Search

The significance of the ethical review process in human-based research undertakings cannot be overemphasized as it is necessary to uphold ethical standards and protect participants. However, the review process per se can act as a bottleneck, potentially hindering research progress and leading to academic dishonesty. The present work explores the benefits and challenges of ethical review, emphasizing issues like intellectual theft, forced authorship, and the stifling of independent researchers. Proposed solutions include leveraging previously approved designs, empowering experienced professors for clearance, establishing panels of researchers, creating voluntary ethical approval offices, utilizing private consultancy offices, and establishing a transnational ethical clearance authority. In conclusion, this work stresses the importance of finding mechanisms to streamline the ethical review process while maintaining ethical standards to foster integrity in research and combat academic dishonesty., Competing Interests: The author declares no competing interests., (Copyright: Subah Abderehim Yesuf et al.)

Bibliometric quantification is frequently used as metrics for the evaluation of the scientific performance of researchers and institutions. The researchers' merit is usually assessed by the analysis of quantitative parameters such as the number of publications, the impact factor of journals, the total number of citations, or the h-index, although the limitations in translating these indicators into the impact of the outcome of scientific production are a matter of harsh criticism. To assess, based on factual evidences, the validity of traditional bibliometric analyses to conclude on the impact of papers to advance the state of the art, we carried out an innovative methodology on selected publications (test set). This methodology is based on identifying those citations of the test set papers that truly embed the methods, concepts, or hypotheses to build new knowledge and formulate conclusions. The results show that the percentage of citations that reflect the real impact of the papers of the test set has an average value of 12.4% of total citations and is not related to the impact factor of the journal where the test set papers were published. In conclusion, our analysis demonstrates factually, using experimental data, the total failure of using quantitative bulk citation analyses to conclude on the scientific impact of publications. Only a careful analysis of how the work described in papers was embedded on the subsequent work and/or conclusions of others can tell about the real contribution of a published work to the development of new knowledge and advancement of science., (© 2020 Federation of European Biochemical Societies.)

Publishing a primary research article is typically the result of a collaborative effort between a variety of researchers across differing career stages. STAR Protocols can complement a research article and empower authors to share the expertise they contributed to the larger study. In this Backstory, we interview members of the Gennarino lab, who published a Cell paper and four protocols, covering bioinformatics, culturing of patient-derived cell lines, neuroimaging from mouse brain sections and primary neurons, and mouse seizure recordings. For more information on the protocols related to this backstory, please refer to (Gennarino et al., 2018)., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Zebrafish heart regeneration is dependent on the activation of a regenerative programme in the cells surrounding the heart, known as the epicardium. A new paper in Development uses genome-wide transcriptomics and chromatin accessibility profiles to identify and validate candidate enhancers linked to genes induced during regeneration in epicardial cells. To hear more about the story, we caught up with first author Yingxi Cao and senior authors Professor Ken Poss from Duke University and Jingli Cao, Assistant Professor at Weill Cornell Medicine., (© 2022. Published by The Company of Biologists Ltd.)

Specification of primordial germ cells requires a proportion of the cells in the posterior of the epiblast to reacquire pluripotency. A new paper in Development describes how OVOL2 is involved in regulating the balance between mesodermal fate and germ cell fate during gastrulation. We caught up with the first author, Yuki Naitou, and corresponding author, Katsuhiko Hayashi (Osaka University), to find out more about the paper and their future research., (© 2022. Published by The Company of Biologists Ltd.)

Organogenesis in plants is a dynamic process that occurs in meristems, where stem cells are maintained. A new paper in Development characterises the real-time dynamics of floral organ primordia initiation and floral meristem termination. We caught up with the authors, Ya Min, Stephanie Conway and Elena Kramer, to find out more about the paper and the story behind the research., (© 2022. Published by The Company of Biologists Ltd.)

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.

With the sharp increase in the volume of literature data, researchers must spend considerable time and energy locating desired papers. A paper recommendation is the means necessary to solve this problem. Unfortunately, the large amount of data combined with sparsity makes personalizing papers challenging. Traditional matrix decomposition models have cold-start issues. Most overlook the importance of information and fail to consider the introduction of noise when using side information, resulting in unsatisfactory recommendations. This study proposes a paper recommendation method (PR-SLSMF) using document-level representation learning with citation-informed transformers (SPECTER) and low-rank and sparse matrix factorization; it uses SPECTER to learn paper content representation. The model calculates the similarity between papers and constructs a weighted heterogeneous information network (HIN), including citation and content similarity information. This method combines the LSMF method with HIN, effectively alleviating data sparsity and cold-start issues and avoiding topic drift. We validated the effectiveness of this method on two real datasets and the necessity of adding side information. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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.

The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in school closures and distancing requirements that have disrupted both work and family life for many. Concerns exist that these disruptions caused by the pandemic may not have influenced men and women researchers equally. Many medical journals have published papers on the pandemic, which were generated by researchers facing the challenges of these disruptions. Here we report the results of an analysis that compared the gender distribution of authors on 1893 medical papers related to the pandemic with that on papers published in the same journals in 2019, for papers with first authors and last authors from the United States. Using mixed-effects regression models, we estimated that the proportion of COVID-19 papers with a woman first author was 19% lower than that for papers published in the same journals in 2019, while our comparisons for last authors and overall proportion of women authors per paper were inconclusive. A closer examination suggested that women's representation as first authors of COVID-19 research was particularly low for papers published in March and April 2020. Our findings are consistent with the idea that the research productivity of women, especially early-career women, has been affected more than the research productivity of men., Competing Interests: JA, MN, NS No competing interests declared, RL Founder of TIME'S UP Healthcare, a non-profit initiative that advocates for safety and equity in healthcare; advisor for FeminEM.org, a website that supports the careers of women in medicine. RJ Has stock options as compensation for her advisory board role in Equity Quotient, a company that evaluates culture in health care companies; has received personal fees from Amgen and Vizient and grants for unrelated work from the National Institutes of Health, the Doris Duke Foundation, the Greenwall Foundation, the Komen Foundation, and Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan for the Michigan Radiation Oncology Quality Consortium; has a contract to conduct an investigator-initiated study with Genentech; has served as an expert witness for Sherinian and Hasso and Dressman Benzinger LaVelle; uncompensated founding member of TIME'S UP Healthcare; member of the Board of Directors of ASCO., (© 2020, Andersen et al.)

Adopting a scoping review method, we examined peer‐reviewed academic papers published about human–lion conflict (HLC) (including coexistence) and identified knowledge gaps. We searched papers published between January 1981 and December 2023 using academic databases, with the key terms African lion, human–lion conflict, human–lion coexistence, and human–lion interaction. This produced 485 records, reduced to 137 after using additional criteria. Ninety‐eight papers were focused on lions in Kenya, Tanzania, Zimbabwe, and Botswana. Ten pan‐African studies were identified in our review. Our inductive analysis identified four themes related to HLC: attitudes and perceptions toward lions, causes of HLC, consequences of HLC, and mitigating HLC. Some limitations identified in systematic reviews of human–wildlife conflict have been addressed in recent years, such as broadening the geographical scale of research. However, some knowledge gaps remain, including a lack of assessment of mitigation strategies and studies on climate changes impact on human–lion conflict. Addressing the knowledge gaps highlighted in this review will require diversifying the disciplinary composition of the research teams and increasing researcher reflexivity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The present study was conducted to draw the co-authorship network of hot papers of science citation index in the Web of Science (WOS) database from 2020 to 2021. This investigation is a descriptive study using a scientometrics approach. This research was conducted using social network analysis indices to visualize the coauthorship networks of hot papers in the science citation index. The structure of the co-authorship network of researchers of hot papers in the field of science consists of 47,045 authors who have contributed to the publication of 3475 hot papers from 2020 to 2021, which indicates the high co-authorship of these authors. Moreover, it was found that among the co-authorship patterns of these researchers, the most significant number of articles during the studied years was related to the five-author collaborations. Moreover, the average Collaboration Coefficient (CC) of the authors of hot papers was higher than 0.80, indicating the authors' strong tendency to produce joint articles. The high collaboration of the authors of hot papers in the science citation index can be one of the reasons for increasing the level of visibility and the potential for using them. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Chemistry researchers are frequently evaluated on the perceived significance of their work with the citation count as the most commonly-used metric for gauging this property. Recent studies have called for a broader evaluation of significance that includes more nuanced bibliometrics as well as altmetrics to more completely evaluate scientific research. To better understand the relationship between metrics and peer judgements of significance in chemistry, we have conducted a survey of chemists to investigate their perceptions of previously published research. Focusing on a specific issue of the Journal of the American Chemical Society published in 2003, respondents were asked to select which articles they thought best matched importance and significance given several contexts: highest number of citations, most significant (subjectively defined), most likely to share among chemists, and most likely to share with a broader audience. The answers to the survey can be summed up in several observations. The ability of respondents to predict the citation counts of established research is markedly lower than the ability of those counts to be predicted by the h-index of the corresponding author of each article. This observation is conserved even when only considering responses from chemists whose expertise falls within the subdiscipline that best describes the work performed in an article. Respondents view both cited papers and significant papers differently than papers that should be shared with chemists. We conclude from our results that peer judgements of importance and significance differ from metrics-based measurements, and that chemists should work with bibliometricians to develop metrics that better capture the nuance of opinions on the importance of a given piece of research.

To reveal the typical features of text duplication in papers from four medical fields: basic medicine, health management, pharmacology and pharmacy, and public health and preventive medicine. To analyze the reasons for duplication and provide suggestions for the management of medical academic misconduct. In total, 2,469 representative Chinese journal papers were included in our research, which were submitted by researchers in 2020 and 2021. A plagiarism check was carried out using the Academic Misconduct Literature Check System (AMLC). We generated a corrected similarity index based on the AMLC general similarity index for further analysis. We compared the similarity indices of papers in four medical fields and revealed their trends over time; differences in similarity index between review and research articles were also analyzed according to the different fields. Further analysis of 143 papers suspected of plagiarism was also performed from the perspective of sections containing duplication and according to the field of research. Papers in the field of pharmacology and pharmacy had the highest similarity index (8.67 ± 5.92%), which was significantly higher than that in other fields, except health management. The similarity index of review articles (9.77 ± 10.28%) was significantly higher than that of research articles (7.41 ± 6.26%). In total, 143 papers were suspected of plagiarism (5.80%) with similarity indices ≥ 15%; most were papers on health management (78, 54.55%), followed by public health and preventive medicine (38, 26.58%); 90.21% of the 143 papers had duplication in multiple sections, while only 9.79% had duplication in a single section. The distribution of sections with duplication varied among different fields; papers in pharmacology and pharmacy were more likely to have duplication in the data/methods and introduction/background sections, however, papers in health management were more likely to contain duplication in the introduction/background or results/discussion sections. Different structures for papers in different fields may have caused these differences. There were three limitations to our research. Firstly, we observed that a small number of papers have been checked early. It is unknown who conducted the plagiarism check as this can be included in other evaluations, such as applications for Science and technology projects or awards. If the authors carried out the check, text with high similarity indices may have been excluded before submission, meaning the similarity index in our research may have been lower than the original value. Secondly, there were only four medical fields included in our research. Additional analysis on a wider scale is required in the future. Thirdly, only a general similarity index was calculated in our study; other similarity indices were not tested. A comprehensive analysis of similarity indices in four medical fields was performed. We made several recommendations for the supervision of medical academic misconduct and the formation of criteria for defining suspected plagiarism for medical papers, as well as for the improved accuracy of text duplication checks. We quantified the differences between the AMLC general similarity index and the corrected index, described the situation around text duplication and plagiarism in papers from four medical fields, and revealed differences in similarity indices between different article types. We also revealed differences in the sections containing duplication for papers with suspected plagiarism among different fields. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Authorship of peer-reviewed journal articles and abstracts has become the primary currency and reward unit in academia. Such a reward is crucial for students and postdocs who are often under-compensated and thus highly value authorship as an incentive. While numerous scientific and publishing organizations have written guidelines for determining author qualifications and author order, there remains much ambiguity when it comes to how these criteria are weighed by research faculty. Here, we sought to provide some initial insight on how faculty view the relative importance of 11 criteria for scientific authorship. We distributed an online survey to 564 biomedical engineering, biology, and bioengineering faculty members at 10 research institutions across the United States. The response rate was approximately 18%, resulting in a final sample of 102 respondents. Results revealed an agreement on some criteria, such as time spent conducting experiments, but there was a lack of agreement regarding the role of funding procurement. This study provides quantitative assessments of how faculty members in the biosciences evaluate authorship criteria. We discuss the implications of these findings for researchers, especially new graduate students, to help navigate the discrepancy between official policies for authorship and the contributions that faculty truly value.

Do highly productive researchers have significantly higher probability to produce top cited papers? Or do high productive researchers mainly produce a sea of irrelevant papers-in other words do we find a diminishing marginal result from productivity? The answer on these questions is important, as it may help to answer the question of whether the increased competition and increased use of indicators for research evaluation and accountability focus has perverse effects or not. We use a Swedish author disambiguated dataset consisting of 48.000 researchers and their WoS-publications during the period of 2008-2011 with citations until 2014 to investigate the relation between productivity and production of highly cited papers. As the analysis shows, quantity does make a difference., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

The demand for eco-friendly packaging materials has urged researchers to look for alternatives to petroleum-based polymers. In this regard, paper-based products have turned out to be a promising choice; however, their weak resistance to water has limited their application. The use of various additives to enhance paper's moisture resistance is a common practice. However, considering the growing global agenda for sustainable development, the search for new bio-based paper additives has become increasingly important. This study investigated the potential synergistic impact of the addition of nanofibrillated cellulose (NFC) and chitosan additives (CHIT) to different fiber combinations to improve paper's properties, in particular, their wet strength. The efficacy of the additive application order was examined and was found to be crucial in achieving the desired outcomes. The results showed that incorporating CHIT after NFC enhanced the paper's tensile and burst indicators, as well as the paper stretch in the dry state, by 35–70%, 35–55%, and 20–35%, respectively. In addition, the tensile index and stretch in the wet state improved 9–13 times and 2.5–5.5 times over, respectively. The air permeability decreased 2.5–12 times over. These findings demonstrate that the sequential addition of the NFC and CHIT additives yield a greater enhancement of paper's properties than using each additive separately. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Although researchers have worked in collaboration since the origins of modern science and the publication of the first scientific journals in the eighteenth century, this phenomenon has acquired exceptional importance in the last several decades. Since the mid-twentieth century, new knowledge has been generated from within an ever-growing network of investigators, working cooperatively in research groups across countries and institutions. Cooperation is a crucial determinant of academic success., Objective: The aim of the present paper is to analyze the evolution of scientific collaboration at the micro level, with regard to the scientific production generated on psoriasis research., Methods: A bibliographic search in the Medline database containing the MeSH terms "psoriasis" or "psoriatic arthritis" was carried out. The search results were limited to articles, reviews and letters. After identifying the co-authorships of documents on psoriasis indexed in the Medline database (1942-2013), various bibliometric indicators were obtained, including the average number of authors per document and degree of multi-authorship over time. In addition, we performed a network analysis to study the evolution of certain features of the co-authorship network as a whole: average degree, size of the largest component, clustering coefficient, density and average distance. We also analyzed the evolution of the giant component to characterize the changing research patterns in the field, and we calculated social network indicators for the nodes, namely betweenness and closeness., Results: The main active research clusters in the area were identified, along with their authors of reference. Our analysis of 28,670 documents sheds light on different aspects related to the evolution of scientific collaboration in the field, including the progressive increase in the mean number of co-authors (which stood at 5.17 in the 2004-2013 decade), and the rise in multi-authored papers signed by many different authors (in the same decade, 25.77% of the documents had between 6 and 9 co-authors, and 10.28% had 10 or more). With regard to the network indicators, the average degree gradually increased up to 10.97 in the study period. The percentage of authors pertaining to the largest component also rose to 73.02% of the authors. The clustering coefficient, on the other hand, remained stable throughout the entire 70-year period, with values hovering around 0.9. Finally, the average distance peaked in the decades 1974-1983 (8.29) and 1984-2003 (8.12) then fell over the next two decades, down to 5.25 in 2004-2013. The construction of the co-authorship network (threshold of collaboration ≥ 10 co-authored works) revealed a giant component of 161 researchers, containing 6 highly cohesive sub-components., Conclusions: Our study reveals the existence of a growing research community in which collaboration is increasingly important. We can highlight an essential feature associated with scientific collaboration: multi-authored papers, with growing numbers of collaborators contributing to them, are becoming more and more common, therefore the formation of research groups of increasing depth (specialization) and breadth (multidisciplinarity) is now a cornerstone of research success.

Image compression is a vital component for domains in which the computational resources are usually scarce such as automotive or telemedicine fields. Also, when discussing real-time systems, the large amount of data that must flow through the system can represent a bottleneck. Therefore, the storage of images, alongside the compression, transmission, and decompression procedures, becomes vital. In recent years, many compression techniques that only preserve the quality of the region of interest of an image have been developed, the other parts being either discarded or compressed with major quality loss. This paper proposes a study of relevant papers from the last decade which are focused on the selection of a region of interest of an image and on the compression techniques that can be applied to that area. To better highlight the novelty of the hybrid methods, classical state-of-the-art approaches are also analyzed. The current work will provide an overview of classical and hybrid compression methods alongside a categorization based on compression ratio and other quality factors such as mean-square error and peak signal-to-noise ratio, structural similarity index measure, and so on. This overview can help researchers to develop a better idea of what compression algorithms are used in certain domains and to find out if the presented performance parameters are of interest for the intended purpose. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: The purpose of our study was to determine the order in which science and health researchers read scientific papers, their reasons for doing so and the perceived difficulty and perceived importance of each section. Study design and setting: An online survey open to science and health academics and researchers distributed via existing research networks, X (formerly Twitter), and LinkedIn. Results: Almost 90% of respondents self-declared to be experienced in reading research papers. 98.6% of the sample read the abstract first because it provides an overview of the paper and facilitates a decision on continuing to read on or not. Seventy-five percent perceived it to be the easiest to read and 62.4% perceived it to be very important (highest rank on a 5-point Likert scale). The majority of respondents did not read a paper in the IMRAD (Introduction, Methods, Results And Discussion) format. Perceived difficulty and perceived importance influenced reading order. Conclusion: Science and health researchers do not typically read scientific and health research papers in IMRAD format. The more important a respondent perceives a section to be, the more likely they are to read it. The easier a section is perceived, the more likely it will be read. We present recommendations to those teaching the skill of writing scientific papers and reports. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article considers how undocumented youth in the UK survive and construct their everyday lives in precarious circumstances. Drawing on multiple in-depth narrative interviews with (n = 7) undocumented youth, I illustrate how these young people focus on the future and engage in purposeful activities as a way of enduring the everyday challenges of living with no papers. I reflect on the relationships, which young people draw on to enable them to endure adversity and rebuild their everyday lives. I conclude that the presence of love and community is critical for young people's survival, safety and wellbeing, and I suggest how practitioners and researchers might make use of these findings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Retracted articles by Indian scholars have received significant attention in recent times. However, no comprehensive study has been conducted to analyse the citations of retracted papers authored by Indian researchers. This study aimed to assess the citations to retracted works published between 2001 and 2020 pre‐ and post‐retraction. The study found that there was an increase in retractions over time, with empirical data suggesting that the number of retractions has increased significantly, from 72 papers between 2001 and 2010 to 365 papers between 2011 and 2020. Duplication (n = 128) and plagiarism (n = 119) were the primary reasons for retraction. Notably, 90% of the retracted articles continued to receive citations after retraction. Among the retracted papers, eight received more than 50 post‐retraction citations, 39 received 20 to 50 citations, 347 received one to 19 citations, and 43 were not cited at all post‐retraction. There was an overall 8% decrease in citations after retraction. Retractions were observed across journals of varying impact factor, with a higher number of retractions observed in journals with an impact factor of less than 5 (n = 286; 65%). Furthermore, smaller research teams of two to five authors accounted for 72% of the total retractions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]