Publish or Perish: Selective Attrition as a Unifying Explanation for Patterns in Innovation over the Career.

Studying 5.6 million biomedical science articles published over three decades, we reconcile conflicts in a longstanding interdisciplinary literature on scientists' life-cycle productivity by controlling for selective attrition and distinguishing between research quantity and quality. While research quality declines monotonically over the career, this decline is easily overlooked because higher "ability" authors have longer publishing careers. Our results have implications for broader questions of human capital accumulation over the career and federal research policies that shift funding to early-career researchers - while funding researchers at their most creative, these policies must be undertaken carefully because young researchers are less "able" on average.

Women are credited less in science than men.

There is a well-documented gap between the observed number of works produced by women and by men in science, with clear consequences for the retention and promotion of women1. The gap might be a result of productivity differences2-5, or it might be owing to women's contributions not being acknowledged6,7. Here we find that at least part of this gap is the result of unacknowledged contributions: women in research teams are significantly less likely than men to be credited with authorship. The findings are consistent across three very different sources of data. Analysis of the first source-large-scale administrative data on research teams, team scientific output and attribution of credit-show that women are significantly less likely to be named on a given article or patent produced by their team relative to their male peers. The gender gap in attribution is present across most scientific fields and almost all career stages. The second source-an extensive survey of authors-similarly shows that women's scientific contributions are systematically less likely to be recognized. The third source-qualitative responses-suggests that the reason that women are less likely to be credited is because their work is often not known, is not appreciated or is ignored. At least some of the observed gender gap in scientific output may be owing not to differences in scientific contribution, but rather to differences in attribution.

Predicting MeSH Beyond MEDLINE.

Medical subject headings (MeSH) are a flexible and useful tool for describing biomedical concepts. Here, we present MeSHier, a tool for assigning MeSH terms to biomedical documents based on abstract similarity and references to MEDLINE records. When applied to PubMedCentral papers, NIH grants, and USPTO patents we find that these two sources of information produce largely disjoint sets of related MEDLINE records, albeit with some overlap in MeSH. When combined they provide an enriched topical annotation that would not have been possible with either alone. MeSHier is available as a demo tool that can take as input IDs of PubMed papers, USPTO patents, and NIH grants: http://abel.lis.illinois.edu/cgi-bin/meshier/search.py.