生物多样性数据论文发表趋势分析

近年来有关科学数据共享的呼声越来越高, 基于同行评审的生物多样性数据论文也受到越来越多的关注, 并出现了一些专门发表数据论文的数据期刊。本文总结了近年来生物多样性数据发表方面的进展, 选择两本代表性数据期刊(Biodiversity Data Journal和Scientific Data), 分析了它们自创刊以来的发文数量、涉及生物类群、文章浏览量和被引次数等指标。结果显示两本数据期刊的发文量都呈稳步增长趋势, 其生物多样性数据论文覆盖了包括动物界、植物界、真菌界在内的众多生物类群, 文章浏览量和被引次数方面也有可喜的表现, 说明数据论文正在被越来越多的研究者所接受。对文章作者国别的分析则显示了不同地区的研究者在发表生物多样性数据论文或数据共享方面的不均衡。建议相关领域的中国研究者和期刊关注生物多样性数据论文和数据共享政策, 更多地践行数据共享。     

中国的野生动物红外相机监测需要统一的标准

采用及时、可靠的方法对物种开展有效监测是生物多样性保护的基础。红外相机技术可以获得兽类物种的影像、元数据和分布信息, 是监测生物多样性的有效途径。这项技术在野外便于部署, 规程易于标准化, 可提供野生动物凭证标本(影像)以及物种拍摄位置、拍摄日期与时间、拍摄细节(相机型号等)等附属信息。这些特性使得我们可以积累数以百万计的影像资料和野生动物监测数据。在中国, 红外相机技术已得到广泛应用, 众多机构正在使用红外相机采集并存储野生动物影像以及相关联的元数据。目前, 亟需对红外相机元数据结构进行标准化, 以促进不同机构之间以及与外部保护团体之间的数据共享。迄今全球已建立有数个国际数据共享平台, 例如Wildlife Insights, 但他们离不开与中国的合作, 以有效追踪全球可持续发展的进程。达成这样的合作需要3个基础: 共同的数据标准、数据共享协议和数据禁用政策。我们倡议, 中国保护领域的政府主管部门、机构团体一起合作, 共同制定在国内单位之间以及与国际机构之间共享监测数据的政策、机制与途径。     

保护生物学的现状、挑战和对策

现代社会中的重大环境热点问题研究推动了保护生物学的发展。学科融合使得保护生物学正在发展成为保护科学(Conservation Science)。保护生物学需要广泛参与, 然而, 根据Google Search Volume, 中国互联网用户对保护生物学与生物多样性概念的兴趣不高。全球生物多样性的主要部分在发展中国家, 研究发现主要保护生物学项目或最活跃的研究工作在发展中国家进行。然而科技投入不足限制了发展中国家保护生物学论文的产出。到目前为止, 中国作者(含在华工作的外国作者)在ISI Web of Knowledge数据库中保护生物学主流刊物上发表的论文数量少, 与中国的生物多样性占全球的比例不相称。保护生物学研究面临一系列的挑战: (1)保护生物学研究因过分强调价值与实用而受到了批评; (2)保护生物学缺少机理探讨、缺少实验、缺少对比研究, 还没有形成完整的理论体系; (3)保护生物学是一门涉及空间尺度的学科, 不同局部、不同空间尺度的保护生物学问题往往缺乏可比性; (4)许多保护生物学数据没有正式发表, 这些“灰色文献”限制了保护生物学的发展; (5)与生物多样性有关的国际法和国内法的制定和实施为保护生物学带来了新的发展机遇。我们提出如下对策: (1)明确保护生物学的价值取向; (2)建立保护生物学研究方法和理论体系; (3)重视和探讨保护生物学的空间尺度问题; (4)充分收集利用“灰色”数据和文献, 建立与发表在同行评议科学刊物上的文献库相对应的初级生物多样性网络数据库, 促进保护生物学的荟萃分析和大研究; (5)积极围绕生物多样性有关的国际法开展相关研究。保护生物学这一门大科学的完善离不开各国保护生物学的深入研究, 部分中国学术期刊用英文发稿, 是中国保护生物学工作者研究汇入世界主流的途径之一。     

不懈探索, 努力引领中国生物多样性科学发展——《生物多样性》创刊三十周年回顾

为更好地推动我国生物多样性科学的发展, 提升期刊服务能力, 并庆祝创刊30周年, 我们梳理了《生物多样性》2013-2022年的主要进展。(1)近10年中, 期刊的特色进一步凸显。围绕学科前沿、国家重大行动计划、履约等领域共策划出版56个专辑/专题, 新设立编者按、生物编目、数据论文、保护与治理对策、生物文化多样性等特色栏目, 通过发表数据论文、生物编目等文章推动数据共享, 以及通过鼓励学术争鸣、探索中文期刊的国际传播等举措使期刊的特色进一步凸显。(2)期刊载文量快速增加, 报道的内容不断拓展。研究方向由前20年的61个增加为目前的78个, 90%左右的文章聚焦于生物多样性保护、环境科学/生态学等领域; 植物学、动物学、微生物学的稿件分别占41.79%、47.48%和4.61%。基于关键词的文献计量分析表明, 近10年刊登的文章关键词聚类为遗传多样性、群落结构、红外相机、红色名录、生物多样性公约、国家公园、植物多样性、分类学和地理分布等9个子领域。培养了大批生物多样性人才, 10年中共有4,665位作者署名(作者记录数6,295), 发表文章最多的前20位作者主要来自中国科学院相关研究所、中国环境科学研究院、北京大学等机构, 其中60%为编委。(3)刊登的论文被广泛引用和下载。根据中国知网数据(排除了学位论文和会议论文, 2022年10月18日), 近10年刊登的文章有1,211篇累计被引用13,507次, 平均每篇被引11次以上; 网上下载量从2012年的6.64万次增加到2021年的23.85万次。有5篇文章入选中国科协优秀科技论文或中国百篇最具影响国内学术论文; 以国家公园、红外相机、红色名录、多功能性、生物入侵为关键词的文章是受关注的热点。《生物多样性》的影响因子和总被引频次在生物学领域一直排名前列; 是《科技期刊世界影响力指数(WJCI)报告》中全球保护生物学领域唯一的中国期刊, 2019年和2020年分别位列23/48和25/49位。最后我们探讨了今后如何继续引领中国生物多样性研究和保护、建设一流科技期刊面临的挑战和对策以及如何进一步提升科学传播能力。     

中国森林生物多样性监测网络(CForBio)的研究态势与热点: 基于文献计量分析

中国森林生物多样性监测网络(CForBio)作为我国生物多样性科学综合研究平台, 其发展过程和研究成果对促进我国生物多样性研究具有重要意义, 掌握其研究态势与热点变化可为CForBio的长远发展以及其他生态监测研究提供参考。本文对2007-2017年间CNKI数据库和Web of Science核心合集数据库中CForBio发表的论文进行了较为全面的文献计量分析。结果表明: 2007年以来, CForBio发表论文的数量整体上呈快速上升趋势, 从2007年的3篇增长到2017年的55篇, 其中SCI收录论文的增长较为明显(从2007年的1篇增长到2017年的34篇)。金光泽(70篇)、马克平(68篇)、郝占庆(68篇)等学者发表论文数量较多, 中国科学院的植物研究所(104篇)、沈阳应用生态研究所(67篇)、华南植物园(59篇)等是CForBio中相对活跃的研究机构, 但各样地负责机构和学者间的合作仍较少, 跨机构间的协同研究还有待提高。CForBio的研究热点主要体现在树木空间分布格局、植物功能性状、树木密度制约、群落系统发育等方面, 为揭示我国不同气候带森林群落构建机制提供了大量的理论依据。未来CForBio的研究应加强国内外机构间的合作创新并建立数据共享途径, 注重近地面遥感、多源数据融合等新技术的应用, 在生物多样性格局的多尺度与多维度解析、植物-土壤反馈机制、树木冠层和根系的结构与功能等方向持续开展深入研究。     

我国种质资源超低温保存现状的文献计量学研究

超低温保存在保护动植物种质资源的多样性和安全性上发挥着重要的作用。采用中文期刊文献计量学方法研究我国近年超低温保存现状, 着重分析文献的所属学科、各年度发表论文数、基金类别、论文作者、论文机构单位、下载和引用情况、发表期刊名称等数据。结果表明, 2006-2014 年间国内各类期刊发表超低温保存相关的学术论文超过200篇; 超低温保存研究分布于众多学科中, 其中以园艺学科为甚, 其次为农作物、水产和渔业等学科。相关论文的资助项目包括国家自然科学基金、国家科技支撑计划、国家高技术研究发展计划(863 计划)等。开展相关研究的主要单位为各地高校及研究所, 如北京林业大学、河南大学、华中农业大学, 等。相关研究报道有较高的下载次数(981 次)和引用次数(43次); 报道相关内容较多的期刊包括植物生理学通讯、安徽农业科学、园艺学报, 等。结果可以大致反映出我国超低温保存研究的现状与发展趋势, 为相关领域工作的科研者、管理者和情报者提供有意义的参考依据。     

从文献计量角度分析中国生物多样性研究现状

以汤森路透科技集团的WEB OF KNOWLEDGE信息平台提供的Science Citation Index Expanded数据库为数据源,检索到从1997年至2009年期间国际生物多样性研究论文文献219773篇,其中11182篇来自于中国学者。利用NoteExpress软件,对这13a间生物多样性研究论文发表的国家分布、年度分布、研究机构、引用情况、期刊分布和学科分类等做的分析与比较表明:1)全球生物多样性研究的论文数量一直呈增长趋势,中国13年间每年发文量占当年全球生物多样性论文总量的百分率逐年增加;2)从论文总被引频次、篇均引用次数和h-index三项论文影响力特征参数分析,中国与国际其他国家相比有一定差距;3)从学科分类来看,与国际相比,中国在生物多样性保护领域、进化生物学和海洋与淡水生物学领域研究略显不足,昆虫学和真菌学研究领域活跃。     

国家标本资源共享平台(NSII)支撑生物多样性科学研究的成效分析

随着生物多样性信息学的迅速发展,越来越多开放的生物数据可供科研人员使用。以一个公开数据平台为例分析我国生物多样性领域的研究热点与发展趋势,有助于生物多样性工作者和决策者及时了解我国生物研究的现状及动向,为生物多样性建设提供决策支持。该文以“国家标本资源共享平台(NSII)”及相关词为检索对象,对中国知网和谷歌学术上2013—2023年间的文献进行全文检索,共检索出1 070篇NSII支撑的文献,包括期刊论文(822篇)、学位论文(233篇)、科普文章(5篇)、会议文章(6篇)和报道(4篇)。基于NSII支撑的822篇期刊论文,通过文献计量学的手段和方法,从发文情况、研究主题与热点、研究机构等方面探究NSII支撑的生物多样性研究现状、热点与态势。关键词共现网络图谱分析结果显示,基于数据平台的生物多样性研究热点集中在物种分布分析和建模、气候变化、分类学、生物多样性研究、研究平台建设五个方面。当前我国生物多样性信息学领域发展较快,未来仍需从数据源建设、资源整合、共享能力、业务能力和国际合作等方面努力提升,持续推动生物多样性科学研究的发展。     

中国半翅目昆虫多样性和地理分布数据集

全球生物多样性逐渐丧失已成为最严重的环境问题之一, 探究各地生物多样性资源及形成机制是生态学和生物地理学领域关注的重要科学问题。生物多样性数据的整合和共享可以为相关研究的开展提供科学依据。昆虫是地球上多样性最高的生物类群, 但是由于目前关于昆虫多样性数据的整理不足, 相关研究较为缺乏。为了促进昆虫类群的多样性数据整理和共享工作的发展, 本研究选取昆虫纲中重要且多样的半翅目作为对象, 通过广泛的数据检索和收集, 系统整理了截至2017年已发表的中国半翅目昆虫的多样性及地理分布信息。数据集中共收集了102科2,090属7,822种半翅目昆虫的分类信息及其39,298条地理分布记录。该数据集可以为今后开展生物多样性格局、生物区系演化和害虫防治等方面的研究工作提供帮助。     

生物多样性数字图书馆系统的架构和实现

生物多样性研究工作急切需要一个建立在多源数据基础上的数字图书馆。基于虚拟用户社区的生物多样性数字图书馆除了在数据类型、存储需求、共享方式等方面具有一般数字图书馆的特点之外, 在数据挖掘和应用方面也有自己的一些特点。本文在对国内外数字图书馆调研和与生物多样性遗产图书馆(Biodiversity Heritage Library)及互联网档案(Internet Archive)项目的合作的基础上, 总结了各类数字图书馆中的数据类型, 对构建生物多样性数字图书馆相关的数据标准——Dublin Core和TaxonX作了简单介绍。然后设计了具有数据汇总、数据整理、转换和翻译以及数据对外服务三个模块的系统框架,提出了生物多样性数字图书馆的系统架构和功能,展示了已经实现的部分系统运行效果, 最后对今后在版权、全文识别、海量和扩展等方面的问题进行了讨论。     

Emerging journals. The benefits of and challenges for publishing scientific journals in and by emerging countries

Emerging countries have established national scientific journals as an alternative publication route for their researchers. However, these journals eventually need to catch up to international standards.Since the first scientific journal was founded—The Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society in 1665—the number of journals dedicated to publishing academic research has literally exploded. The Thomson Reuters Web of Knowledge database alone—which represents far less than the total number of academic journals—includes more than 11,000 journals from non-profit, society and commercial publishers, published in numerous languages and with content ranging from the natural sciences to the social sciences and humanities. Notwithstanding the sheer scale and diversity of academic publishing, however, there is a difference between the publishing enterprise in developed countries and emerging countries in terms of the commercial rationale behind the journals.…‘national'' or even ‘local'' journals are published and supported because they report important, practical information that would be declined by international journals…Although all academic journals seek to serve their readership by publishing the highest quality and most interesting advances, a growing trend in the twentieth century has also seen publishers in developed countries viewing academic publishing as a way of generating profit, and the desire of journal editors to publish the best and most interesting science thereby serves the commercial interest of publishers who want people to buy the publication.In emerging countries, however, there are few commercial reasons to publish a journal. Instead, ‘national'' or even ‘local'' journals are published and supported because they report important, practical information that would be declined by international journals, either because the topic is of only local or marginal interest, or because the research does not meet the high standards for publication at an international level. Consequently, most ‘national'' journals are not able to finance themselves and depend on public funding. In Brazil, for instance, the national journals account for one-third of the publications of all scientific articles from Brazil and are mostly funded by the government. Other emerging countries that invest in research—notably China, India and Russia—also have a sizable number of national journals, most of which are published in their native language.There is little competition between developed countries to publish the most or the best scientific journals. There is clear competition between the top-flight journals—Nature and Science, for example—but this competition is academically and/or commercially, rather than nationally, based. In fact, countries with similar scientific calibres in terms of the research they generate, differ greatly in terms of the number of journals published within their borders. According to the Thomson Reuters database, for example, the Netherlands, Switzerland and Sweden published 847, 202 and 30 scientific journal, respectively, in 2010—the Netherlands has been a traditional haven for publishers. However, the number of articles published by researchers in these countries in journals indexed by Thomson Reuters—a rough measurement of scientific productivity—does not differ significantly.To overcome the perceived dominance of international journals […] some emerging countries have increased the number of national journalsScientists who edit directly or serve on the editorial boards of high-quality, international journals have a major responsibility because they guide the direction and set the standards of scientific research. In deciding what to publish, they define the quality of research, promote emerging research areas and set the criteria by which research is judged to be new and exciting; they are the gatekeepers of science. The distribution of these scientists also reflects the division between developed and emerging countries in scientific publishing. Using the Netherlands, Switzerland and Sweden as examples, they respectively contributed 235, 256 and 160 scientists to the editorial teams or boards of 220 high-impact, selected journals in 2005 (Braun & Diospatonyi, 2005). These numbers are comparable with the scientific production of these countries in terms of publications. On the other hand, Brazil, South Korea and Russia, countries as scientifically productive in terms of total number of articles as the Netherlands, Switzerland and Sweden, contributed only 28, 29 and 55 ‘gatekeepers'', respectively. A principal reason for this difference is, of course, the more variable quality of the science produced in emerging countries, but it is nevertheless clear that their scientists are under-represented on the teams that define the course and standards of scientific research.To overcome the perceived dominance of international journals, and to address the significant barriers to getting published that their scientists face, some emerging countries have increased the number of national journals (Sumathipala et al, 2004). Such barriers have been well documented and include poor written English and the generally lower or more variable quality of the science produced in emerging countries. However, although English, which is the lingua franca of modern science (Meneghini & Packer, 2007), is not as great a barrier as some would claim, there is some evidence of a conscious or subconscious bias among reviewers and editors in judging articles from emerging countries. (Meneghini et al, 2008; Sumathipala et al, 2004).A third pressure has also forced some emerging countries to introduce more national journals in which to publish academic research from within their borders: greater scientific output. During the past two or three decades, several of these countries have made huge investments into research—notably China, India and Brazil, among others—which has enormously increased their scientific productivity. Initially, the new national journals aspired to adopt the rigid rules of peer review and the quality standards of international journals, but this approach did not produce satisfactory results in terms of the quality of papers published. On the one hand, it is hard for national journals to secure the expertise of scientists competent to review their submissions; on the other, the reviewers who do agree tend to be more lenient, ostensibly believing that peer review as rigorous as that of international journals would run counter to the purpose of making scientific results publicly available, at least on the national level.The establishment of national journals has, in effect, created two parallel communication streams for scientists in emerging countries: publication in international journals—the selective route—and publication in national journals—the regional route. On the basis of their perceived chances to be accepted by an international journal, authors can choose the route that gives them the best opportunity to make their results public. Economic conditions are also important as the resources to produce national journals come from government, so national journals can face budget cuts in times of austerity. In the worst case, this can lead to the demise of national journals to the disadvantage of authors who have built their careers by publishing in them.…to not publish, for any reason, is to break the process of science and potentially inhibit progressThere is some anecdotal evidence that authors who often or almost exclusively publish in international journals hold national journals in some contempt—they regard them as a way of avoiding the effort and hassle of publishing internationally. Moreover, although the way in which governments regard and support the divergent routes varies between countries, in general, scientists who endure and succeed through the selective route often receive more prestige and have more influence in shaping national science policies. Conversely, authors who choose the regional publication route regard their efforts as an important contribution to the dissemination of information generated by the national scientific community, which might otherwise remain locked away—by either language or access policies. Either way, it is worth mentioning that publication is obviously not the end point of a scientific discovery: the results should feed into the pool of knowledge and might inspire other researchers to pursue new avenues or devise new experiments. Hence, to not publish, for any reason, is to break the process of science and potentially inhibit progress.The choice of pursuing publication in regional or international journals also has direct consequences for the research being published. The selective, international route ensures greater visibility, especially if the paper is published in a high-impact journal. The regional route also makes the results and experiments public, but it fails to attract international visibility, in particular if the research is not published in English.It seems that, for the foreseeable future, this scenario will not change. If it is to change, however, then the revolution must be driven by the national journals. In fact, a change that raises the quality and value of national journals would be prudent because it would give scientists from emerging countries the opportunity to sit on the editorial boards of, or referee for, the resulting high-quality national journals. In this way, the importance of national journals would be enhanced and scientists from emerging countries would invest effort and gain experience in serving as editors or referees.The regional route has various weaknesses, however, the most important of which is the peer-review process. Peer-review at national journals is simply of a lower standard owing to several factors that include a lack of training in objective research assessment, greater leniency and tolerance of poor-quality science, and an unwillingness by top researchers to participate because they prefer to give their time to the selective journals. This creates an awkward situation: on the one hand, the inability to properly assess submissions, and on the other hand, a lack of motivation to do so.Notwithstanding these difficulties, most editors and authors of national journals hope that their publications will ultimately be recognized as visible, reliable sources of information, and not only as instruments to communicate national research to the public. In other words, their aspiration is not only to publish good science—albeit of lesser interest to international journals—but also to attain the second or third quartiles of impact factors in their areas. These journals should eventually be good enough to compete with the international ones, mitigating their national character and attracting authors from other countries.The key is to raise the assessment procedures at national journals to international standards, and to professionalize their operations. Both goals are interdependent. The vast majority of national journals are published by societies and research organizations and their editorial structures are often limited to local researchers. As a result, they are shoestring operations that lack proper administrative support and international input, and can come across as amateurish. The SciELO (Scientific Electronic Library Online), which indexes national journals and measures their quality, can require certain changes when it indexes a journal, including the requirement to internationalize the editorial body or board.…experienced international editors should be brought in to strengthen national journals, raise their quality and educate local editors…In terms of improving this status quo, a range of other changes could be introduced. First, more decision-making authority should be given to publishers to decide how to structure the editorial body. The choice of ad hoc assistants—that is, professional scientists who can lend expertise at the editorial level should be selected by the editors—who should also assess journal performance. Moreover, publishers should try to attract international scientists with editorial experience to join a core group of two or three chief or senior editors. Their English skills, their experience in their research field and their influence in the community would catalyse a rapid improvement of the journals and their quality. In other words, experienced international editors should be brought in to strengthen national journals, raise their quality and educate local editors with the long-term objective to join the international scientific editing community. It would eventually merge the national and the selective routes of publishing into a single international route of scientific communication.Of course, there is a long way to go. The problem is that many societies and organizations do not have sufficient resources—money or experience—to attract international scientists as editors. However, new publishing and financial models could provide incentives to attract this kind of expertise. Ultimately, relying on government money alone is neither a reliable nor sufficient source of income to make national journals successful. One way of enhancing revenue streams might be to switch to an open-access model that would charge author fees that could be reinvested to improve the journals. In Brazil, for instance, almost all journals have adopted the open access model (Hedlund et al, 2004). The author fees—around US$1,250—if adopted, would provide financial support for increasing the quality and performance of the journals. Moreover, increased competition between journals at a national level should create a more dynamic and competitive situation among journals, raising the general quality of the science they publish. This would also feed back to the scientific community and help to raise the general standards of science in emerging countries.     

Preparing for Preprints

Preprints reduce delays in sharing research results and increase the amount and diversity of data available to the scientific community. Support of this communication mechanism through appropriate policies by journals, funders and institutions will encourage community engagement. Widespread adoption would benefit both individual scientists and research, and it might improve publishing in scientific journals. Preprints are one step towards an Open Science future.     

Water,Water, Everywhere: Defining and Assessing Data Sharing in Academia

Sharing of research data has begun to gain traction in many areas of the sciences in the past few years because of changing expectations from the scientific community, funding agencies, and academic journals. National Science Foundation (NSF) requirements for a data management plan (DMP) went into effect in 2011, with the intent of facilitating the dissemination and sharing of research results. Many projects that were funded during 2011 and 2012 should now have implemented the elements of the data management plans required for their grant proposals. In this paper we define ‘data sharing’ and present a protocol for assessing whether data have been shared and how effective the sharing was. We then evaluate the data sharing practices of researchers funded by the NSF at Oregon State University in two ways: by attempting to discover project-level research data using the associated DMP as a starting point, and by examining data sharing associated with journal articles that acknowledge NSF support. Sharing at both the project level and the journal article level was not carried out in the majority of cases, and when sharing was accomplished, the shared data were often of questionable usability due to access, documentation, and formatting issues. We close the article by offering recommendations for how data producers, journal publishers, data repositories, and funding agencies can facilitate the process of sharing data in a meaningful way.     

I Publish in I Edit? - Do Editorial Board Members of Urologic Journals Preferentially Publish Their Own Scientific Work?

Scientists who are members of an editorial board have been accused of preferentially publishing their scientific work in the journal where they serve as editor. Reputation and academic standing do depend on an uninterrupted flow of published scientific work and the question does arise as to whether publication mainly occurs in the self-edited journal. This investigation was designed to determine whether editorial board members of five urological journals were more likely to publish their research reports in their own rather than in other journals. A retrospective analysis was conducted for all original reports published from 2001–2010 by 65 editorial board members nominated to the boards of five impact leading urologic journals in 2006. Publications before editorial board membership, 2001–2005, and publications within the period of time as an editorial board member, 2006–2010, were identified. The impact factors of the journals were also recorded over the time period 2001–2010 to see whether a change in impact factor correlated with publication locality. In the five journals as a whole, scientific work was not preferentially published in the journal in which the scientists served as editor. However, significant heterogeneity among the journals was evident. One journal showed a significant increase in the amount of published papers in the ‘own’ journal after assumption of editorship, three journals showed no change and one journal showed a highly significant decrease in publishing in the ‘own’ journal after assumption of editorship.     

2021年中国植物科学重要研究进展

2021年中国植物科学家在国际综合性学术期刊及植物科学主流期刊发表的论文数量相比2020年显著增加, 在雌雄细胞识别与受精、干细胞命运决定、菌根共生、光合膜蛋白复合体、氮磷养分利用、先天免疫、作物从头驯化与基因组设计等方面取得了重要研究进展,“异源四倍体野生稻快速从头驯化”入选2021年度“中国生命科学十大进展”。该文总结了2021年度我国植物科学研究取得的成绩, 简要介绍了30项重要进展, 以帮助读者了解我国植物科学的发展态势, 思考如何更好地将植物科学研究与国家重大需求有效衔接。     

Data sharing by scientists: practices and perceptions

Background

Scientific research in the 21st century is more data intensive and collaborative than in the past. It is important to study the data practices of researchers – data accessibility, discovery, re-use, preservation and, particularly, data sharing. Data sharing is a valuable part of the scientific method allowing for verification of results and extending research from prior results.

Methodology/Principal Findings

A total of 1329 scientists participated in this survey exploring current data sharing practices and perceptions of the barriers and enablers of data sharing. Scientists do not make their data electronically available to others for various reasons, including insufficient time and lack of funding. Most respondents are satisfied with their current processes for the initial and short-term parts of the data or research lifecycle (collecting their research data; searching for, describing or cataloging, analyzing, and short-term storage of their data) but are not satisfied with long-term data preservation. Many organizations do not provide support to their researchers for data management both in the short- and long-term. If certain conditions are met (such as formal citation and sharing reprints) respondents agree they are willing to share their data. There are also significant differences and approaches in data management practices based on primary funding agency, subject discipline, age, work focus, and world region.

Conclusions/Significance

Barriers to effective data sharing and preservation are deeply rooted in the practices and culture of the research process as well as the researchers themselves. New mandates for data management plans from NSF and other federal agencies and world-wide attention to the need to share and preserve data could lead to changes. Large scale programs, such as the NSF-sponsored DataNET (including projects like DataONE) will both bring attention and resources to the issue and make it easier for scientists to apply sound data management principles.     

On toxic effects of scientific journals

The advent of online publishing greatly facilitates the dissemination of scientific results. This revolution might have led to the untimely death of many traditional publishing companies, since today’s scientists are perfectly capable of writing, formatting and uploading files to appropriate websites that can be consulted by colleagues and the general public alike. They also have the intellectual resources to criticize each other and organize an anonymous peer review system. The Open Access approach appears promising in this respect, but we cannot ignore that it is fraught with editorial and economic problems. A few powerful publishing companies not only managed to survive, but also rake up considerable profits. Moreover, they succeeded in becoming influential ‘trendsetters’ since they decide which papers deserve to be published. To make money, one must set novel trends, like Christian Dior or Levi’s in fashion, and open new markets, for example in Asia. In doing so, the publishers tend to supplant both national and transnational funding agencies in defining science policy. In many cases, these agencies tend simply to adopt the commercial criteria defined by the journals, forever eager to improve their impact factors. It is not obvious that the publishers of scientific journals, the editorial boards that they appoint, or the people who sift through the vast numbers of papers submitted to a handful of ‘top’ journals are endowed with sufficient insight to set the trends of future science. It seems even less obvious that funding agencies should blindly follow the fashion trends set by the publishers. The perverse relationships between private publishers and public funding agencies may have a toxic effect on science policy.