Increasing the cost-effectiveness of nutrient reduction targets using different spatial scales.

In this paper, we investigate the potential gains in cost-effectiveness from changing the spatial scale at which nutrient reduction targets are set for the Baltic Sea, with particular focus on nutrient loadings from agriculture. The costs of achieving loading reductions are compared across five levels of spatial scale, namely the entire Baltic Sea; the marine basin level; the country level; the watershed level; and the grid square level. A novel highly-disaggregated model, which represents decreases in agricultural profits, changes in root zone N concentrations and transport to the Baltic Sea is used. The model includes 14 Baltic Sea marine basins, 14 countries, 117 watersheds and 19,023 10-by-10 km grid squares. The main result which emerges is that there is a large variation in the total cost of the program depending on the spatial scale of targeting: for example, for a 40% reduction in loads, the costs of a Baltic Sea-wide target is nearly three times lower than targets set at the smallest level of spatial scale (grid square). These results have important implications for both domestic and international policy design for achieving water quality improvements where non-point pollution is a key stressor of water quality.

Gender inequality and national gender gaps in overconfidence.

Using a large dataset of marathon runners, we estimate country- and gender-specific proxies for overconfidence. Subsequently, we correlate them with a number of indices, including various measures of gender equality. We find that in less gender-equal countries both males and females tend to be more self-confident than in more equal countries. While a substantial gender gap in overconfidence is observed, it only correlates with some sub-indices of gender equality. We conclude that there is likely a weak relationship between OC gender gap and gender inequality.

The Most Influential Medical Journals According to Wikipedia: Quantitative Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Wikipedia, the multilingual encyclopedia, was founded in 2001 and is the world's largest and most visited online general reference website. It is widely used by health care professionals and students. The inclusion of journal articles in Wikipedia is of scholarly interest, but the time taken for a journal article to be included in Wikipedia, from the moment of its publication to its incorporation into Wikipedia, is unclear. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to determine the ranking of the most cited journals by their representation in the English-language medical pages of Wikipedia. In addition, we evaluated the number of days between publication of journal articles and their citation in Wikipedia medical pages, treating this measure as a proxy for the information-diffusion rate. METHODS: We retrieved the dates when articles were included in Wikipedia and the date of journal publication from Crossref by using an application programming interface. RESULTS: From 11,325 Wikipedia medical articles, we identified citations to 137,889 journal articles from over 15,000 journals. There was a large spike in the number of journal articles published in or after 2002 that were cited by Wikipedia. The higher the importance of a Wikipedia article, the higher was the mean number of journal citations it contained (top article, 48.13 [SD 33.67]; lowest article, 6.44 [SD 9.33]). However, the importance of the Wikipedia article did not affect the speed of reference addition. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews was the most cited journal by Wikipedia, followed by The New England Journal of Medicine and The Lancet. The multidisciplinary journals Nature, Science, and the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences were among the top 10 journals with the highest Wikipedia medical article citations. For the top biomedical journal papers cited in Wikipedia's medical pages in 2016-2017, it took about 90 days (3 months) for the citation to be used in Wikipedia. CONCLUSIONS: We found evidence of "recentism," which refers to preferential citation of recently published journal articles in Wikipedia. Traditional high-impact medical and multidisciplinary journals were extensively cited by Wikipedia, suggesting that Wikipedia medical articles have robust underpinnings. In keeping with the Wikipedia policy of citing reviews/secondary sources in preference to primary sources, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews was the most referenced journal.