Search

Biomedical research reporting guidelines provide a framework by which journal editors and the researchers who conduct studies can ensure that the reported research is both complete and transparent. With more than 16 different guidelines for the 11 major study types of medical and health research, authors need to be familiar with journal reporting standards. To assess the current endorsements of reporting guidelines for biomedical and health research, this study examined the instructions for authors (IFAs) of 559 biomedical journals by 11 prominent publishers that publish original research or systematic reviews/meta-analyses. Data from the above original sources were cleaned and restructured, and analyzed in a database and text miner. Each journal's instructions or information for authors were examined to code if any of five prominent reporting guidelines were mentioned and what form the guideline adherence demonstration took. Seventeen journals published the reporting guidelines. Four of the five reporting guidelines listed journals as endorsers. For journals with open peer review reports, a sample of journals and peer reviews was analyzed for mention of adherence to reporting guidelines. The endorsement of research guidelines by publishers and their associated journals is inconsistent for some publishers, with only a small number of journals endorsing relevant guidelines. Based on the analysis of open peer reviews, there is evidence that some reviewers check the adherence to the endorsed reporting guidelines. Currently, there is no universal endorsement of reporting guidelines by publishers nor ways of demonstrating adherence to guidelines. Journals may not directly inform authors of their guideline endorsements, making it more difficult for authors to adhere to endorsed guidelines. Suggestions derived from the findings are provided for authors, journals, and reporting guidelines to ensure increased adequate use of endorsed reporting guidelines. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The question of whether it is appropriate to attribute authorship to deceased individuals of original studies in the biomedical literature is contentious. Authorship guidelines utilized by journals do not provide a clear consensus framework that is binding on those in the field. To guide and inform the implementation of authorship frameworks it would be useful to understand the extent of the practice in the scientific literature, but studies that have systematically quantified the prevalence of this phenomenon in the biomedical literature have not been performed to date. To address this issue, we quantified the prevalence of publications by deceased authors in the biomedical literature from the period 1990-2020. We screened 2,601,457 peer-reviewed papers from the full text Europe PubMed Central database. We applied natural language processing, stringent filtering and manual curation to identify a final set of 1,439 deceased authors. We then determined these authors published a total of 38,907 papers over their careers with 5,477 published after death. The number of deceased publications has been growing rapidly, a 146-fold increase since the year 2000. This rate of increase was still significant when accounting for the growing total number of publications and pool of authors. We found that more than 50% of deceased author papers were first submitted after the death of the author and that over 60% of these papers failed to acknowledge the deceased authors status. Most deceased authors published less than 10 papers after death but a small pool of 30 authors published significantly more. A pool of 266 authors published more than 90% of their total publications after death. Our analysis indicates that the attribution of deceased authorship in the literature is not an occasional occurrence but a burgeoning trend. A consensus framework to address authorship by deceased scientists is warranted.

The advancement of underrepresented minority and women PhD students to elite postdoctoral and faculty positions in the STEM fields continues to lag that of majority males, despite decades of efforts to mitigate bias and increase opportunities for students from diverse backgrounds. In 2015, the National Science Foundation Alliance for Graduate Education and the Professoriate (NSF AGEP) California Alliance (Berkeley, Caltech, Stanford, UCLA) conducted a wide-ranging survey of graduate students across the mathematical, physical, engineering, and computer sciences in order to identify levers to improve the success of PhD students, and, in time, improve diversity in STEM leadership positions, especially the professoriate. The survey data were interpreted via path analysis, a method that identifies significant relationships, both direct and indirect, among various factors and outcomes of interest. We investigated two important outcomes: publication rates, which largely determine a new PhD students competitiveness in the academic marketplace, and subjective well-being. Women and minority students who perceived that they were well-prepared for their graduate courses and accepted by their colleagues (faculty and fellow students), and who experienced well-articulated and structured PhD programs, were most likely to publish at rates comparable to their male majority peers. Women PhD students experienced significantly higher levels of distress than their male peers, both majority and minority, while both women and minority student distress levels were mitigated by clearly-articulated expectations, perceiving that they were well-prepared for graduate level courses, and feeling accepted by their colleagues. It is unclear whether higher levels of distress in women students is related directly to their experiences in their STEM PhD programs. The findings suggest that mitigating factors that negatively affect diversity should not, in principle, require the investment of large resources, but rather requires attention to the local culture and structure of individual STEM PhD programs.

This study estimates the effect of data sharing on the citations of academic articles, using journal policies as a natural experiment. We begin by examining 17 high-impact journals that have adopted the requirement that data from published articles be publicly posted. We match these 17 journals to 13 journals without policy changes and find that empirical articles published just before their change in editorial policy have citation rates with no statistically significant difference from those published shortly after the shift. We then ask whether this null result stems from poor compliance with data sharing policies, and use the data sharing policy changes as instrumental variables to examine more closely two leading journals in economics and political science with relatively strong enforcement of new data policies. We find that articles that make their data available receive 97 additional citations (estimate standard error of 34). We conclude that: a) authors who share data may be rewarded eventually with additional scholarly citations, and b) data-posting policies alone do not increase the impact of articles published in a journal unless those policies are enforced.

Scientific progress, or scientific change, has been an important topic in the philosophy and history of science. Previous work has developed quantitative approaches to characterize the progression of science in different fields, but how individual scientists make progress through their careers is not well understood at a comprehensive scale. We characterize the regularity in the temporal dynamics of scientists' publishing behavior with computational algorithms that predict the historical emerging order of publications from individual scientists. We discover that scientists publish in ways following the processes of chaining that mirror those observed in historical word meaning extension, whereby novel ideas emerge by connecting to existing ideas that are proximal in semantic space. We report findings for predominant exemplar-based chaining that reconstructs the emerging order in the publications of 1,164 award-winning and random-sampled scientists from the fields of Physics, Chemistry, Medicine, Economics, and Computer Science over the past century. Our work provides large-scale evidence that scientists across different fields tend to share similar publishing behavior over time by taking incremental steps that build on their past research outputs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The present processes of research assessment, i.e. focusing on one or a few, related, scientometrics, foster questionable authorship practices, like gifting authorship to non-contributing people. An especially harmful one of these unethical practices is the formation of publication cartels, where authors offer gift authorship to each other reciprocally. Here, by developing a simple model and a simulation of the publication process I investigate how beneficial cartels can be and what measure can be used to restrict them. My results indicate that publication cartels can significantly boost members' productivity even if paper counts are weighted by the inverse of author number (the 1/n rule). Nevertheless, applying the 1/n rule generates conflicts of interest both among cartel members themselves and between cartel members and non-members which might lead to the self-purification of the academic publishing industry. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The first author's initials appear incorrectly in the citation. The correct citation is Alcalde Anton A, Farnworth MS, Hebberecht L, Harrison CJ, Montgomery SH (2023) A modified method to analyse cell proliferation using EdU labelling in large insect brains. PLOS ONE 18(10): e0292009. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0292009.The publisher apologizes for the error. [Extracted from the article]

The PLOS ONE Editors issue this notice to correct an error in the correction notice [[1]] for this article [[2]]. Contrary to the statement in the original correction notice [[1]], the article [[2]] was not republished at the time of the publication of the notice, but instead was republished on August 9, 2024. The Copyright license and statement of the article [[2]] have now been updated. Please download this article again to view the correct version.The publisher apologizes for the error. [Extracted from the article]

The PLOS ONE Editors issue this notice to correct an error in the retraction notice [[1]] for this article [[2]]. Contrary to the statement in the retraction notice, the article was not removed from the PLOS ONE website at the time of retraction but instead was removed on August 9, 2024. The article's Copyright and Data Availability statements have now also been updated, and the removed contents are no longer offered under the Creative Commons Attribution License.The publisher apologizes for the error. [Extracted from the article]

The affiliation for the eighth author is incorrect. Xi Zeng not affiliated with #1 but with #2: Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, China.The publisher apologizes for the error. [Extracted from the article]

The PLOS ONE Editors retract this article [[1]] because it was identified as one of a series of submissions for which we have concerns about the article's adherence to PLOS ONE's Ethical Publishing Practice polices, including but not restricted to concerns about the authorship and the integrity of the article's peer review. We regret that the issues were not identified prior to the article's publication.The author either did not respond directly or could not be reached. [Extracted from the article]

Notice of RepublicationAn incorrect copyright license was mistakenly applied to this article [[1]] upon publication. The publisher apologizes for the error. At the time of publication of this notice, the article [[1]] was republished to update the Copyright license and statement. Please download this article again to view the correct version. [Extracted from the article]

The Data Availability statement for this paper is incorrect. The correct statement is: The anonymized data supporting the findings and the scripts used to generate key figures are publicly available in the Edmond repository at https://doi.org/10.17617/3.LF8H2Q.The publisher apologizes for the error. [Extracted from the article]

The fourth author's initials appear incorrectly in the citation. The correct citation is: Koshy KC, Gopakumar B, Sebastian A, Nair S A, Johnson AJ, Govindan B, et al. (2022) Flower-fruit dynamics, visitor-predator patterns and chemical preferences in the tropical bamboo, Melocanna baccifera. PLoS ONE 17(11): e0277341. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0277341.The publisher apologizes for the error. [Extracted from the article]

Competing Interests: Both authors are employees of the organization that publishes PLOS ONE.

Proficiency in medical writing is crucial for disseminating reports of medical studies. The impact of workshops in this regard on participants' confidence is a subject of debate. We assessed the impact of a hands-on workshop on participants' confidence in medical writing. Participants of a 2-day "learning-by-doing" workshop held at McMaster University participated in this before-after study. We used a unique, reliable, and valid tool comprising two domains of confidence in medical writing and using English language before and after receiving the educational intervention. Of 25 participants, 21 completed the instrument before and after the workshop. Typical participants were female, and students in their 30s, who had not attended a prior workshop. The mean (95% CI) increase in the participants' confidence for domain 1 was 15.3 (10.5, 20.1), for domain 2 was 16.8 (9.8, 23.8), and for the total score was 32.1 (20.9, 43.2) (all P<0.001). Between-subgroup analyses showed the score increase was significantly higher in participants with less than 5 years of experience in medical research. The workshop had a positive impact on enhancing participants' confidence in writing skills, including using active verbs, crafting short sentences, summarizing main findings, and adhering to checklists like CONSORT. Hands-on medical writing workshops can boost participants' confidence in writing medical articles and using optimal English language. Targeting junior researchers and graduate students could result in a better outcome. Emphasizing the writing areas where participants achieved higher score changes might yield better outcomes for such workshops., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright: © 2024 Astaneh et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

The film and publishing industries are fraught with gender disparities, with men overpowering nearly every sector of these domains. For instance, men are not only paid more than women in the film industry, but they also outnumber women in positions such as director, screenwriter, and lead acting roles. Similarly, women often resort to assuming gender-neutral or male pseudonyms to increase their prospects in the publishing industry. This widespread gender inequality in the film and publishing industries raises the question of how writers' gender relates to gendered language and narrative receptions. Two archival studies examined whether gender-linked language relates to film (N = 521) and novel (N = 150) ratings, and whether those associations differ as a function of writer gender or the expertise of the rater (professional critics and lay audience members). Results demonstrated that female screenwriters and novelists used a more feminine style of writing, whereas male screenwriters and novelists used a more masculine style of writing. Lay audiences gave more positive ratings to films and novels by writers who used a more gender-congruent writing style, in contrast with professional critics, who gave more positive reviews to films by writers who used a more gender-incongruent writing style. Our findings substantiate past research regarding the differing tastes of lay audiences and professional critics in addition to lending insight into subtle social dynamics that may sustain gender biases in the film and publishing industries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Two independent surveys of PhD students in STEM fields at the University of California, Berkeley, indicate that underrepresented minorities (URMs) publish at significantly lower rates than non-URM males, placing the former at a significant disadvantage as they compete for postdoctoral and faculty positions. Differences as a function of gender reveal a similar, though less consistent, pattern. A conspicuous exception is Berkeley's College of Chemistry, where publication rates are tightly clustered as a function of ethnicity and gender, and where PhD students experience a highly structured program that includes early and systematic involvement in research, as well as clear expectations for publishing. Social science research supports the hypothesis that this more structured environment hastens the successful induction of diverse groups into the high-performance STEM academic track.

Notice of republicationAn incorrect version of the Supporting Information and Figure files were published in error. The publisher apologizes for this error. This article was republished on January 18, 2024, to correct for this error. Please download this article again to view the correct version. [Extracted from the article]

Notice of RepublicationThis article was republished on April 17, 2024, to correct an error in the author list: David Richter was erroneously displayed as David Richte. The publisher apologizes for this error. Please download this article again to view the correct version. The originally published, uncorrected article and the republished, corrected article are provided here for reference.Supporting informationS1 FileOriginally published, uncorrected article.(PDF)S2 FileRepublished, corrected article.(PDF) [Extracted from the article]

The Tropical Andes, one of the world's most biodiverse regions, is vital for ecological research and conservation. However, while researchers in Bolivia, Ecuador, and Peru contribute significantly to scientific knowledge, their publication rates in academic journals have historically lagged behind neighboring nations. A multifaceted strategy was employed to understand and address the publication divide in the Tropical Andes region. This approach focused on regional researchers and consisted of a three-day workshop to improve scientific writing skills, offer publication insights, and equip researchers with tools to overcome obstacles. A series of surveys were also conducted to explore the challenges faced by local researchers and their proposed solutions, covering topics such as participant demographics, factors contributing to lower publication rates, personal barriers, proposed strategies for improving publications, specific topics of interest, participant satisfaction, most valuable workshop topics, and future recommendations. The workshop had an overwhelming response, with over 500 interested participants registering in just a few days, mostly experienced professionals, highlighting the need for such initiatives in the region. About two-thirds had ready-to-publish materials, highlighting the potential impact of targeted interventions on unlocking untapped knowledge. The surveys revealed the challenges contributing to the publication divide, including insufficient training, cultural emphasis on economic development, language barriers, limited resource access, lack of institutional support, high publishing costs, and time and financial constraints. The most common personal barriers were insufficient knowledge and experience in the publication process, lack of self-confidence, and fears of rejection. Proposed solutions include conducting training workshops, fostering collaborative networks, improving resource accessibility, and an institutional and cultural shift that encourages publishing. Addressing challenges faced by experienced professionals in the Tropical Andes by understanding individual needs, fostering support, and demystifying the publication process offers a promising path to closing the publication divide and unlocking the region's valuable scientific contributions., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright: © 2024 Valdez et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

This document is a correction notice for an article titled "Global adoption of 6-month drug-resistant TB regimens: Projected uptake by 2026." The correction states that there were errors in the data availability statement, including the inclusion of personal email addresses of multiple personnel. Additionally, an incorrect version of the S1 File was published. The publisher apologizes for these errors and advises readers to download the article again to view the correct version. The citation for the corrected article is provided. [Extracted from the article]

Notice of RepublicationThis article was republished on December 20, 2023, to correct errors in the author byline that were introduced during the typesetting process. The publisher apologizes for the errors. Please download this article again to view the correct version. The originally published, uncorrected article and the republished, corrected articles are provided here for reference.Supporting informationS1 FileOriginally published, uncorrected article.(PDF)S2 FileRepublished, corrected article.(PDF) [Extracted from the article]

This study aims to integrate research in the field of aerobics and mental health through the visualization analysis method of the CiteSpace map, to clarify the impact of aerobics on mental health and stress levels. Firstly, based on the literature method, pieces of literature related to aerobics and mental health are searched and collected. Secondly, the visualization analysis method of the CiteSpace map is employed to summarize and analyze the contents of the literature, involving statistical analysis of the annual number of publications, analysis of author characteristics, and analysis of publishing institution characteristics. In addition, keyword co-occurrence analysis and keyword cluster analysis are also conducted in related research fields. Among them, the Log-Likelihood Ratio is used in keyword cluster analysis. Finally, the results are analyzed using the visualization analysis method of the CiteSpace map and the statistics-based comprehensive results. The results demonstrate that in the recent 20 years, the average annual number of articles in related fields exceeds 190. The high-yield authors are distributed in economically developed areas, and the cooperation among authors is scattered. In the keyword clustering results, a total of 77 cluster labels are obtained. The Q value of the clustering module is 0.89, and the average clustering profile silhouette (S) value is 0.92, indicating that the clustering structure is significant and the results are reasonable. The aerobics cluster contains the most closely related keywords, covering mental health and stress levels. Data analysis based on existing studies reveals that aerobics has a significant impact on mental health and stress levels. Individuals participating in aerobics show obvious improvement in mental health inventory (MHI) scores (t(100) = 4.32, p<0.05). Individuals participating in aerobics present a remarkable reduction in the questionnaire evaluation of stress levels (t(100) = -3.91, p<0.05). This study's results support aerobics' positive effects on mental health and stress levels., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright: © 2024 Zhao et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

The purpose of this paper is to address the chasm between academic research on social media as an expanding academic discipline and at the same time a growing marketing function. A bibliometric analysis indicated the evolution of academic research on social media. The results of a survey of 280 social media practitioners shed the light on the gap between academic social media research and the practice of professionals. A qualitative study also offered novel insights and recommendations for future developments in academic research on social media. The findings of this paper showed that academic research on social media is growing in terms of the number of publications but is struggling in three areas: visibility, relevance, and influence on practitioners. This study contributes to the body of knowledge on social media. The implications of our study are derived from the importance of our findings on the directions to publish more relevant and timely academic research on social media. While extensive studies exist on social media, their influence on practitioners is still limited., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright: © 2024 Elhajjar, Yacoub. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

BackgroundEditorial peer review is universally used but little studied. We examined the relationship between external reviewers' recommendations and the editorial outcome of manuscripts undergoing external peer-review at the Journal of General Internal Medicine (JGIM).Methodology/principal findingsWe examined reviewer recommendations and editors' decisions at JGIM between 2004 and 2008. For manuscripts undergoing peer review, we calculated chance-corrected agreement among reviewers on recommendations to reject versus accept or revise. Using mixed effects logistic regression models, we estimated intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC) at the reviewer and manuscript level. Finally, we examined the probability of rejection in relation to reviewer agreement and disagreement. The 2264 manuscripts sent for external review during the study period received 5881 reviews provided by 2916 reviewers; 28% of reviews recommended rejection. Chance corrected agreement (kappa statistic) on rejection among reviewers was 0.11 (p

There are errors in the Funding section. The correct Funding statement is: This research was supported by the Institute of Information & communications Technology Planning & Evaluation (IITP) grant funded by the Korea government (2019-0-01584, 2020-0-01373, IITP-2021-2018-0-01431).The publisher apologizes for the error. [Extracted from the article]

This document is a correction notice from the journal PLoS ONE regarding an error in Table 2 of an article titled "Notes on correctness of p-values when analyzing experiments using SAS and R." The error is in the Methods column, where 'R proc glm' should be 'SAS proc glm'. The publisher apologizes for the mistake and provides the correct Table 2 in the notice. The article discusses the results from analyses of an unbalanced two-factorial experiment using different statistical methods in R and SAS. The correction notice includes a reference to the original article for further reading. [Extracted from the article]

Notice of RepublicationThis article was republished on November 22, 2023, to correct the error in the affiliation that was introduced during the typesetting process. The publisher apologizes for the error. Please download this article again to view the correct version. The originally published, uncorrected article and the republished, corrected articles are provided here for reference.ReferenceSupporting informationS1 FileOriginally published, uncorrected article.(PDF)S2 FileRepublished, corrected article.(PDF) [Extracted from the article]

BackgroundForthright reporting of financial ties and conflicts of interest of researchers is associated with public trust in and esteem for the scientific enterprise.Methods/principal findingsWe searched Lexis/Nexis Academic News for the top news stories in science published in 2004 and 2005. We conducted a content analysis of 1152 newspaper stories. Funders of the research were identified in 38% of stories, financial ties of the researchers were reported in 11% of stories, and 5% reported financial ties of sources quoted. Of 73 stories not reporting on financial ties, 27% had financial ties publicly disclosed in scholarly journals.Conclusions/significanceBecause science journalists often did not report conflict of interest information, adherence to gold-standard recommendations for science journalism was low. Journalists work under many different constraints, but nonetheless news reports of scientific research were incomplete, potentially eroding public trust in science.

This article discusses the open-identity label, i.e., the practice of disclosing reviewers’ names in published scholarly books, a common practice in Central and Eastern European countries. This study’s objective is to verify whether the open-identity label is a type of peer-review label (like those used in Finland and Flanders, i.e., the Flemish part of Belgium), and as such, whether it can be used as a delineation criterion in various systems used to evaluate scholarly publications. We have conducted a two-phase sequential explanatory study. In the first phase, interviews with 20 of the 40 largest Polish publishers of scholarly books were conducted to investigate how Polish publishers control peer reviews and whether the open-identity label can be used to identify peer-reviewed books. In the other phase, two questionnaires were used to analyze perceptions of peer-review and open-identity labelling among authors (n = 600) and reviewers (n = 875) of books published by these 20 publishers. Integrated results allowed us to verify publishers’ claims concerning their peer-review practices. Our findings reveal that publishers actually control peer reviews by providing assessment criteria to reviewers and sending reviews to authors. Publishers rarely ask for permission to disclose reviewers’ names, but it is obvious to reviewers that this practice of disclosing names is part of peer reviewing. This study also shows that only the names of reviewers who accepted manuscripts for publication are disclosed. Thus, most importantly, our analysis shows that the open-identity label that Polish publishers use is a type of peer-review label like those used in Flanders and Finland, and as such, it can be used to identify peer-reviewed scholarly books. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Google Books Ngram Viewer (Google Ngram) is a search engine that charts word frequencies from a large corpus of books and thereby allows for the examination of cultural change as it is reflected in books. While the tool's massive corpus of data (about 8 million books or 6% of all books ever published) has been used in various scientific studies, concerns about the accuracy of results have simultaneously emerged. This paper reviews the literature and serves as a guideline for improving Google Ngram studies by suggesting five methodological procedures suited to increase the reliability of results. In particular, we recommend the use of (I) different language corpora, (II) cross-checks on different corpora from the same language, (III) word inflections, (IV) synonyms, and (V) a standardization procedure that accounts for both the influx of data and unequal weights of word frequencies. Further, we outline how to combine these procedures and address the risk of potential biases arising from censorship and propaganda. As an example of the proposed procedures, we examine the cross-cultural expression of religion via religious terms for the years 1900 to 2000. Special emphasis is placed on the situation during World War II. In line with the strand of literature that emphasizes the decline of collectivistic values, our results suggest an overall decrease of religion's importance. However, religion re-gains importance during times of crisis such as World War II. By comparing the results obtained through the different methods, we illustrate that applying and particularly combining our suggested procedures increase the reliability of results and prevents authors from deriving wrong assumptions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The English language has evolved dramatically throughout its lifespan, to the extent that a modern speaker of Old English would be incomprehensible without translation. One concrete indicator of this process is the movement from irregular to regular (-ed) forms for the past tense of verbs. In this study we quantify the extent of verb regularization using two vastly disparate datasets: (1) Six years of published books scanned by Google (2003–2008), and (2) A decade of social media messages posted to Twitter (2008–2017). We find that the extent of verb regularization is greater on Twitter, taken as a whole, than in English Fiction books. Regularization is also greater for tweets geotagged in the United States relative to American English books, but the opposite is true for tweets geotagged in the United Kingdom relative to British English books. We also find interesting regional variations in regularization across counties in the United States. However, once differences in population are accounted for, we do not identify strong correlations with socio-demographic variables such as education or income. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Women are generally under-represented as authors of publications, and especially as last authors, but this under-representation may not be uniformly distributed across countries. We aimed to document by country and region the proportion of female authors (PFA) in high-impact general medical journals., Methods: We used PyMed, a Python library that provides access to PubMed, to retrieve all PubMed articles published between January 2012 and December 2021 in the fifty general internal medicine journals with the highest 2020 impact factor according to Journal Citation Reports. We extracted first/last authors' main country of affiliation for all these articles using regular expressions and manual search, and grouped the countries into eight regions (North/Latin America, Western/Eastern Europe, Asia, Pacific, Middle East, and Africa). We used NamSor to determine first/last authors' gender and computed the PFA for each country/region., Results: We retrieved 163,537 publications for first authors and 135,392 for last authors. Gender could be determined for 160,891 and 133,373 publications, respectively. The PFA was 41% for first authors and 33% for last authors, but it varied widely by country (first authors: >50% for eight countries, maximum = 63% in Romania, minimum = 19% in Japan; last authors: >50% for two countries, maximum = 53% in Romania, minimum = 9% in Japan). The PFA also varied by region. It was highest for Eastern Europe (first authors = 53%, last authors = 40%), and lowest for Asia (36% and 29%) and the Middle East (35% and 27%)., Conclusion: We found that the PFA varied widely by country and region, and was lowest in Asia, particularly Japan, and the Middle East. The under-representation of women as authors of publications, especially in these two regions, needs to be addressed and correcting persistent gender discrimination in research should be a top priority., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright: © 2023 Sebo, Schwarz. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

Grade point average in "other" courses (GPAO) is an increasingly common measure used to control for prior academic performance and to predict future academic performance. In previous work, there are two distinct approaches to calculating GPAO, one based on only courses taken concurrently (term GPAO) and one based on all previous courses taken (cumulative GPAO). To our knowledge, no one has studied whether these methods for calculating the GPAO result in equivalent analyses and conclusions. As researchers often use one definition or the other without comment on why that choice was made, if the two calculations of GPAO are different, researchers might be inducing systematic error into their results and publishing potentially inaccurate conclusions. We looked at more than 3,700 courses at a public, research-intensive university over a decade and found limited evidence that the choice of GPAO calculation affects the conclusions. At most, one in seven courses could be affected. Further analysis suggests that there may be situations where one form of GPAO may be preferred over the other when it comes to examining inequity in courses or predicting student grades. However, we did not find sufficient evidence to universally recommend one form of GPAO over the other., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright: © 2023 Young et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

The vast majority of scientific articles published to-date have not been accompanied by concomitant publication of the underlying research data upon which they are based. This state of affairs precludes the routine re-use and re-analysis of research data, undermining the efficiency of the scientific enterprise, and compromising the credibility of claims that cannot be independently verified. It may be especially important to make data available for the most influential studies that have provided a foundation for subsequent research and theory development. Therefore, we launched an initiative—the Data Ark—to examine whether we could retrospectively enhance the preservation and accessibility of important scientific data. Here we report the outcome of our efforts to retrieve, preserve, and liberate data from 111 of the most highly-cited articles published in psychology and psychiatry between 2006–2011 (n = 48) and 2014–2016 (n = 63). Most data sets were not made available (76/111, 68%, 95% CI [60, 77]), some were only made available with restrictions (20/111, 18%, 95% CI [10, 27]), and few were made available in a completely unrestricted form (15/111, 14%, 95% CI [5, 22]). Where extant data sharing systems were in place, they usually (17/22, 77%, 95% CI [54, 91]) did not allow unrestricted access. Authors reported several barriers to data sharing, including issues related to data ownership and ethical concerns. The Data Ark initiative could help preserve and liberate important scientific data, surface barriers to data sharing, and advance community discussions on data stewardship. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Even democracies endowed with the most active free press struggle to maintain diversity of news coverage. Consolidation and market forces may cause only a few dominant players to control the news cycle. Editorial policies may be biased by corporate ownership relations, narrowing news coverage and focus. To an increasing degree this problem also applies to social media news distribution, since it is subject to the same socio-economic drivers. To study the effects of consolidation and ownership on news diversity, we model the diversity of Chilean coverage on the basis of ownership records and social media data. We create similarity networks of news outlets on the basis of their ownership and the topics they cover. We then examine the relationships between the topology of ownership networks and content similarity to characterize how ownership affects news coverage. A network analysis reveals that Chilean media is highly concentrated both in terms of ownership as well as in terms of topics covered. Our method can be used to determine which groups of outlets and ownership exert the greatest influence on news coverage. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Researchers have repeatedly demonstrated that women continue to be underrepresented in publication output in the sciences. This is true even in female-rich fields such as archaeology. Since most gender-related publication studies rely on data from peer-reviewed journals, it would be instructive, though challenging, to also track publication output in non-refereed and professional or industry venues, which tend to be more accessible to those working in extra-academic settings. This comparison is important in fields such as archaeology in which the vast majority (approximately 90%) of practitioners in the USA work for private sector cultural resource management firms and federal and state agencies. To understand the dynamics of who publishes where, we compiled a new dataset tracking over 40 years of peer-reviewed versus non-peer-reviewed publications that publish articles on the archaeology of California (an American Indian cultural area including southwest Oregon, most of the state of California, and Baja Mexico) and the Great Basin culture area (spanning eight western USA states). Historic gender differences in the publishing output of authors identified as men versus those identified as women were revealed by articles published between 1974 and 2016 in two refereed journals, the Journal of California Anthropology/ Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology and California Archaeology, and in one un-refereed venue, the Society for California Archaeology Proceedings. Although multiple independent measures indicate that women are contributing and active members of the discipline, publishing records yield more variable results. Specifically, while women have historic and increasingly robust levels of participation in the non-peer-reviewed Proceedings, they remain vastly underrepresented in the two peer-reviewed journals, which are widely regarded as more prestigious and influential. We argue that this “peer review gap” is influenced by variation in the costs (largely time investment) and benefits of publication for people working in different professional roles (e.g., agency professionals, private/cultural resource management firm personnel, tenure-track faculty, adjunct faculty, etc.). We also argue that these cost and benefit variations may ultimately influence the decisions of people of all genders and backgrounds, but, because of the current structure of our discipline—including the fact that women and minorities lag in positions where costly peer-reviewed publication is a rewarded and supported activity—overwhelmingly affect these groups. We recognize that non-refereed publications such as Proceedings provide an important means of bridging the peer review gap and give voice to individuals from diverse backgrounds and perspectives. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Peer review is the gold standard for scientific communication, but its ability to guarantee the quality of published research remains difficult to verify. Recent modeling studies suggest that peer review is sensitive to reviewer misbehavior, and it has been claimed that referees who sabotage work they perceive as competition may severely undermine the quality of publications. Here we examine which aspects of suboptimal reviewing practices most strongly impact quality, and test different mitigating strategies that editors may employ to counter them. We find that the biggest hazard to the quality of published literature is not selfish rejection of high-quality manuscripts but indifferent acceptance of low-quality ones. Bypassing or blacklisting bad reviewers and consulting additional reviewers to settle disagreements can reduce but not eliminate the impact. The other editorial strategies we tested do not significantly improve quality, but pairing manuscripts to reviewers unlikely to selfishly reject them and allowing revision of rejected manuscripts minimize rejection of above-average manuscripts. In its current form, peer review offers few incentives for impartial reviewing efforts. Editors can help, but structural changes are more likely to have a stronger impact. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

With the growth of scholarly collaboration networks and social communication platforms, members of the scholarly community are experimenting with their approach to disseminating research outputs, in an effort to increase their audience and outreach. However, from a researcher’s point of view, it is difficult to determine whether efforts to make work more visible are worthwhile (in terms of the association with publication metrics) and within that, difficult to assess which platform or network is most effective for sharing work and connecting to a wider audience. We undertook a case study of Kudos (), a web-based service that claims to help researchers increase the outreach of their publications, to examine the most effective tools for sharing publications online, and to investigate which actions are associated with improved metrics. We extracted a dataset from Kudos of 830,565 unique publications claimed by authors, for which 20,775 had actions taken to explain or share via Kudos, and for 4,867 of these full text download data from publishers was available. Findings show that researchers are most likely to share their work on Facebook, but links shared on Twitter are more likely to be clicked on. A Mann-Whitney U test revealed that a treatment group (publications having actions in Kudos) had a significantly higher median average of 149 full text downloads (23.1% more) per publication as compared to a control group (having no actions in Kudos) with a median average of 121 full text downloads per publication. These findings suggest that performing actions on publications, such as sharing, explaining, or enriching, could help to increase the number of full text downloads of a publication. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Publishing protocols of randomized controlled trials (RCT) facilitates a more detailed description of study rational, design, and related ethical and safety issues, which should promote transparency. Little is known about how the practice of publishing protocols developed over time. Therefore, this study describes the worldwide trends in volume and methodological quality of published RCT protocols. Methods: A systematic search was performed in PubMed and EMBASE, identifying RCT protocols published over a decade from 1 September 2001. Data were extracted on quality characteristics of RCT protocols. The primary outcome, methodological quality, was assessed by individual methodological characteristics (adequate generation of allocation, concealment of allocation and intention-to-treat analysis). A comparison was made by publication period (First, September 2001- December 2004; Second, January 2005-May 2008; Third, June 2008-September 2011), geographical region and medical specialty. Results: The number of published RCT protocols increased from 69 in the first, to 390 in the third period (p<0.0001). Internal medicine and paediatrics were the most common specialty topics. Whereas most published RCT protocols in the first period originated from North America (n = 30, 44%), in the second and third period this was Europe (respectively, n = 65, 47% and n = 190, 48%, p = 0.02). Quality of RCT protocols was higher in Europe and Australasia, compared to North America (OR = 0.63, CI = 0.40–0.99, p = 0.04). Adequate generation of allocation improved with time (44%, 58%, 67%, p = 0.001), as did concealment of allocation (38%, 53%, 55%, p = 0.03). Surgical protocols had the highest quality among the three specialty topics used in this study (OR = 1.94, CI = 1.09–3.45, p = 0.02). Conclusion: Publishing RCT protocols has become popular, with a five-fold increase in the past decade. The quality of published RCT protocols also improved, although variation between geographical regions and across medical specialties was seen. This emphasizes the importance of international standards of comprehensive training in RCT methodology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

It is common in scientific publishing to request from authors reviewer suggestions for their own manuscripts. The question then arises: How many submissions are needed to discover friendly suggested reviewers? To answer this question, as the data we would need is anonymized, we present an agent-based simulation of (single-blinded) peer review to generate synthetic data. We then use a Bayesian framework to classify suggested reviewers. To set a lower bound on the number of submissions possible, we create an optimistically simple model that should allow us to more readily deduce the degree of friendliness of the reviewer. Despite this model's optimistic conditions, we find that one would need hundreds of submissions to classify even a small reviewer subset. Thus, it is virtually unfeasible under realistic conditions. This ensures that the peer review system is sufficiently robust to allow authors to suggest their own reviewers., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright: © 2023 Pessoa, Pressé. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)