Search

The Special Issue, entitled "Feature Papers in Food Chemistry", is a collection of important high-quality papers (original research articles or comprehensive review papers) published in open access format [...].

Objective: The need to generate evidence related to COVID-19, the acceleration of publication and peer-review process and the competition between journals may have influenced the quality of COVID-19 papers. Our objective was to compare the characteristics of COVID-19 papers against those of non-COVID-19 papers and identify the variables in which they differ., Method: We conducted a journal-matched case-control study. Cases were COVID-19 papers and controls were non-COVID-19 papers published between March 2020 and January 2021. Journals belonging to five different Journal Citations Reports categories were selected. Within each selected journal, a COVID-19 paper (where there was one) and another non-COVID-19 paper were selected. Conditional logistic regression models were fitted., Results: We included 81 COVID-19 and 143 non-COVID-19 papers. Descriptive observational studies and analytical observational studies had, respectively, a 55-fold (odds ratio [OR]: 55.12; 95% confidence interval [95%CI]: 7.41-409.84) and 19-fold (OR: 19.28; 95%CI: 3.09-120.31) higher likelihood of being COVID-19 papers, respectively, and also a higher probability of having a smaller sample size (OR: 7.15; 95%CI: 2.33-21.94). COVID-19 papers had a higher probability of being cited since their publication (OR: 4.97; 95%CI: 1.63-15.10)., Conclusions: The characteristics of COVID-19 papers differed from those of non-COVID-19 papers published in the first months of the pandemic. In order to ensure the publication of good scientific evidence the quality of COVID-19-papers should be preserved., (Copyright © 2022 SESPAS. Publicado por Elsevier España, S.L.U. All rights reserved.)

This study analyzed the current status, hotspots, and emerging trends of global research on cognitive frailty, in order to provide new research ideas for researchers. Articles and reviews related to cognitive frailty, published from 2013 to 2021, were retrieved from the Web of Science Core Collection (WoSCC) database on 26 November 2021. CiteSpace 5.8.R3 was employed for data analyses. A total of 2077 publications were included. There has been a rapid growth of publications on cognitive frailty research since 2016. The United States, Italy, England, and Australia have been the leading research centers of cognitive frailty; however, China has also recently focused on this topic. The National Center for Geriatrics and Gerontology, and Shimada H. were found to be the most prolific institution and author, respectively. Co-citation analysis identified 16 clusters, of which the largest was cognitive frailty. The keywords which occurred most frequently were "older adult", followed by "cognitive impairment", "frailty", "risk", "dementia", "prevalence", "mortality", "health", and "Alzheimer's disease". Burst keyword detection revealed a rising interest in cognitive frailty models. By analyzing these publications from recent years, this study provides a comprehensive analysis of cognitive frailty research.

Objectives: Patient and public involvement (PPI) in health research is required by some funders and publications but we know little about how common it is. In this study we estimated the frequency of PPI inclusion in health research papers and analysed how it varied in relation to research topics, methods, funding sources and geographical regions., Design: Cross-sectional., Methods: Our sample consisted of 3000 research papers published in 2020 in a general health-research journal ( BMJ Open ) that requires a statement on whether studies included PPI. We classified each paper as 'included PPI' or 'did not include PPI' and analysed the association of this classification with location (country or region of the world), methods used, research topic (journal section) and funding source. We used adjusted regression models to estimate incident rate ratios of PPI inclusion in relation to these differences., Results: 618 (20.6%) of the papers in our sample included PPI. The proportion of papers including PPI varied in relation to location (from 44.5% (95% CI 40.8% to 48.5%) in papers from the UK to 3.4% (95% CI 1.5% to 5.3%) in papers from China), method (from 38.6% (95% CI 27.1% to 50.1%) of mixed-methods papers to 5.3% (95% CI -1.9% to 12.5%) of simulation papers), topic (from 36.9% (95% CI 29.1% to 44.7%) of papers on mental health to 3.4% (95% CI -1.3% to 8.2%) of papers on medical education and training, and funding source (from 57.2% (95% CI 51.8% to 62.6%) in papers that received funding from the UK's National Institute for Health Research to 3.4% (95% CI 0.7% to 6.0%) in papers that received funding from a Chinese state funder)., Conclusions: Most research papers in our sample did not include PPI and PPI inclusion varied widely in relation to location, methods, topic and funding source., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

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.

"Application" or "replication" research, already rare, is diminishing in both quantity and quality, for a variety of reasons ("How science goes wrong," 2013; "For my next trick," 2016). In this study of "replications" and "applications," 351 papers that included a reference to any one of ten of the author's papers published between 2001 and 2007 (the "child" papers) were examined. A total of seventeen instances of "application/replication" by other researchers (the relative rarity already a finding) of some element, processes, procedures, instruments, or findings, of one of the author's "parent" papers were found, about 5% of the total 351 original parent papers. No self-replications by the author were studied. The findings showed that, of the small number of replications, three (less than 18% of the total) were "exact" replications, five (about 29%) were "partial," and nine (about 53%) were "conceptual" only ("investigating the same construct but with different methods and measures"; Jones, Derby, & Schmidlin, 2010). All of the replications reported were based on "positive" or "neutral" views of the parent paper, none were based on a "negative" view, potentially problematic, it was concluded, if one of the goals of replication is to identify weaknesses or mistakes in previous work. Another finding was that, after publishing in this area, a minority of authors published another paper on a related topic in the same area at least once in the future. The paper concluded with a call for greater acceptance and valuing of "application/replication" research in general, and of disagreements (and therefore corrections of concepts) among practitioners, by researchers, publishers, editors, reviewers, and authors.

Approaches for rapid reviews that focus on streamlining systematic review methods are not always suitable for exploring complex policy questions, as developing and testing theories to explain these complexities requires configuring diverse qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods studies. Our objective was therefore to provide a guide to selecting approaches for rapidly (i.e., within days to months) addressing complex questions related to health policy and system issues.We provide a two-stage, transdisciplinary collaborative process to select a rapid review approach to address complex policy questions, which consists of scoping the breadth and depth of the literature and then selecting an optimal approach to synthesis. The first stage (scoping the literature) begins with a discussion with the stakeholders requesting evidence to identify and refine the question for the review, which is then used to conduct preliminary searches and conceptually map the documents identified. In the second stage (selection of an optimal approach), further stakeholder consultation is required to refine and tailor the question and approach to identifying relevant documents to include. The approach to synthesizing the included documents is then guided by the final question, the breadth and depth of the literature, and the time available and can include a static or evolving conceptual framework to code and analyze a range of evidence. For areas already covered extensively by existing systematic reviews, the focus can be on summarizing and integrating the review findings, resynthesizing the primary studies, or updating the search and reanalyzing one or more of the systematic reviews.The choice of approaches for conducting rapid reviews is intertwined with decisions about how to manage projects, the amount of work to be done, and the knowledge already available, and our guide offers support to help make these strategic decisions., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

In our planned study, we shall empirically study the assessment of cited papers within the framework of the anchoring-and-adjustment heuristic. We are interested in the question whether citation decisions are (mainly) driven by the quality of cited references. The design of our study is oriented towards the study by Teplitskiy, Duede [10]. We shall undertake a survey of corresponding authors with an available email address in the Web of Science database. The authors are asked to assess the quality of papers that they cited in previous papers. Some authors will be assigned to three treatment groups that receive further information alongside the cited paper: citation information, information on the publishing journal (journal impact factor), or a numerical access code to enter the survey. The control group will not receive any further numerical information. In the statistical analyses, we estimate how (strongly) the quality assessments of the cited papers are adjusted by the respondents to the anchor value (citation, journal, or access code). Thus, we are interested in whether possible adjustments in the assessments can not only be produced by quality-related information (citation or journal), but also by numbers that are not related to quality, i.e. the access code. The results of the study may have important implications for quality assessments of papers by researchers and the role of numbers, citations, and journal metrics in assessment processes., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

The breakthrough potentials of research papers can be explained by their boundary-spanning qualities. Here, for the first time, we apply the structural variation analysis (SVA) model and its affiliated metrics to investigate the extent to which such qualities characterize a group of Nobel Prize winning papers. We find that these papers share remarkable boundary-spanning traits, marked by exceptional abilities to connect disparate and topically-diverse clusters of research papers. Further, their publications exert structural variations on a scale that significantly alters the betweenness centrality distributions in existing intellectual space. Overall, SVA not only provides a set of leading indicators for describing future Nobel Prize winning papers, but also broadens our understanding of similar prize-winning properties that may have been overlooked among other regular publications., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Ethics in social science experimentation and data collection are often discussed but rarely articulated in writing as part of research outputs. Although papers typically reference human subjects research approvals from relevant institutional review boards, most recognize that such boards do not carry out comprehensive ethical assessments. We propose a structured ethics appendix to provide details on the following: policy equipoise, role of the researcher, potential harms to participants and nonparticipants, conflicts of interest, intellectual freedom, feedback to participants, and foreseeable misuse of research results. We discuss each of these and some of the norms and challenging situations of each. We believe that discussing such issues explicitly in appendices of papers, even if briefly, will serve two purposes: more complete communication of ethics can improve discussions of papers and can clarify and improve the norms themselves., Competing Interests: The authors declare no competing interest.

Objective: To evaluate the consistency of causal statements in observational studies published in The BMJ ., Design: Review of observational studies published in a general medical journal., Data Source: Cohort and other longitudinal studies describing an exposure-outcome relationship published in The BMJ in 2018. We also had access to the submitted papers and reviewer reports., Main Outcome Measures: Proportion of published research papers with 'inconsistent' use of causal language. Papers where language was consistently causal or non-causal were classified as 'consistently causal' or 'consistently not causal', respectively. For the 'inconsistent' papers, we then compared the published and submitted version., Results: Of 151 published research papers, 60 described eligible studies. Of these 60, we classified the causal language used as 'consistently causal' (48%), 'inconsistent' (20%) and 'consistently not causal'(32%). Eleven out of 12 (92%) of the 'inconsistent' papers were already inconsistent on submission. The inconsistencies found in both submitted and published versions were mainly due to mismatches between objectives and conclusions. One section might be carefully phrased in terms of association while the other presented causal language. When identifying only an association, some authors jumped to recommending acting on the findings as if motivated by the evidence presented., Conclusion: Further guidance is necessary for authors on what constitutes a causal statement and how to justify or discuss assumptions involved. Based on screening these papers, we provide a list of expressions beyond the obvious 'cause' word which may inspire a useful more comprehensive compendium on causal language., Competing Interests: Competing interests: SS is a full-time employee of the BMJ Publishing Group. No other competing risks to declare., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

The exponential growth of public datasets in the era of Big Data demands new solutions for making these resources findable and reusable. Therefore, a scholarly recommender system for public datasets is an important tool in the field of information filtering. It will aid scholars in identifying prior and related literature to datasets, saving their time, as well as enhance the datasets reusability. In this work, we developed a scholarly recommendation system that recommends research-papers, from PubMed, relevant to public datasets, from Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO). Different techniques for representing textual data are employed and compared in this work. Our results show that term-frequency based methods (BM25 and TF-IDF) outperformed all others including popular Natural Language Processing embedding models such as doc2vec, ELMo and BERT., (©2021 AMIA - All rights reserved.)

Background: Little is known about the surgical discipline in North Korea from the perspective of the outside world. This study aimed to examine the disease entities covered by articles published in the major medical journal in North Korea, " Surgery .", Methods: Content and frequency analyses of 2,132 articles published in " Surgery " from 2006 to 2017 were conducted. Two medical doctors who majored in surgery and anesthesiology perused the articles and compiled the diseases being elucidated in each article. The diseases described in each article were stratified into 13 surgical subspecialties., Results: Articles from " Surgery ," similar to articles from the Western surgical community, also covered a wide variety of surgical diseases from different subspecialties, and the number of publications continued to grow consistently. Moreover, a number of studies focused on the fields of orthopedics and general surgery dealing with benign diseases. Some articles focused on minimally invasive surgeries using laparoscopy., Conclusion: The studies published in the North Korean journal " Surgery " encompass various clinical areas, but their quality is unclear., Competing Interests: The authors have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose., (© 2021 The Korean Academy of Medical Sciences.)

The success of a scientist depends on their production of scientific papers and the impact factor of the journal in which they publish. Because most major scientific journals are published in English, success is related to publishing in this language. Currently, 98% of publications in science are written in English, including researchers from English as a Foreign Language (EFL) countries. Colombia is among the countries with the lowest English proficiency in the world. Thus, understanding the disadvantages that Colombians face in publishing is crucial to reducing global inequality in science. This paper quantifies the disadvantages that result from the language hegemony in scientific publishing by examining the additional costs that communicating in English creates in the production of articles. It was identified that more than 90% of the scientific articles published by Colombian researchers are in English, and that publishing in a second language creates additional financial costs to Colombian doctoral students and results in problems with reading comprehension, writing ease and time, and anxiety. Rejection or revision of their articles because of the English grammar was reported by 43.5% of the doctoral students, and 33% elected not to attend international conferences and meetings due to the mandatory use of English in oral presentations. Finally, among the translation/editing services reviewed, the cost per article is between one-quarter and one-half of a doctoral monthly salary in Colombia. Of particular note, we identified a positive correlation between English proficiency and higher socioeconomic origin of the researcher. Overall, this study exhibits the negative consequences of hegemony of English that preserves the global gap in science. Although having a common language is important for science communication, generating multilinguistic alternatives would promote diversity while conserving a communication channel. Such an effort should come from different actors and should not fall solely on EFL researchers., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction: Biomedical researchers have lamented the lengthy timelines from manuscript submission to publication and highlighted potential detrimental effects on scientific progress and scientists' careers. In 2015, Himmelstein identified the mean time from manuscript submission to acceptance in biomedicine as approximately 100 days. The length of publication timelines in health professions education (HPE) is currently unknown., Methods: This study replicates Himmelstein's work with a sample of 14 HPE journals published between 2008-2018. Using PubMed, 19,182 article citations were retrieved. Open metadata for each were downloaded, including the date the article was received by the journal, date the authors resubmitted revisions, date the journal accepted the article, and date of entry into PubMed. Journals without publication history metadata were excluded., Results: Publication history data were available for 55% (n = 8) of the journals sampled. The publication histories of 4,735 (25%) articles were analyzed. Mean time from: (1) author submission to journal acceptance was 180.93 days (SD = 103.89), (2) author submission to posting on PubMed was 263.55 days (SD = 157.61), and (3) journal acceptance to posting on PubMed was 83.15 days (SD = 135.72)., Discussion: This study presents publication metadata for journals that openly provide it-a first step towards understanding publication timelines in HPE. Findings confirm the replicability of the original study, and the limited data suggest that, in comparison to biomedical scientists broadly, medical educators may experience longer wait times for article acceptance and publication. Reasons for these delays are currently unknown and deserve further study; such work would be facilitated by increased public access to journal metadata.

Highly cited papers in the Essential Science Indicators database refer to papers with citations in the top 1% of all papers in a research field, and they are considered to be symbols of scientific excellence and top performance of the past ten years. This study provided an informetric analysis of 7791 highly cited papers in the environmental sciences category during 2009-2019. Informetric indicators and visualization tools were applied to evaluate and present the performances of journals, countries/territories, institutions, top cited papers, and research hotspots. The results showed that the cumulative number of publications has increased exponentially, suggesting strong development of the environmental sciences category. There were 211 journals publishing highly cited papers, with Energy & Environmental Science as the leading journal. The USA ranked first with the highest number of publications and occupied the core position in the collaboration network, while Mainland China took the first place in independent research output. Review articles have an obvious advantage in terms of achieving high citations. "Adsorption", "climate change", and "heavy metal" were the most frequent keywords, with "microplastic" rising rapidly as a new research frontier in recent years. Five research hotspots were visualized from highly cited papers via cluster analysis., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

It is essential to establish a multi-dimensional postgraduate quality evaluation system for student assessment and training. This study aimed to explore the construction of the multiindex and hierarchical comprehensive evaluation system for postgraduate training in science and engineering based on the Context, Input, Process, Product (CIPP) model using Analytic Hierarchy Process. It involved 756 postgraduates in physics and engineering who were randomly selected via the Internet. Data were collected from the questionnaire about postgraduates' basic information. After collection, Factor Analysis was used to verify the rationality of the design of second-level and third-level indicators, and adjust the corresponding weights. On this basis, Cluster Analysis was used to classify the training quality of the postgraduates based on their scores on academic ability, basic quality, and social ability indicators. The results revealed that the index system includes 4 first-level indicators,12 second-level indicators and 36 third-level indicators, and different weights being assigned to the indicators according to their influence on the training quality of postgraduates in science and engineering. This study also provides some reference for the quality of science and engineering postgraduate training in Chinese universities by proposing relevant measures, which could be interesting also for international audience.

Climate change is a challenge for the sustainable development of an international economy and society. The impact of climate change on infectious diseases has been regarded as one of the most urgent research topics. In this paper, an analysis of the bibliometrics, co-word biclustering, and strategic diagram was performed to evaluate global scientific production, hotspots, and developing trends regarding climate change and infectious diseases, based on the data of two decades (1999-2008 and 2009-2018) from PubMed. According to the search strategy and inclusion criteria, a total of 1443 publications were found on the topic of climate change and infectious diseases. There has been increasing research productivity in this field, which has been supported by a wide range of subject categories. The top highly-frequent major MeSH (medical subject headings)/subheading combination terms could be divided into four clusters for the first decade and five for the second decade using a biclustering analysis. At present, some significant public health challenges (global health, and travel and tropical climate, etc.) are at the center of the whole target research network. In the last ten years, "Statistical model", "Diarrhea", "Dengue", "Ecosystem and biodiversity", and "Zoonoses" have been considered as emerging hotspots, but they still need more attention for further development.

Background: When a journal receives a duplicate publication, the ability to identify the submitted work as previously published, and reject it, is an assay to publication ethics best practices. The aim of this study was to evaluate how three different types of journals, namely open access (OA) journals, subscription-based journals, and presumed predatory journals, responded to receiving a previously published manuscript for review., Methods: We performed a quasi-experimental study in which we submitted a previously published article to a random sample of 602 biomedical journals, roughly 200 journals from each journal type sampled: OA journals, subscription-based journals, and presumed predatory journals. Three hundred and three journals received a Word version in manuscript format, while 299 journals received the formatted publisher's PDF version of the published article. We then recorded responses to the submission received after approximately 1 month. Responses were reviewed, extracted, and coded in duplicate. Our primary outcome was the rate of rejection of the two types of submitted articles (PDF vs Word) within our three journal types., Results: We received correspondence back from 308 (51.1%) journals within our study timeline (32 days); (N = 46 predatory journals, N = 127 OA journals, N = 135 subscription-based journals). Of the journals that responded, 153 received the Word version of the paper, while 155 received the PDF version. Four journals (1.3%) accepted our paper, 291 (94.5%) journals rejected the paper, and 13 (4.2%) requested a revision. A chi-square test looking at journal type, and submission type, was significant (χ 2 (4) = 23.50, p < 0.001). All four responses to accept our article came from presumed predatory journals, 3 of which received the Word format and 1 that received the PDF format. Less than half of journals that rejected our submissions did so because they identified ethical issues such as plagiarism with the manuscript (133 (45.7%))., Conclusion: Few journals accepted our submitted paper. However, our findings suggest that all three types of journals may not have adequate safeguards in place to recognize and act on plagiarism or duplicate submissions.

Objective: Oral cancer and precancers are a major public health challenge in developing countries. Researchers in Saudi Arabia have constantly been directing their efforts on oral cancer research and have their results published. Systematic analysis of such papers is the need of the hour as it will not only acknowledge the current status but will also help in framing future policies on oral cancer research in Saudi Arabia., Method: The search string "oral cancer" OR "Oral Squamous Cell Carcinoma" OR "oral premalignant lesion" OR "oral precancer" OR "Oral Potentially malignant disorder" AND AFFIL (Saudi AND Arabia ) was used for retrieval of articles from Scopus database. Various tools available in Scopus database were used for analyzing the bibliometric related parameters., Results: The search revealed a total of 663 publications based on the above query. Maximum affiliations were from King Saud University (163) followed by Jazan University (109) and then King Abdulaziz University (106). A large number of international collaborations were observed, the maximum with India (176) and the USA (127). The maximum number of articles were published in the Asia Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention (34) followed by the Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice (33) and Journal of Oral Pathology and Medicine (19)., Conclusion: Saudi researchers are directing their efforts towards the public health menace of oral cancer. However, it was also observed that some institutions have emerged as front runners in research, whereas others are contributing significantly less. The health department should encourage and take necessary steps to increase the involvement of other institutions.

This work presents an annotation tool that automatically locates mentions of particular amino-acid residues in published papers and identifies the protein concerned. These matches can be provided in context or in a searchable format in order for researchers to better use the existing and future literature.

Copyright of Revista Horizonte Médico is the property of Universidad de San Martin de Porres and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Objective: Electronic data collection (EDC) has become a suitable alternative to paper based data collection (PBDC) in biomedical research even in resource poor settings. During a survey in Nepal, data were collected using both systems and data entry errors compared between both methods. Collected data were checked for completeness, values outside of realistic ranges, internal logic and date variables for reasonable time frames. Variables were grouped into 5 categories and the number of discordant entries were compared between both systems, overall and per variable category., Results: Data from 52 variables collected from 358 participants were available. Discrepancies between both data sets were found in 12.6% of all entries (2352/18,616). Differences between data points were identified in 18.0% (643/3580) of continuous variables, 15.8% of time variables (113/716), 13.0% of date variables (140/1074), 12.0% of text variables (86/716), and 10.9% of categorical variables (1370/12,530). Overall 64% (1499/2352) of all discrepancies were due to data omissions, 76.6% (1148/1499) of missing entries were among categorical data. Omissions in PBDC (n = 1002) were twice as frequent as in EDC (n = 497, p < 0.001). Data omissions, specifically among categorical variables were identified as the greatest source of error. If designed accordingly, EDC can address this short fall effectively.

Abstract Objective The aim of this study was to identify and analyze the gender breakdown of first authorship contributing to the most‐cited papers in the field of otolaryngology, with a goal of identifying trends in gender representation in publishing. Methods The top 150 most‐cited papers were identified using the Science Citation Index of the Institute for Scientific Information. Among the first authors, gender, h‐index, percentage of first, last, and corresponding authorship positions, total publications, and citations were analyzed. Results The majority of papers were in the English language, from the United States, of clinical nature, and on otologic topics. Eighty‐one percent of papers (n = 122) had men who were first authors, although there was no difference in h‐index score, authorship position, number of publications, citations, and average citations/year between men and women first authors. Upon subgroup analysis by decade (1950s–2010s), there was no difference in the number of articles by women first authors (P = 0.11); however, there was a statistically significant increase in the percentage of women authors (P = 0.001) in papers published later compared to those published earlier. Conclusions While a promising number of women otolaryngologists are publishing high‐powered articles, future initiatives to promote academic inclusivity of women should be considered.

This investigation delves into the evolving patterns and regional variances in industry-academia collaboration (IAC) within Functional Nucleic Acids (FNAs) research. Analyzing publications and patents from 1990 to 2021, we dissected IAC at individual and collective levels, documenting the count and share of IAC endeavors, key partners, and regional differences. Results indicate a rising trend in IAC publications and collaborating institutions, while patent trends display a mix of increases, decreases, and steady states. The United States leads in IAC activities, correlating with its prowess in scientific research and technological innovation. Notably, regional discrepancies in IAC are mainly due to intra-regional variations, with Asia and Europe experiencing the most pronounced disparities.

The Semantic Link Network is a general semantic model for modeling the structure and the evolution of complex systems. Various semantic links play different roles in rendering the semantics of complex system. One of the basic semantic links represents cause-effect relation, which plays an important role in representation and understanding. This paper verifies the role of the Semantic Link Network in representing the core of text by investigating the contribution of cause-effect link to representing the core of scientific papers. Research carries out with the following steps: (1) Two propositions on the contribution of cause-effect link in rendering the core of paper are proposed and verified through a statistical survey, which shows that the sentences on cause-effect links cover about 65% of key words within each paper on average. (2) An algorithm based on syntactic patterns is designed for automatically extracting cause-effect link from scientific papers, which recalls about 70% of manually annotated cause-effect links on average, indicating that the result adapts to the scale of data sets. (3) The effects of cause-effect link on four schemes of incorporating cause-effect link into the existing instances of the Semantic Link Network for enhancing the summarization of scientific papers are investigated. The experiments show that the quality of the summaries is significantly improved, which verifies the role of semantic links. The significance of this research lies in two aspects: (1) it verifies that the Semantic Link Network connects the important concepts to render the core of text; and, (2) it provides an evidence for realizing content services such as summarization, recommendation and question answering based on the Semantic Link Network, and it can inspire relevant research on content computing., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Poor research reporting is a major contributing factor to low study reproducibility, financial and animal waste. The ARRIVE (Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments) guidelines were developed to improve reporting quality and many journals support these guidelines. The influence of this support is unknown. We hypothesized that papers published in journals supporting the ARRIVE guidelines would show improved reporting compared with those in non-supporting journals. In a retrospective, observational cohort study, papers from 5 ARRIVE supporting (SUPP) and 2 non-supporting (nonSUPP) journals, published before (2009) and 5 years after (2015) the ARRIVE guidelines, were selected. Adherence to the ARRIVE checklist of 20 items was independently evaluated by two reviewers and items assessed as fully, partially or not reported. Mean percentages of items reported were compared between journal types and years with an unequal variance t-test. Individual items and sub-items were compared with a chi-square test. From an initial cohort of 956, 236 papers were included: 120 from 2009 (SUPP; n = 52, nonSUPP; n = 68), 116 from 2015 (SUPP; n = 61, nonSUPP; n = 55). The percentage of fully reported items was similar between journal types in 2009 (SUPP: 55.3 ± 11.5% [SD]; nonSUPP: 51.8 ± 9.0%; p = 0.07, 95% CI of mean difference -0.3-7.3%) and 2015 (SUPP: 60.5 ± 11.2%; nonSUPP; 60.2 ± 10.0%; p = 0.89, 95%CI -3.6-4.2%). The small increase in fully reported items between years was similar for both journal types (p = 0.09, 95% CI -0.5-4.3%). No paper fully reported 100% of items on the ARRIVE checklist and measures associated with bias were poorly reported. These results suggest that journal support for the ARRIVE guidelines has not resulted in a meaningful improvement in reporting quality, contributing to ongoing waste in animal research., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Many researchers used National Health Insurance database to publish medical papers which are often retrospective, population-based, and cohort studies. However, the author's research domain and academic characteristics are still unclear.By searching the PubMed database (Pubmed.com), we used the keyword of [Taiwan] and [National Health Insurance Research Database], then downloaded 2913 articles published from 1995 to 2017. Social network analysis (SNA), Gini coefficient, and Google Maps were applied to gather these data for visualizing: the most productive author; the pattern of coauthor collaboration teams; and the author's research domain denoted by abstract keywords and Pubmed MESH (medical subject heading) terms.Utilizing the 2913 papers from Taiwan's National Health Insurance database, we chose the top 10 research teams shown on Google Maps and analyzed one author (Dr. Kao) who published 149 papers in the database in 2015. In the past 15 years, we found Dr. Kao had 2987 connections with other coauthors from 13 research teams. The cooccurrence abstract keywords with the highest frequency are cohort study and National Health Insurance Research Database. The most coexistent MESH terms are tomography, X-ray computed, and positron-emission tomography. The strength of the author research distinct domain is very low (Gini < 0.40).SNA incorporated with Google Maps and Gini coefficient provides insight into the relationships between entities. The results obtained in this study can be applied for a comprehensive understanding of other productive authors in the field of academics.

We report the top ten papers published by the Journal ofInnovation in Health Informatics in 2017.