Publication metrics and success on the academic job market

Motivation and success factors in radiological research in Germany - results of a survey by the Methodology and Research Working Group of the German Radiological Society

Investigation of motivation and identification of success factors in radiology research in Germany.Using a German online survey (54 questions, period: 3.5 months), demographic aspects, intrinsic and extrinsic success characteristics, as well as personal and organizational success factors were surveyed based on a career success model. The survey results were reported descriptively. The correlations between success factors and success characteristics were examined using linear, binary-logistic, and multinomial regression models.176 people (164 academically active, 10 not academically active) answered the survey. Most participants (80%, 139/174) worked at a university hospital. 32% had privatdozent or professor as their highest academic title (56/173). The researchers' main motivation was intrinsic interest in research (55%, 89/163), followed by a desire to increase their own career opportunities (25%, 41/163). The following were identified as factors for intrinsic success: i) support from department management (estimate=β=0.26, p<0.001), ii) good work-life balance (β=0.37, p<0.001), and iii) the willingness to pursue science even after reaching the career goal (β=0.16, p<0.016). Relevant factors for extrinsic scientific success were mentoring, protected research time, and activities in professional societies.Researchers in German radiology are mainly intrinsically motivated. Factors known from the literature that determine intrinsic and extrinsic scientific success were confirmed in this study. Knowledge of these factors allows targeted systematic support and could thus increase scientific success in German radiology. · Main motivation for German radiology research is intrinsic interest, followed by career opportunities.. · Factors for intrinsic scientific success are good work-life balance and support by department management.. · Factors for extrinsic scientific success are mentoring, activities in professional societies, and protected research time.. · Wegner F, Heinrichs H, Stahlmann K et al. Motivation and success factors in radiological research in Germany - results of a survey by the Methodology and Research Working Group of the German Radiological Society. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2024; DOI 10.1055/a-2350-0023.

Towards equal representation - A bibliometric analysis of authorships in Laboratory Medicine and Clinical Chemistry from the United States, Canada, and Europe (2005-2022)

Objectives

Although diversity has been demonstrated to benefit research groups, women remain underrepresented in most scientific disciplines, including Laboratory Medicine and Clinical Chemistry. In order to promote diversity and equality in scientific communities, understanding the gender distribution of authorship is crucial.

Methods

This study included a total of 30,268 Web of Science-listed Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine publications from the United States of America, Canada, and the member countries of the European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine from 2005 to 2022. In addition to the publication productivity of female and male authors over time, gender-specific publication characteristics and country-specific gender distributions of authorships were examined.

Results

Overall, publications with female first authors increased by 49 % between 2005 and 2022, averaging 42 % female first authors. Eastern Europe (60 %) and Southern Europe (51 %) had particularly high proportions of female first authors. While female last authorship was the most predictive of female first authorship, with an odds ratio of 2.01 (95 % CI: 1.91-2.12, p < 0.001), only 27 % of last authors were female. Moreover, citation rate was not predictive of female first or last authorship.

Conclusion

Authorship in Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine is moving towards gender parity. This trend is more pronounced for first authors than for last authors. Further research into the citations of female authors in this discipline could be a starting point for increasing the visibility of women researchers in science. Moreover, geographical differences may provide opportunities for future research on gender parity across disciplines.

Radical Collaboration: Reimagining Cancer Team Science

SUMMARY

Here, we define a future of cancer team science adopting "radical collaboration"-in which six "Hallmarks of Cancer Collaboration" are utilized to propel cancer teams to reach new levels of productivity and impact in the modern era. This commentary establishes a playbook for cancer team science that can be readily adopted by others.

Authorship of Publications Supported by NCI-Funded Grants Involving Low- and Middle-Income Countries

Importance

Scientific publication is an important tool for knowledge dissemination and career advancement, but authors affiliated with institutions in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) are historically underrepresented on publications.

Objective

To assess the country income level distribution of author affiliations for publications resulting from National Cancer Institute (NCI)-supported extramural grants between 2015 and 2019, with international collaborating institutions exclusively in 1 or more LMICs.

Design and Setting

This cross-sectional study assessed authorship on publications resulting from NCI-funded grants between October 1, 2015, and September 30, 2019. Grants with collaborators in LMICs were identified in the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Query/View/Report and linked to publications using Dimensions for NIH, published between 2011 and 2020. Statistical analysis was performed from May 2021 to July 2022.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Author institutional affiliation was used to classify author country and related income level as defined by the World Bank. Relative citation ratio and Altmetric data from Dimensions for NIH were used to compare citation impact measures using the Wilcoxon rank sum test.

Results

In this cross-sectional study, 159 grants were awarded to US institutions with collaborators in LMICs, and 5 grants were awarded directly to foreign institutions. These 164 grants resulted in 2428 publications, of which 1242 (51%) did not include any authors affiliated with an institution in an LMIC. In addition, 1884 (78%) and 2009 (83%) publications had a first or last author, respectively, affiliated with a high-income country (HIC). Publications with HIC-affiliated last authors also demonstrated greater citation impact compared with publications with LMIC-affiliated last authors as measured by relative citation ratios and Altmetric Attention Scores; publications with HIC-affiliated first authors also had higher Altmetric Attention Scores.

Conclusions and Relevance

This cross-sectional study suggests that LMIC-affiliated authors were underrepresented on publications resulting from NCI-funded grants involving LMICs. It is critical to promote equitable scientific participation by LMIC institutions in cancer research, including through current and planned programs led by the NCI.

Analysis of NIH K99/R00 awards and the career progression of awardees

Many postdoctoral fellows and scholars who hope to secure tenure-track faculty positions in the United States apply to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) for a Pathway to Independence Award. This award has two phases (K99 and R00) and provides funding for up to 5 years. Using NIH data for the period 2006-2022, we report that ~230 K99 awards were made every year, representing up to ~$250 million annual investment. About 40% of K99 awardees were women and ~89% of K99 awardees went on to receive an R00 award annually. Institutions with the most NIH funding produced the most recipients of K99 awards and recruited the most recipients of R00 awards. The time between a researcher starting an R00 award and receiving a major NIH award (such as an R01) ranged between 4.6 and 7.4 years, and was significantly longer for women, for those who remained at their home institution, and for those hired by an institution that was not one of the 25 institutions with the most NIH funding. Shockingly, there has yet to be a K99 awardee at a historically Black college or university. We go on to show how K99 awardees flow to faculty positions, and to identify various factors that influence the future success of individual researchers and, therefore, also influence the composition of biomedical faculty at universities in the United States.

Analysis of NIH K99/R00 Awards and the Career Progression of Awardees

Many postdoctoral fellows and scholars who hope to secure tenure-track faculty positions in the United States apply to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) for a Pathway to Independence Award. This award has two phases (K99 and R00) and provides funding for up to five years. Using NIH data for the period 2006-2022, we report that ~230 K99 awards were made every year, representing up to ~$250 million annual investment. About 40% of K99 awardees were women and ~89% of K99 awardees went on to receive an R00 award annually. Institutions with the most NIH funding produced the most recipients of K99 awards and recruited the most recipients of R00 awards. The time between a researcher starting an R00 award and receiving a major NIH award (such as an R01) ranged between 4.6 and 7.4 years, and was significantly longer for women, for those who remained at their home institution, and for those hired by an institution that was not one of the 25 institutions with the most NIH funding. Shockingly, there has yet to be a K99 awardee at a historically Black college or university. We go on to show how K99 awardees flow to faculty positions, and to identify various factors that influence the future success of individual researchers and, therefore, also influence the composition of biomedical faculty at universities in the US.

Gender Differences in North American and International Otolaryngology Clinical Practice Guideline Authorship: A 17-Year Analysis

OBJECTIVE

To analyze gender differences in authorship of North American (Canadian and American) and international published otolaryngology-head and neck surgery (OHNS) clinical practice guidelines (CPG) over a 17-year period.

METHODS

Clinical practice guidelines published between 2005 and 2022 were identified through the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technology in Health (CADTH) search strategy in MEDLINE and EMBASE. Studies were included if they were original studies, published in the English language, and encompassed Canadian, American, or international OHNS clinical practice guidelines.

RESULTS

A total of 145 guidelines were identified, encompassing 661 female authors (27.4%) and 1756 male authors (72.7%). Among OHNS authors, women and men accounted for 21.2% and 78.8% of authors, respectively. Women who were involved in guideline authorship were 31.0% less likely to be an otolaryngologist compared to men. There were no gender differences across first or senior author and by subspeciality. Female otolaryngologist representation was the greatest in rhinology (28.3%) and pediatrics (26.7%). American guidelines had the greatest proportion of female authors per guideline (34.1%) and the greatest number of unique female authors (33.2%).

CONCLUSION

Despite the increasing representation of women in OHNS, gender gaps exist with regards to authorship within clinical practice guidelines. Greater gender diversity and transparency is required within guideline authorship to help achieve equitable gender representation and the development of balanced guidelines with a variety of viewpoints.

The changing career paths of PhDs and postdocs trained at EMBL

Individuals with PhDs and postdoctoral experience in the life sciences can pursue a variety of career paths. Many PhD students and postdocs aspire to a permanent research position at a university or research institute, but competition for such positions has increased. Here, we report a time-resolved analysis of the career paths of 2284 researchers who completed a PhD or a postdoc at the European Molecular Biology Laboratory (EMBL) between 1997 and 2020. The most prevalent career outcome was Academia: Principal Investigator (636/2284=27.8% of alumni), followed by Academia: Other (16.8%), Science-related Non-research (15.3%), Industry Research (14.5%), Academia: Postdoc (10.7%) and Non-science-related (4%); we were unable to determine the career path of the remaining 10.9% of alumni. While positions in Academia (Principal Investigator, Postdoc and Other) remained the most common destination for more recent alumni, entry into Science-related Non-research, Industry Research and Non-science-related positions has increased over time, and entry into Academia: Principal Investigator positions has decreased. Our analysis also reveals information on a number of factors - including publication records - that correlate with the career paths followed by researchers.

The replication crisis has led to positive structural, procedural, and community changes

The emergence of large-scale replication projects yielding successful rates substantially lower than expected caused the behavioural, cognitive, and social sciences to experience a so-called 'replication crisis'. In this Perspective, we reframe this 'crisis' through the lens of a credibility revolution, focusing on positive structural, procedural and community-driven changes. Second, we outline a path to expand ongoing advances and improvements. The credibility revolution has been an impetus to several substantive changes which will have a positive, long-term impact on our research environment.

Gender differences in publication rates at Canadian Society of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery annual meetings: an 11-year analysis

BACKGROUND

Evaluating gender differences in publication rates after conference presentations is an avenue to assess women's contributions to academic medicine. The objective of this study was to assess gender differences in publication rates, time to publication, and subspeciality of publication of abstracts presented at Canadian otolaryngology conferences over an 11-year period.

METHODS

Cross-sectional data was obtained from online conference schedules of annual Canadian Society of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery national meetings between 2009 and 2020. A total of 2111 abstract titles were searched in MedLine via PubMed. Gender of the first and senior author, publication status of presented work, and subspeciality of publication were extracted.

RESULTS

Of 2111 scientific abstracts presented between 2009 and 2020, female first and senior authors accounted for 29.0% and 12.8% of published abstracts, respectively. There was a significant difference in the publication rate of senior authors by gender (p < 0.01). Male senior authors had a 9.70% higher rate of publication compared to female senior authors. Posters with a female first author were 33.0% (OR: 0.67; 95% CI 0.49-0.91) less likely to be published compared to posters with a male first author. Similarly, posters with a female senior author were 34.0% (OR: 0.66; 95% CI 0.45-0.96) less likely to be published. There was a significant difference in discipline of publication by gender of the senior author (p < 0.001). Male senior authors were more likely to supervise projects in otology while female senior authors were more likely to supervise projects in education and pediatrics. The time to publication and impact factor of the journal of publication did not differ by gender.

CONCLUSION

Gender disparities exist in the publication rates of first and senior authors at Canadian otolaryngology meetings. Female senior authors have significantly lower publication rates compared to their male colleagues and differences exist in publication rates after poster presentations. Investigation of gender gaps in academic medicine, research productivity, and publications is essential for development of a diverse, equitable, and inclusive workforce in otolaryngology.

Trends of women's authorship in an Iranian medical journal from 1999 to 2019

Author's gender is a potential factor in scientific publications. We evaluated the trends of authorship gender by focusing on women in an Iranian medical journal and followed two aims: A) Mapping gender trends in authorship positions; B) Drawing the patterns among authors. Our results showed that between 1999 and 2019, the role of women as first author was 26.7% and 54.9% (p < 0.05); as last authors 33.3% and 37.3% and as corresponding author 23.3% and 36.7%, respectively. Despite progresses made by women, they were not significantly successful as corresponding and last authors. Further researchers around the world can have similar focus and be useful in making decisions for equality issues.

Recognition of knowledge translation practice in Canadian health sciences tenure and promotion: A content analysis of institutional policy documents

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

There has been growing emphasis on increasing impacts of academic health research by integrating research findings in healthcare. The concept of knowledge translation (KT) has been widely adopted in Canada to guide this work, although lack of recognition in tenure and promotion (T&P) structures have been identified as barrier to researchers undertaking KT. Our objective was to explore how KT is considered in institutional T&P documentation in Canadian academic health sciences.

METHODS

We conducted content analysis of T&P documents acquired from 19 purposively sampled research-intensive or largest regional Canadian institutions in 2020-2021. We coded text for four components of KT (synthesis, dissemination, exchange, application). We identified clusters of related groups of documents interpreted together within the same institution. We summarized manifest KT content with descriptive statistics and identified latent categories related to how KT is considered in T&P documentation.

RESULTS

We acquired 89 unique documents from 17 institutions that formed 48 document clusters. Most of the 1057 text segments were categorized as dissemination (n = 851, 81%), which was included in 47 document clusters (98%). 15 document clusters (31%) included all four KT categories, while one (2%) did not have any KT categories identified. We identified two latent categories: primarily implicit recognition of KT; and an overall lack of clarity on KT.

CONCLUSIONS

Our analysis of T&P documents from primarily research-intensive Canadian universities showed a lack of formal recognition for a comprehensive approach to KT and emphasis on traditional dissemination. We recommend that institutions explicitly and comprehensively consider KT in T&P and align documentation and procedures to reflect these values.

The Productivity Puzzle in Invasion Science: Declining but Persisting Gender Imbalances in Research Performance

We analyzed 27,234 publications published since the rise of the field of invasion science in 1980 to evaluate the presence of gender differences in research productivity, the extent of collaboration, and the research impact of those differences. Our analysis revealed significantly fewer female than male authored publications, both per capita and as a group, and the underrepresentation of women as first and single authors persists despite improvements in the gender gap. At the current rate of increase, gender parity in first authorship will not be achieved until 2100, and men will continue to constitute the principal voice of first or single authors in invasion science. Women collaborate with fewer coauthors and are cited less frequently than men, on average, which may influence recruitment and retention to more senior academic positions. These gender disparities in this aspect of research performance suggest that, although the gender gap is lessening, women experience barriers in invasion science.

Does early publishing in top journals really predict long-term scientific success in the business field?

The soaring number of researchers has led to increasingly intense competition in academia. Early identification of scientists’ potential is a practical but difficult issue currently attracting escalating attention. This study takes the business field as an example and explores whether early publishing in top journals is an effective yardstick to recognise scientists who will have better academic performance in their careers. We extract the career records of publication and citations for 1933 business scientists with stable and continuous publication records from the combination of the ORCID and Scopus databases. Through regression analysis and various checks, we find that researchers publishing in top journals early in their careers indeed perform better subsequently compared to peers with similar early career profiles but no top journal publications. Our research sheds light on a new perspective for early identification of potential star scientists, especially in the business field, and justifies encouraging junior researchers to devote themselves to publishing in top-ranked peer-reviewed journals.

Challenging the White = Neutral Framework in Psychology

In the United States, White samples are often portrayed as if their racial identities were inconsequential to their thoughts, feelings, and behaviors, and research findings derived from White samples are often portrayed as if they were generalizable to all humans. We argue that these and other practices are rooted in a "White = neutral" framework (i.e., the conceptualization of White samples as nonracial). First, we review existing data and present some new data to highlight the scope of the White = neutral framework. Second, we integrate research from across psychological science to argue that the continued use of the White = neutral framework will prevent psychology from becoming a truly objective and inclusive science for at least three reasons: (a) Research with White samples will be valued over research with samples of color, (b) norms that maintain White neutrality will remain unchallenged, and (c) the role of White identity in psychological processes will remain underspecified and underexamined. Third, we provide recommendations for how to move beyond the White = neutral framework in hopes of encouraging all psychological scientists to move toward a White ≠ neutral framework in which all samples are identified for the unique and diverse perspectives that they bring to the world.

The Effects of Editorial-Board Diversity on Race Scholars and Their Scholarship: A Field Experiment

Psychological science is in a unique position to identify and dismantle the thoughts, feelings, and behaviors that maintain and increase racial inequality, yet the extent to which psychological science can do so depends on the extent to which race scholarship is supported in psychological science. We theorized that the lack of racial diversity among editors at mainstream journals might obstruct the advancement of race scholarship by signaling to race scholars that their research is not valued by mainstream journals and that they should submit their research elsewhere for publication. Indeed, in a preregistered field experiment with 1,189 psychology Ph.D. students, we found that under all-White editorial boards, race scholars were less likely than non-race scholars (a) to believe that the journal valued racial diversity, research on race, or their own research; (b) to believe that the journal would publish their research; and (c) to be willing to submit their research to the journal for publication. Under racially diverse editorial boards, however, we find no differences between race scholars and non-race scholars. In fact, we found that under diverse editorial boards, compared with under all-White editorial boards, both race scholars and non-race scholars had more positive perceptions of the journal. We argue that racially diverse editorial boards are good for race scholars and their scholarship and for the field more broadly.

Postdocs as Key to Faculty Diversity: A Structured and Collaborative Approach for Research Universities

Over the past 50 years the diversity of higher education faculty in the mathematical, physical, computer, and engineering sciences (MPCES) has advanced very little at 4-year universities in the United States. This is despite laws and policies such as affirmative action, interventions by universities, and enormous financial investment by federal agencies to diversify science, technology, mathematics, and engineering (STEM) career pathways into academia. Data comparing the fraction of underrepresented minority (URM) postdoctoral scholars to the fraction of faculty at these institutions offer a straightforward empirical explanation for this state of affairs. URM postdoc appointments lag significantly behind progress in terms of both undergraduate and Ph.D.-level STEM student populations. Indeed, URM postdoc appointments lag well-behind faculty diversity itself in the MPCES fields, most of which draw their faculty heavily from the postdoctoral ranks, particularly at research-intensive (R1) universities. Thus, a sea-change in how postdocs are recruited, how their careers are developed, and how they are identified as potential faculty is required in order to diversify the nation’s faculty, and particularly the R1 MPCES professoriate. Our research shows that both Ph.D. students and postdocs benefit from intentional structure at various levels of their respective “apprentice” experiences, a factor that we believe has been neglected. Several key structural approaches are highly effective in these regards: (1) A collaborative approach in which leading research universities collectively identify outstanding URM candidates; (2) Faculty engagement in recruiting and supporting these postdocs; (3) Inter-institutional exchange programs to heighten the visibility and broaden the professional experiences of these postdocs; (4) Community-building activities that create a sense of belonging and encourage continuing in academia for each cohort; and (5) Continuing research based on outcomes and new experimental approaches. The California Alliance, consisting of UC Berkeley, UCLA, Caltech, and Stanford, has been engaged in such a program for almost a decade now, with most of the California Alliance URM postdocs now in tenure track positions or on the path toward careers as faculty at research intensive (R1) institutions. If this approach was brought to scale by involving the top 25 or so URM Ph.D.-producing R1 institutions in the MPCES fields, about 40% of the national URM postdoctoral population in these fields could be affected. Although this impact would fall short of bringing URM MPCES faculty ranks up to full representation of the United States population as a whole, it would vastly improve the outlook for URM students and their aspirations to take on leadership roles as scientists and engineers.

What senior academics can do to support reproducible and open research: a short, three-step guide

Increasingly, policies are being introduced to reward and recognise open research practices, while the adoption of such practices into research routines is being facilitated by many grassroots initiatives. However, despite this widespread endorsement and support, as well as various efforts led by early career researchers, open research is yet to be widely adopted. For open research to become the norm, initiatives should engage academics from all career stages, particularly senior academics (namely senior lecturers, readers, professors) given their routine involvement in determining the quality of research. Senior academics, however, face unique challenges in implementing policy changes and supporting grassroots initiatives. Given that-like all researchers-senior academics are motivated by self-interest, this paper lays out three feasible steps that senior academics can take to improve the quality and productivity of their research, that also serve to engender open research. These steps include changing (a) hiring criteria, (b) how scholarly outputs are credited, and (c) how we fund and publish in line with open research principles. The guidance we provide is accompanied by material for further reading.

Professional development and career-preparedness experiences of STEM Ph.D. students: Gaps and avenues for improvement

This study presents the experiences of current science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) Ph.D. students and alumni with respect to professional development opportunities in their Ph.D. training. Specifically, it investigates if and how the Ph.D. training supports graduates to pursue non-academic and non-R&D roles, which have become increasingly common career paths post-graduation. A mixed-methods questionnaire was developed to obtain quantitative and qualitative data regarding the graduate school experiences of current Ph.D. students and recent Ph.D. graduates pursuing diverse career paths. The study investigates the values, needs, and conceptions of professional development from the student perspective, as well as the contributions of peers and mentors in graduate school towards their professional development. Experiences of Ph.D. alumni are used to identify the barriers for transitioning to the first job post-graduation and to provide an assessment of the current professional development opportunities in Ph.D. programs. It is reported that although Ph.D. training allowed alumni to develop a robust skillset that includes research, teaching, and scientific writing; some common barriers associated with obtaining a job post-graduation were lack of awareness about career options, limited or no professional networks outside academia, and a lack of preparation and support for non-academic job transitions. Through analyzing the student perspective on various aspects of professional development, the study identifies gaps and avenues for improvement for professional development in Ph.D. training, including increased awareness of diverse career paths for STEM PhDs, increased networking opportunities for PhD students with sectors outside academia, embedding professional development in the PhD curriculum, and others; so that programs can support students in entering the labor market in a variety of careers that extend beyond academia and traditional R&D jobs, using interventions that resonate with the students and meet their needs.

The Roles of Female Involvement and Risk Aversion in Open Access Publishing Patterns in Vietnamese Social Sciences and Humanities

Purpose

The open-access (OA) publishing model can help improve researchers’ outreach, thanks to its accessibility and visibility to the public. Therefore, the presentation of female researchers can benefit from the OA publishing model. Despite that, little is known about how gender affects OA practices. Thus, the current study explores the effects of female involvement and risk aversion on OA publishing patterns among Vietnamese social sciences and humanities.

Design/methodology/approach

The study employed Bayesian Mindsponge Framework (BMF) on a dataset of 3,122 Vietnamese social sciences and humanities (SS&H) publications during 2008–2019. The Mindsponge mechanism was specifically used to construct theoretical models, while Bayesian inference was utilized for fitting models.

Findings

The result showed a positive association between female participation and OA publishing probability. However, the positive effect of female involvement on OA publishing probability was negated by the high ratio of female researchers in a publication. OA status was negatively associated with the JIF of the journal in which the publication was published, but the relationship was moderated by the involvement of a female researcher(s). The findings suggested that Vietnamese female researchers might be more likely to publish under the OA model in journals with high JIF for avoiding the risk of public criticism.

Research limitations

The study could only provide evidence on the association between female involvement and OA publishing probability. However, whether to publish under OA terms is often determined by the first or corresponding authors, but not necessarily gender-based.

Practical implications

Systematically coordinated actions are suggested to better support women and promote the OA movement in Vietnam.

Originality/value

The findings show the OA publishing patterns of female researchers in Vietnamese SS&H.

Sex Differences in Cardiovascular Research: A Scientometric Analysis

Background We sought to investigate sex-specific differences in authorship of cardiovascular research over the past decade. Methods and Results All 387 463 cardiovascular publications between 2010 and 2019 were retrieved from Web of Science. Articles increased from 19 960 to 29 604 articles per year (P>0.001). The number of articles written by female first authors increased by 76.3% (6434-11 343 articles) and by 35.0% for male first authors (13 526-18 261) (P<0.001). The first author was more likely to be a female author in articles with female last authors. The median impact factor (IF) for articles by female first authors was lower (2.46 [interquartile range, 7 1.11-4.03] versus 2.51 [interquartile range, 1.17-4.10]; P<0.001). Female authorship articles reached the highest IF in North America (average IF, 3.7), with the lowest in Africa (average IF, 1.8). Conclusions Publications in cardiovascular research have increased over the past decade, particularly by female authors. Female researchers are cited less often compared with their male peers. The IF remains lower for articles by female researchers.

The 100,000 most influential scientists rank: the underrepresentation of Brazilian women in academia

Despite the progress observed in recent years, women are still underrepresented in science worldwide, especially at top positions. Many factors contribute to women progressively leaving academia at different stages of their career, including motherhood, harassment and conscious and unconscious discrimination. Implicit bias plays a major negative role in recognition, promotions and career advancement of female scientists. Recently, a rank of the most influential scientists in the world was created based on several metrics, including the number of published papers and citations. Here, we analyzed the representation of Brazilian scientists in this rank, focusing on gender. Female Brazilian scientists are greatly underrepresented in the rank (11% in the Top 100,000; 18% in the Top 2%). Possible reasons for this observed scenario are related to the metrics used to rank scientists, which reproduce and amplify the well-known implicit bias in peer-review and citations. Male scientists have more self-citation than female scientists and positions in the rank varied when self-citations were included, suggesting that self-citation by male scientists increases their visibility. Discussions on the repercussions of such ranks are pivotal to avoid deepening the gender gap in science.

Collaboration enhances career progression in academic science, especially for female researchers

Collaboration and diversity are increasingly promoted in science. Yet how collaborations influence academic career progression, and whether this differs by gender, remains largely unknown. Here, we use co-authorship ego networks to quantify collaboration behaviour and career progression of a cohort of contributors to biennial International Society of Behavioral Ecology meetings (1992, 1994, 1996). Among this cohort, women were slower and less likely to become a principal investigator (PI; approximated by having at least three last-author publications) and published fewer papers over fewer years (i.e. had shorter academic careers) than men. After adjusting for publication number, women also had fewer collaborators (lower adjusted network size) and published fewer times with each co-author (lower adjusted tie strength), albeit more often with the same group of collaborators (higher adjusted clustering coefficient). Authors with stronger networks were more likely to become a PI, and those with less clustered networks did so more quickly. Women, however, showed a stronger positive relationship with adjusted network size (increased career length) and adjusted tie strength (increased likelihood to become a PI). Finally, early-career network characteristics correlated with career length. Our results suggest that large and varied collaboration networks are positively correlated with career progression, especially for women.

Myths and facts about getting an academic faculty position in neuroscience

We at the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke routinely receive questions and statements from trainees and faculty that suggest widespread beliefs about the necessity of a National Institutes of Health K99/R00 award, other prior funding, and/or specific types of publications for obtaining one's first tenure-track position in neuroscience. To address these beliefs, we examined the funding and publication history of a cohort of investigators who began their first academic faculty position between 2009 and 2019, and we interviewed several senior academic leaders with extensive experience in hiring new faculty. Our data show that <11% of newly hired faculty had a K99/R00 award and that neither prior funding nor papers in prestigious journals were necessary to obtain a tenure-track faculty position. Interviews with academic leaders almost uniformly referred to critically important factors that were considered to be more important in the hiring process than funding or publishing in high-profile journals.

Facing Racism and Sexism in Science by Fighting Against Social Implicit Bias: A Latina and Black Woman's Perspective

The editors of several major journals have recently asserted the importance of combating racism and sexism in science. This is especially relevant now, as the COVID-19 pandemic may have led to a widening of the gender and racial/ethnicity gaps. Implicit bias is a crucial component in this fight. Negative stereotypes that are socially constructed in a given culture are frequently associated with implicit bias (which is unconscious or not perceived). In the present article, we point to scientific evidence that shows the presence of implicit bias in the academic community, contributing to strongly damaging unconscious evaluations and judgments of individuals or groups. Additionally, we suggest several actions aimed at (1) editors and reviewers of scientific journals (2) people in positions of power within funding agencies and research institutions, and (3) members of selection committees to mitigate this effect. These recommendations are based on the experience of a group of Latinx American scientists comprising Black and Latina women, teachers, and undergraduate students who participate in women in science working group at universities in the state of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. With this article, we hope to contribute to reflections, actions, and the development of institutional policies that enable and consolidate diversity in science and reduce disparities based on gender and race/ethnicity.

Competition for priority harms the reliability of science, but reforms can help

Incentives for priority of discovery are hypothesized to harm scientific reliability. Here, we evaluate this hypothesis by developing an evolutionary agent-based model of a competitive scientific process. We find that rewarding priority of discovery causes populations to culturally evolve towards conducting research with smaller samples. This reduces research reliability and the information value of the average study. Increased start-up costs for setting up single studies and increased payoffs for secondary results (also known as scoop protection) attenuate the negative effects of competition. Furthermore, large rewards for negative results promote the evolution of smaller sample sizes. Our results confirm the logical coherence of scoop protection reforms at several journals. Our results also imply that reforms to increase scientific efficiency, such as rapid journal turnaround times, may produce collateral damage by incentivizing lower-quality research; in contrast, reforms that increase start-up costs, such as pre-registration and registered reports, may generate incentives for higher-quality research.

When are hypotheses useful in ecology and evolution?

Research hypotheses have been a cornerstone of science since before Galileo. Many have argued that hypotheses (1) encourage discovery of mechanisms, and (2) reduce bias-both features that should increase transferability and reproducibility. However, we are entering a new era of big data and highly predictive models where some argue the hypothesis is outmoded. We hypothesized that hypothesis use has declined in ecology and evolution since the 1990s, given the substantial advancement of tools further facilitating descriptive, correlative research. Alternatively, hypothesis use may have become more frequent due to the strong recommendation by some journals and funding agencies that submissions have hypothesis statements. Using a detailed literature analysis (N = 268 articles), we found prevalence of hypotheses in eco-evo research is very low (6.7%-26%) and static from 1990-2015, a pattern mirrored in an extensive literature search (N = 302,558 articles). Our literature review also indicates that neither grant success nor citation rates were related to the inclusion of hypotheses, which may provide disincentive for hypothesis formulation. Here, we review common justifications for avoiding hypotheses and present new arguments based on benefits to the individual researcher. We argue that stating multiple alternative hypotheses increases research clarity and precision, and is more likely to address the mechanisms for observed patterns in nature. Although hypotheses are not always necessary, we expect their continued and increased use will help our fields move toward greater understanding, reproducibility, prediction, and effective conservation of nature.

Misinformation in and about science

Humans learn about the world by collectively acquiring information, filtering it, and sharing what we know. Misinformation undermines this process. The repercussions are extensive. Without reliable and accurate sources of information, we cannot hope to halt climate change, make reasoned democratic decisions, or control a global pandemic. Most analyses of misinformation focus on popular and social media, but the scientific enterprise faces a parallel set of problems-from hype and hyperbole to publication bias and citation misdirection, predatory publishing, and filter bubbles. In this perspective, we highlight these parallels and discuss future research directions and interventions.

Considering sex as a biological variable will require a global shift in science culture

For over half a century, male rodents have been the default model organism in preclinical neuroscience research, a convention that has likely contributed to higher rates of misdiagnosis and adverse side effects from drug treatment in women. Studying both sexes could help to rectify these public health problems, but incentive structures in publishing and career advancement deter many researchers from doing so. Moreover, funding agency directives to include male and female animals and human participants in grant proposals lack mechanisms to hold recipients accountable. In this Perspective, we highlight areas of behavioral, cellular and systems neuroscience in which fundamental sex differences have been identified, demonstrating that truly rigorous science must include males and females. We call for a cultural and structural change in how we conduct research and evaluate scientific progress, realigning our professional reward systems and experimental standards to produce a more equitable, representative and therefore translational body of knowledge.

Multiple co-first authors, co-corresponding authors and co-supervisors: a synthesis of shared authorship credit

Purpose

Authorship is the ultimate status of intellectual recognition in academic publishing. Although fairly robust guidelines have already been in place for a considerable amount of time regarding authorship criteria and credit, such as those by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors or Contributor Roles Taxonomy, the lack of reliable verification techniques hamper their accuracy, thereby reducing the validity of authorship claims in such statements. This paper aims to focus on the authorship status and responsibilities of co-first authors and co-corresponding authors.

Design/methodology/approach

To appreciate authorship responsibilities in this subset of authors, the broader academic authorship literature, as well as position statements, rules and guidelines, were consulted.

Findings

Academic publishing that relies on metrics is a global multi-billion-dollar business, so strict measures to assess and confirm authorship, which can be intellectually or financially “profitable” among academics that game such metrics, are needed. The current assessment is that there are inconsistent rules for equally credited authors such as co-first authors, co-corresponding authors and co-supervisors. In shared and collaborative authorship, there are also shared authorship-related responsibilities, but these are infrequently discussed, or tend to only be dealt with broadly.

Originality/value

Within the wider, and important, discussion about authorship, which is one of the most central issues in academic publishing, there has been a limited focus on equally credited authors such as co-first authors, co-corresponding authors and co-supervisors. This paper expands and fortifies that discussion.

Factors affecting the citations of papers in tribology journals

The citations count is flawed but it still the most common way of measuring the academic impact used by scholarly journals (Impact Factor), individual researchers (h-index) and funding agencies (a proxy for quality of research). Individual papers should attract citations depending upon the importance and usefulness of the results presented. However, large enough data sets reveal that there are parameters independent of individual papers' quality that can determine an average citation rate. Here, we examine papers (4756 in total) published in six selected tribology journals in a six-year window between January 2010 and December 2015. Citations were retrieved from the Web of Science and compared with their (1) manuscript length, (2) number of authors, (3) number of affiliated institutions, (4) number of international co-authors, (5) number of cited references, (6) number of words in the title, and (7) mode of publication (open versus paid access). The results revealed that citations received by papers published in tribology journals are affected by all of these parameters. This is a significant finding for authors wishing to increase the impact of their research. This knowledge can be used effectively at the manuscript planning and writing stages to support scientific merit. We suggest that the significance of parameters not directly related to the quality of a scholarly paper will become more critical with the rise of alternative ways of measuring impact including novel generation of paper metrics (e.g., Eigenfactor, SJR), social mentions, and viral outreach.

Honest signaling in academic publishing

Academic journals provide a key quality-control mechanism in science. Yet, information asymmetries and conflicts of interests incentivize scientists to deceive journals about the quality of their research. How can honesty be ensured, despite incentives for deception? Here, we address this question by applying the theory of honest signaling to the publication process. Our models demonstrate that several mechanisms can ensure honest journal submission, including differential benefits, differential costs, and costs to resubmitting rejected papers. Without submission costs, scientists benefit from submitting all papers to high-ranking journals, unless papers can only be submitted a limited number of times. Counterintuitively, our analysis implies that inefficiencies in academic publishing (e.g., arbitrary formatting requirements, long review times) can serve a function by disincentivizing scientists from submitting low-quality work to high-ranking journals. Our models provide simple, powerful tools for understanding how to promote honest paper submission in academic publishing.

Twelve Principles Trainees, PIs, Departments, and Faculties Can Use to Reduce Bias and Discrimination in STEM

There is an overwhelming amount of evidence demonstrating that people from marginalized groups, including women, racialized and Indigenous peoples, people with disabilities, immigrants, and LGBTQ+ individuals, continue to face substantial discrimination in STEM, manifested as both overt bias and unconscious bias. These biases result in discrimination against individuals in marginalized groups, and independent biases collectively contribute to a culture that systematically discriminates against people from marginalized groups. Representation from marginalized groups in postsecondary degrees in natural science and engineering has not substantially improved in over a decade. A set of 10 concrete principles are presented that trainees, principle investigators, departments, and faculties can use to enhance the participation and lived experiences of people in marginalized groups in STEM.

Peer review analysis in the field of radiation oncology: results from a web-based survey of the Young DEGRO working group

Purpose

To evaluate the reviewing behaviour in the German-speaking countries in order to provide recommendations to increase the attractiveness of reviewing activity in the field of radiation oncology.

Methods

In November 2019, a survey was conducted by the Young DEGRO working group (jDEGRO) using the online platform “eSurveyCreator”. The questionnaire consisted of 29 items examining a broad range of factors that influence reviewing motivation and performance.

Results

A total of 281 responses were received. Of these, 154 (55%) were completed and included in the evaluation. The most important factors for journal selection criteria and peer review performance in the field of radiation oncology are the scientific background of the manuscript (85%), reputation of the journal (59%) and a high impact factor (IF; 40%). Reasons for declining an invitation to review include the scientific background of the article (60%), assumed effort (55%) and a low IF (27%). A double-blind review process is preferred by 70% of respondents to a single-blind (16%) or an open review process (14%). If compensation was offered, 59% of participants would review articles more often. Only 12% of the participants have received compensation for their reviewing activities so far. As compensation for the effort of reviewing, 55% of the respondents would prefer free access to the journal’s articles, 45% a discount for their own manuscripts, 40% reduced congress fees and 39% compensation for expenses.

Conclusion

The scientific content of the manuscript, reputation of the journal and a high IF determine the attractiveness for peer reviewing in the field of radiation oncology. The majority of participants prefer a double-blind peer review process and would conduct more reviews if compensation was available. Free access to journal articles, discounts for publication costs or congress fees, or an expense allowance were identified to increase attractiveness of the review process.

Supplementary Information

The online version of this article (10.1007/s00066-020-01729-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Cross-Center Virtual Education Fellowship Program for Early-Career Researchers in Atrial Fibrillation

BACKGROUND

It is estimated that over 46 million individuals have atrial fibrillation (AF) worldwide, and the incidence and prevalence of AF are increasing globally. There is an urgent need to accelerate the academic development of scientists possessing the skills to conduct innovative, collaborative AF research.

METHODS

We designed and implemented a virtual AF Strategically Focused Research Network Cross-Center Fellowship program to enhance the competencies of early-stage AF basic, clinical, and population health researchers through experiential education and mentorship. The pedagogical model involves significant cross-center collaboration to produce a curriculum focused on enhancing AF scientific competencies, fostering career/professional development, and cultivating grant writing skills. Outcomes for success involve clear expectations for fellows to produce manuscripts, presentations, and-for those at the appropriate career stage-grant applications. We evaluated the effectiveness of the fellowship model via mixed methods formative and summative surveys.

RESULTS

In 2 years of the fellowship, fellows generally achieved the productivity metrics sought by our pedagogical model, with outcomes for the 12 fellows including 50 AF-related manuscripts, 7 publications, 28 presentations, and 3 grant awards applications. Participant evaluations reported that the fellowship effectively met its educational objectives. All fellows reported medium to high satisfaction with the overall fellowship, webinar content and facilitation, staff communication and support, and program organization.

CONCLUSIONS

The fellowship model represents an innovative educational strategy by providing a virtual AF training and mentoring curriculum for early-career basic, clinical, and population health scientists working across multiple institutions, which is particularly valuable in the pandemic era.

Replicability in psychological research: a reflection

Background: In recent years, psychological science has suffered a crisis of confidence that has been marked by the low rate of replicability demonstrated in collaborative projects that attempted to quantify this problem, evidencing the difficulty in making replications and the existence of a possible excess of false positives published in the scientific literature. Method: This opinion article aimed to review the panorama of the replicability crisis in psychology, as well as its possible causes. Conclusions: It began from the state of the replicability crisis, then some possible causes and their repercussions on the advancement of psychological science were highlighted, discussing various associated issues, such as individual biases on the part of researchers, the lack of incentives to replicability studies and the priority standards that journals would currently have for novel and positive studies. Finally, the existing alternatives to reverse this situation are mentioned, among them the opening to new statistical approaches, the restructuring of incentives, and the development of editorial policies that facilitate the means for replication.

A survey-based analysis of the academic job market

Many postdoctoral researchers apply for faculty positions knowing relatively little about the hiring process or what is needed to secure a job offer. To address this lack of knowledge about the hiring process we conducted a survey of applicants for faculty positions: the survey ran between May 2018 and May 2019, and received 317 responses. We analyzed the responses to explore the interplay between various scholarly metrics and hiring outcomes. We concluded that, above a certain threshold, the benchmarks traditionally used to measure research success - including funding, number of publications or journals published in - were unable to completely differentiate applicants with and without job offers. Respondents also reported that the hiring process was unnecessarily stressful, time-consuming, and lacking in feedback, irrespective of outcome. Our findings suggest that there is considerable scope to improve the transparency of the hiring process.

Field courses narrow demographic achievement gaps in ecology and evolutionary biology

Disparities remain in the representation of marginalized students in STEM. Classroom-based experiential learning opportunities can increase student confidence and academic success; however, the effectiveness of extending learning to outdoor settings is unknown. Our objectives were to examine (a) demographic gaps in ecology and evolutionary biology (EEB) major completion, college graduation, and GPAs for students who did and did not enroll in field courses, (b) whether under-represented demographic groups were less likely to enroll in field courses, and (c) whether under-represented demographic groups were more likely to feel increased competency in science-related tasks (hereafter, self-efficacy) after participating in field courses. We compared the relationships among academic success measures and demographic data (race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, first-generation, and gender) for UC Santa Cruz undergraduate students admitted between 2008 and 2019 who participated in field courses (N = 941 students) and who did not (N = 28,215 students). Additionally, we administered longitudinal surveys to evaluate self-efficacy gains during field-based versus classroom-based courses (N = 570 students). We found no differences in the proportion of students matriculating at the university as undecided, proposed EEB, or proposed other majors across demographic groups. However, five years later, under-represented students were significantly less likely to graduate with EEB degrees, indicating retention rather than recruitment drives disparities in representation. This retention gap is partly due to a lower rate of college completion and partly through attrition to other majors. Although under-represented students were less likely to enroll in field courses, field courses were associated with higher self-efficacy gains, higher college graduation rates, higher EEB major retention, and higher GPAs at graduation. All demographic groups experienced significant increases in self-efficacy during field-based but not lecture-based courses. Together, our findings suggest that increasing the number of field courses and actively facilitating access to students from under-represented groups can be a powerful tool for increasing STEM diversity.

Is research in peril in Nepal? Publication trend and research quality from projects funded by the University Grants Commission-Nepal

Institutions of higher learning are critical in promoting a knowledge-driven economy through research and training. Nepali universities receive funding from the University Grants Commission, Nepal (UGC-N) to support for impactful research. UGC-N requires grantees to publish research results as journal articles. We reviewed papers published through UGC-N funded research projects over a 10-year period (2008-2018) to assess the trends of article publication in terms of frequency and quality (based on journal impact factor and SCImago journal ranking). At most, 17% projects (n = 325) had publications and the majority of articles were published in journals that had neither SJR rank (74%, n = 240) nor impact factor (86%, n = 279). Most importantly, 10% of articles (n = 23) published in the non-ranked journals appeared in predatory journals. Although there were increasing trends of grants and research article publications in the last 10 years, journal-level quality metrics showed no improvements and suggested decreasing trends during the last half decade. The publication output varied among grant categories. Master research grants and PhD research grants performed better than those of faculty research grants in terms of publication in quality journals. We call for an increased commitment from political and academic leadership to promote quality research in Nepal.

The relationship between bioRxiv preprints, citations and altmetrics

A potential motivation for scientists to deposit their scientific work as preprints is to enhance its citation or social impact. In this study we assessed the citation and altmetric advantage of bioRxiv, a preprint server for the biological sciences. We retrieved metadata of all bioRxiv preprints deposited between November 2013 and December 2017, and matched them to articles that were subsequently published in peer-reviewed journals. Citation data from Scopus and altmetric data from Altmetric.com were used to compare citation and online sharing behavior of bioRxiv preprints, their related journal articles, and nondeposited articles published in the same journals. We found that bioRxiv-deposited journal articles had sizably higher citation and altmetric counts compared to nondeposited articles. Regression analysis reveals that this advantage is not explained by multiple explanatory variables related to the articles’ publication venues and authorship. Further research will be required to establish whether such an effect is causal in nature. bioRxiv preprints themselves are being directly cited in journal articles, regardless of whether the preprint has subsequently been published in a journal. bioRxiv preprints are also shared widely on Twitter and in blogs, but remain relatively scarce in mainstream media and Wikipedia articles, in comparison to peer-reviewed journal articles.