More journal articles and fewer books: Publication practices in the social sciences in the 2010's.

The number of scholarly journal articles published each year is growing, but little is known about the relationship between journal article growth and other forms of scholarly dissemination (e.g., books and monographs). Journal articles are the de facto currency of evaluation and prestige in STEM fields, but social scientists routinely publish books as well as articles, representing a unique opportunity to study increased article publications in disciplines with other dissemination options. We studied the publishing activity of social science faculty members in 12 disciplines at 290 Ph.D. granting institutions in the United States between 2011 and 2019, asking: 1) have publication practices changed such that more or fewer books and articles are written now than in the recent past?; 2) has the percentage of scholars actively participating in a particular publishing type changed over time?; and 3) do different age cohorts evince different publication strategies? In all disciplines, journal articles per person increased between 3% and 64% between 2011 and 2019, while books per person decreased by at least 31% and as much as 54%. All age cohorts show increased article authorship over the study period, and early career scholars author more articles per person than the other cohorts in eight disciplines. The article-dominated literatures of the social sciences are becoming increasingly similar to those of STEM disciplines.

National Institutes of Health social and behavioral research in response to the SARS-CoV2 Pandemic.

The COVID-19 pandemic has been mitigated primarily using social and behavioral intervention strategies, and these strategies have social and economic impacts, as well as potential downstream health impacts that require further study. Digital and community-based interventions are being increasingly relied upon to address these health impacts and bridge the gap in health care access despite insufficient research of these interventions as a replacement for, not an adjunct to, in-person clinical care. As SARS-CoV-2 testing expands, research on encouraging uptake and appropriate interpretation of these test results is needed. All of these issues are disproportionately impacting underserved, vulnerable, and health disparities populations. This commentary describes the various initiatives of the National Institutes of Health to address these social, behavioral, economic, and health disparities impacts of the pandemic, the findings from which can improve our response to the current pandemic and prepare us better for future infectious disease outbreaks.

Enhancing big data in the social sciences with crowdsourcing: Data augmentation practices, techniques, and opportunities.

Proponents of big data claim it will fuel a social research revolution, but skeptics challenge its reliability and decontextualization. The largest subset of big data is not designed for social research. Data augmentation-systematic assessment of measurement against known quantities and expansion of extant data with new information-is an important tool to maximize such data's validity and research value. Using trained research assistants or specialized algorithms are common approaches to augmentation but may not scale to big data or appease skeptics. We consider a third alternative: data augmentation with online crowdsourcing. Three empirical cases illustrate strengths and limitations of crowdsourcing, using Amazon Mechanical Turk to verify automated coding, link online databases, and gather data on online resources. Using these, we develop best practice guidelines and a reporting template to enhance reproducibility. Carefully designed, correctly applied, and rigorously documented crowdsourcing help address concerns about big data's usefulness for social research.

GeoSES: A socioeconomic index for health and social research in Brazil.

The individual's socioeconomic conditions are the most relevant to predict the quality of someone's health. However, such information is not usually found in medical records, making studies in the area difficult. Therefore, it is common to use composite indices that characterize a region socioeconomically, such as the Human Development Index (HDI). The main advantage of the HDI is its understanding and adoption on a global scale. However, its applicability is limited for health studies since its longevity dimension presents mathematical redundancy in regression models. Here we introduce the GeoSES, a composite index that summarizes the main dimensions of the Brazilian socioeconomic context for research purposes. We created the index from the 2010 Brazilian Census, whose variables selection was guided by theoretical references for health studies. The proposed index incorporates seven socioeconomic dimensions: education, mobility, poverty, wealth, income, segregation, and deprivation of resources and services. We developed the GeoSES using Principal Component Analysis and evaluated its construct, content, and applicability. GeoSES is defined at three scales: national (GeoSES-BR), Federative Unit (GeoSES-FU), and intra-municipal (GeoSES-IM). GeoSES-BR dimensions showed a good association with HDI-M (correlation above 0.85). The model with the poverty dimension best explained the relative risk of avoidable cause mortality in Brazil. In the intra-municipal scale, the model with GeoSES-IM was the one that best explained the relative risk of mortality from circulatory system diseases. By applying spatial regressions, we demonstrated that GeoSES shows significant explanatory potential in the studied scales, being a compelling complement for future researches in public health.

The case for an inclusive scholarly communication infrastructure for social sciences and humanities.

This article presents a vision for a scholarly communication research infrastructure for social sciences and humanities (SSH). The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the pressing need to access research outputs without the traditional economic and temporal barriers. This article explores the current scholarly communication landscape, assessing the reasons for the slower uptake of open access in SSH research. The authors discuss such frontiers as commercial interests, sources of academic prestige and discipline-specific genres. This article defines and discusses the key areas in which a research infrastructure can play a vital role in making open scholarly communication a reality in SSH: (1) providing a federated and easy access to scattered SSH outputs; (2) supporting publication and dissemination of discipline-specific genres (e.g. monographs, critical editions); (3) providing help with evaluation and quality assurance practices in SSH; (4) enabling  scholarly work in national languages, which is significant for local communities; (5) being governed by researchers and for researchers as a crucial factor for productive, useful and accessible services; (6) lastly, considering the needs of other stakeholders involved in scholarly communication, such as publishers, libraries, media, non-profit organisations, and companies. They conclude that a scholarly-driven, inclusive, dedicated infrastructure for the European Research Area is needed in order to advance open science in SSH and to address the issues tackled by SSH researchers at a structural and systemic level.

No Evidence for Social Genetic Effects or Genetic Similarity Among Friends Beyond that Due to Population Stratification: A Reappraisal of Domingue et al (2018).

Using data from 5500 adolescents from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health, Domingue et al. (Proc Natl Acad Sci 25:256., 2018) claimed to show that friends are genetically more similar to one another than randomly selected peers, beyond the confounding effects of population stratification by ancestry. The authors also claimed to show 'social-genetic' effects, whereby individuals' educational attainment (EA) is influenced by their friends' genes. We argue that neither claim is justified by the data. Mathematically we show that (1) the genetic similarity reported between friends is far larger than theoretically possible if it was caused by phenotypic assortment as the authors claim; uncontrolled population stratification is a likely reason for the genetic similarity they observed, and (2) significant association between individuals' EA and their friends' polygenic scores for EA is a necessary consequence of EA similarity among friends, and does not provide evidence for social-genetic effects. Going forward, we urge caution in the analysis and interpretation of data at the intersection of human genetics and the social sciences.