Intersectional inequalities in science.

The US scientific workforce is primarily composed of White men. Studies have demonstrated the systemic barriers preventing women and other minoritized populations from gaining entry to science; few, however, have taken an intersectional perspective and examined the consequences of these inequalities on scientific knowledge. We provide a large-scale bibliometric analysis of the relationship between intersectional identities, topics, and scientific impact. We find homophily between identities and topic, suggesting a relationship between diversity in the scientific workforce and expansion of the knowledge base. However, topic selection comes at a cost to minoritized individuals for whom we observe both between- and within-topic citation disadvantages. To enhance the robustness of science, research organizations should provide adequate resources to historically underfunded research areas while simultaneously providing access for minoritized individuals into high-prestige networks and topics.

Trends in Brain Research: A Bibliometric Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Bibliometrics methods have allowed researchers to assess the popularity of brain research through the ever-growing number of brain-related research papers. While many topics of brain research have been covered by previous studies, there is no comprehensive overview of the evolution of brain research and its various specialties and funding practices over a long period of time. OBJECTIVE: This paper aims to (1) determine how brain research has evolved over time in terms of number of papers, (2) countries' relative and absolute positioning in terms of papers and impact, and (3) how those various trends vary by area. METHODS: Using a list of validated keywords, we extracted brain-related articles and journals indexed in the Web of Science over the 1991-2020 period, for a total of 2,467,708 papers. We used three indicators to perform: number of papers, specialization, and research impact. RESULTS: Our results show that over the past 30 years, the number of brain-related papers has grown at a faster pace than science in general, with China being at the forefront of this growth. Different patterns of specialization among countries and funders were also underlined. Finally, the NIH, the European Commission, the National Natural Science Foundation of China, the UK Medical Research Council, and the German Research Foundation were found to be among the top funders. CONCLUSION: Despite data-related limitations, our findings provide a large-scope snapshot of the evolution of brain research and its funding, which may be used as a baseline for future studies on these topics.

Paracetamol (acetaminophen) use in infants and children was never shown to be safe for neurodevelopment: a systematic review with citation tracking.

Although widely believed by pediatricians and parents to be safe for use in infants and children when used as directed, increasing evidence indicates that early life exposure to paracetamol (acetaminophen) may cause long-term neurodevelopmental problems. Furthermore, recent studies in animal models demonstrate that cognitive development is exquisitely sensitive to paracetamol exposure during early development. In this study, evidence for the claim that paracetamol is safe was evaluated using a systematic literature search. Publications on PubMed between 1974 and 2017 that contained the keywords "infant" and either "paracetamol" or "acetaminophen" were considered. Of those initial 3096 papers, 218 were identified that made claims that paracetamol was safe for use with infants or children. From these 218, a total of 103 papers were identified as sources of authority for the safety claim.   Conclusion: A total of 52 papers contained actual experiments designed to test safety, and had a median follow-up time of 48 h. None monitored neurodevelopment. Furthermore, no trial considered total exposure to drug since birth, eliminating the possibility that the effects of drug exposure on long-term neurodevelopment could be accurately assessed. On the other hand, abundant and sufficient evidence was found to conclude that paracetamol does not induce acute liver damage in babies or children when used as directed. What is Known: • Paracetamol (acetaminophen) is widely thought by pediatricians and parents to be safe when used as directed in the pediatric population, and is the most widely used drug in that population, with more than 90% of children exposed to the drug in some reports. • Paracetamol is known to cause liver damage in adults under conditions of oxidative stress or when used in excess, but increasing evidence from studies in humans and in laboratory animals indicates that the target organ for paracetamol toxicity during early development is the brain, not the liver. What is New: • This study finds hundreds of published reports in the medical literature asserting that paracetamol is safe when used as directed, providing a foundation for the widespread belief that the drug is safe. • This study shows that paracetamol was proven to be safe by approximately 50 short-term studies demonstrating the drug's safety for the pediatric liver, but the drug was never shown to be safe for neurodevelopment. Paracetamol is widely believed to be safe for infants and children when used as directed, despite mounting evidence in humans and in laboratory animals indicating that the drug is not safe for neurodevelopment. An exhaustive search of published work cited for safe use of paracetamol in the pediatric population revealed 52 experimental studies pointing toward safety, but the median follow-up time was only 48 h, and neurodevelopment was never assessed.

Mapping the biomedical sciences using Medical Subject Headings: a comparison between MeSH co-assignments and MeSH citation pairs.

OBJECTIVE: This study compares two maps of biomedical sciences using Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) term co-assignments versus MeSH terms of citing/cited articles and reveals similarities and differences between the two approaches. METHODS: MeSH terms assigned to 397,475 journal articles published in 2015, as well as their 4,632,992 cited references, were retrieved from Web of Science and MEDLINE databases, respectively, which formed over 7 million MeSH co-assignments and nearly 18 million direct citation pairs. We generated six network visualizations of biomedical science at three levels using Gephi software based on these MeSH co-assignments and citation pairs. RESULTS: The MeSH co-assignment map contained more nodes and edges, as MeSH co-assignments cover all medical topics discussed in articles. By contrast, the MeSH citation map contained fewer but larger nodes and wider edges, as citation links indicate connections to two similar medical topics. CONCLUSION: These two types of maps emphasize different aspects of biomedical sciences, with MeSH co-assignment maps focusing on the relationship between topics in different categories and MeSH direct citation maps providing insights into relationships between topics in the same or similar category.

Factors affecting sex-related reporting in medical research: a cross-disciplinary bibliometric analysis.

BACKGROUND: Clinical and preclinical studies have shown that there are sex-based differences at the genetic, cellular, biochemical, and physiological levels. Despite this, numerous studies have shown poor levels of inclusion of female populations into medical research. These disparities in sex inclusion in research are further complicated by the absence of sufficient reporting and analysis by sex of study populations. Disparities in the inclusion of the sexes in medical research substantially reduce the utility of the results of such research for the entire population. The absence of sex-related reporting are problematical for the translation of research from the preclinical to clinical and applied health settings. Large-scale studies are needed to identify the extent of sex-related reporting and where disparities are more prevalent. In addition, while several studies have shown the dearth of female researchers in science, few have evaluated whether a scarcity of women in science might be related to disparities in sex inclusion and reporting. We aimed to do a cross-disciplinary analysis of the degree of sex-related reporting across the health sciences-from biomedical, to clinical, and public health research-and the role of author gender in sex-related reporting. METHODS: This bibliometric analysis analysed sex-related reporting in medical research examining more than 11·5 million papers indexed in Web of Science and PubMed between 1980 and 2016 and using sex-related Medical Subject Headings as a proxy for sex reporting. For papers that were published between 2008 and 2016 and could be matched with PubMed, we assigned a gender to first and last authors on the basis of their names, according to our gender assignment algorithm. We removed papers for which we could not determine the gender of either the first or last author. We grouped papers into three disciplinary categories (biomedical research, clinical medicine, and public health). We used descriptive statistics and regression analyses (controlling for the number of authors and representation of women in specific diseases, countries, continents, year, and specialty areas) to study associations between the gender of the authors and sex-related reporting. FINDINGS: Between Jan 1, 1980, and Dec 31, 2016, sex-related reporting increased from 59% to 67% in clinical medicine and from 36% to 69% in public health research. But for biomedical research, sex remains largely under-reported (31% in 2016). Papers with female first and last authors had an increased probability of reporting sex, with an odds ratio of 1·26 (95% CI 1·24 to 1·27), and sex-related reporting was associated with publications in journals with low journal impact factors. For publications in 2016, sex-related reporting of both male and female is associated with a reduction of -0·51 (95% CI -0·54 to -0·47) in journal impact factors. INTERPRETATION: Gender disparities in the scientific workforce and scarcity of policies on sex-related reporting at the journal and institutional level could inhibit effective research translation from bench to clinical studies. Diversification in the scientific workforce and in the research populations-from cell lines, to rodents, to humans-is essential to produce the most rigorous and effective medical research. FUNDING: Canada Research Chairs.

Misconduct and Misbehavior Related to Authorship Disagreements in Collaborative Science.

Scientific authorship serves to identify and acknowledge individuals who "contribute significantly" to published research. However, specific authorship norms and practices often differ within and across disciplines, labs, and cultures. As a consequence, authorship disagreements are commonplace in team research. This study aims to better understand the prevalence of authorship disagreements, those factors that may lead to disagreements, as well as the extent and nature of resulting misbehavior. Methods include an international online survey of researchers who had published from 2011 to 2015 (8364 respondents). Of the 6673 who completed the main questions pertaining to authorship disagreement and misbehavior, nearly half (46.6%) reported disagreements regarding authorship naming; and discipline, rank, and gender had significant effects on disagreement rates. Paradoxically, researchers in multidisciplinary teams that typically reflect a range of norms and values, were less likely to have faced disagreements regarding authorship. Respondents reported having witnessed a wide range of misbehavior including: instances of hostility (24.6%), undermining of a colleague's work during meetings/talks (16.4%), cutting corners on research (8.3%), sabotaging a colleague's research (6.4%), or producing fraudulent work to be more competitive (3.3%). These findings suggest that authorship disputes may contribute to an unhealthy competitive dynamic that can undermine researchers' wellbeing, team cohesion, and scientific integrity.

Researchers' Perceptions of Ethical Authorship Distribution in Collaborative Research Teams.

Authorship is commonly used as the basis for the measurement of research productivity. It influences career progression and rewards, making it a valued commodity in a competitive scientific environment. To better understand authorship practices amongst collaborative teams, this study surveyed authors on collaborative journal articles published between 2011 and 2015. Of the 8364 respondents, 1408 responded to the final open-ended question, which solicited additional comments or remarks regarding the fair distribution of authorship in research teams. This paper presents the analysis of these comments, categorized into four main themes: (1) disagreements, (2) questionable behavior, (3) external influences regarding authorship, and (4) values promoted by researchers. Results suggest that some respondents find ways to effectively manage disagreements in a collegial fashion. Conversely, others explain how distribution of authorship can become a "blood sport" or a "horror story" which can negatively affect researchers' wellbeing, scientific productivity and integrity. Researchers fear authorship discussions and often try to avoid openly discussing the situation which can strain team interactions. Unethical conduct is more likely to result from deceit, favoritism, and questionable mentorship and may become more egregious when there is constant bullying and discrimination. Although values of collegiality, transparency and fairness were promoted by researchers, rank and need for success often overpowered ethical decision-making. This research provides new insight into contextual specificities related to fair authorship distribution that can be instrumental in developing applicable training tools to identify, prevent, and mitigate authorship disagreement.

Knowledge sharing in global health research - the impact, uptake and cost of open access to scholarly literature.

BACKGROUND: In 1982, the Annals of Virology published a paper showing how Liberia has a highly endemic potential of Ebola warning health authorities of the risk for potential outbreaks; this journal is only available by subscription. Limiting the accessibility of such knowledge may have reduced information propagation toward public health actors who were indeed surprised by and unprepared for the 2014 epidemic. Open access (OA) publication can allow for increased access to global health research (GHR). Our study aims to assess the use, cost and impact of OA diffusion in the context of GHR. METHOD: A total of 3366 research articles indexed under the Medical Heading Subject Heading "Global Health" published between 2010 and 2014 were retrieved using PubMed to (1) quantify the uptake of various types of OA, (2) estimate the article processing charges (APCs) of OA, and (3) analyse the relationship between different types of OA, their scholarly impact and gross national income per capita of citing countries. RESULTS: Most GHR publications are not available directly on the journal's website (69%). Further, 60.8% of researchers do not self-archive their work even when it is free and in keeping with journal policy. The total amount paid for APCs was estimated at US$1.7 million for 627 papers, with authors paying on average US$2732 per publication; 94% of APCs were paid to journals owned by the ten most prominent publication houses from high-income countries. Researchers from low- and middle-income countries are generally citing less expensive types of OA, while researchers in high-income countries are citing the most expensive OA. CONCLUSIONS: Although OA may help in building global research capacity in GHR, the majority of publications remain subscription only. It is logical and cost-efficient for institutions and researchers to promote OA by self-archiving publications of restricted access, as it not only allows research to be cited by a broader audience, it also augments citation rates. Although OA does not ensure full knowledge transfer from research to practice, limiting public access can negatively impact implementation and outcomes of health policy and reduce public understanding of health issues.

Contributorship and division of labor in knowledge production.

Scientific authorship has been increasingly complemented with contributorship statements. While such statements are said to ensure more equitable credit and responsibility attribution, they also provide an opportunity to examine the roles and functions that authors play in the construction of knowledge and the relationship between these roles and authorship order. Drawing on a comprehensive and multidisciplinary dataset of 87,002 documents in which contributorship statements are found, this article examines the forms that division of labor takes across disciplines, the relationships between various types of contributions, as well as the relationships between the contribution types and various indicators of authors' seniority. It shows that scientific work is more highly divided in medical disciplines than in mathematics, physics, and disciplines of the social sciences, and that, with the exception of medicine, the writing of the paper is the task most often associated with authorship. The results suggest a clear distinction between contributions that could be labeled as 'technical' and those that could be considered 'conceptual': While conceptual tasks are typically associated with authors with higher seniority, technical tasks are more often performed by younger scholars. Finally, results provide evidence of a U-shaped relationship between extent of contribution and author order: In all disciplines, first and last authors typically contribute to more tasks than middle authors. The paper concludes with a discussion of the implications of the results for the reward system of science.

Predicting Research Productivity in STEM Faculty: The Role of Self-determined Motivation.

How are university faculty members in STEM disciplines motivated to conduct research, and how does motivation predict their success? The current study assessed how multiple types of self-determined motivation predict research productivity in a sample of 651 faculty from 10 US institutions. Using structural equation modeling, the basic psychological needs of autonomy and competence predicted autonomous motivation (enjoyment, value) that, in turn, was the strongest predictor of self-reported research productivity. Using negative binomial regression, autonomous motivation was the strongest predictor of faculty publications and citations, with a one-standard deviation increase in autonomous motivation (approximately a half response option on a 1-5 Likert scale) corresponding to an 11.63% increase in publications and a 22.57% increase in citations over a three-year period. Occupational and social-environmental background variables (e.g., research percentage on contract, career age, balance, collegiality), as well as controlled motivation (guilt, rewards), had comparatively limited predictive effects. These results are of relevance to higher education institutions aiming to support scholarly productivity in STEM faculty in identifying specific beneficial and detrimental aspects of faculty motivation that contribute to measurable gains in research activity.

China's Research Evaluation Reform: What are the Consequences for Global Science?

In the 1990s, China created a research evaluation system based on publications indexed in the Science Citation Index (SCI) and on the Journal Impact Factor. Such system helped the country become the largest contributor to the scientific literature and increased the position of Chinese universities in international rankings. Although the system had been criticized by many because of its adverse effects, the policy reform for research evaluation crawled until the breakout of the COVID-19 pandemic, which accidently accelerates the process of policy reform. This paper highlights the background and principles of this reform, provides evidence of its effects, and discusses the implications for global science.

Who tweets climate change papers? investigating publics of research through users' descriptions.

As social issues like climate change become increasingly salient, digital traces left by scholarly documents can be used to assess their reach outside of academia. Our research examine who shared climate change research papers on Twitter by looking at the expressions used in profile descriptions. We categorized users in eight categories (academia, communication, political, professional, personal, organization, bots and publishers) associated to specific expressions. Results indicate how diverse publics may be represented in the communication of scholarly documents on Twitter. Supplementing our word detection analysis with qualitative assessments of the results, we highlight how the presence of unique or multiple categorizations in textual Twitter descriptions provides evidence of the publics of research in specific contexts. Our results show a more substantial communication by academics and organizations for papers published in 2016, whereas the general public comparatively participated more in 2015. Overall, there is significant participation of publics outside of academia in the communication of climate change research articles on Twitter, although the extent to which these publics participate varies between individual papers. This means that papers circulate in specific communities which need to be assessed to understand the reach of research on social media. Furthermore, the flexibility of our method provide means for research assessment that consider the contextuality and plurality of publics involved on Twitter.

National differences in dissemination and use of open access literature.

Open Access (OA) dissemination has been gaining a lot of momentum over the last decade, thanks to the implementation of several OA policies by funders and institutions, as well as the development of several new platforms that facilitate the publication of OA content at low or no cost. Studies have shown that nearly half of the contemporary scientific literature could be available online for free. However, few studies have compared the use of OA literature across countries. This study aims to provide a global picture of OA adoption by countries, using two indicators: publications in OA and references made to articles in OA. We find that, on average, low-income countries are publishing and citing OA at the highest rate, while upper middle-income countries and higher-income countries publish and cite OA articles at below world-average rates. These results highlight national differences in OA uptake and suggest that more OA initiatives at the institutional, national, and international levels are needed to support wider adoption of open scholarship.

From art to science: A bibliometric analysis of architectural scholarly production from 1980 to 2015.

According to recent literature on "architecture" as a discipline, practical knowledge relevant to its process of making has decreased in importance in favor of a more academic approach. Using data derived from Ulrich's Periodical Directory and Clarivate Analytics's Web of Science, this paper suggests providing empirical evidence supporting of such shift, as revealed by an overview of the dissemination practices in architecture scholarly production between 1980 and 2015. Our results support that architecture is becoming increasingly academic, as demonstrated by the growing proportion of articles and journals intended for scholars rather than for professionals. We also show that architecture is increasingly global, with decreased interest in local and/or national issues and the growing prevalence of English as a publication language. Finally, this academic focus is manifested in references cited by architectural papers with the gradual substitution of professional and artistic oriented knowledge, for scientific approaches tied to engineering and technology.