"Best Paper" awards lack transparency, inclusivity, and support for Open Science.

Awards can propel academic careers. They also reflect the culture and values of the scientific community. But do awards incentivize greater transparency, inclusivity, and openness in science? Our cross-disciplinary survey of 222 awards for the "best" journal articles across all 27 SCImago subject areas revealed that journals and learned societies administering such awards generally publish little detail on their procedures and criteria. Award descriptions were brief, rarely including contact details or information on the nominations pool. Nominations of underrepresented groups were not explicitly encouraged, and concepts that align with Open Science were almost absent from the assessment criteria. At the same time, 10% of awards, especially the recently established ones, tended to use article-level impact metrics. USA-affiliated researchers dominated the winner's pool (48%), while researchers from the Global South were uncommon (11%). Sixty-one percent of individual winners were men. Overall, Best Paper awards miss the global calls for greater transparency and equitable access to academic recognition. We provide concrete and implementable recommendations for scientific awards to improve the scientific recognition system and incentives for better scientific practice.

The DAISY Award: Meaningful Recognition's Impact on Patients, Nurses, and Organizations.

This review demonstrates the impact of The DAISY Award and how meaningful recognition (MR) through gratitude affects nurse engagement, healthy work environments (HWEs), and patient/families' (PFs) experiences. MR has mutual benefits for nurses and PFs, promoting therapeutic healing and resiliency. MR in HWEs can impact organizations' care quality, fiscal health and influence public perceptions. Nurse leaders should create an environment where MR is a core strategic imperative that impacts nurse, patient, and organizational outcomes.

Da Vinci Medal Address: Material Political Economy.

On the occasion of the award of the author's da Vinci Medal in 2022, this article sketches a perspective, material political economy, employed by the author, explaining it by drawing on Marc Bloch's classic account of the dispute in European feudalism between milling grain on watermills or windmills controlled by feudal superiors, who could exact fees, and common people's use of hand mills. It considers the material political economy aspects of two modern technologies. The first is automated high-frequency trading in finance, where there are typically conflicts with incumbents and material efforts to favor "market-making" over "aggressive" algorithms. The second is the automated auctioning of digital display advertising opportunities, showing tension between two forms of these auctions' material organization: centralized auctioning via Google's systems and decentralized "header bidding."