and academic faculty is to publish their innovative ideas in the peer‐reviewed literature. In this paper, we provide guidance about the different stages of the process as experienced authors and offer advice from those who hold the decision about the success or failure of these papers, namely the editors of applied statistics journals. The paper is organized into four sections focusing on the different stages of publishing: (1) Planning what to write about, where to submit and how to organize the paper; (2) The process of writing the paper; (3) Interpreting and responding to peer‐reviews from the journal editors and referees to prepare for resubmission; and (4) General comments about the publication process, including collaboration and mentoring. Each section starts with fundamentals provided by the moderators (C.A.C. and L.L.) on key aspects to consider on each topic and then is followed with discussion from some current and past editors of impactful journals in the field of applied statistics. Our hope is that this collection of insights may help accelerate learning about the process for young researchers and help all researchers to understand some of the important often‐unspoken aspects of the process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As an effective tool to advance language competence, writing papers collaboratively has the characteristic of improving author language skills, providing authors with opportunities to practice language skills in meaningful contexts. As authors collaborate to yield a paper, they get exposure to grammar genres, structures, and expressions. Concurrently, during the process, language is applied to communicate ideas effectively. This paper aims to investigate whether collaboration is really a beneficial aspect for authors. This qualitative investigation was embedded in case study design to uncover truths experienced in real-life situations. To collect data, semi-structured interviews were administered to five university scholars chosen from a population of authors reported to have successfully written publishable papers. It emerged as major findings that individual comprehension can be improved when authors collaborate on paper writing, and, as authors receive written feedback from each other, language competence advances. Although previous publications on writing collaboratively exist, research is silent on improved language competence acquired through this practice. It is concluded that individual comprehension can be improved by collaborative paper writing as the process provides opportunities for authors to justify and discuss their ideas. As they work collaboratively, authors deepen their understanding of the material and enhance their language skills.

Objectives: Information professionals have supported medical providers, administrators and decision-makers, and guideline creators in the COVID-19 response. Searching COVID-19 literature presented new challenges, including the volume and heterogeneity of literature and the proliferation of new information sources, and exposed existing issues in metadata and publishing. An expert panel developed best practices, including recommendations, elaborations, and examples, for searching during public health emergencies. Methods: Project directors and advisors developed core elements from experience and literature. Experts, identified by affiliation with evidence synthesis groups, COVID-19 search experience, and nomination, responded to an online survey to reach consensus on core elements. Expert participants provided written responses to guiding questions. A synthesis of responses provided the foundation for focus group discussions. A writing group then drafted the best practices into a statement. Experts reviewed the statement prior to dissemination. Results: Twelve information professionals contributed to best practice recommendations on six elements: core resources, search strategies, publication types, transparency and reproducibility, collaboration, and conducting research. Underlying principles across recommendations include timeliness, openness, balance, preparedness, and responsiveness. Conclusions: The authors and experts anticipate the recommendations for searching for evidence during public health emergencies will help information specialists, librarians, evidence synthesis groups, researchers, and decision-makers respond to future public health emergencies, including but not limited to disease outbreaks. The recommendations complement existing guidance by addressing concerns specific to emergency response. The statement is intended as a living document. Future revisions should solicit input from a broader community and reflect conclusions of meta-research on COVID-19 and health emergencies.

Even though the recycling of paper and paperboard is quite successful when compared to the recycling of other resources, there are many things to improve. Recovering the used paper and paperboard without contamination and sending it back to the papermill that produced it would enhance the recycling potential and efficiency of recovered fiber resources. Close collaboration between a paper and packaging company and a logistics company has made a big improvement in recycling and achieved the circular economy of fiber resources. It is time to find better ways to collaborate, thereby improving our capability to keep our planet green. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Engineers make things, make things work, and make things work better and easier. This kind of knowledge is crucial for innovation, and much of the explicit knowledge developed by engineers is embodied in scientific publications. In this paper, we analyze the evolution of publications and citations in engineering in a middle-income country such as Mexico. Using a database of all Mexican publications in Web of Science from 2004 to 2017, we explore the characteristics of publications that tend to have the greatest impact; this is the highest number of citations. Among the variables studied are the type of collaboration (no collaboration, domestic, bilateral, or multilateral), the number of coauthors and countries, controlling for a coauthor from the USA, and the affiliation institution of the Mexican author(s). Our results emphasize the overall importance of joint international efforts and suggest that publications with the highest number of citations are those with multinational collaboration (coauthors from three or more countries) and when one of the coauthors is from the USA. Another interesting result is that single-authored papers have had a higher impact than those written through domestic collaboration.

Input, output, impact, and processes are central indicators of the science, technology, and innovation production. The input is usually associated to investments made in science and technology, and it varies among different countries and scientific fields. Thus, the input can influence other impact indicators. Here, we evaluated the effect of the input data (i.e., number of funding) on process (i.e., collaboration) and output (i.e., number of citation) indicators of ecological research. Moreover, we detailed the effect of the number of funding on the collaboration and number of citations by each country (based on the nationality of authors). We found that most of published papers had some degrees of financial support, and that the production of papers with funding increased over the years. Funding had a positive effect on the collaboration and citation of papers; however, we observed that: in countries with higher investments in Science and Technology, the number of funding impacts positively and directly on the number of authors (collaboration) and in countries with low levels of investments in Science and Technology, the number of funding impacts positively and directly on the number of citations. Our models presented a low predictive power, but similar to other informetric studies. Our results indicated that impact indicators evaluated have an integrated structure, and the effects at one level can affect other levels. Nonetheless, the impact of the number of funding on informetric data can vary among countries; therefore, these results are important to the development of national policies and future informetric studies.

Abstract The study extends the conversation on the effect that co-authorship has on the citation impact of papers by analyzing the short-term advantage of co-authored papers. The results suggest that co-authored papers have a higher short-term impact than single-authored ones in all scientific domains. The study adds insights on the use of the immediacy index as an alternative indicator to evaluate the short-term competitive advantage of co-authored papers concerning the number of citations they attract. Furthermore, the study shows the efficacy of the immediacy index in comparing the short-term impact of different groups.

Abstract Several factors influence the citation impact. This paper constructed paths from funding to citation impact on a country basis. Country data came from Incites® (2011-2020). The (2013 to 2018) UNESCO database was used to define investments in Research and Development (R&D). An overall analysis and analyses by clusters formed by investments in R&D were carried out. Countries that invest relatively less in R&D tend to have less investment by businesses and publish fewer documents. Some differences exist in this pattern. For example, countries in the lowest investment group show higher international collaboration and publications in Open Access Journals. This leads to a higher impact but below countries with the highest investments in R&D. The paths from funding to high impact differed by cluster. While international collaboration appeared in several clusters, the % of papers in Q1 (Top) journal quartile, based on citations, was in almost all clusters. More investments in R&D and open access publishing do not necessarily lead to high impact.

As an effective tool to advance language competence, writing papers collaboratively has the characteristic of improving author language skills, providing authors with opportunities to practice language skills in meaningful contexts. As authors collaborate to yield a paper, they get exposure to grammar genres, structures, and expressions. Concurrently, during the process, language is applied to communicate ideas effectively. This paper aims to investigate whether collaboration is really a beneficial aspect for authors. This qualitative investigation was embedded in case study design to uncover truths experienced in real-life situations. To collect data, semi-structured interviews were administered to five university scholars chosen from a population of authors reported to have successfully written publishable papers. It emerged as major findings that individual comprehension can be improved when authors collaborate on paper writing, and, as authors receive written feedback from each other, language competence advances. Although previous publications on writing collaboratively exist, research is silent on improved language competence acquired through this practice. It is concluded that individual comprehension can be improved by collaborative paper writing as the process provides opportunities for authors to justify and discuss their ideas. As they work collaboratively, authors deepen their understanding of the material and enhance their language skills. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The publication rates of abstracts after they were presented at the National Conference for Clinical Research (NCCR), a scientific conference held in Malaysia, was determined to gauge the scientific value of the conference, whilst providing comparative information with other scientific conferences. Methods: All the abstracts that were presented at the NCCR from 2014 to 2016 were analysed. Keywords from the abstract title, along with the first, second, and last author’s name, were searched via PubMed, Google Scholar, and Scopus to determine publication status. Results: A total of 320 abstracts were analysed. Of those, 57 abstracts (17.8%) were published. Almost 70% of published abstracts appeared in open access journals that charge article processing fees. Early publications (≤18 months from the conference date) had higher median journal impact factors compared to later publications. Approximately 42% of the published abstracts had collaborations with the Institute for Clinical Research (ICR) or Clinical Research Centres (CRCs). An increasing number of authors in an abstract and having the first author from a research centre, reduced and increased the odds of publication, respectively. Conclusions: The NCCR publication rate is lower compared to the reported average in other scientific conferences abroad. More encouragement and support to publish should be provided to the presenting authors. Clinicians should also be encouraged to collaborate with research centres such as those from the ICR or CRCs to boost publication likelihoods.

Engineers make things, make things work, and make things work better and easier. This kind of knowledge is crucial for innovation, and much of the explicit knowledge developed by engineers is embodied in scientific publications. In this paper, we analyze the evolution of publications and citations in engineering in a middle-income country such as Mexico. Using a database of all Mexican publications in Web of Science from 2004 to 2017, we explore the characteristics of publications that tend to have the greatest impact; this is the highest number of citations. Among the variables studied are the type of collaboration (no collaboration, domestic, bilateral, or multilateral), the number of coauthors and countries, controlling for a coauthor from the USA, and the affiliation institution of the Mexican author(s). Our results emphasize the overall importance of joint international efforts and suggest that publications with the highest number of citations are those with multinational collaboration (coauthors from three or more countries) and when one of the coauthors is from the USA. Another interesting result is that single-authored papers have had a higher impact than those written through domestic collaboration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study quantitatively analyzes the patterns and impact of collaboration at author and country levels in China's social sciences from 1998 to 2017. Chinese Social Sciences Citation Index (CSSCI) and Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI) are combined as data sources to show a comprehensive picture of collaboration in China's social sciences, and to compare the differences in the way Chinese social scientists work when publishing nationally and internationally. Results show that there are huge differences in patterns and impact of collaboration between China's national and international publications in social sciences. Specifically, non-collaboration dominates in China's CSSCI papers while collaboration dominates in China's SSCI papers; two-authored is the main form of collaboration in China's CSSCI papers but the teamwork of three or more authors is the main form in China's SSCI papers; few of China's CSSCI papers are published in international collaboration but Sino-foreign cooperation is very common in China's SSCI papers; collaboration benefits citations of China's SSCI papers in all disciplines but international collaboration doesn't work well for citations of China's CSSCI papers. Besides, similarities between China's national and international publications can also be observed, e.g., disciplines more cooperative in China's CSSCI papers are also those more cooperative in China's SSCI papers; the top ten countries collaborate with China in CSSCI and SSCI are the same, and the USA accounts for about half of Sino-foreign collaborations in both CSSCI and SSCI. Finally, the usage of bibliometric databases and possible reasons for collaboration differences are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Prof. Jennifer Doudna is an eminent Biochemist who contributed immensely to the area of gene editing for which she was awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 2020. The study investigates and analyses Doudna's contributions and scientific productivity in peer-reviewed Scopus-indexed sources. She had 315 publications during 1987-2020 in Genetics and related fields. Of the total papers she had written and published, 94.29% are multi-authored. Doudna was the primary author in 7.07% of publications whereas she was claimed to be the secondary author in 92.93% of papers. The majority of her publications were in journals from the USA followed by UK and Germany. The most active researchers in the research team of Jennifer were Zhou Kaihong, Ma Enbo, Nogales Eva, Cate Jamie, and Sternberg, Samuel H. Her fiftypercentile age is found to be 26 years. The publication data set is tested with Bradford's law which was found to be negative. She utilized 63 means of communication i.e., journals where she published at least three papers. The highest impact factor journal in which she published a decent number of papers (27) in Nature. As depicted in the keyword analysis, her research core area was related to genetics, the CRISPR CAS system, endonuclease, and gene editing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The complexity of industrial challenges is emerging together with the exponentially developing information and communication technologies (ICT) that provide several implementation approaches for systems engineering. It is difficult for a single company to follow technological development and remain a pioneer in every topic. Still, the industrial challenges require experts in each technology. Therefore, collaboration among technology providers is an opportunity to gather all resources and competences needed for full delivery. A joint offering (JO) is a solution, that is, co‐created in collaboration between two or more actors that usually have complementary technological skills or value‐creation logics. A JO has several doubts relating to the use case (UC) in hand, the feasibility of the joint solution to be co‐created, the resources and skills needed to deliver the joint solution, the partners, the business value creation, the elements of the contract and the ownership of the outcome, just to mention a few. The Joint Offering Evaluation Framework (JOEF) uncovers these issues and supports decision‐making before the development of a JO starts. The JOEF comprises the Joint Offering Playbook and the Business Value Toolset (BVT). The Playbook offers seven viewpoints with checklists and tools for IT solution providers considering collaboration and co‐creation for a solution that they cannot deliver or sell alone. The BVT evaluates and illustrates the business value of a JO from the viewpoints of both creation and delivery, together with value capture and assessment. The JOEF was piloted with a digital twin (DT) UC from the pulp and paper industry. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Information professionals have supported medical providers, administrators and decision-makers, and guideline creators in the COVID-19 response. Searching COVID-19 literature presented new challenges, including the volume and heterogeneity of literature and the proliferation of new information sources, and exposed existing issues in metadata and publishing. An expert panel developed best practices, including recommendations, elaborations, and examples, for searching during public health emergencies. Methods: Project directors and advisors developed core elements from experience and literature. Experts, identified by affiliation with evidence synthesis groups, COVID-19 search experience, and nomination, responded to an online survey to reach consensus on core elements. Expert participants provided written responses to guiding questions. A synthesis of responses provided the foundation for focus group discussions. A writing group then drafted the best practices into a statement. Experts reviewed the statement prior to dissemination. Results: Twelve information professionals contributed to best practice recommendations on six elements: core resources, search strategies, publication types, transparency and reproducibility, collaboration, and conducting research. Underlying principles across recommendations include timeliness, openness, balance, preparedness, and responsiveness. Conclusions: The authors and experts anticipate the recommendations for searching for evidence during public health emergencies will help information specialists, librarians, evidence synthesis groups, researchers, and decision-makers respond to future public health emergencies, including but not limited to disease outbreaks. The recommendations complement existing guidance by addressing concerns specific to emergency response. The statement is intended as a living document. Future revisions should solicit input from a broader community and reflect conclusions of meta-research on COVID-19 and health emergencies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Scientific research has become increasingly collaborative. We systematically reviewed invasion science literature published between 1980 and 2020 and catalogued in Clarivate Analytics Web of Science to examine patterns of authorship and the relationship between co-authorship and annual citation rates. This study analysed 27,234 publications across 1,218 journals and demonstrated that, as the number of publications in invasion science has exponentially increased, the number of authors publishing per year and the average number of authors per paper have also increased. The rising number of authors per paper coincides with a marked decline of single-authored publications; approximately 92% of publications in this dataset were multi-authored, with single-authored papers comprising less than 4% of all papers published in 2020. The increase in multi-authored papers is likely driven by multiple factors, including the widespread perception that collaboration increases scientific quality. The number of authors is positively correlated with perceived research impact; papers with two or more authors produce research that is more frequently cited compared to single-authored papers, and papers with five or more authors have annual citation rates almost double that of single-authored papers. The complexity, context-dependence and urgency of biological invasions contributed to the rise of the highly collaborative field of modern invasion science. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]