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.