A "data sharing trust" model for rapid, collaborative science.

Complex datasets provide opportunities for discoveries beyond their initial scope. Effective and rapid data sharing and management practices are crucial to realize this potential; however, they are harder to implement than post-publication access. Here, we introduce the concept of a "data sharing trust" to maximize the value of large datasets.

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.

Authorship practices must evolve to support collaboration and open science.

Journal authorship practices have not sufficiently evolved to reflect the way research is now done. Improvements to support teams, collaboration, and open science are urgently needed.

Non-White scientists appear on fewer editorial boards, spend more time under review, and receive fewer citations.

Disparities continue to pose major challenges in various aspects of science. One such aspect is editorial board composition, which has been shown to exhibit racial and geographical disparities. However, the literature on this subject lacks longitudinal studies quantifying the degree to which the racial composition of editors reflects that of scientists. Other aspects that may exhibit racial disparities include the time spent between the submission and acceptance of a manuscript and the number of citations a paper receives relative to textually similar papers, but these have not been studied to date. To fill this gap, we compile a dataset of 1,000,000 papers published between 2001 and 2020 by six publishers, while identifying the handling editor of each paper. Using this dataset, we show that most countries in Asia, Africa, and South America (where the majority of the population is ethnically non-White) have fewer editors than would be expected based on their share of authorship. Focusing on US-based scientists reveals Black as the most underrepresented race. In terms of acceptance delay, we find, again, that papers from Asia, Africa, and South America spend more time compared to other papers published in the same journal and the same year. Regression analysis of US-based papers reveals that Black authors suffer from the greatest delay. Finally, by analyzing citation rates of US-based papers, we find that Black and Hispanic scientists receive significantly fewer citations compared to White ones doing similar research. Taken together, these findings highlight significant challenges facing non-White scientists.

The people behind the papers - Ya Min, Stephanie Conway and Elena Kramer.

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.

The people behind the paper - Peter Kozulin, Rodrigo Suárez, Qiong-Yi Zhao, Linda Richards and Laura Fenlon.

The neocortex is unique to mammals and so, for evolutionary studies, researchers have compared eutherians and marsupials. A new paper in Development uncovers key differences in the timing of gene expression changes in the cortical development of the mouse and the similarly sized marsupial, the fat-tailed dunnart. We caught up with the authors from The University of Queensland, Australia, to find out more about their research and their future plans.

The people behind the papers - Yuki Naitou and Katsuhiko Hayashi.

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.

The people behind the papers - Yingxi Cao, Ken Poss and Jingli Cao.

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.

Assessing Authorship Rates over Time in Original Radiologic Research Publications.

Background Previous studies have shown an increase in the number of authors on radiologic articles between 1950 and 2013, but the cause is unclear. Purpose To determine whether authorship rate in radiologic and general medical literature has continued to increase and to assess study variables associated with increased author numbers. Materials and Methods PubMed/Medline was searched for articles published between January 1998 and October 2022 in general radiology and general medical journals with the top five highest current impact factors. Generalized linear regression analysis was used to calculate adjusted incidence rate ratios (IRRs) for the numbers of authors. Wald tests assessed the associations between study variables and the numbers of authors per article. Combined mixed-effects regression analysis was performed to compare general medicine and radiology journals. Results There were 3381 original radiologic research articles that were analyzed. Authorship rate increased between 1998 (median, six authors; IQR, 4) and 2022 (median, 11 authors; IQR, 8). Later publication year was associated with more authors per article (IRR, 1.02; 95% CI: 1.01, 1.02; P < .001) after adjusting for publishing journal, continent of origin of first author, number of countries involved, PubMed/Medline original article type, study design, number of disciplines involved, multicenter or single-center study, reporting of a priori power calculation, reporting of obtaining informed consent, study sample size, and number of article pages. There were 1250 general medicine original research articles that were analyzed. Later publication year was also associated with more authors after adjustment for the study variables (IRR, 1.04; 95% CI: 1.03, 1.05; P < .001). There was a stronger increase in authorship by publication year for general medicine journals compared with radiology journals (IRR, 1.02; 95% CI: 1.01, 1.02; P < .001). Conclusion An increase in authorship rate was observed in the radiologic and general medical literature between 1998 and 2022, and the number of authors per article was independently associated with later year of publication. © RSNA, 2024 Supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Arrivé in this issue.

Trends in Scientific Collaboration Between Men and Women Following the #MeToo Movement.

BACKGROUND: The #MeToo movement raised global awareness about harassment in the workplace. Concerns were raised, however, that the movement may have unintendedly harmed women in academia by decreasing collaboration invitations from men in senior positions, who might be more reluctant to collaborate. OBJECTIVE: To analyze whether collaborations between first author women and last author men decreased after the #MeToo movement. DESIGN: Retrospective observational study. PARTICIPANTS: Names of first and last authors of 122,450 US review articles from the PubMed database published between 2014 and 2020. MAIN MEASURES: Change in the proportion of review articles with a first author woman and a last author man following the peak of the #MeToo movement in October 2017. Additionally, among review articles with a last author man, trends of women first authorship in the USA and Europe (control group) were compared. KEY RESULTS: We analyzed 122,450 review articles with first and last authors from US institutions. Of 85,015 articles by a man last author, 37.5% (31,902) had a woman first author. In contrast, when the last author was a woman, the first author was also a woman in 53.6% of articles (20,078) (p<0.001 for difference). Among review articles with a last author man, there was no change in the proportion of articles with a woman first author before versus after the peak of the #MeToo movement (e.g., p=0.13 for difference between the 12 months following October 2017 compared to the pre-#Me-too period). Among European institutions, of 72,036 articles by a man last author, 43.4% (31,294) had a woman first author, higher than the proportion observed in the USA. Trends in collaboration between first author women and last author men were similar in the USA and Europe after the peak of the #MeToo movement (p=0.65). CONCLUSIONS: The #MeToo movement was not associated with a reduction in the rate of scientific review article authorship collaborations between first author women and last author men in the life sciences. These findings, if generalizable, suggest it is possible to promote accountability for harassment in the workplace without limiting decreases in collaboration.

Gender authorship in major American and European gastroenterology journals: the gap is still unfilled.

BACKGROUND: The gender gap in the authorship of scientific research may affect career advancement. Our aim was to assess the potential gender gap in gastrointestinal (GI) journals. METHODS: A systematic review was performed of the GI literature and ongoing research in the period 2020-2022. A total 10 GI journals and ongoing research on clinicaltrials.gov were selected for review. The gender gap in first and senior authorship was evaluated for each article and ongoing research project. Associations between the gender gap and possible predictors were measured and results are presented as odds ratios (ORs) with 95%CI. RESULTS: The number of first female authors (FFAs) and senior female authors (SFAs) in published articles were 1408/4207 (33.5%) and 911/4207 (21.7%), respectively. There were 781/2654 (29.4%) female principal investigators (PI)s for the ongoing research. On comparison of non-endoscopic vs. endoscopic topics, the latter were associated with the gender gap (hepatology, OR 2.15 [95%CI 1.83-2.55]; inflammatory bowel disease, OR 2.12 [95%CI 1.60-2.45]; upper and lower GI, OR 1.31 [95%CI 1.18-1.73]); as well as the type of article (original article vs. editorial, OR 1.92 [95%CI 1.58-2.33]). The type of research was also associated with the gender gap (clinical vs. preclinical studies, OR 0.88 [95%CI 0.66-0.91]). CONCLUSION: Our results demonstrated a correlation between the gender gap and the design and topic of the research. Future strategies for improving equity in career development in GI endoscopy should focus on closing the gender gap in equity of authorship.